This post has not been received positively by all Oval supporters, I have been asked to add a lot of further information (such as the use of the land for holiday lets and more on the Yacht Club lease ending) and to put a different emphasis on some facts. So, I wish to make it clear that this a summary of events, and that any blog post is a presentation of the view of the author. This post is already too long, so I did not want to revisit it in every way suggested. I think it does a good job as it is. I suggested the Oval team use this as the basis of their own more detailed timeline. They now have a timeline on their official site here.
I’ve been accused of speaking for my Conservative councillor husband a few times lately, simply because I don’t think the Oval Chalet controversy is as black and white as the protesters claim. If you check the posts on this blog from back in June you’ll see that I was angry about the sale from the start. I think the council certainly made mistakes, but I also think the council’s recent explanation for what happened is both honest and open. Their position doesn’t lead to outcomes I’d like, but I do understand why they acted as they did.
As the facts have been revealed the news has been worse than I imagined. Back in June I wrote, ‘We have to hope the council got a good deal, or the people of Whitstable will be crosser than the cross they are already.‘ Well, we are crosser than cross..! We now understand that the land was sold for as little as £160,000.
We also learn that this deal was made with an intention to offer public open space (see picture.) But the contract was botched. It was drawn up by a locum who is no longer working for the council, and the contract used the phrase ‘landscaping’ instead of adding a contractual requirement for public space. Of course the developer takes advantage of this, so we are now offered a development with little provision for public land.
The Oval Chalet group now have a web page, as do the council. This post is written partly out of frustration, the Oval Chalet Preservation Society promotes a rather one-sided view of the deal (for understandable reasons) while the council expects the public to read through 9 long documents of council minutes to understand the situation.
I accept that there are many sides to this, but this is an attempt to present a factual timeline of what happened. It is a complex situation so if I’ve got any facts wrong please let me know and I’ll do my best to correct them. I haven’t covered the historical background to the Oval Chalet land, which some people think relevant, but the history is well described on Brian Baker’s blog here.
1961 – 30 March 2013 : The Oval Chalet land is leased by the council to Whitstable Yacht Club and used for boat storage. The Council regained possession of the land on 30 March 2013.
2012-2013 : Barrie Green and John Knight who own the Tile Warehouse adjacent to the Oval Chalet land become aware the yacht club lease is ending. Barrie Green is quoted in the Whitstable Times saying he is closing the Tile Warehouse business. The Tile Warehouse owners approach the council and discussions begin with council property officers to see if there is potential for a joint development.
2012-2013 : There are a a few local newspaper stories about a potential development of the Oval land in conjunction with the Tile Warehouse. One of the stories describes a plan for a hotel. There are no widespread public concerns at this time, and the plans are presented positively by local papers. Members of the Oval Chalet Preservation group claim they contacted the council to ask what was going to happen but received few answers.
2nd and 10th October 2013 : In meetings of the Overview Committee and the Executive in Autumn 2013, the Oval is discussed. The Head of Property is authorised to negotiate a joint development of the Council’s Oval Chalet site with the Tile Warehouse site. Here’s the relevant section from the minutes webpage.
- That the Property Services Manager be authorised to negotiate terms for the development of the Council’s site jointly with the adjoining warehouse, and a sale of Oval site be supported subject to suitable terms being agreed and the Property Services Manager being satisfied the sale complies with Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972.
- That the Property Services Manager report back after negotiations have reached an advanced stage.
It takes nearly a year for the plans to return to to a council meeting for further discussion.
Oct 2013 – Oct 2014 : The council property officers are in talks with Sea Street Developments, the company directors being Barrie Green and James Knight (the Tile Warehouse directors) plus John Green and Richard Green (Barrie Green’s sons.)
The development at this stage seems to be this plan by Sawyer and Fisher it’s described as a raised piazza and has steps leading to commercial units, with holiday lets and luxury apartments on the Tile Warehouse plot.
January 2014 : A valuation for the land is sought. Five firms are invited to tender for the valuation. The letters of tender issued in January 2014 set out the basis on which the advice will be sought. Urban Delivery were the company selected to deliver the Oval’s valuation report. Details of the requests made of the council’s potential valuer, and the results of that valuation process form part of the long report here.
It appears that the price might have been low because of development limitations due to public space provision. The valuers were told the development would, ‘Include an area of elevated terrace that will provide public open space. In addition, there will be a courtyard area situated to the northwest of the site that will provide additional public open space and shelter from wind blowing off the sea. This courtyard area will provide access to two further retail units.’
