Council Propose Land Swap Deal

[Macca]

Because they have already bought B.P and the surrounding land...Maybe...

 

The council has bought BP?

[Dave_Og]

Council Propose Land Swap Deal

 

Just seen this article in the chron. I think it's a good compromise not that FRAG would accept this at all. Are the council admitting that the land does have charitable status?

I act as internal auditor for my local parish council. It is a small village (<400 people), the budget is in single figure thousands and the prime responsibilities are keeping public footpaths clear and maintaining the kids' playground. It isn't the most demanding role.

 

Every year I have to submit a return to the local authority which includes a register of all the council's assets - the playground, a couple of noticeboards, the land that the village hall sits on and an old phone box that was retained when BT took the phone away.

 

Does Oldham council not have to do something similar? It would appear not as they don't seem to have the faintest idea what assets they have and what their status is. Shambles.

[jimsleftfoot]

I act as internal auditor for my local parish council. It is a small village (<400 people), the budget is in single figure thousands and the prime responsibilities are keeping public footpaths clear and maintaining the kids' playground. It isn't the most demanding role.

 

Every year I have to submit a return to the local authority which includes a register of all the council's assets - the playground, a couple of noticeboards, the land that the village hall sits on and an old phone box that was retained when BT took the phone away.

 

Does Oldham council not have to do something similar? It would appear not as they don't seem to have the faintest idea what assets they have and what their status is. Shambles.

 

I work for a Charity/Institution which has a hell of a lot of assets and property but I would imagine less than Oldham Council. Yes the council should have a land and buildings register at least for its own accounting purposes and should probably be submitting a return in the same way you did. However, as you said, a parish council would be a little more straight forward than a Local Authority the Size of Oldham. In my opinion (and I do have experience of this in my own organisation) it would be near impossible to keep a register of everything.

 

 

 

 

[tangerinedreams]

I for one don't really understand all this........

[Snookmeister]

Feels like flogging the dead horse and all that, but as others have mentioned on the thread this looks like Clayton Playing Fields 2 - "Revenge Of The Dog-walking NIMBY Hillbillies"...

 

Why is this site different? Can we not kick that cock who always makes it into the Chron off Clayton, build a stadium there and bury the whole argument once and for all? The there'll be new people living on the BP site who are dead close to the shiny new leisure facilities too!

 

On an aside, does nobody else just feel that this whole thing is heading to a crash somewhere down the line? There is no way that any land exchange is not going to be challenged through the courts so what is the actual chance of this coming to pass? It is time for a proper right wing vote at election time - not for those racist self-obssessed nobs at the BNP but for some Oldhamist dictator who can sweep aside the red tape and force people to accept his decisions! Get us and the rugby into a new stadium and crush the hoody menace! Viva la resistance!

 

Damn I'm bored...

Common sense at last. I'm with you, Brother!! Let's just build on Clayton and have done with it. F*ck the dog walkers. Drag this pitiful town out of the goddam dark ages.............

[boundaryblue80]

Nope, the residents aren't bothered about this charitable land. They're bothered about a stadium being built. I'm sure a very rare species will soon be found there.

 

Indeed they will....they'll be called Latics fans! Very, very rare down that neck of the woods

[Dave_Og]

I work for a Charity/Institution which has a hell of a lot of assets and property but I would imagine less than Oldham Council. Yes the council should have a land and buildings register at least for its own accounting purposes and should probably be submitting a return in the same way you did. However, as you said, a parish council would be a little more straight forward than a Local Authority the Size of Oldham. In my opinion (and I do have experience of this in my own organisation) it would be near impossible to keep a register of everything.

I'll concede it's a bit harder but this isn't a small patch of ground we're talking about and, more importantly, this project has been talked about for a year (?) and they still have no idea. I'll stick with "shambles".

[singe]

Latest update, my apologies I have been away.

Council minutes

 

It is not clear in theminutes regarding any progress, but the questions from the public is intersting.

