To All Councillors

I have sent a letter to all Councillors complaining about Transforming Telford’s discrimination against the disabled and the manner of its implementation of the Council’s garage replacement 'policy’. As advised, I consider this to be illegal and, if knowingly perpetrated, might constitute malpractice.

Transforming Telford is declaring that it has the power to dictate Council policy and that it can rule on policy matters, specifically on the conflict inherent in its interpretation of the Garage Replacement 'policy' and the Disability Equality Scheme. I venture to suggest that the company has no such power, and if the Council has delegated its responsibilities in this respect then it is clearly acting unlawfully. May I suggest that if a written policy and an unwritten ad hoc policy conflict then the obvious thing to do is to refer the matter to the policy makers - that is, the Council. I would also point out that there should be no ad hoc policies dealing with the disbursement of land and public funds.

I should like to take this opportunity to ensure that all Councillors have been presented with a summary of our argument in the above respects before they permit Transforming Telford to implement potentially unlawful policies and to ride roughshod over the public's civil rights.

 

The Woodside Regeneration is a project undertaken for the good of the community as a whole, not solely to benefit, or profit, selected individuals within it, such as the owners of former Council garages.

Ideally, the Council needs to acquire the garages it sold some 30 years ago in order that the community as a whole might benefit from the redistribution of the land. In effect, the Council's objective is to obtain the land upon which the garages stand, as the old buildings are of no use in the regeneration. Clearly, however, the building must be purchased in order to acquire the land.

Obviously, the owners of these garages must be given a fair and just price for them, but bearing in mind that this minority of garage owners (5%) may have to suffer for the greater good of the community, and definitely not that the community, and individuals within it, must suffer for the greater good of garage owners. In reality, however, nobody need suffer at all.

Above all, as has been shown in the first phase of regeneration (Woodside West 1), the Council is not obliged to acquire garages, particularly if the owners refuse to part with them. Furthermore, the Council has shown by its intent in Woodside West 2 that if garages are required in order to benefit the community then they will be compulsorily purchased (e.g. Garage 4, Warrensway).

We have been informed by the external auditors, KPMG, that the Council just happens to have mislaid all the paperwork concerning the valuation of individual garages and all accompanying correspondence with the owners. However, the Council clearly failed to inform KPMG that we had obtained a statement from the Council's legal department concerning the valuation of Garage 4, Warrensway, as a result of the proposed compulsory purchase.

The price being paid in July last year for two garage plots and an old garage building was £4,500. It is possible, therefore, to place an estimated value on a garage building and the plot upon which it stands. Given the unlikely event that a dilapidated old garage might be worth the same as a valuable piece of land in short supply, the value of garage and land might be put at £3,000. In the case of Garage 4, Warrensway, at maximum:

2 x £1,500 + £1,500 = £4,500. Ergo, a garage building and its plot would be worth £3,000.

However, it is more than likely that the land would be of much greater value than the building. It certainly is to the Council, as the building is of no use (to be demolished) but the land needs to be acquired in order for it o be redeployed. So, for purposes of demonstration, I shall place a nominal value of £500 on the garage and a value of £2,000 on the land upon which it stands. In the case of Garage 4, Warrensway, a more likely allocation is:

2 x £2000 + £500 = £4,500. A garage building and its plot are worth £2,500.

We are, therefore, in a position to quantify and compare the options offered to garage owners but, before doing so, it may be useful to consider the conditions affecting the development of a policy with respect to garage acquisition and land distribution.

1. When residents purchased their garages they obtained a ‘garage’ in two parts:
i. A garage building or ‘shell’
ii. The plot of land upon which the garage stands.

2. At time of purchase, no promises were made that the garages would not be required in future projects to the benefit of the community or that the needs of the community, for the greater good, might result in compulsory purchase.

3. When the Council re-acquires these garages it needs to obtain:

i. The plot of land, so that this may be redeployed
ii. The garage building so that this may be demolished.

