Cornwall Council is preparing to scrap a government funding bid designed to build a stadium for Truro.

Officials and senior councillors are frantically trying to agree a form of words to explain their decision – and avoid having to admit that it effectively signals the final kick of a 10-year game which has seen various County Hall bosses use the promise of a stadium to justify a 3,500-home housing estate.

Today, it seems more likely than ever that the stadium will never be built – at least not according to its original design.  A much smaller project remains a distant possibility, if a yet-to-be-written business case can justify it.

It is only six weeks since the council announced it was a submitting a new multi-million pound bid to the government’s Levelling Up fund.

A council press release issued on 5th May, and still on the County Hall website, said: “the construction of the Stadium for Cornwall (is one of) the projects set to benefit from the first tranche of Levelling Up Funding (LUF) in Cornwall.”

Cornwall Reports understands that this announcement took even some senior officials by surprise.  The press release added:  “The project to construct a Stadium for Cornwall will build a community and professional sports facility at Threemilestone and will be led by the Stadium partners, including Truro and Penwith College. The stadium project is the only cultural project in a position to be in a position to move forward in the timeframe set by the guidance.”

The sports teams most likely to benefit from a new stadium were the Penzance Pirates rugby players and Truro City footballers.  Both are now looking for a new “sweetheart” benefactor following the announcement, in March, that owner Dicky Evans was looking to retire after bankrolling the Pirates for 27 years.

County Hall’s ruling fourth floor bosses have long been divided in their attitude towards the project, which was first championed by founding chief executive Kevin Lavery in 2009.

In February of this year, Cornwall Reports revealed how the strategic director for economic development, Phil Mason, used £15,000 of not-yet-received funds from Truro’s new Lidl supermarket to undertake minor excavations at the west Cornwall stadium site in order to keep alive its historic, never-used planning permission.

The stadium was originally promised, at no cost to taxpayers, as a “public benefit” dividend of granting planning permission for a huge housing estate now known as Langarth Garden Village.  But in 2018, despite the lack of any obvious public benefit to residents in the north and east of Cornwall, councillors voted 69-41 to keep the project alive with the promise of £3 million – provided this was match-funded by the government.

That £3 million remains "ring-fenced" for the stadium, much to the irritation of some senior councillors who can think of more immediate uses for it.

Last month the council’s portfolio holder for resources, councillor David Harris, told sceptical councillors that the Levelling Up bid was being submitted because it was the only “culture” project which was “shovel-ready.”

But when Cornwall Reports applied, under Freedom of Information laws, to see the business case which would accompany the stadium bid we were surprised to be told that no such document existed.

In recent days the council’s corporate leadership team has accepted, reluctantly, that they would now be foolish to submit a bid to Whitehall’s Levelling Up fund before the deadline of 6th July.  Reasons include:

The government’s Levelling Up fund will be massively over-subscribed and the stadium bid would have to compete on a national stage
The Treasury has already, repeatedly, rejected the original stadium business plan, claiming the tiny number of supporters who would pay to watch local sports teams made its revenue forecasts wildly unrealistic
The most recent estimate of construction costs - £22 million – is more than double the original price.

The worsening economic crisis is raising those construction costs even more each day - just as the council is preparing to slash some aspects of its existing capital programme, such as the traffic-calming elements of the proposed St Austell-A30 link road.

Lack of in-house resources to conceive, research and write an entirely new business plan. The original business case had been prepared by a senior official who was among those to leave the council during the most recent round of redundancies.

The government’s guidance to councils for Levelling Up bids warns that they will be scrutinised ruthlessly by The Treasury – with “value for money” at the heart of the examination.

The council has now concluded that to go ahead with the stadium bid would be to risk coming away with nothing. Instead they plan to concentrate on the other main plank of their Levelling Up bid, the “Mid Cornwall Metro” rail project to improve transport links to Falmouth.