 

Item 4 PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

The following public questions were received:

 

1. From Parish Councillor Ken Hulme:

"In a report to the Oldham Cabinet meeting on 27/1/2010 - Item 8 by Councillor Lynne Thompson, Cabinet Member, Finance and Resources monitoring Oldham Council's revenue up to month 8 (November 2009) it is stated

"Paragraph 5.6.3 ' Parking - there is a forecast overspend arising from the one-off non recovery of parking penalty income due to systems failures (£283k) This has arisen as a result of system failures in transferring data from the Council to the Traffic Enforcement Centre (TEC). Details of cases where no payment had been received are meant to be transferred to the central 'TEC' for further pursuit, but this data transfer failed for over 12 months and most of the outstanding Penalty Notice income has had to be written off as a result. '

"(note: not MAY BE but HAS HAD to be written off)

"Can Cllr Thompson confirm that Oldham Council has now reversed this decision and is now actively seeking to recover the whole of the £283K penalty notice income outstanding from these twelve months when the systems failure occurred?

"How much of this £283K has been recovered to date?"

Councillor Thompson responded as Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources as follows:

"I thank Parish Councillor Hulme for his question.

"I can confirm that the Council has not written this income off and that all of the cases referred to in the Month 8 monitor report have been registered, notice of debt registrations/warrants have been processed and money is now being recovered.

"To date, around £33,000 has been recovered with more expected over the coming months.

"The process of writing off debt is a matter of acknowledging that it is unlikely to be recovered and that it is prudent to exclude it when assessing the financial position of the business.

"It does not mean, in accounting terms as it can in everyday language, that a sum of money is permanently impossible to recover, or that it is forgotten, cancelled or invalidated.

"The council’s policy is to take a prudent view of its financial position. It is also policy to pursue debts, whether formally written off or otherwise, if it transpires that it is feasible and economic to do so. There has thus been no change in these policies and accordingly we continue to vigorously pursue all money owed to the council.

"I will forward a written copy of this reply within five working days."

 

2. From Warren Bates on behalf of the Failsworth Residents Action Group:

Failsworth Lower Memorial Park

"We refer to a report in the Oldham Chronicle concerning the above mentioned.

"Members should be aware that the Charity Commission has been requested on two occasions to since 2008, to give a view on the status on the above-mentioned land with the latest correspondence from them dated 12th February 2010.

"In this letter, it is clearly states that the Commission is not able to express a definitive view on the issue: only the Court can do this.

"We are aware that since the Council received this correspondence they have indeed taken further advice and can only presume that the advice they received was the only way to get out of their predicament is to request the Charity Commission to determine the land as 'Charitable'.

"As we have stated the Charity Commission, have categorically stated it is beyond their jurisdiction and we are at a loss to understand why they do not accept that this is Public Land and advise the Directors of OAFC that the land they require is not available.

"In the Charity Commission letter, Mr Young who has passed me copies of all the correspondence between OMBC and himself has outlined a schedule for the case for a Charity and a case against a Charity.

"In the case for a Charity he states there are 5 reasons for, however, item 2 suggests, 'There are strong views held by local people and the local MP David Heyes that the intention was Charitable'.

"We have written to Mr Young pointing out that the residents of Failsworth deem that this land is Public Land dedicated to those 240 who lost their lives in the Great War.

"In the case against a Charity Mr Young sites 10 reasons against, we have written to Mr Young in respect to item 12 'At a meeting of the full council on 21 June 1922 the Clerk to the Council was instructed to take all necessary steps in connection with an application to the Minister of Health for an order declaring sections 76 and 77 in Part VI of the Public Health Acts Amendment Acts 1907 applicable to recreation grounds to be in force within the Urban District of Failsworth. It is not known whether this was achieved but the fact that this was applied for points to a statutory recreation focus rather than Charitable'.

"In a copy letter to Mr Young dated 21st February 2010 that we wrote to Mr Beedle we noted that Mr Beedle failed to provide Mr Young with a copy of the order Declaring Part VI. Of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, to be in force.