April 2014: The valuations were received,and offered land valuations based on various scenarios. The valuation mentions difficulty with access if a stand-alone development of the Oval land is chosen, rather than a development with the Tile Warehouse. Some people have noted that the valuers mention access from Sea Wall (close to the beach) but make no mention of access from Sea Street (the Tile Warehouse side.)
There is a small access strip from Sea Street as part of the council land, but it is not possible to tell whether the valuer neglected this fact, or simply decided building work would use access from Sea Wall.
The valuer said this of a joint development with the Tile Warehouse, ‘A comprehensive development scheme for the whole site would be an opportunity to bring significant aesthetic improvements to the locality and meet the desired objectives of many to reintroduce an element of useable public open space within this site. ‘
Colin Carmichael, the Chief Executive was told of the plans and valuations. He sought guidance as to how to proceed. “I took the view that, given the sensitivity of the site, and the proximity of the local election, we would be sensible to consult once more with Executive Members before asking for any formal decisions.” In the old council system such discussions took place in a ‘Leadership Steering Group.’
6th October 2014 : Colin Carmichael reports that he met the Leadership Steering Group to clarify the details of the plan prepared. He explained that, ‘This officer group pulls together advice on development matters which normally need input from officers in several services – property, planning, regeneration, transport, finance and legal.‘
The notes from the meeting say, ‘The open space component of the scheme comprises approximately 650 square metres which is roughly 90% of the Oval Chalet footprint. The developer would also wish to undertake some wider public realm works to improve the highway environs with the surrounding area between the scheme and the beach.’
The meeting discussed three options. 1) Proceed with the sale. It will be a comprehensive development in conjunction with the tile warehouse, giving a better outcome in planning terms. The proposals also provide a good amount of accessible open space.
2) The Oval Chalet Site could be disposed of at auction. This would be a quick and clean method of disposal, and secure an early capital receipt…. There may also be reputational issues for the Council to deal with, given the history of the site.
I suspect this auction option offered no public space, and that the sale would be for financial benefit alone. This is my take on it given the reputation worries, but I accept I may be wrong. The description in option 2 makes no mention of open space.
3) Defer any decision to sell until after the election. It has taken a year of discussions to reach this stage, and the developer has previously indicated that the tile warehouse owners are becoming frustrated at the delays.
The council officers advice was to sell the land at auction, ‘Although there were, in our view, clear advantages to a joint development, and in fact such arrangements can often be very positive, the increasing controversy behind this development and the desirability of an arrangement where the Council could be seen to tender alone and organise its own affairs, as well as the potentially higher income achievable as suggested by Urban Delivery, meant that, on balance, officers thought that an auction sale of our own land would be the best solution.’
However the councillors at this meeting didn’t go along with the officers advice. The Executive Members favoured negotiation with the developer and preferred the development as originally envisaged.
The options were then put to the meetings of the Overview Committee and Executive in December 2014.
4th December 2014 : Canterbury City Council Overview Comittee debated the Oval Chalet sale in a closed session. Like the earlier meetings this was closed to the public due to commercial confidentiality rules. ‘Financial and business affairs of the Council and other persons.. is exempt information.’ This is regular practise in any commercial deal, it means the online minutes list the item discussed but limited details.
Alison O’Dea, Neil Baker, Phil Cartwright and Louise Morgan were the Whitstable Councillors present in this Overview meeting. Phil Cartwright represented the the ward where the Oval is located. He describes what happened here. He explains that the councillors were led to believe the development offered good public space.
The Head of Property discussed the options for the land with the councillors. The developer declined to provide the complete plans as it was claimed this would be costly until the deal was sure.
The councillors were led to believe 90% of the Oval Chalet land was a ‘public piazza’. It seems the councillors believed the £160,000 (reputed) price was low as the developer would mostly offer public land on the site. The councillors recommended to the Executive that the deal progressed through the legal department, and ‘concludes a sale of the land on the terms set out in this report.‘
11th December 2014 : The Council Executive accept the recommendation from the Overview committee. They approve the sale of the land to Sea Street Developments. The report they were given is here, with some details not revealed, but it seems clear from this report that the the plan is to, ‘provide an open plaza within the proposed development looking out towards Reeves Beach.‘ Regarding the developer’s requirements the report says, ‘The policies in the Local Plan ensure that any future development of this site within the Conservation Area will include the provision for open space and access to the sea front. Indeed, the developer is keen to provide this – and enter a legal agreement with the Council in that respect, and sees it as an important part of the scheme to be put forward.’
