Craighouse Judicial Review fighting fund reaches £5,146

Thank you to everyone has donated so far! We are now well over half way to our first fundraising goal.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Craighouse Judicial Review fundraising update

We have now raised £3,250! Donations information here.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Evening News: “Craighouse ‘sham’ property value claims”

New revelations in the Evening News today.

You can now donate to our campaign to take the financial claims and secret meetings to judicial review.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Craighouse Audit Report finally released! But nowhere near the “fully audited” claimed

After years of arguing over the “audit” of the Craighouse figures, it has finally been released on the Edinburgh council website, months after the decision. But instead of backing up the claim by the council that the Craighouse proposals were “fully-audited”, it actually lists millions of pounds worth of things not audited.

For example:

  • “Land acquisition, finances, charges etc” – that comes to £7.5m of costs in the planning application explicitly stated as not audited
  • “Professional fees and VAT thereon” – another £6.8m of costs not audited
  • “Building warrant and planning fees” – another £1m not audited
  • “Section 75 costs” – £500k not audited

But that’s not all. The drawing numbers have been redacted! Why have the drawing numbers been redacted as commercially-sensitive? What possible information could be in them? The only thing we could do with them is check they audited the plans actually in the planning application! Why would they want to stop us checking the audit matched the plans in the planning application? The only check we can do is comparing the sizes of the buildings in the audit report and planning application, for which two of the buildings have significantly different sizes.

If it really is “fully audited”, shouldn’t the sizes of the buildings match between the audit report and the planning application?

There is even a section on “minor discrepancies” between the cost plans and the drawings provided for the audit. The “minor discrepancies” are redacted!

And there’s more: The audit states “No further information has been provided in respect of hard and soft landscaping, drainage or utilities”, so why has the cost of those increased by £175,000?

It also comments on the plans being audited: “The information provided … is not detailed”. “No separate specification exists for the new build. Limited structural information exists or has been provided.” It seems that the “audit” was of specifications gleaned from “discussions” and “walk rounds”.

What about the valuations which were the subject of so much doubt? They are not even included in the audit at all. How can the profit have been “fully-audited”, if only some of the costs are audited and not the valuations?

Why not write to your local councillor and ask why the public and councillors were not given access to this information before the hearing, so the “fully audited” nonsense could have been challenged?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Council tries to charge over £4000 for Freedom of Information that would reveal what’s been said about the Friends

In early October I submitted a Freedom of Information request in to the Council.

I was particularly concerned after Neil Cuthbert, a lobbyist for the Craighouse Partnership had sent around an email attributing a paragraph to me saying it was a email sent by myself – when I had never even seen the paragraph before, let alone written it!

This was widely circulated to officials and people in the Council I didn’t even know – such as the Head of Children and Families. It was also sent to the Head of South Morningside Primary School.

I wanted to see what else the Craighouse Partnership had been circulating about me personally. I also wanted to see if the Council would own up to this email having been circulated widely around their departments.

The FOI request I made was probably a bit on the wide side – encompassing all documentation and correspondence referring to Craighouse campus since 2012.  Added to this was a request for any documentation and correspondence between the Council and the Craighouse Partnership or any of their representatives that referred specifically to the Friends of Craighouse, Andrew Richards or myself.

The answer came back –

“Unfortunately, we are unable to provide you with the information you have requested as the cost to the Council of locating, retrieving and providing you with the information exceeds the statutory maximum of £600…. The total cost of complying with your request is £4,331.80 “

Wow!

Ok. It was a bit of a wide-ranging request, maybe.  I sat on it for a few weeks, then decided to leave the largest area of the request out altogether. I didn’t ask for documentation referring to Craighouse. I only asked for that referring specifically to the Friends of Craighouse,  Andrew Richards and myself.

A far smaller and simpler request. Or so I thought.

Another few weeks passed. Then…

“Section 12 (1) of the Act does not oblige a Scottish public authority to comply with a request for information if the authority estimates that the cost of complying with the request would exceed the statutory limit.

The total cost of complying with your request is £4,331.80″

Umm. Hang on a second. £4,331.80 always sounded a bit steep to me, but now we have two completely different requests – one containing all of the other  PLUS every document referring to Craighouse since 2012. Yet  they cost exactly the same amount? I mean exactly the same amount. The FOI people had not even managed to scrape off that rogue 80 pence.

