Dear Friends and supporters, Barnet Council has a new hotline to reward companies for tax evasion: Please contact Andrew Travers as per his email below. Any suspicious mind would think that below Mr Travers clarifies a lot as to why the waste is coming our way and why we have to pay for it: you scratch my back and I scratch yours... and let the residents pay for it.... who cares for them.... please read email below carefully From: Travers, Andrew Sent: 09 July 2015 12:56 To: Cooke, Cllr Geoffrey Subject: RE: Complaint - Depot Relocation Dear Cllr Cooke, Thank you for your email dated the 16th June regarding the council’s plans to relocate the Depot facility, in which you raised further questions following on from your original email of the 9th June. I have listed below each of the points from your original email with the original response along with your follow-up questions in bold and a response to these in red. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions. 1. Regarding Abbots Depot, on 12/11/14 John Hooton informed us that ‘The site has been in long term use as Abbots Depot and has remained vacant since they ceased to operate’ but on 19/05/15 Matthew Waters informed us (via Members’ Enquiries) that ‘There is no formal arrangement with regards to the Winters use of the Abbots site, however Winters are currently using part of the Abbots Depot on an informal basis’. Original Response: Correct, the fact that Winters were using part of the site on an informal basis came through the site due diligence after November 2014 GNC: Why was the council under a misapprehension on 12/11/14? Had Cergold misinformed the council? When it was discovered that councillors had been misinformed why was no correction issued? Response: It is perfectly normal for issues of this nature to be identified during the due diligence phase of a transaction like this. 2. Regarding the Abbots Depot site, on 25/11/14 John Hooton informed us that ‘The purchase price was £8m some 7/8 years ago, this figure is being confirmed with the Land Registry’. There was no update until 19/05/15 when Matthew Waters informed us (via Members’ Enquiries) that ‘With regards to the sale of Abbots Depot in June 2014, the Land Registry search we carried out has revealed that Cergold purchased the property in June 2014. The directors of Cergold are the Comer Brothers and according what the Comers (sic), they had ownership for several years before then’ and that ‘The price stated to have been paid on 11 June 2014 was £750,000’. Original Response: Land Registry entries indicate on 11 June 2014 a price of £750,000 was paid for the transfer of the freehold of the Abbots Depot site to Cergold Limited. The Council is not privy to the reasons behind this agreement but is confident that the £750,000 figure quoted does not reflect the open market value of the site Abbots Depot site. The reason that the Council is confident that the figure does not reflect market value is that the two companies involved in the purchase and sale of the freehold are owned by the same people. GNC: Was the ‘open market’ valuation based on an assumption that planning permission for residential development could be obtained without any change to adjacent land? I am still awaiting the response to an overdue member’s enquiry as to the exact identity of the vendor in 2014. Response: The valuation included an assumption that residential planning permission could be achieved. Details of the business case for acquiring the site were set out in the exempt appendix of the DPR approving the transaction. This appendix remains exempt until the transaction is complete should planning permission be granted. In the interests of transparency the intention is that the details of this exempt report will be published once the purchase of the site is complete should planning permission be granted. 3. The report to the 16/03/15 meeting of the Assets, Regeneration and Growth committee, which was referred to the full council meeting on 14/04/15, requested approval of payment of a premium to buy out a ‘Waste Operation lease’ on land for which ‘The freehold interest in the site is owned by Network Rail’ (identified by a map provided to councillors as the main Winters site) but on 19/05/15 Matthew Waters informed us (via Members’ Enquiries) that in relation to the part of the Abbots Depot site occupied by Winters ‘The vacation and clearance of this area is also covered as part of the acquisition of the Winters Site’. Original Response: It came to light during the pre-contract due diligence that Winters were occupying part of the Abbotts Depot site for storing their skips. We asked the vendor to explain the basis of this arrangement but they merely stated it was informal and the arrangement would be terminated before completion. In the contract with Cergold Limited to purchase the Abbots site, they are obliged give vacant possession so it is incumbent on them to ensure that Winters vacate before completion. GNC: If Winters vacating Abbots Depot is a requirement on Cergold, in what sense is ‘The vacation and clearance of this area is also covered as part of the acquisition of the Winters Site’? Response: Vacant possession of the Abbotts site is assured through the contract with Cergold. The agreement for the assignment of the lease on the Winters site also includes a provision that Winters will not to relocate to any other part of the wider site of the former railway sidings (including Abbotts Depot). 