We can see that the report shown to the Executive does not show the council land in full. Some people have speculated that the valuer was also given incorrect descriptions of the land, missing the access strip from Sea Street, but we do not know if this is true. I suspect part of the valuation process would be to check the land registry, particularly given the complex nature of the land’s history and potential for clauses to limit its use. But we do not know.
This section of the meeting was again private due to confidentiality. The minutes do record that the following options were considered.
(1) Do nothing – the council will continue to hold a currently unproductive area of land which will incur maintenance costs, attract anti-social behaviour, and will leave a difficult site to improve in the future in the event the tile warehouse is developed without incorporating the subject site.
(2) Agree a sale for the amount recommended in the report, which will contribute to a better overall development in Town Planning terms.
(3) Sell the freehold on the open market. The Local Planning Authority is likely to prefer to see the site developed comprehensively rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
And 2) was chose, and the sale subject to development was agreed, with :
Reasons for the decisions
There is now a chance to do something really exciting for this part of Whitstable, and any development is likely to be more attractive and cohesive as a joint project incorporating the Oval Chalet land with the Tile Warehouse footprint than as a stand-alone site.
Should the council seek to leave the Oval Chalet untouched and the adjacent site is redeveloped in isolation, the ground level differences between Harbour Street and Sea Street will result in the council’s retained site becoming an eye-sore offering no amenity to the community of Whitstable. Any subsequent development would be severely constrained by the built form that occurs at the adjoining site, along with Rights to Light issues and would close down any opportunity to deck the land to raise a viewing platform for the public to enjoy sea views. This will provide the best chance for a more comprehensive and cohesive townscape in terms of the development format with public space provision across the two combined sites.
January 21st 2015 : A contract subject to planning permission is drawn up. This is where things go badly wrong.
As Colin Carmichael’s report says, ‘The contract entered into seems generally appropriate except in one sense. The clear desire of the Executive to achieve open space as part of the joint development has not been clearly translated into the contract. There is mention of “landscaping” but that isn’t necessarily open space.
The contract places reliance on delivering that on the planning process. In hindsight I think more could have been done to require this contractually, though of course that ran the risk of sabotaging the scheme by making it unviable.
So the developer has a contract with no open space requirement… I wonder what they might do!? This contract does have a a ‘Long Stop’ date by which it can be terminated if the planning approval is not given.
Feb – April 2015 : The general election is coming up… you might say this has no bearing on a land sale, but perhaps it has? The Ward Councillors for the Harbour ward Phil Cartwright and John Wratten were not selected to stand for Labour in the local government election. I also think most councillors and members of the public are likely to be interested in the election and paying less attention to local issues. The boundary of the Oval ward is now redrawn as Gorrell Ward with 3 councillors standing. Labour select 3 new candidates. John Wratten did stand as an independent candidate, but didn’t retain his seat.
May 8th 2015 : The election results are in, and new ward councillors for the Oval Chalet patch are Ashley Clarke and Brian Baker for the Conservative party and Bernadette Fisher for Labour.
May 22nd 2015 : A public consultation is announced for the development. The plans are shown and the size of the public space is minimal. It seems the 90% open space plan is more like 10% now. The open space is a small paved area outside a kiosk shop.
The developer has no contractual requirement to offer public space, and so has offered a plan that is mostly built up with houses and holiday lets.
June and July 2015 : The public interest in this Oval Chalet grows. Information is scarce, I was emailing councillors but information was hard to come by. I brought up the sale at WAMP, asking councillors to use these meeting to update the public on local issues, and asked a few questions. The Oval Chalet Preservation Society was formed to protest about the development. A petition was launched with this web page promoting it.
15 July – 28 August 2015 : The Oval Chalet and Tile warehouse planning application was open for consultation. The developer presented a massive file of supporting evidence with hundreds of pages, no ordinary mortal could spare the hours needed to go through it in detail! Despite this, and the fact the council website timed out when you spent more than 5 minutes writing a comment (!) the application received 80 complaints from the public.
23rd July 2015 : At the Full Council meeting the petition was presented to the council with 800 signatures. The petition was received without debate and referred to the Regeneration and Property Committee for a report by the Officers.
17 September 2015: The Regeneration and Property Committee discussed how to proceed. The report on the petition discussed options, but the recommendation was pretty clear.
‘The Council is not in a position to rescind the contract. In conclusion therefore, there is no reason for the Council to revisit its decisions in the matter, and the only route left for the Council is to reject the petition. Any other decision would lead to litigation with the developer for breach of contract, with the concomitant time and costs involved in defending the Council’s indefensible position in the matter.’