By Graham Smith

 

Dear Colleagues and Friends,

So today the cabinet sadly showed its true colours by unanimously deciding to keep the Jolly Roger flying at County Hall by going ahead with the proposed Compulsory Purchase Orders agenda,  which in real terms is modern piracy, against legal advice (copy attached) A complete let down of the authorities image and principles, I cannot really believe that this was an open and honest vote, and was obviously politically led led for what could be hidden agenda, I seem to remember Hitler started in a similar manner. Very disappointed in the Tory administration which I feel has lost its way as regards to ethical and democratic governance all for what, certainly not the taxpayers of Cornwall more like personal political ambitions. Why does every one of the cabinet vote to take away fellow human beings’ homes and land against the owners’ wishes? This obviously points to a politically led decision. All for what, a project which will not benefit Cornwall’s people in any way, it will more than likely bring a massive financial burden on future council tax paying families, all because of senior employed officer past questionable conduct. I feel we have not heard the last of this invasion of human rights yet. There is still time for opposition leaders to lobby the respective Secretary of State, Rt Hon. Michael Gove with their opposition and reasons why he should not grant approval for the council’s request for CPO permission.  We must not forget that there is now a big chance of a judicial review or a public Inquiry which is now on the horizon.

This latest issue to evolve from the Langarth diabolical started from the council’s bail out of previous speculators failed ambitions that has cost council tax payers millions of pounds, Some of us will remember the shenanigans that transpired in the early days such as serious collusion involving council representatives who, so it is rumoured, benefited from falling into the greed mire and then disappeared, leaving an unbelievable legal, financial and diabolical mess.

Today we learn that employed officers have called in estate agents to consider the future of Newquay airport without involving a single elected member. Where as we are always told the authority employs the best people this goes to show that it obviously does not, on the other hand decisions could be already made and the estate agents are being brought in to face the criticism and flack in case of any unpopular decision.

There is no doubt that the perceived improved relations between employed officers and elected members which the present administration had promised has been beyond reach. Recent events have proved that employed officers still rule the roost, while elected members remain side lined. There is also a certain element of political ambitions getting on the way of logical and democratic administration which does not bode well for our county’s well being. The more I think about our administration at county hall the more I believe the opinion of one of our late CWFSDB members who, always called county hall “The Kremlin”, has now become appropriate.
 
As usual my question is why do elected members put up with this undemocratic position, are their political leaders leading them in the right way, in the case of the current administration I suggest not. elected members are the voice of the people, at the present council taxpayers are not being consulted or heard. While this continues our Members of Parliament are fully aware of this situation, but sadly politics raises its ugly head once again and they keep silent. Drastic action is required, we need democratic and ethical governance not the controversial charades we experience today.
 
In my opinion we employ certain senior officers, such as the CEO, who are obviously not competent enough to conduct ethical governance, therefore in my book that is 'not fit for purpose'. I must add that this does not include all senior employed officers, but the buck stops at the top. We need officers to work for the well being of Cornwall and its people not self promoting agendas which are so much in evidence today.

Kind regards,
Ken.

 

Below is a copy of a solicitor’s letter which the Council’s cabinet members all received before making the decision to go-ahead with pursuing Compulsory Purchase Orders required to take land from owners against their will, which in my book is piracy, while ignoring legal advice and the obvious consequences. This is surely a case of listening to employed officers’ demands based, in my opinion, on cover ups for past maladministration and political pressure rather than pursuing reality. This situation, again in my opinion, has been influenced by the CEO’s management of employed officers which has once again proven to have fallen far below the standard we are entitled to expect from a highly paid CEO, as in all failures the buck stops at the top. It is no secrete that officer's land purchase policies have walked into an obvious position of inviting future costly ransom demands.

Council taxpayers could see this coming, why didn’t employed officers, that’s the big question. Something is not right here, as public money is at stake, in my opinion this projects situation should be subject to independent investigation. 

It is interesting, but questionable that only one person of the remaining possible 74 elected members spoke against pursuing the CPO path. Why, is this due to lack of involvement and transparency, or what, this does not appear to be normal, needs to be looked at. 

Very disappointed how this administration has performed after much much promise, too much political agenda and not enough consideration for a democratic level of governance, too many old and new cultures have surfaced, apart from that employed officers still rule, no change there then, and elected members being kept in the dark.