4. The garage owners must not be put out of pocket in the transaction and some amount of leeway might be expected and acceptable as an inducement to surrender the property.

5. Apart from the above, garage owners must not be singled out for preferential treatment, which would be in contravention of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members. Contravening the Code, which is embedded in the Constitution, would render such acts unconstitutional. Furthermore, as the Code emanates from an Order from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, by Statutory Instrument, contravening the Code is unlawful.

6. Regeneration is a project for the greater good. Land distribution must be undertaken with this in view and also bearing in mind the requirements of other Council policies, for example, with respect to the disabled (Disability Equality Scheme and Disability Discrimination Act).

7. Land distribution must be equitable and consistent, and all designs must comply with the Council’s stated objective of acting ethically, morally and, therefore, legally at all times.

8. As required by the Code of Conduct for Members, policies must be in written form for review by monitoring and other bodies. This permits Councillors to review the specifics of Cabinet policy decisions and the means to challenge them on matters of legality. Formal statements of policy also permit the creation of associated procedures, renders the policy auditable and provides the public with knowledge of policy enacted on its behalf, with the ability to challenge implementation contrary to such specification.

Garage Acquisition

We have been informed in correspondence that garage owners are offered one of two options: a Purchase Option and a Replacement Option. The former is considered to be both sound and legal but the latter unethical, morally unacceptable and, above all, unlawful. A review of the options to acquire garages available to the Council will demonstrate why.

 

This must be a last resort and, hopefully, never required, but will demonstrate the fundamental problem.

With compulsory purchase, the Council would obtain the old garage building and the plot of land upon which this stands. As above, these might be secured for a value of £2,500. The garage building would be demolished and the plot of land taken into the community land pool for allocation as best serves the community. The former owner would then no longer be a garage owner and would be treated exactly the same as everybody else. These former garage owners would be eligible for property extension (where possible) and would, essentially, be given back the land purchased from them, although located somewhere else, but would have a sum of money to offset against the cost of a brand new garage, at a price to all of £3,500, to be erected upon the regeneration land. In this particular case, the former garage owner would need to find £1,000 to have a brand new garage erected upon the land allocated from the regeneration land pool. People who do not own garages have to find £3,500.

 

This is much the same as the above but would probably offer an inducement to sell (avoiding the need for compulsory purchase). So, the garage owner might be offered £3,000 for both the garage building and the plot of land upon which it stands, giving an inducement of 20% on value. They would then no longer be garage owners and would be treated like everybody else. The former owner would be provided with a plot of land from the regeneration (if possible) and would only need to find £500 to have a brand new garage erected upon it. People who do not own garages have to find £3,500.

 

This is not currently an option offered to garage owners but, I suggest, would be the true garage ‘replacement’ option, being fully consistent with the above.

In this option the garage owners might be offered a further inducement by exchanging their old, dilapidated, garage building and the plot upon which it stands for a brand new detached garage building worth £3,500 to be erected upon land allocated to them from the regeneration land pool. Having agreed, they would cease to be garage owners and would be treated as everybody else. They would be given a plot of land from the regeneration land pool (if possible) and the promised garage would be erected upon it. They would, therefore, pay absolutely nothing for a brand new garage building (with a 40% inducement) whereas everybody else must find £3,500.

It should be appreciated that, in the above, garage owners can only have a brand new garage building if their properties can be extended as part of the regeneration, because the building requires a plot of land upon which to stand. This leaves the problem of the land-locked garage owners. Owners of properties that cannot be extended receive absolutely nothing from the regeneration and no compensation as a consequence of their neighbours having so benefited. This is unfortunate but unavoidable.

However, although the Council is not obliged to acquire garages, it has declared that it will waive this ruling in the case of land-locked garage owners, who are to be specially singled out and privileged, and receive a considerable financial benefit as a gift denied the land-locked property owner who does not own a garage, having been too poor to buy or, perhaps, not owning a car.