"Consequently, we have provided Mr Young of the Charity Commission with a copy of the Order and should Mr Beedle not be in a position to let you catch sight of a copy we am more than willing to provide you with one.

"In the circumstances we do not comprehend (only to postpone the matter yet again) why yet again the Council are applying to the Charity Commission making a formal application to make the land "Charitable" as the Charity Commission have made their position quite clear and no further evidence has been put forward to support the application.

"However, as we have now provided Mr Young with of the Order Declaring Part VI. Of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act, 1907, to be in force reinforces our view is that this land is protected under Halsbury's Law (Volume 34) and this will enable him to determine it is indeed Public Land.

"By way of information, we have written to Mr David Heyes MP to request that he put the case before the Attorney General as one of their roles and responsibilities is Guardian of the rule of law and of the public interest.

"The Attorney General Office have a roll in intervening in the public interest in certain charity law cases and if OMBC wish to designate this land as Charitable land we believe it would qualify for their intervention, they also have the Power to establish an inquiry:-

"(1) A Minister may cause an inquiry to be held in relation to a case where it appears that:-

"(a) Particular events have caused, or are capable of causing, public concern,

"or

"( There is public concern that particular events may have occurred.

"We feel that we have all the evidence required which verifies the concerns of the injustice OMBC wish to make and we also have a petition with several hundred names (to date) that confirms the Public concern in Failsworth.

"It would also be interesting to the Attorney General's Office to learn that OMBC have scant regard to the Charity Commission's findings.

"To date Mr David Heyes MP has not responded to our e-mail of 6th March 2010 and should he not respond within the next few days we will make representations to the Attorney General's Office ourselves on behalf of the residents of Failsworth who are totally against the relocation to Failsworth.

"We would recommend that the Cabinet Members postpone any decision without personally viewing all the correspondence between the Charity Commission and OMBC rather than just reading a report put before them.

"To conclude we would ask members of the Cabinet if they believe if it would not be in their best interest with all the information before them to end to this sorry state of affairs to prevent any further humiliation and allow OAFC to look at alternative proposals."

Councillor Uddin responded as Cabinet Member for Regeneration as follows:

"1. The Oldham Athletic Stadium proposals would be a major regeneration opportunity for the Borough which would see two areas of land redeveloped bringing significant investment and job opportunities to the town.

"2. Nevertheless, the Council is aware that the proposals have caused concern among residents in the area and Members understand the issues raised. Under the proposed land transaction, as you will no doubt be aware, the Council would retain an interest in the site which would enable the Council to control the use and potential impact of the stadium on the surrounding area. This is separate from any planning obligations that may or may not be imposed by the Local Planning Authority if and when an application is submitted for consideration.

"3. The proposed plans involve the possible disposal of land where a range of complex land issues have arisen.

"4. Issues have been raised which have required the Charity Commission to consider a range of documents and information relating to the initial acquisition of the land. The Charity Commission have indicated that they are unable to express a definitive view on whether the land is charitable land.

"5. The Council have taken expert Counsel advice on the issue and the recommendations are contained in the report to be considered later at this meeting.

"6. Counsel have also advised that if the matter reach the Court the Attorney General would be a party to the proceedings and therefore Counsel has advised that the Council write to the Treasury Solicitor's Department on the issues.

"7. The Council have never disputed that Failsworth UDC applied for an Order from the Minister of Health under the Public Health Amendment Act 1907. The Order gives powers as to management of recreation land and public parks within its boundaries. The issue was considered in the context of determination of charitable land. If the land is registered as charitable land, the land can only be disposed of further to a Scheme approved by the Charity Commission.

"8. It is a matter for the Cabinet to determine, taking into account the relevant considerations, the appropriate next steps."

 

3. From Peter Batty:

"As with other residents of Broadway, Failsworth, coupled with the residents of Park Ave, Failsworth and the Fairways Estate Moston, I have the distinction of being one most affected by the proposed development of 30 acres on Failsworth Memorial land, Moston Brook of a 12-14,000 seat football stadium, and the ancillary buildings needed to maintain it such as, a 90 bed hotel, cinema, fitness centre & 750 space, chargeable car park.