So let’s look at the cost breakdown. Their email helpfully states:

“This sum has been calculated as follows:

Description of necessary work:

Estimated number of records to be located, retrieved and provided = a total of 1187 email records and 43 paper records = 1230

Number of staff hours involved = (1,230 @ 14 minutes per record = 17,220 minutes = 287 hours.

 Charge per hour = 287 hours x £15 p/h = £ 4,305

Reproduction costs for copying information to be able to provide it to the requester = (43 x 10p) £4.30 + (1.5 hours x 15) £22.50 = £26.80. (43 x 10p) £4.30 + (1.5 hours x 15) £22.50 = £26.80

Total = £4305 + £26.80 = £4331.80″

Are the Council seriously telling us that there are 1,187 email records about the Friends of Craighouse or myself and Andrew?

And are they really saying that there isn’t a single email as requested since 2012 referring to Craighouse campus that DOESN’T refer to us? Really? Every meeting arrangement. Every meeting with the Listed Building team. Every confirmation of a date for the diary – are we really supposed to believe all of them refer to myself, Andrew or FoC?

It is just not credible.

The FOI has now been returned for review. Our last FOI is now with the Information Commissioner after the Council denied holding information that we have direct evidence of.

Presumably by giving people the run-around they hope they will eventually go away.

This Council promised more transparency. Yet our experience has been anything but. The more outrageously they treat people, the more important it is to challenge them.

Posted in Uncategorized | 4 Comments

Craighouse for sale? – Website created even before Hearing

There have been rumours for some weeks that Craighouse is for sale. We have found the following website. But in order to find out more, it is necessary to sign a non-disclosure-agreement. Rettie, named on the site, is the estate agent that advised Mountgrange when acquiring Craighouse in the first place.

Web page about Craighouse

Web page about Craighouse

Obtaining any information from the website requires signing an NDA (“Non Disclosure Agreement”) a contract that, in this case, requires anyone interested in finding out more to agree to not disclose “any mention of the involvement of the Company [Mountgrange] in this transaction”.

Website set up before the planning Hearing

This website was set up on 26th August 2014, a week before the planning hearing to decide on the planning consent. The site was setup and run by EstateCreate, a company that sets up “data rooms” to “sell property faster”.

From many we have spoken to, there is scepticism of who would buy a site with a highly controversial planning consent, with a strong likelihood of judicial review, an unresolved drainage problem and unresolved protected wildlife issues.

We will keep you posted when we are able to tell you more.

Posted in Mountgrange | Leave a comment

The secret meetings that doomed Craighouse? – No Agendas, No Minutes, No Notes !

There has recently been a change of First Minister and also of the minister responsible for planning. The new minister, Marco Biagi, also has a different title, “Minister for Local Government & Community Empowerment”. We are hopeful that the new minister lives up to his new title and runs a much more community-empowering planning system in Scotland. We will be calling on Marco Biagi to explain the Scottish Government’s involvement in the Craighouse development. First, we will take you through the little we know of the unminuted, agendaless meetings that were common in the Craighouse planning process.

Our last post was about how at the start of the Craighouse hearing, the convenor asked the councillors to have a secret, unminuted, meeting about the Craighouse financial case for half an hour. But that wasn’t the only unminuted meeting about Craighouse.

Before the Craighouse site was sold, pre-sale meetings were held with prospective buyers at which about the high level of protections on the site was presented by council and government planners. Notes were taken and are available of the meetings with most potential acquirers. However, no notes can be found of the separate meetings with Mountgrange. Why were detailed notes taken of the other meetings, but not of the meetings with Mountgrange?

We also, previously, highlighted the meetings Mountgrange had with the Scottish Government, including finance minister John Swinney. We had a huge amount of difficulty getting hold of those meeting details via Freedom of Information legislation. Finally, we appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner, which put enough pressure on the Scottish Government to get some of the information about those meetings released. However, two documents were still withheld.

