I suspect trying to get to the bottom of what went on will be like grappling with eels. Not sure what official support we can garner to help or how expensive it might be. It's very frustrating.
The decision means that a senior officer (director) is authorised to take the ACV decisions. The members are just endorsing the governance arrangements for all ACVs as set out in the report.
The cabinet would usually take whatever decision the report recommends, because reports don't usually come to public cabinet unless they've already been agreed by cabinet privately.
As a cabinet member myself in Thanet, I find the cabinet system a bit bizarre, but it's one of the only ways unitary authorities like Greenwich are allowed to operate - another is the elected mayor.
all it say (I think) is that where an ACV decision could previously be taken by an.officer of the council.in the interim period it must be now taken by a director member of the.council
as predicted.
sweet f.a. - absolutely unneccesary and didnt need to be delayed as our application was during the interim period. So they are retroactively applying this to a pre existing application.
of course they will see it was always planned and noone told the trust because it wasnt important
Gosh that note of minutes is horrific. Did someone swallow the bible of wankspeak?
Growth Strategy Masterplan. - call something a masterplan early doors and watch it fail.
and nice to see that for every item no alternative options were considered
I'm sure they were considered - just long before the democratic stage lol
Well, yes and no. It would be chaotic to have the cabinet taking decisions in public without advance consideration. Only the ruling group has votes at cabinet meetings, but at least they make the decisions in public (other than exempt matters, which usually contain commercially sensitive information or personal data). Other elected members can usually speak, but they have no vote. However, the decision can be called in by the scrutiny members (local arrangements vary). They can hold up the implementation of non-urgent decisions while they comment and may ask the cabinet to think again, but they have no power to change the decision themselves.
There are some classes of decision which are reserved for full council by law, e.g. the budget, but in the real world it's unrealistic to expect every backbench councillor on a large authority to form a view on every decision, even regardless of the party system.
Just to let you know, the officer who is in charge of this application is... Ralph Million: property strategy/asset manager at royal borough of greenwich. However, the RBG has already discussed this at 'Director level' by the local MP Nick Raynsford with Steve Pallett Asst Director of regeneration RBG, three months ago! The email sent by the MP's office confirms 'Steve did not think there would be an obstacles to this application'....... So again to be clear, why give that undertaking to the local MP ( who is very experienced in planning matters) at that time and then delay the decision?. I would be happy to speak to Roberts, but I have never been anywhere near the directors box!.
Steve Pallett has a very long history with Greenwich planning matters right back to the return to The Valley, although from recollection he's a West Ham fan . . . But he was always well regarded by my very good sources within Greenwich planning.
However, he's not a director (as above), so he can't now make the decision.
In short, in your view, are they pursuing a correct process (at least according to life on their own planet) or are they dicking about? And if the latter, should we start to go after them? Supporters Direct have up to now urged caution, saying broadly that we should let them see their process through to a decision before getting stroppy.
In short, in your view, are they pursuing a correct process (at least according to life on their own planet) or are they dicking about? And if the latter, should we start to go after them? Supporters Direct have up to now urged caution, saying broadly that we should let them see their process through to a decision before getting stroppy.
What would be your recommendation...
I'll have to read the reports before I comment. They could be following a proper process AND using it as a delaying tactic.
In short, in your view, are they pursuing a correct process (at least according to life on their own planet) or are they dicking about? And if the latter, should we start to go after them? Supporters Direct have up to now urged caution, saying broadly that we should let them see their process through to a decision before getting stroppy.
What would be your recommendation...
I'll have to read the reports before I comment. They could be following a proper process AND using it as a delaying tactic.
He could be, he could also be abusing the democratic process, by not doing this in a reasonable time frame. He is quite correct to have his officers, or anyone else make enquiries, and clarification, one wonders why they did not do this for the first two applications then? Pallet is an assistant director, for regeneration GBH, I think he would have enquired about this before discussing this with the local MP, who supports the application? Bearing in mind that Raynsford is according to Wicki...... Minister for Local Government 2001-02, and in the again reorganised Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002-2005, with special responsibility for local government, English regions, electoral law, fire, health and safety and London.