"As the residents supported spokesperson, I would like to draw the Cabinet's attention to the following as a preamble to my questions.

"It is my considered opinion that;

"a) the Council executive, having embarked on a commitment to support & assist in the preparation of a planning application by Oldham Athletic to develop the site named above, - generally in the manner suggested & confirmed in both the Scoping Opinion request, submitted in Sept 2009 by WSP, environmental consultants for OAFC, plus publicity leaflets delivered to all residents within a 15 minute walk of the site prior to the recently aborted exhibition, have acted without due care & attention.

" The initial decision to provisionally dispose of the land in favour of OAFC, was made rashly & then, with undue haste, rushed through for Cabinet approval on 22/07/2009 without all factors being considered.

Furthermore, the time allocated to its consideration during the closed deliberation session by the Cabinet could not possibly have been sufficient if Cabinet had been made fully all aware of the factors.

"c) The decision to dispose of OPOL 6, an area of land carrying protected status, similar to Green Belt for the type of development proposed, is totally contrary to the Council Planning Authority's policy & strict criteria for development on green field sites & Other Protected Open Land. It is also in conflict with National & Regional Government Guidelines on the necessity to preserve & protect green space for the benefit of the community at large.

"d) The proposal stated in the Council's press announcement of 10/03/2010 in which the executive are seeking permission from Cabinet to enter into a convoluted process of trust & swap, is another example of potential folly.

"My questions are;

"1) Are the Cabinet members aware & were they at the time of the Cabinet decision to support OMBC's / OAFC's 22/07/2009, proposal which they were being asked to approve, conflicted with the Council's own policies as set out in the UDP under the section Open Environment reference OE1 to OE1.10 inclusive?

"2) Are the Cabinet members aware that the Standards Procedure Protocol on disposal of land has been contravened in at least one aspect by not advertising the land for disposal before making a decision to transfer preference of organisation from Failsworth Dynamos to Oldham athletic?

"3) Can the Cabinet confirm, as is my understanding that, some 20 years ago, when the Council were taken to court by the Crown over their, very similarly misguided, attempt (again, in favour of OAFC) to dispose of Clayton Playing Fields, a similar swapping suggestion was put to the Bench. On that occasion the judge dismissed the idea as being totally contrary to the principle of charitable trusting. Do the executive believe they will fare any better second time around.?

"May I strongly, but respectfully, urge the Cabinet to consider the best interests of the electorate of Oldham at this point as, 20 years ago, the community was the loser in the costs incurred by the executive of that time."

Councillor Uddin responded as Cabinet Member for Regeneration as follows:

"Question 1

"At the Cabinet meeting on 22 July 2009, Members were asked to approve an update on proposals put forward by Oldham Athletic FC and approve the Council entering into a conditional agreement with the club for the transfer of an area of Council owned land in support of the clubs ground redevelopment proposals.

"The conditional agreement that Members approved clearly indicated that the transfer of the land would be conditional upon the receipt of detailed planning permission being granted. The land issues were considered as distinct from the planning matters.

"To date no planning application has been submitted so the Council as the Local Planning Authority can only provide advice and guidance on the supporting documents and studies that would be required in order to register a major application.

"It is not for Council Members or officers to prejudge an application, as any future planning application and any matters arising would be for the Planning Committee or Planning Inspectorate to determine, but the Council's UDP Open Environment policies do not preclude development in appropriate circumstances.

"Question 2

"As you are aware Officers from Regeneration have already advised, the Council have not 'contravened' the Council's Public Open Space procedure in any way. Your question would seem to suggest that it would be necessary for the Council to advertise the disposal of an area of open space prior to the Council even considering the potential scheme.

"The report resolved at Cabinet on 22 July 2009 gave approval to the principle of the scheme and made it clear that the decision would be subject to a further report being considered outlining the terms of the agreement once these had been successfully negotiated.