After the meeting with John Swinney, a blog post by Manish Chande of Mountgrange appeared on John Swinney’s official blog  and an article appeared in The Herald, where Mountgrange‘s Manish Chande looked forward to the business opportunities of new infrastructure investment should Scotland vote for independence. The meetings with the Scottish Government and Mountgrange didn’t stop, instead they just stopped taking notes.

There were 2 further meetings between Historic Scotland and Mountgrange, sometimes with Edinburgh Council officials present. There were no notes, agendas or minutes of these meetings.

There was also a separate meeting between Mountgrange and the Chief Planner and Senior Planner from the Scottish Government. We are told by the Scottish Government under FoI: “Neither Historic Scotland nor Planning and Architecture Division hold any documents relating to the above noted meetings and the meetings were conducted without agenda or meeting notes”.

Derek Mackay (the planning mister at the time) on the 2nd October 2014, when asked about calling-in the Craighouse decision stated: “the general principle under which the planning system in Scotland operates is that decisions should be taken at the most appropriate local administrative level […]. The impacts of this application are local to the Craighouse area of Edinburgh”. If Craighouse is to be decided locally and only affects the local area (i.e. nothing to do with his officials or his department), why did his officials have unminuted agendaless meetings with the developer about the project?

Why was so much of the Craighouse planning process undertaken in secret? What was said in those meetings which politicians and public officials did not want the public to hear about? Clearly they were annoyed by having to release information under Freedom of Information legislation and resisted doing so as much as possible. But, if the politicians and officials have followed normal planning rules, why the secrecy?

We hope that the new Minister for Local Government & Community Empowerment stops planning decisions from being pushed through with unminuted agendaless meetings and brings about real transparency and community empowerment in the planning system.

Posted in Planning process, Political process | Leave a comment

Convenor Ian Perry blocked committee members hearing arguments against Craighouse financial case

Planners and councillors voting for the Craighouse planning consent said they did so because it was the “minimum necessary to fund the long term future use of the category A listed buildings”. However, they had so little confidence in their own argument, they argued it in secret before the planning meeting and blocked anyone from presenting alternatives. In particular, Councillor Ian Perry, the convenor of the committee, asked officials to tell his fellow Labour councillors on the committee not to meet Friends of Craighouse to hear alternatives to Mountgrange’s proposals. When we did present our plans at the planning hearing in front of councillors, Ian Perry interrupts (before our allotted time is finished) to stop the figures being presented to councillors. Our presentation on alternative plans for the site is the only presentation Ian Perry interrupts and argues with before the time is up.

Clearly, Ian Perry and his officials had no confidence that their analysis of the financial argument for the Craighouse development would stand up to any scrutiny. So they ensured that councillors on the committee got no chance to hear any alternatives and that what officials said would be kept secret. Given that the figures produced by the Craighouse Partnership showed that the buildings were larger on the inside than the outside, it is not hard to see why Ian Perry and his officials had little confidence in their case. What is strange is: why would Ian Perry and officials be blocking alternatives and arguing the developer’s case in secret when it is the job of the developer to put their case for the developer’s financial benefit?

It started when Friends of Craighouse submitted a detailed financial rebuttal to the Scheme 2 application. We pointed out a series of mistakes in the figures, including that they had clearly impossible figures for the net and gross internal areas. We also pointed out the considerable financial contribution that the weddings business in New Craig could make to the long term viability of the site. Then scheme 3 went in, with net and gross internal area figures still impossibly wrong. Before the planning hearing, we worked with local business people, a bank and community buyout experts to put together a community plan to save the site. Given that the argument for the planning consent is that there is “no alternative” to saving the buildings, we put together an alternative. We then asked councillors on the planning committee to come to our presentation of the plans. Ian Perry obtained written advice to his fellow Labour councillors on the planning committee telling them not to hear our plans. This email, which we have, told councillors that attending a briefing where “untested alternatives are presented and the developer is not present” could bring the councillors’ “impartiality into question”. However, the Councillors Code of Conduct says that councillors on the committee should seek out alternative representations, from all sides, but not come to a decision until all the facts have been presented in the hearing. It is clear that officials were not wanting councillors to hear the side of the community and not wanting people to point out that their own figures have obvious errors in them.