I have just seen a SWW e-mail asking us to save 5 litres of water a day because demand for tap water is higher than normal and they are expecting the demand to increase due to the hot weather, at the moment, SWW is treating and pumping 50 million litres a day; this is the same as supplying two extra cities the size of Exeter. While this may sound normal, we are not into the holiday season yet, and it is interesting to note that SWW has never made any representations to planning applications regarding water supply or sewerage disposal to any major new housing developments that have been planned or are in the process of being built in Devon and Cornwall, this includes the West Carclaze Garden Village and the Langarth Garden Village. This means something is not right here, are we being told porkies or has some one has got their sums wrong. 

Explanations from SWW are required, to seek clarity in explaining what measure have they taken or are planned to supply and serve the many thousands of new homes being built or planned, especially here in Cornwall where one obvious case is the Langarth Garden Village projects which would, considering todays situation, seriously impact our water supply and, considering the sewerage works at Newham, in Truro, were declared over capacity some years ago, the projects sewerage disposal.

Are we are heading for drought conditions and overflowing drains and sewage discharges adversely impacting beaches and rivers?

Kind regards,

Ken.

 
13 June 2022  

Dear Cabinet Member

Cabinet Meeting 15th June – Item 9 -  The making of a Compulsory Purchase Order, a Side Roads Order, use of powers of appropriation and the exercise of powers related to statutory undertakers, telecommunications providers and rights of way in support of the delivery of Langarth Garden Village

I act on behalf of Mr Richard Walker and associated companies. He is a respected and renowned local developer with a track record of delivering schemes and infrastructure in Cornwall,

As a local development company, my clients own and control approximately 35% of the land which is the subject of this Langarth Garden Village proposal.

We understand the need for the CPO to deal with any land interests where title issues may exist or where owners have totally failed to co-operate with the Council but find it unacceptable that this approach is being taken in respect of my client’s landholdings in light of the way that the process of trying to negotiate with the Council to avoid the need for a CPO has been conducted.

Essentially the delay in the development of West Truro implementing the two consented schemes has been caused by the two previous schemes at Willow Green and Maiden Green being reliant on a food store anchoring each scheme and meeting the costs of the Northern Access Road and associated infrastructure. In addition a higher requirement for affordable housing greater than the current policy level of affordable housing was requested by Members at Committee affecting the overall viability of the scheme and when the market for large scale food stores evaporated there was no financial pump primer to get the schemes off the ground. The delivery of West Truro is therefore dependent upon realistic aspirations for design and a form of development which is viable in the current market.

Over the last 3 - 5 years my client has tried without success to secure the cooperation of the Council in working with them to bring the scheme forward in a comprehensive well - planned manner. This recognised the fact that there needed to be a degree of co-operation on the part of the Council to deliver development - this has not been forthcoming and the attitude if anything has been unhelpful.

My client possesses the means to develop out the areas which benefit from extant consents, if this were supported by the officers so as to deliver the allocation through the implementation of existing consents. National housebuilders have approached us but are well aware of the Council’s approach.

Officers of the Council maintained they wished to acquire our land interests to give them complete control of West Truro so they could dictate how and when certain areas of land would come forward essentially ensuring that West Langarth would come forward first. This has had the effect of preventing my client’s development coming forward. I do not consider this is an appropriate discharge of powers by your officers, in effect frustrating development to  progress the Council’s corporate ambitions.

It is the position that in such circumstances it is not reasonable to pursue the making of a CPO. The Council’s officers have made little or no effort to enable my client’s land to be delivered under existing planning consents, and the wider development to come forward despite agreement by Senior Officers. The officers motivation seems to be one of wanting control of the site and not being prepared to work with local landowners to achieve a comprehensive scheme.

This is not an appropriate exercise of the Council’s powers. As you are aware a CPO is considered as a matter of last resort, when all genuine efforts to acquire land or bring development forward has usually been  frustrated by stubborn land owners who do not want to co-operate.