We have it in writing that it was arranged with garage owners at their insistence that they would be promised one garage from the regeneration for every garage owned. It should be appreciated that it is impossible for the Council to make such a promise in every case.

The garage provision of the Exchange Options above can only work if the owner’s property is such that it can extended to benefit from land allocation from regeneration. If it cannot, then the former garage owner would receive a financial benefit of some £3,000 and, having sold, would no longer have a garage. This was considered unfair by garage owners and so the Council introduced its Garage ‘Replacement’ Option to benefit land-locked garage owners but not those many others unfortunate enough to be similarly land-locked.

 

By this option, the old dilapidated garage (worth, nominally, £500) is exchanged for a brand new detached garage worth £3,500 but the land upon which it stands is not acquired. As the new garages are larger than the old ones, an additional land grant to the value of £500 is also made to the garage owner. This means that the old garage building or ‘shell’ worth £500 is replaced by a brand new garage worth £4,000 from public funds. This constitutes an obscene profit of 700% on the transaction!! This is a gift of £3,500 from public funds and it is illegal for the Council to bestow any gift upon selected members of the community.

The 'logic' of the 'replacement' seems to be that if the Council needs to demolish a garage then it is required to replace it. However, it is not obliged to acquire the garages in the first place and, if it does, it can simply purchase them. So, very subtly and speciously, an old garage building worth £500 is being 'replaced' by a brand new detached garage worth £3,500, and the old plot of land worth £2,000 is 'replaced' by a larger plot worth £2,500. In this way, the Council gives £4,000 for a garage building that is worth absolutely nothing - of no use and of no value - to the Council, which could buy both the building and the plot of land for £1000 less than this. However, nobody in the Council wishes to acknowledge this particular problem or confront the implications.

Because land-locked garage owners receive this gift, the Council has declared that all garage owners must receive the same gift. However, if any such gift is given, then all residents must receive it and, as previously pointed out, this would bankrupt the Council. However, the Council cannot pass any policy that provides gifts or returns on a transaction totally incommensurate with the value of what is being surrendered, simply because no individual Councillor can bestow any gift, or an obscene profit, to individuals as this is prohibited by the Code of Conduct for Members. It doesn't matter that the gift is disguised as a 'replacement', this is still a gift to land-locked garage owners that other land-locked property owners do not receive. 

Even worse, because garage owners in receipt of this gift have not yet been provided with a hardstanding from the regeneration, the Council has declared that it must also take land worth a further £2,5000 from the community land pool in order to give to each garage owner "what everybody else is getting", although not everybody else is getting a hard standing. Note that, had the land upon which the garage stands been acquired, as in the alternative purchase option, the Council would simply have given the purchased land back (plus a little extra because of the size of the new garage).

The community, therefore, loses a plot of land for every garage or garage owner, meaning that the immediate cost to the community of obtaining an old garage building that it does not need, that is, the cost of the gift to garage owners from public funds, is £6,500. Furthermore, as the community could benefit from the land given away - from garage rental revenue - the community loses even more over the years. Worse again, by giving the extra plot of land to garage owners they can further benefit financially themselves from rental avoidance or by renting out a garage on the plot - a garage they wouldn’t have had under any of the other options.

Needless to say, the garage owners benefit even further from the extra land (added to the value of the property), plus having the only double garaged properties on the estate and an associated increase in property values.

The Council is not obliged to acquire the garages of land-locked property owners but, if it needs to do so and the owner objects, this should be achieved by compulsory purchase. Highly pertinent to this is the fact that land-locked property owners who could not afford to buy a garage receive absolutely nothing from the regeneration but the wealthier land-locked garage owners are being favoured with a gift of some £4,000.

If anyone wishes to see an example of the enormity of the gifts being bestowed by this ‘policy’ then may I suggest that they consult the proposal for 12 Warrensway, Woodside, which is being widened as well as extended to the detriment of disabled neighbours and the community at large. The implementation, and consequent financial benefit, is also being demanded by the owner. Moreover, the Council has formally acceded to these unjust demands in blatant contravention of its Disability Equality Scheme, thus suggesting that the gifts were planned and promised to the extent of ignoring the law and civil rights.