So hopefully he will be versed in how local politician's work, or should, and the antics of Cllr Roberts are well known, even in far away Bexley.
Is the 8 week period an advisory one only Rick? I am inclined to challenge the legality of what they are doing? How is it that 2 ACV's have already been passed?
I've now read the report on the council's ACV process that went to cabinet on Thursday.
The legislation is fairly prescriptive in some respects. Members cannot make ACV decisions; they must be made by (unelected) officers.
The legislation around this came into force in September 2012. I read the report to mean that the arrangements to deal with ACV applications had never been put in front of members. Notwithstanding cross-party scepticism about the value of the legislation at local authority level, I find that a bit surprising. By way of comparison, Thanet adopted its process at the cabinet meeting on November 8th, 2012 (in fact, I proposed it!).
The report appears to mean that prior to last Thursday the process in Greenwich was decided by officers. In fact, cabinet revised the process on the night to ensure that decisions are taken at director level (which is also the case in Thanet).
I found this paragraph of potential relevance:
6.3 Local voluntary or community groups will have a six week window in which to express an interest to buy the asset. Groups who express an interest will then be granted a period of six months in order to develop a viable bid to purchase the asset. The legislation does not define what a viable bid is or require groups wishing to express an interest to provide evidence of their ability to fund the purchase. This is something that the council may wish to test in practice however.
This suggests to me that the council thinks it might be able to say that a potential bidder on The Valley, e.g CAST, is so unlikely to be able to make a viable bid that it is disregarding its interest. A reason it might want to do that is that the government has also loaded the council with paying potential compensation (currently limited to £20k) to the owner if they suffer a loss as a result of a delay arising from ACV status.
The other point to make is that the report clearly refers to a decision being made within eight weeks of a valid nomination being received. The council might just argue that a nomination is not valid until it has been validated. If you submit a planning application the clock starts running from the day it is validated, not the day it arrives, partly because applications are often incomplete or require further discussion before validation and it's not reasonable that a failing by the applicant impinges on the council's duty to process the application within the statutory timescale.
Greenwich's process says: "A decision whether to list nominated land must be made within eight weeks of receiving the nomination." That is fairly clear and does not appear to leave much wriggle room. Neither does Thanet's.
However, as with planning applications the next question is what happens if the council doesn't meet its timetable. I suspect the answer in this case is nothing very much, but it will presumably lie in the legislation.
In summary, I don't think there is much excuse for the delay, either in processing this nomination or in formally establishing a process. They haven't invented the need to formalise the process in order to delay the application, but given two have already been agreed without a formalised process I don't see a reason for delaying until the process was in place.
In other words, councils can do what the hell they like unless you have the readies to take them on in court. This however, being a ludicrously lengthy and costly process, will allow the Council + developers to do what the hell they want anyway and the only difference the unfortunate applicants notice will be a negative bank balance. Welcome to our Elective Dictatorship/Democracy which demonstrates localism at its very worse, coming to a place near you very soon.
And having digested it, I think Supporters Direct are going to be interested too. The point you highlight in bold might establish a precedent for not granting ACVs to football clubs throughout the land; alternatively some have already been granted so GC could be challenged on that basis.
Go for it PA! The discussions in my area all centre on the word 'viability'. In our local case, we do not have to prove that we can fund a community boatyard, but we have submitted detailed plans that assume funding can be found, ( we do give examples eg EU grants) and our plans are therefore 'viable'. Crazy system.
And having digested it, I think Supporters Direct are going to be interested too. The point you highlight in bold might establish a precedent for not granting ACVs to football clubs throughout the land; alternatively some have already been granted so GC could be challenged on that basis.
I think any argument would be framed around the reasonableness of dismissing the expression of interest in the prevailing circumstances. So a club could say, we must sell now or risk losing the bidder and that could cost us millions. Although the government is currently meeting losses above £20k, that's unlikely to last.
As far as the eight weeks goes, any sanction against the council in an individual case would have to be proportionate. If you could show a council delayed considering a nomination in order to allow a disposal in the meantime that might be quite interesting, but you'd have to be able to prove it. A delay during which nothing happened re the asset is unlikely to be considered material in my opinion.