The agenda advanced has been one of non-cooperation on the part of the officers to effectively frustrate my clients from implementing planning consents granted by this Council, and then gain control of land and delivery through a CPO.  This is ostensibly being promoted due to alleged non delivery and non-cooperation. I do not consider this is the action of a reasonable Council and such an approach will be susceptible to Judicial Review. It is not an appropriate discharge of the Council’s powers.

To set this in context my Client has participated and went through endless negotiations of over 3 years with Mr Allen and Mr Hector acting on behalf of the Council to try and agree a sale figure. These discussions came to nothing as it transpired and it was indicated that even if the Officers agreed a figure the Council did not have sufficient funds to make the purchase.

Throughout the last three years my client has not even received a single formal offer from the Council for either all or part of their land interests. This is not the evidence or approach of a Council who has funding committed to deliver a scheme. There were no real efforts to engage with my clients and there were concerns as to whether the funding was in place if a deal was agreed.

 As my client had no formal written offer from the Council to acquire their interests they have but one option, to seek to implement the existing consents that they hold to bring forward development.

My client has made many approaches to officers requesting meetings or responses to proposals they have submitted which would see the NAR and associated infrastructure delivered in cooperation with the private sector and in the last 18 months these have either been ignored or when meetings have taken place and promises made to work together these have not been honoured. If the Council do not have the necessary funds then my client is  prepared to work with them on delivering the scheme.

I attach copies of emails that have been sent to various officers including Phil Mason which have not resulted in any progress to date which show clearly continued effort by my client over the last three years of trying to work with and engage with the Council.

It therefore seems inappropriate and unreasonable to us that when my client is trying to work with the Council that measures such as CPO proceedings are employed particularly when the report in front of you does not contain all the details of negotiations and attempts by my client to move forward over the last 3 years.

 As a further example my client has an application submitted with the Authority for S.278 /38 works to deliver the link road between the Richard Lander junction and the Northern Access Road and the improved junction on the A390. This was submitted on the 26th February 2021. This application has been with the Authority for 16 months now and still has not been approved. The delay in part appears to be because the Council have not finalised their strategy of what the A390 will do or what it looks like. In an effort to try to work with the Council my client has agreed to let them suggest some changes however they cannot wait endlessly. Once again the delay is as a result of the Council not finalising their design.

 As soon as it is approved my client will construct the new A.390 junction to open up a consented site for roadside services and residential development. It is the lack of progress on the part of the Council effectively frustrating development, rather than a lack of co-operation on the part of my client.

This element has been included within the CPO on the basis of a presumption that my client will not deliver it. (which is wholly incorrect ).

 My client has been endeavouring to discharge pre – commencement conditions to enable works to begin. The last of these was submitted on the 16th February 2022 and should have been determined by the 13th of April 2022. These have been held up now for more than two months beyond the determination date with case officers stating they are overworked and have insufficient time available to deal with it.

The approach of the Council and the officers is one of frustrating my clients by inaction and then using a CPO promoted on the basis of inactivity or unwillingness on the part of the landowners. In addition it also impacts on the road side services site and will frustrate the inward investment by a major national forecourt operator to provide what is a widely acknowledged need for West Truro.

I would ask you to consider the facts:-

·      No formal offer to purchase my clients interests after 3 years of negotiation, and no evidence of funding to complete the acquisition

·      The frustration of my client’s efforts to proceed with their consented scheme on the pretence of a lack of resources

·      The lack of progress on the delivery of highway infrastructure which was progressed by my clients for 16 months with no -co-operation from the Council – yet the scheme appears as part of the CPO

From our side of the situation to date everything has been delayed by the slowness of the Council. My clients are starting to believe that this may be intentional to hold back development on their land and to allow development to come forward on Council owned land further to the west. The Council’s planning consent and phasing plan certainly confirms this as well as it being verbally confirmed at meetings my clients have had with officers.

The question needs to be asked therefore that if we have communicated our willingness to co-operate in delivering the NAR and associated infrastructure and most recently my clients have done this in discussions with Tim Mulholland in charge of Treveth - why the need for a CPO on areas that we are already trying to bring forward and would do so if it wasn’t for the lack of performance and decision making by Council departments.