According to a letter from Transforming Telford, presumably reflecting authorised Council policy, owners of wider properties may be offered a purchased second hard standing. It can easily be appreciated that 12 Warrensway is the currently the narrowest property on the block due to its existing converging physical boundaries and, therefore, does not qualify. On the other hand, our property (no. 11) does qualify but we were made no offer under this policy.

One major problem of such a ‘policy’ is how to ensure a fair and equitable allocation of land, and it follows that no additional hard standings should really be given to property owners. However, if this is to happen then such allocation should only be executed in accordance with lawful and applicable policies such as the Disability Equality Scheme, which provides for positive discrimination in favour of the disabled. This prompts our request to the Council to be offered a second hardstanding in our extended curtilage for our disability needs according to the above-mentioned policy.

We have correspondence from the former administration stating that the garage replacement ‘policy’ was agreed after discussion with garage owners and at their insistence. If these gifts were bestowed knowingly and intentionally then may I suggest that this might constitute profiteering and malpractice in contravention of the Code of Conduct, the Constitution and the Council’s Anti-Fraud and Corruption Policy, in that it would constitute an unlawful misuse and misdirection of public funds. As such, the Council would have no business, or legal right, to enact the policy.

If the 'policy' emerged accidentally, through naivety, then I would put it down simply to gross incompetence and ineptitude. In any event, I believe that it cannot be permitted to continue. It must be stopped, and Councillors are the only people who can stop it. If it is not stopped then all Councillors who fail to act on information provided will have knowingly endorsed it.

As Transforming Telford is refusing to accommodate our disability needs vis-a-vis both parking and garaging we are appealing to Council members to insist that the company respects the clauses and provisions of the Disability Equality Scheme and also rules on whether the ad hoc clauses of the garage replacement 'policy' are legal and constitutional (that is, they do not contravene the Code of Conduct) and if they over-ride the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act. We consider that the plan that we have presented to both the Council and Transforming Telford is the only one, at this stage, that we feel would match our needs.

I feel that this sums up my thinking on the matter, as repeatedly expressed for fully one year now, and I hope that you appreciate why I have objected over the past fourteen months to the Council’s persistent refusal to consider the argument, its refusal to conduct an independent investigation and its insistence upon pursuing a potentially unlawful ad hoc ‘policy’. With respect to the latter, we were informed last year, in writing, that there is no formal written policy statement and no associated procedures to guide implementation. Our several attempts to request that the policy be written down and to obtain sight of it have simply been ignored.

The Government insists that Councils must put right the consequences of their mistakes but I appreciate that public bodies may adopt the stand that if they never acknowledge mistakes then they never have to put them right, and would rather pay penalties and compensation from public funds than do so. This would also be a shocking and unacceptable waste of public funds, particularly as it is unnecessary to admit to a mistake in order to correct it.

This is a serious matter of policy conflict and we have been requesting for fourteen months that the policy makers investigate and rule on the above questions of legality, and still we have not had sight of the policy statement. As far as we are concerned, it exists only as a generic Cabinet minute and some letters. Our requests have been consistently ignored, evincing complete disinterest and a lack of civic responsibility. At worst, Council is subscribing to an unlawful policy and at best is refusing to rule on a conflict of policies affecting disability needs. This has all arisen because one of these 'policies' is informal and, as such, is potentially wide open to abuse, and is being interpreted at the whims of Transforming Telford rather than according to the rulings of the elected representatives.

In conclusion, may I remind you that if I am correct about the unlawful gifts to garage owners from public funds then the above is being enacted in contravention of the Council’s Code of Conduct for Members and this has implications on the right to serve. Members have made a promise to serve the community, and the public expects that they will do just that. I trust, therefore, that this will be of some assistance to you in thus serving,

Comments

Search RSS

3.20 Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

---

Telford Council Watch