4. The three items of information above were provided at 16:36 on 19/05/15 in response to a challenge to the comprehensiveness and accuracy of an earlier response at 14:51 on the same day. That response stated that ‘To the best of our knowledge, there have been no changes to the freehold or leasehold positions since 1/1/14’. Original Response: Correct. There was an error in the responses provided at 14:51 on 19/05/15, which were clarified at 16:36 on the same day. This confirmed that Land Registry entries indicate on 11 June 2014 a transfer of the freehold of the Abbots Depot site to Cergold Limited took place. GNC: How did the June 2014 transaction come to be overlooked despite a direct question and how can the correction to a blatant error be described as a ‘clarification’? Response: The reason for the clarification is that the 2014 transaction was between parties with shared ownership. Therefore even though technically the Land Registry records a change of ownership the same individuals retained ownership and control of the site. Unnumbered: Assuming that the most recent information is correct, I suggest that the decision making process to acquire the two sites should be investigated because relevant information was withheld from at least some of the councillors making the decision. Original Response: It is not the case that relevant information was withheld based on the respsonses provided above and bleow. The monitoring officer has reviewed the decision making process and is confident that it was robust. GNC: Is it your view that occupation of Abbots Depot by Winters and the recent purchase of Abbots depot for £750,000 were not relevant information for councillors voting through expenditure of £13.5m plus a substantial lease buyout premium? Response: Yes, neither of those issues are relevant to the price paid, which as set out above was supported by a business case. In the case of the occupation of the site by Winters, the Council would have a right to be compensated by Cergold in the unlikely event that they failed to deliver vacant possession on completion. The price paid in June 2014 would be relevant only if it was paid on a transaction at arms length, which it was not. A. The occupation of part of the Abbots Depot site by Winters was not disclosed. It may be under an informal arrangement but that does not necessarily mean it was irrelevant. Original Response: We believe that all relevant and material information was provided at the appropriate time in order to support the council's decision making process. It came to light during the pre-contract due diligence that Winters were occupying part of the Abbotts Depot site for storing their skips. We asked the vendor to explain the basis of this arrangement but they merely stated it was informal and the arrangement would be terminated before completion. In the contract with Cergold Limited to purchase the Abbots site, they are obliged give vacant possession so it is incumbent on them to ensure that Winters vacate before completion. GNC: No follow-up a. Did the Council take legal opinion as to whether Winters had a right to stay on till any date or to be given time to vacate? If so what was the advice? Original Response: Yes, the Council took legal advice throughout. In the contract with Cergold Limited to purchase the Abbots site, they are obliged give vacant possession so it is incumbent on them to ensure that Winters vacate before completion. GNC: The question was about advice received by the council about Winters’ legal rights occupying land informally, not about Cergold’s contractual obligation to deliver vacant possession. Please answer the question. Response: The council's solicitors did enquire of the seller's solicitors who cited that contract terms that they were selling with vacant possession and stating that Winters would vacate before completion. b. Are Winters paying Cergold for use of part of the Abbots Depot site? Original Response: This is not a matter for the Council, however, we asked the vendor to explain the basis of this arrangement but they merely stated it was informal and the arrangement would be terminated before completion. GNC: Did the council receive legal advice that whether or not Winters was paying Cergold was irrelevant to any legal rights Winters might have in the matter? Response: Legal gave advice that the arrangement with Winters might amount to a protected business tenancy, regardless of whether any rent was being paid. It appeared to legal that rent was in fact being paid in kind, namely Winters were allowing Cergold to use some of their skips. However, the vendor's pre-contract representations suggested the arrangement was informal and a personal one between the Comers and Winters (i.e. not constituting a legal estate in land). The risk of possession not being given was judged to be very small. c. Was the possibility of Winters not vacating Abbots Depot when required recorded as a risk on the project risk register before the proposal for the Council to acquire the main Winters site and, if so, what was the mitigation? Original Response: The risk of Winters not ceasing their informal use of the Abbots site was not recorded in the risk register as in the contract with Cergold Limited to purchase the Abbots site, they are obliged to give vacant possession so it is incumbent on them to ensure that Winters vacate before completion. GNC: Is it not the case that there was a risk to the council’s depot relocation plan if Winters had legal rights at Abbots Depot that prevented Cergold from delivering vacant possession when required? Response: Following conversations with the vendor's solicitors we understand the arrangement is undocumented and informal and as vacant possession is assured through the terms of the proposed purchase we do not believe there is any risk to the Council's depot relocation plan. d. Would Winters’ occupation block access to the bulk of the site to the south and thus affect the Council’s plans? Original Response: If the informal arrangement for Winters to use part of the Abbots site were to remain in place after the council purchased the Abbots site then this would impact the council's plans. However, in the contract with Cergold Limited to purchase the Abbots site, they are obliged give vacant possession so it is incumbent on them to ensure that Winters vacate before completion. GNC: No follow-up e. Does the proposed agreement between the Council and Winters explicitly cover evacuation of Abbots Depot? Original Response: No, Winters have not been paid for the vacation of the Abbots site. Vacant possession of the Abbots site is assured through the agreement to purchase the Abbots site. The agreement for the assignment of the lease on the Winters site, includes a provision that Winters will not to re-locate to any other part of the wider site of the former railway sidings (including Abbotts Depot). GNC: No follow-up f. The identification of the ‘waste operation lease’ site was initially vague in the committee report of 16/03/15 but it did specify that the freeholder was Network Rail (with no mention of Cergold) and the map that was provided on request did not identify any part of the Abbots Depot site being part of the ‘waste operation lease’ site. So was the premium specified in the exempt papers just for a lease of the Network Rail site or did Winters’ occupation of part of the Abbots Depot site give them additional negotiating leverage that increased the price to the Council? Original Response: The 'waste operation lease' site referred to is the Winters site and the freeholder of this site is Network Rail as stated in the committee report of 16/03/15. Winters had no additional leverage as a result of their informal use of the neighbouring Abbots site as vacant possession of the Abbots site is assured through the agreement to purchase the Abbots site from Cergold. GNC: How could an agreement between the council and Cergold nullify any legal rights that might be held by Winters? Response: There is no suggestion that Winters has or claims a lease. The arrangement is informal and the vendor has warranted that it will end before completion. g. Was the Winters’ occupation of part of the Abbots Depot site a factor in the officer decision to recommend acquisition of the main Winters site (which is not operationally necessary and was not proposed in November 2014 when negotiation to acquire Abbots Depot was recommended)? Original Response: No. Winters' informal use of the Abbots site was not a factor in the decision to purchase the Winters' site as vacant possession of the Abbots site is assured through the agreement to purchase the Abbots site. GNC: Question f above applies here too. Response: There is no suggestion that Winters has or claims a lease. The arrangement is informal and the vendor has warranted that it will end before completion. h. Was the inclusion of Winters’ evacuation of part of the Abbots Depot site in addition to their main site the reason why they did not want their freeholder, Network Rail, to know the buyout premium or even, apparently, that Winters was interested in selling its lease? Original Response: The council is not privy to this information GNC: So why is the public not allowed to know the premium paid by the council to Winters? Response: This is commercially confidential information. The council has entered into confidentiality obligations with Winters in the contract between them. B. Officers have now confirmed that Cergold paid only £750,000 for the whole of the Abbots Depot site in 2014. If the most recent purchase price had been disclosed to councillors then Cergold’s profit from selling the freehold for £13.5m would have been a very valid area for questioning by councillors. Councillors have yet to be provided with an explanation as to why the council is prepared to pay £13.5m for a site that only a year ago was bought for £750,000. Original Response: Land Registry entries indicate on 11 June 2014 a price of £750,000 was paid for the transfer of the freehold of the Abbots Depot site to Cergold Limited. The council is not privy to the reasons behind this agreement but is confident that the £750,000 figure quoted does not reflect the open market value of the site Abbots Depot site. The reason that the Council is confident that the figure does not reflect market value is that the two companies involved in the purchase and sale of the freehold are owned by the same people. GNC: Is the council confident that appropriate UK tax will be paid on Cergold’s profit of £12.75m (1,700%)? Response: This is not a matter for the Council to comment on. C. The 16/03/15 committee report made no mention of Winters’ plan to move out of the Oakleigh Road South area irrespective of any prospect of the Council paying them to go away so the appropriateness of paying them a substantial premium did not receive appropriate consideration, even though it was raised by opposition councillors. Original Response: The Winters site was not actively being marketed prior to the Council entering into negotiations for the