"It is in this interim period where officers would typically organise for the potential disposal of open space to be advertised in accordance with the protocol. Indeed, you were recently informed that in-keeping with the protocol, instructions to advertise the land had been sent to the Council's Legal department in October 2009 although, due to the uncertainties regarding the charitable status of the land which became clear at this time, it was decided that the planned advertisements should be postponed until such time whereby the land issue was resolved.

"Question 3

"Each potential disposal of land is considered in the light of the documentation circumstances existing at the time and it would be inappropriate to draw parallels to previous proposed land transactions."

 

[singe]

The minutes are stated as thus:

Decision Cabinet received a report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, which updated it on the status of the Council owned land to the north of the Lancaster Club, Failsworth. It also outlined the potential impact on the Oldham Athletic proposals for the site and the Council's response to the proposed development. Following advice from counsel, the report also sought approval to approach the Charity Commission to request the land to the North of the Lancaster Club, including the formal Lower Memorial Park area, was registered as a trust.

RESOLVED

1. Oldham Athletic be supported in their proposals to develop a new stadium.

2. The advice given by counsel that the land should be regarded as charitable land be accepted.

3. The Charity Commission be approached and advised the Council request the area of land to the north of the Lancaster Club be registered as a trust.

4. The feasibility of alternative land options be examined by identifying suitable alternative sites for replacement charitable land, in consultation with local ward members.

5. If a suitable site is identified, the Council consider asking the Charity Commission to consider a 'Scheme' - a legal document that would allow the newly formed charitable status to be transferred onto an alternative site within the locality.

6. A further report be brought back to update Cabinet once the suitability of the identified alternative sites have been considered further

 

But that looks similar to what was writen in the Feb meeting.

Or it is awaiting the liaising with the Charity commision still.

[jimsleftfoot]

The minutes are stated as thus:

Decision Cabinet received a report of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, which updated it on the status of the Council owned land to the north of the Lancaster Club, Failsworth. It also outlined the potential impact on the Oldham Athletic proposals for the site and the Council's response to the proposed development. Following advice from counsel, the report also sought approval to approach the Charity Commission to request the land to the North of the Lancaster Club, including the formal Lower Memorial Park area, was registered as a trust.

RESOLVED

1. Oldham Athletic be supported in their proposals to develop a new stadium.

2. The advice given by counsel that the land should be regarded as charitable land be accepted.

3. The Charity Commission be approached and advised the Council request the area of land to the north of the Lancaster Club be registered as a trust.

4. The feasibility of alternative land options be examined by identifying suitable alternative sites for replacement charitable land, in consultation with local ward members.

5. If a suitable site is identified, the Council consider asking the Charity Commission to consider a 'Scheme' - a legal document that would allow the newly formed charitable status to be transferred onto an alternative site within the locality.

6. A further report be brought back to update Cabinet once the suitability of the identified alternative sites have been considered further

 

But that looks similar to what was writen in the Feb meeting.

Or it is awaiting the liaising with the Charity commision still.

 

 

I think the minutes of the last meeting get approved at the next meeting and so it looks like these were the Feb minutes.

It does highlight thought the complex nature of this and I would note that the residents group are approaching this with a degree of certainty to suggest that the situation is black and white when really I would read it to be pretty much grey.

 

 

[Ackey]

"As with other residents of Broadway, Failsworth, coupled with the residents of Park Ave, Failsworth and the Fairways Estate Moston, I have the distinction of being one most affected by the proposed development of 30 acres on Failsworth Memorial land, Moston Brook of a 12-14,000 seat football stadium, and the ancillary buildings needed to maintain it such as, a 90 bed hotel, cinema, fitness centre & 750 space, chargeable car park.

This is a development... no? We've not heard any specifics such as that before and one assumes that the FAG et al have been privy to slightly more detailed information than joe-public?

 

 

And thanks once again for making the effort Singe.

[oafc0000]

90 bed hotel, cinema, fitness centre & 750 space, chargeable car park.

 

I wonder who will own them... My guess is not OAFC 2004...