The answer for this lies in the fact that this is not a CPO entirely for the purposes of delivering overarching infrastructure which cannot be dealt with by alternative means – it is a CPO to give Council officers control over other land ownerships , enabling them to control when and if they will be allowed to come forward for development to ensure they can restrict the delivery rate of land in the West Truro area to maintain values on Council land and ensure the Council’s land is developed first.

All of this and the maintaining that the Council has to lead this initiative is a position adopted by Officers to make Members believe that this is the only course of action and is absolutely necessary as the only way forward. This is not the case when you consider the contents of this letter and the frustration of my client’s aspirations to play it’s part in contributing to the wider scheme.

Therefore this CPO is being sought to provide officers with a tool for control over other parties and their land holdings when it is competing as a developer with the private sector. It is not being sought with the sole intention of delivering for the wider community and the end to end delivery of the urban extension for Truro.

 If the proposal was impartial why is it intended to start at the western end as evidenced by the Councils consent - many Members have questioned the rationale of doing this when the more natural way forward would be to develop out from the existing built area. Why is the road only proposed to start from the western end?

 If the CPO is to be made, then to confirm it’s impartiality Members must ensure the Council starts construction at both ends opening up all of the growth area, starts to co-operate with my clients, enabling them to deliver the improved Richard Lander junction and link road to the Northern Access Road to enable them to start delivery of the central portion of the West Truro area .The Council must guarantee dates when it will deliver the completed road rather than acquiring the land and then not undertaking construction, landlocking and preventing development on all but it’s own schemes.

 Therefore those complaining of the lack of progress at West Truro need to understand that it is not as a result of a lack of effort on my client’s part. Going forward as always they are happy to agree sensible terms to facilitate the delivery of the Northern Access Road but any negotiations need to address all the wider infrastructure issues and the delivery of all development areas in West Truro and not just the areas under the Council’s ownership.

 We would be grateful if Members could ask why the endless opportunities to take this forward to date have not been pursued and that going forward Officers should enter into meaningful dialogue with stakeholders such as my clients resulting in delivery across the entire growth area rather than purely focussing on what the Council would like to see achieved on its landholding solely.

There are too many wider issues to discuss and my clients need engagement from decision makers and not paid consultants. Recent contact from Council consultants to discuss access to Governs Farm acquired by Cornwall does though once again demonstrate that all Cornwall Council seem to be interested in at the moment is the promotion of their own land interests rather than delivering the entirety of the scheme for the benefit of all.

Why when Truro is so many years behind in it’s delivery of housing are officers looking to constrain development by others. Unfortunately there seems to be a culture of outwardly declaring efforts for the wider good to Members and for general consumption with a different agenda when dealing with local Developers.

We would request on behalf of our clients that the consideration of a CPO is deferred for 3 months to enable the Council to genuinely engage with the key landowners to deliver the required scheme. It is not appropriate or reasonable to make a resolution at your meeting with the history set out above.

My clients certainly do not wish to but if necessary are happy to robustly defend themselves either through Judicial Review, or at a Public Inquiry if a negotiated solution is not reached. Given the extensive trail of offers from their side to work with the Council there will be uncomfortable questions to answer if large amounts of public money are wasted on a needless inquiry when the emails attached together with this letter and other information collected over the last three years would be tabled.

 Certainly if the general public are made aware that this situation was completely avoidable it would call into doubt the conduct of the Authority.

In summary my clients are only asking for what is fair and reasonable and if everyone is working in a sincere manner the development of West Truro should not be difficult to deliver. 

Many thanks for your time in reading this letter and the attachments.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Pinwell - for Ashfords LLP

 

An open letter – and warning - to Cornwall Council.

THE STORM IS COMING AND YOU WILL REAP WHAT YOU HAVE SOWN.

Ladies & Gentlemen

Those who do not adapt rapidly to the changes we are currently witnessing are doomed to fail, the mantra of endless growth is now a thoroughly discredited busted flush, like the largest tree, growth is finite before it inevitably topples in a storm.

