Failsworth Land Status Ruling

[Diego_Sideburns]

what about Rovrum? They play in Sheffield, in fact they play closer to Bramhall Lane than Wednesday do

 

That would be like Latics moving to Tameside and playing closer to Citeh than ManUre do, as they will do at Failsworth.

[Tommy_Fent]

I think their case is supposed to be very temporary.

 

Didn't they say that if they haven't moved by the end of next season they get thrown out of the league?

 

I heard they had to move because they found Japanese knotweed on the site of the ground

[Diego_Sideburns]

I heard they had to move because they found Japanese knotweed on the site of the ground

 

Now there's an excuse for delay the Charity Commission hasn't used..................yet.

[creepy]

I heard they had to move because they found Japanese knotweed on the site of the ground

 

there was an endangered form of beetle on the original site, thats why they couldnt build IIRC

[Diego_Sideburns]

there was an endangered form of beetle on the original site, thats why they couldnt build IIRC

 

All these reasons for delay beat the 'student riot' used by the CC.

[singe]

I've just received the following email in response to the one I sent to the Charity Commission.

 

Thank you for your email.

 

There is presently no "outcome" to the Commission's consideration of the Council's request to swap part of the Lower Memorial Park at Failsworth for land elsewhere in Failsworth. The Commission is currently considering the very substantial amount of material submitted by the Council and other parties, in order to form a view on whether to give authorisation. The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options available to the Council as trustee.

 

Instead the Commission's role is:

•to establish whether the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

•to consider whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

 

Although we are trying to complete consideration quickly, we want to ensure we have taken into account all relevant information to achieve a proper decision. On that basis I cannot indicate a specific date on which we anticipate communicating our decision to the Council.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Alex Young

(Specialist Casework Division)

I received a very similar email this morning, I kept is name out as I did not say I would publish it, but it's not hard to deduce!

I have to say, I also donlt think it is hard to deduce how Simon Corney is feeling right now either.

But if we can persuade SC to hang on in there..

So it has taken them 6 months to say the Council has a conflict of interest.

And it is not the CC job to referee in that.

So we are washing our hands of it.

 

So where does it go from here?

My guess is Council goes ahead.

Interested parties appeal

Secreatary of State

High Court.

 

Unless something dramatic happens in between....

 

Thank you for your email.

 

The Commission has considering two separate issues relating to land at Lower Memorial Park at Failsworth. In June of this year, after careful consideration of evidence, we decided that the land in question was charitable and should be registered. That decision was subject to a request for an internal (but independent) review by the Commission by two parties who did not agree with our decision. This review process was interrupted by the student protests, which delayed its decision. A provisional decision of the review has now been made and communicated to the Council, as trustee, and to those who requested the review. We requested confirmation from each that they agree the factual accuracy of the review report, before it was finalised. The final draft is being checked and is due to be published on our website next week: I cannot specify the day as this has not yet been decided.

 

On the basis of our original decision to register the land, certain types of disposal of that land would fall within the Commission's jurisdiction to authorise. The Council proposed to swap the land with other land it holds in its statutory capacity. This transaction is subject to an inherent conflict of interest in making an objective decision on the proper terms of a transaction. Where such a conflict exists the Charities Acts require trustees to seek the Commission's formal authority to the transaction. The Commission received a request from the Council to authorise the swap and we began that consideration on the basis that the land had been deemed charity land. The Commission is currently considering the very substantial amount of material submitted by the Council and other parties, in order to form a view on whether to give authorisation. The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options available to the Council as trustee. Instead the Commission's role is:

 

to establish whether the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

to consider whether the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

 

a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

Although we are trying to complete consideration quickly, we want to ensure we have taken into account all relevant information to achieve a proper decision. On that basis I cannot indicate a specific date on which we anticipate communicating our decision to the Council.

 

Yours sincerely

 

 

 

A Y

 

(Specialist Casework Division)

Edited December 17, 2010 by singe

[BP1960]

So where does it go from here?

My guess is Council goes ahead.

Interested parties appeal

Secreatary of State

High Court.

 

Unless something dramatic happens in between....

 

And when do Latics have to officially vacate Boundary Park, was it 2014, if so the clock is ticking fast ?

[Takemeanywhere]

Email

 

It is because the council has a conflict of interest that the Charities Commission are being asked to rule. Nothing has changed from the email DS received.

[jimsleftfoot]

It is because the council has a conflict of interest that the Charities Commission are being asked to rule. Nothing has changed from the email DS received.

 

Exactly, they are simply listing the possible outcomes which they have not come to yet

 

The most important bit is:

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

[singe]

It is because the council has a conflict of interest that the Charities Commission are being asked to rule. Nothing has changed from the email DS received.

I received a very similar email this morning...

Like I said.....

[Takemeanywhere]

Like I said.....

 

You also said:

 

So it has taken them 6 months to say the Council has a conflict of interest.

And it is not the CC job to referee in that.

So we are washing our hands of it.

 

Which they haven't said at all. Where does it say that they are washing their hands of it? They are still considering it...slowly

 

 

[OldhamSheridan]

It really doesn't matter as we have no money to build the thing anyway. At best it may be used as influence for some mindless moron to think we are worth investing in.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Exactly, they are simply listing the possible outcomes which they have not come to yet

 

The most important bit is:

 

As our evaluation is not complete I cannot provide you with any indication of whether the outcome will be:

•a decision to authorise the Council to proceed based on the information already received; or

•a decision to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied); or

•a decision to refuse authorisation on the facts as they stand.

 

OWTB Members may remember that during all the discussion surrounding the Club’s application for planning permission to redevelop BP, I pointed out what I considered to be discrepancies in Councillors’ conduct and procedure, based on my lifetime’s experience in local government committee administration.