reassignment of the lease, so plans for the operation to move out of the area irrespective of these discussions remain a matter of speculation. If Winters did intend to vacate the site, the lease would have been available on the open market, therefore, without intervention, the Council would not have been able to prevent another similar waste operation from occupying the site. GNC: The Winters site (and the Mill Hill depot site) are safeguarded for waste use and it is Barnet’s obligation as a North London planning authority not to allow a reduction in waste-processing capacity in North London. How does the council propose to discharge that obligation in respect of the Winters site? Response: This is a matter for the Council to engage in through the updating of the North London Waste Plan. Following re-assignment the Winters site will continue to be zoned for waste management and processing. Our proposals seek to increase the operational efficiency of the waste service which will ultimately improve the capacity. We anticipate these improvements will be required to accommodate the projected increase in throughput of waste and recyclables over future years. D. The information in points 1-3 above came to light only through research by affected residents and persistent questioning by me. The information was withheld, for whatever reason, when it should have been disclosed first voluntarily by officers prior to decisions by councillors and then in response to explicit questioning. In the event all that I have is confirmation of what I put to the officer in question. I and other councillors do not know what else we did not and still do not know. Original Response: We believe that all relevant and material information was provided at the appropriate time in order to support the Council's decision making process. GNC: Do you not accept that residents and opposition councillors have strong reason to doubt the council’s wish to be transparent on this matter? Response: We believe that all relevant and material information was provided at the appropriate time in order to support the council's decision making process. The monitoring officer has reviewed the decision making process and is confident that it was robust Kind regards, Andrew Travers Chief Executive London Borough of Barnet, North London Business Park, Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP Tel: 020 8359 7850 Mobile: 07966 030983 Barnet Online: www.barnet.gov.uk From: Cooke, Cllr Geoffrey Sent: 16 June 2015 23:33 To: Travers, Andrew Cc: Moore, Cllr Alison; CoakleyWebb, Cllr Pauline; Kagan, Gaby; Rawlings, Cllr Barry; Levine, Cllr Kathy; Ioannidis, Cllr Andreas; Patel, Cllr Reema; Cohen, Cllr Philip; Narenthira, Cllr Nagus; Schneiderman, Cllr Alan; Large, Peter; Hooton, John Subject: RE: Complaint - Depot Relocation Andrew I am afraid that I do not find your response to be satisfactory. My comments and further questions are in green below. Regards Cllr Geof Cooke PLEASE do not forget that we have to put in our objections to the council's planning committee until the 29th July. The Planning Application for bringing the waste to our doorstep has been submitted. For those of you that want to have a look at please FIND IT IN: https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=NQPCE7JI09000 TO MAKE AN OBJECTION: https://publicaccess.barnet.gov.uk/onlineapplications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=makeComment&keyVal=NQPCE7JI09000 OR EMAIL: planning.enquiry@barnet.gov.uk, andrew.dillon@barnet.gov.uk It is also important to cc the councillors on the planning committee: cllr.m.cohen@barnet.gov.uk cllr.w.prentice@barnet.gov.uk cllr.m.braun@barnet.gov.uk cllr.c.farrier@barnet.gov.uk cllr.e.greenspan@barnet.gov.uk cllr.b.rawlings@barnet.gov.uk Cllr.T.Roberts@Barnet.gov.uk cllr.a.slocombe@barnet.gov.uk cllr.m.shooter@barnet.gov.uk cllr.j.tierney@barnet.gov.uk cllr.r.cornelius@barnet.gov.uk cllr.a.hutton@barnet.gov.uk cllr.d.kay@barnet.gov.uk cllr.s.khatri@barnet.gov.uk cllr.g.rozenberg@barnet.gov.uk cllr.l.williams@barnet.gov.uk cllr.s.sowerby@barnet.gov.uk PLEASE NOTE: it only takes one conservative councillor to vote against the relocation and we will be free of the waste. Please write to your local councillor separately and ask them to vote against the relocation. Cllr Sowerby is the Cllr to Oakleigh, where the residents will be directly affected by the traffic. smell and noise... It is up to us to stop it so pleas take a few moments to put your objections in and write to your councillor. YOU CAN ALSO OBJECT IN WRITING TO : Planning, c/o Andrew Dillon, Development Management & Building Control Service Building 4, North London Business Park (NLBP), Oakleigh Road South, London N11 1NP POINTS YOU CAN OBJECT ON : 1) Effect on traffic, access and parking 2) Scale, appearance and impact on surrounding area and adjoining neighbours- PLEASE NOTE THAT THE REST OF THE SITES CONSIDERED WERE REJECTED BY THE TORY COUNCILLORS OF THE AREAS AS THEY WERE TOO CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (!) 3) Loss of light 4) Overlooking and loss of privacy 5) Effect on nature conservation and loss of trees 6) Effect on a Conservation Area 7) Effect on a Listed Building 8)Noise and disturbance resulting from a use 9) Whether the use would be appropriate for the area IN ALL YOUR COMMYNICATION PLEASE : a) use reference 15/04005/FUL b) c/c barnetraad@gmail.com so we can follow up IF YOU NEED HELP ON OBJECTING PLEASE E_MAIL:barnetraad@gmail.com (ResidentsAgainst Abbots Depot)