If a tad more parochialism ruled the agenda and communities were the way they should be, rather than the way they have been allowed to become, torn apart by the curse of second homes, life would be better for all.

Houses should be homes where young people make their starts in life as they get their feet on the first rung of the property ladder, not lucrative investments to brag about at posh home counties dinner parties.

The simple fact of the matter being, that this corona virus pandemic has been and continues to be fuelled by too much unnecessary travel.

It is not essential to have multiple holidays per year or a second home in some Cornish investment property hotspot.

The hundreds of millions flying around just because they can, have proven beyond reasonable doubt to be the root of the current problem.

The world for us has changed overnight and will continue to do so, as the pandemic tightens its grip on us, and its rolling consequences make themselves felt as our future evolves and adapts to the circumstances.

Collectively we have been far too greedy, far too complacent, addicted to and dependent on technology, rather than the kind of real human contact and day to day interaction that Cornish communities that invariably evolved for a reason, nurtured and benefited from for centuries.

This evolution and powerful sense of place and belonging creates a way of life, that while difficult to explain to strangers, exerts a powerful tie on those who truly belong there.

A real living, viable community has deep roots and a high degree of resilience, that cannot be replicated by plonking a few thousand houses in some convenient level fields and filling it with sundry lifestyle seeking inhabitants, who have no connection or sense of place with their new home.

The sense of belonging and the increasingly compromised way of life Cornish people are privileged to enjoy is diametrically opposed to the rootlessness of those who are looking for a lifestyle driven by unashamed consumerism and hedonism.

In the circumstances, the rootless invaders intent on profiting from the destruction of our way of life should not be unduly surprised by the hostility they encounter due to the existential threat their very presence in our midst poses to us all in the critical times we are presently experiencing.

The 'Home Counties second home set' should perhaps, with humility, take a long hard look at themselves in a mirror and ponder what their reaction might be, were the boot suddenly on the other foot, with potentially infected Cornish people decamping en mass to their towns and villages.

We owe them nothing, because in reality they give us nothing, they merely take from us all by sucking the life out of our towns and villages.

I relish the prospect of a huge property crash, houses will be cheaper for those who genuinely need them while hopefully the speculators and corporate developers will go broke and give Cornwall the breathing space it so desperately needs, even if it does involve a little hardship in the shorter term

I sincerely hope and pray that those of you at Cornwall Council who have enthused about and facilitated the disaster you have collectively visited upon us since Cornwall Council’s inception, take some time to reflect with a little humility on your collective folly.

Those who could have spoken out against it because of their misgivings are just as guilty by association with those who have led the charge, I suggest that history will judge you all equally when the time comes.

Richard Branson has been proven beyond reasonable doubt to be a tax dodging man of straw, looking for the next hand out as entirely predicted by some, most definitely not the Messiah he has been portrayed as in some circles within Cornwall Council.

This alien concept is a direct slap in the face to those of us who do actually fulfil useful roles in our communities, pay our taxes and contribute to Cornwall’s real economy where pie-in-the-sky and jam-tomorrow never ever feature on our menu.

Yours aye

Kevin Bennetts

 

Open Letter to Cornwall’s rugby fraternity:

Dear old rugby friends,

Sorry to have to say, we were right all along, and Cornwall’s rugby fraternity, of which I consider myself a part, was used, abused, lied to and made fools of by the wankers, oops sorry, by the officers at Cornwall Council, and by successive wave of pricks, oops sorry, councillors since 2009.

So as predicted by a small minority of us who have wasted an inordinate amount of time tracking these arrogant, overpaid morons, oops sorry, senior council officer, we will get a new town paid for courtesy of generations of Cornish council tax payers, but serving only wealthy incomers and upcountry landlords (very little if any affordable housing for locals or council homes), whilst the FREE stadium for all of Cornwall will be an expensive and small stadium for two pro sports teams and paid for by us…. Maybe….

Expensive shambles sadly supported by Cornish rugby. 

It’s just a shame, that’s all…

From: former player and administrator in mid-Cornwall