The council minutes of the meeting reveal that in a closed part of the session there were discussions about the value of the land, the open space provision, and the lack of openness with the sale. Councillors were given advice on the legal and financial implications of withdrawing from the contract. There was no vote on withdrawing from the sale, because the recommendation was clear that the contract could not be cancelled.
The proposal put, and seconded, in the public session at minute 259, that the decision remains in place, was put to a vote and FELL.
A proposal was put that the decision was reviewed with full disclosure of information, appropriate financial advice, independent legal advice and with relevant witnesses and with a site visit. This was not seconded.
A proposal was put that the council fulfils its current contractual obligations and also undertook a review of the way in which the decision was taken. This was seconded and when put to a vote it was CARRIED.
So the decision was made to retain the contract and review the sale because, ‘The council would suffer significant reputational and financial losses by breaking the contract. However, there were some areas of concern for the public in how the original decision was taken and it may help the council to learn lesson but conducting a review of how that decision was taken.’
22nd October 2015 : This review was presented at the next meeting of the Regeneration and Property Committee. Colin Carmichael compiled a lengthy report which can be read in full here. It covers how the decision was made, reveals near complete details of the valuation report, and reveals the key fact that the contract offered no clear provision for open space just a mention of ‘landscaping’.
The report was thorough and presented the honest admission that the contract offered no safeguard for open space. The Chief Executive also said that future closed session meetings should reveal as much information as possible in their minutes.
The Oval protestors did not like the report, they felt that the Chief Executive was reviewing his own actions, which meant the report was not an impartial investigation.
10th November 2015 : In a slightly unconventional announcement in a Facebook group, Cllr Ben Fitter-Harding the Chairman of the Regeneration and Property committee revealed independent legal advice was being sought on whether the contact could be cancelled. A highly respected Counsel reviewed the case and backed up the council lawyers. His report said the contract had to stand.
The Oval protestors say that the QC was swayed by the questions put to him and the evidence given.
17 November 2015 : The council creates a web page linking to documents and minutes to do with the sale.
25 November 2015: In the Whitstable Area Member Panel (WAMP) meeting Cllr Neil Baker presented a request by a member of the public for background information and details of the Oval Chalet contract to be made public. Other councillors supported the recommendation, although it appears likely council officers will deny it on commercial confidentiality grounds.
4 December 2015: The Oval Chalet group have created a web page. It details their view of the sale,and I’m glad they have a place for information and documents. However Cllr.Ben Fitter-Harding claimed that of the 5 bullet points on the front page only 1 is accurate.
Next steps: I asked the council democracy department what the options are for effecting this sale. You can read my email here. In brief they say, the contract must stand as both council lawyers and an independent council have agreed that the council can not withdraw from this.
A judicial review may be a possibility, but must be within 3 months of the decision, and all the decisions were made more than 3 months ago.
A complaint to the local government ombudsman may be possible, but this must be made by an individual harmed by a decision – not by a whole town. It is unlikely to lead to the contract being cancelled.
The best plan seems to be fighting the development at the planning application stage. I am hopeful the current plan will be rejected, and this means the developer will need to compromise. Another point is that if the decision takes a long time to reach an agreement the contract may end due to the Long Stop clause.
The contract will also not stand if any foul play is discovered. ‘Bad faith or abuse of power‘ are both reasons to cancel the contract. The Oval group are considering these points. These are certainly serious faults to find. This means fraud, an intention to deceive, or official misconduct. I do not suspect criminal acts when I consider this situation, although other people have stated suspicions of some conspiracy.
There is also a view from some, councillors included, that this development is not even worth a fight. They say we have plenty of open space a few feet away on the beach. Despite my own passion for this cause I have some sympathy for this view… Despite all the talk about the Oval there seems to be no clear consensus on how best to use the land.
But I do believe that it is worth a fight. I still hope some solution will be found to save it. I’d like to create a development that sits prettily on a postcard, and create a bit of our town that will be loved by Whitstable people now, and by generations to come. The original plan by Sea Street Developments, voted for by the Executive and priced low because of its open space plaza and sea views, would have been a plan I could support.
I hope this review of where we are is useful. If anything is incorrect please email firstname.lastname@example.org and I’ll correct any inaccuracies. This post is an attempt to present some balance in a fraught situation, although I’m aiming to present facts, it is of course my own reading of them. Feel free to add your opinions in the comments bit.