 

The rarely-wrong Chron reported on 26th August that the Failsworth Trust Committee, a Council cabinet sub-committee, which approved the land swap, was urged in the Officer’s Report to visit the sites before making a decision. In my opinion these site visits were a must to avoid justified criticism by objectors.

 

The Trust Committee comprised three members, none of whom represented the Failsworth area, all of whom had been on cabinets that previously approved the proposed stadium development, and one of whom left after declaring an interest as she had taken part in a cabinet meeting on the subject earlier this year.

 

In my opinion, in order to be seen to be considering the matter properly, the Trust Committee should have not been a cabinet sub-committee and should have comprised at least five members, none of whom had been on cabinets that approved the proposed stadium development, and one of whom should have been a Failsworth councillor.

 

At the meeting concerns were raised by Failsworth residents and councillors about whether the Trust Committee’s actions would stand up to scrutiny.

 

The Committee chairman said: “The decision made tonight is going to be transparent, impartial and independent. You can’t make 100 per cent of people happy. They were consulted.”

 

Councillor Butterworth said: “The decision was made by two Trust Committee members who haven’t visited the site. This leaves it all totally open to challenge. Where is the transparency?”

 

Peter Batty, head of the Failsworth Residents’ Action Group (FRAG) who are opposing development, said: “Now they’ve made a decision to swap, they’ve got to go to the Charity Commission and explain the process and consultation.”

 

Obviously the FRAG’s points of concern have been put to the Charity Commission, and I would be surprised if the Commission does not say it is not convinced that the Trust Committee is beyond justified criticism in its handling of the matter, leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if information can be supplied to convince the Commission:

 

•that the Council has made a fully informed decision, taking into account all relevant factors, and setting aside irrelevant factors; and

•the Council has taken sufficient steps to manage the various conflicts of interest affecting the proposed transaction.

 

 

[jimsleftfoot]

As far as I read it, the reason why this had to go to the Charity Commission (post Lower Memorial Park being declared to be land held in Charitable Trust) is because there was a conflict of interests. Had there not been a conflict of interests, the council would have been able to just swap the land and that would have been that.

[OldhamSheridan]

As far as I read it, the reason why this had to go to the Charity Commission (post Lower Memorial Park being declared to be land held in Charitable Trust) is because there was a conflict of interests. Had there not been a conflict of interests, the council would have been able to just swap the land and that would have been that.

 

And that, mixed with Diego's post, says that it should be rejected.

[BP1960]

Nothing on the Latics official site yet.

[jimsleftfoot]

And that, mixed with Diego's post, says that it should be rejected.

 

No, the conflict of interests that I am referring to is the trigger why it went to the charity commission in the first place and into this process. In itself it is not a reason for the swap to be rejected or put on hold, though Diego’s reasoning might be.

[singe]

You also said:

 

 

 

Which they haven't said at all. Where does it say that they are washing their hands of it? They are still considering it...slowly

Because they said "The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options" when they have the statutory obligation to give "authority" and therefore can authorise. They have stated that "this application has an inherent conflict of interest". It does not take 6 months to cone to that conclusion, about 6 seconds.

Therefore, had a very early opportunity to approve on their own stated obligations, knowing that it is very likely be appealed as even in their own internal review "(but independent) review by the Commission by two parties who did not agree with our decision".

So they cannot decide so refer straight away, so thwy will almost certainly give a decision "to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied"

[LeylandLatic]

Basically we're boned.

 

[Takemeanywhere]

Because they said "The Commission's role in this matter is not to consider the merits of different valid options" when they have the statutory obligation to give "authority" and therefore can authorise. They have stated that "this application has an inherent conflict of interest". It does not take 6 months to cone to that conclusion, about 6 seconds.

Therefore, had a very early opportunity to approve on their own stated obligations, knowing that it is very likely be appealed as even in their own internal review "(but independent) review by the Commission by two parties who did not agree with our decision".

So they cannot decide so refer straight away, so thwy will almost certainly give a decision "to withhold authorisation because we lack certain information (but leaving it open to the Council to re-apply if the missing information can be supplied"

 

I'm not really sure what you've said here, so forgive me for leaving it there.

[singe]

I'm not really sure what you've said here, so forgive me for leaving it there.

I''ll paraphase then, they are washing their hands of it.

[jimsleftfoot]

I''ll paraphase then, they are washing their hands of it.

 

Don't agree Singe, most of what the case worker said was just about procedures and is not saying anything about the case.

 

From the CIFPA website:

 

The Charity Commission is the independent regulator for charitable activity in

England and Wales. Where a local authority seeks to dispose of land impressed with

charitable trusts, it must comply with the Charities Act 1993 section 36. In most

cases, due to the related party interest and conflict of interest, you will need our

assistance and agreement before you proceed and sign the contract.

 

 

Having looked on the Charity Commission Website, this is my opinion:

 

The council wish to transfer land held in charitable trust.

As they are a trustee, they are deemed to be a connected person and therefore must obtain an order from the Charity Commission before any such transfer takes place. This is the inherent conflict of interest mentioned by the case worker. An order gives authority to the trustee to proceed with the disposal and provides assurance that the trustee has carried out the transaction openly and transparently and that it is in the best interests of the charity (or the people who are supposed to benefit from the Charitable Land). In such cases the Charity Commission need to be sure the trustee has taken the correct measures to manage any conflict of interest to assure the Char Comm that the best terms are being achieved for the disposal.

 

We are still waiting to hear whether they have given us this order.

 

 

 

[Rick]

And that, mixed with Diego's post, says that it should be rejected.

 

 

 

please let it be so.

[laticsmad]

 

 

please let it be so.

 

Rick,

 

Do you still want a club?

[boboafc]

no place like home..