Seeing that Mr Roberts has a great influence what is the future of CAFC, why don't one of the supporters groups (Eltham) invite him to speak to the fans, I bet he would decline.
Comments
The cabinet would usually take whatever decision the report recommends, because reports don't usually come to public cabinet unless they've already been agreed by cabinet privately.
As a cabinet member myself in Thanet, I find the cabinet system a bit bizarre, but it's one of the only ways unitary authorities like Greenwich are allowed to operate - another is the elected mayor.
There are some classes of decision which are reserved for full council by law, e.g. the budget, but in the real world it's unrealistic to expect every backbench councillor on a large authority to form a view on every decision, even regardless of the party system.
However, he's not a director (as above), so he can't now make the decision.
In short, in your view, are they pursuing a correct process (at least according to life on their own planet) or are they dicking about? And if the latter, should we start to go after them? Supporters Direct have up to now urged caution, saying broadly that we should let them see their process through to a decision before getting stroppy.
What would be your recommendation...
He is quite correct to have his officers, or anyone else make enquiries, and clarification, one wonders why they did not do this for the first two applications then?
Pallet is an assistant director, for regeneration GBH, I think he would have enquired about this before discussing this with the local MP, who supports the application?
Bearing in mind that Raynsford is according to Wicki...... Minister for Local Government 2001-02, and in the again reorganised Office of the Deputy Prime Minister 2002-2005, with special responsibility for local government, English regions, electoral law, fire, health and safety and London.
So hopefully he will be versed in how local politician's work, or should, and the antics of Cllr Roberts are well known, even in far away Bexley.
The legislation is fairly prescriptive in some respects. Members cannot make ACV decisions; they must be made by (unelected) officers.
The legislation around this came into force in September 2012. I read the report to mean that the arrangements to deal with ACV applications had never been put in front of members. Notwithstanding cross-party scepticism about the value of the legislation at local authority level, I find that a bit surprising. By way of comparison, Thanet adopted its process at the cabinet meeting on November 8th, 2012 (in fact, I proposed it!).
The report appears to mean that prior to last Thursday the process in Greenwich was decided by officers. In fact, cabinet revised the process on the night to ensure that decisions are taken at director level (which is also the case in Thanet).
I found this paragraph of potential relevance:
6.3 Local voluntary or community groups will have a six week window in which to express an interest to buy the asset. Groups who express an interest will then be granted a period of six months in order to develop a viable bid to purchase the asset. The legislation does not define what a viable bid is or require groups wishing to express an interest to provide evidence of their ability to fund the purchase. This is something that the council may wish to test in practice however.
This suggests to me that the council thinks it might be able to say that a potential bidder on The Valley, e.g CAST, is so unlikely to be able to make a viable bid that it is disregarding its interest. A reason it might want to do that is that the government has also loaded the council with paying potential compensation (currently limited to £20k) to the owner if they suffer a loss as a result of a delay arising from ACV status.
The other point to make is that the report clearly refers to a decision being made within eight weeks of a valid nomination being received. The council might just argue that a nomination is not valid until it has been validated. If you submit a planning application the clock starts running from the day it is validated, not the day it arrives, partly because applications are often incomplete or require further discussion before validation and it's not reasonable that a failing by the applicant impinges on the council's duty to process the application within the statutory timescale.
Greenwich's process says: "A decision whether to list nominated land must be made within eight weeks of receiving the nomination." That is fairly clear and does not appear to leave much wriggle room. Neither does Thanet's.
However, as with planning applications the next question is what happens if the council doesn't meet its timetable. I suspect the answer in this case is nothing very much, but it will presumably lie in the legislation.
In summary, I don't think there is much excuse for the delay, either in processing this nomination or in formally establishing a process. They haven't invented the need to formalise the process in order to delay the application, but given two have already been agreed without a formalised process I don't see a reason for delaying until the process was in place.
As far as the eight weeks goes, any sanction against the council in an individual case would have to be proportionate. If you could show a council delayed considering a nomination in order to allow a disposal in the meantime that might be quite interesting, but you'd have to be able to prove it. A delay during which nothing happened re the asset is unlikely to be considered material in my opinion.
http://www.castrust.org/2013/11/foxes-hunt-acv-three-conclude-nov/