In fact, the officials even wrote to councillors that following “due process” means basing decisions only on “the report and recommendations of the Head of Planning”. Officials are telling councillors that they should only base their decisions on what the Head of Planning tells them and not any other opinions, facts or advice. This is most definitely not what the law and Councillors Code of Conduct says. Ian Perry, as an experienced councillor, should know this.

A few days before the hearing, new figures were put into the application with the silly internal area errors corrected, but without correcting the nonsense valuations (A-listed buildings below average value for the area?) or the claims that a weddings business in New Craig would generate less than 7% profit, even if the building was provided for free with zero rent.

Given that we had not been able to present alternative plans to councillors before the hearing, we requested to present the plans at the hearing. Despite the fact that enabling development says the developer has to prove there is no alternative, officials denied us the any time to present alternatives. The only time available to discuss alternatives was given by Morningside and Merchiston community councils, but this time was interrupted by Ian Perry.

Then, we come to the hearing. The whole hearing was videoed, so you can see what happens next. Ian Perry tells the public that there is “something we need to sort out before we start the meeting”. All the councillors then disappear into another room. When they come back Ian Perry simply says “Sorry I apologise for that”. No explanation is given of what has happened. However, we later find out that this is where officials present the financial case for the development to the councillors. This is the only argument for the planning application, on all the other policy grounds the application would have to be turned down. But this is argued totally in secret. We are not even told this is what has been discussed. There are no minutes of this part of the meeting. In fact, Ian Perry’s only description is that the secret meeting is “before we start the meeting”. So, it doesn’t even form part of the planning hearing! It’s a private lobbying session by officials. It’s precisely this type of private briefing that the officials previously said that the councillors should not use to form their decision. So, the view of officials is that officials can have private briefings with councillors, but the public cannot.

It was clear to many of those watching the hearing that Ian Perry had made up his mind to grant the application before the hearing started. It is clear from his actions: interrupting our detailed arguments, blocking us presenting to Labour councillors and holding all arguments in favour of the development in secret. The whole hearing was stage managed to ensure that the decision-makers were never presented with any factual challenge to the nonsense being presented to them.

Posted in Political process | 2 Comments

Commercial lobbying ethics and responsibilities, why the industry needs proper regulation

Today, the Scottish Parliament will debate the regulation of the lobbying industry. Unethical lobbying leads to bad government. By providing inaccurate or untrue information to officials or politicians, bad decisions are made. It also locks communities and the public out of decisions because commercial lobbyists have disproportionate access and may make inaccurate claims which are not publicly known and therefore cannot be challenged.

But also, commercial lobbyists allow companies to hide their own actions. By acting as intermediaries, lobbyists can do and say things that otherwise reputable companies could not. With Craighouse, we have a commercial lobbyist claiming to be “ethical”, while acting for a different lobbyist whose ethics have been widely challenged, including in the House of Commons. But there is so much hidden and unclear, that we can’t even get a straight answer to which lobbying company works on Craighouse and who their client is. When a lobbyist says something, who are they saying it on behalf of and who takes responsibility? With Craighouse, finding this out gets very complicated very fast. For example, Napier University holds a financial interest in the Craighouse site, yet insists the lobbyist for the project is not acting on their behalf. But Invicta PA say they work for all of the Craighouse Partnership, which would include Napier. Napier University will financially benefit from this lobbyist’s activities, yet takes no responsibility for what the lobbyist says or does.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Another Mountgrange company financially collapses

This month, another Mountgrange company collapsed financially. Mountgrange UK Ltd was put into voluntary liquidation because “it has been proved to the satisfaction of this meeting that the Company cannot, by reason of its liabilities, continue its business”. Duff and Phelps have been appointed as liquidators to wind up the company.

Creditors have until 2nd November 2014 to come forward with evidence of claims.

This particular company does not own Craighouse, so does not directly affect the ownership of the Craighouse site. The site itself is owned by an offshore investment fund, with Napier University having a financial interest in the site, too. Mountgrange UK Ltd was the company that funded the management company (Mountgrange Investment Management LLP) to raise the funds to buy sites like Craighouse in the first place. Neither the fund, nor its management company has been placed into any insolvency procedure.

Continue reading

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments