WPCC Chair's response to Fleur Anderson MP
The WPCC’s website has published Diane Neil Mills response to Fleur Anderson’s questions at the (virtual) AGM of the WPCC.
www.wpcc.org.uk
Rather than accepting the misconduct, mismanagement, deceit and £1m+ losses Neil Mills is now seeking to justify the deceit by with sweeping statements - that are utter nonsense. Her reply is full of half-truths and spin, a denial of the absolute facts that the undersale was political, deliberate and then followed by collusion and lies by Simon Lee et al to both the Charity Commission and levy payers.
This excerpt illustrates the conceit of Neil Mills’ support of the disgraced trustee’s actions;
“In considering the
overall impact of the transaction, the Conservators upheld their constitutional
duty to protect Putney Lower Common, particularly during a time at which
pressure from developers to increase massing and density in developments was
intense. It is my personal view that one of the most valuable elements of the
transaction achieved by the Conservators was the restrictive covenant on the
massing of the development. There is no question that if the Conservators had
accepted a larger development, the increased profitability of the development
would have accrued to the Conservators through the terms of the easement, as
the valuation methodology clearly demonstrates. In addition, there is no
question that the £300,000 in improvements to Putney Lower Common, carried out
by the developer, provided value to the Conservators.”
The Conservators did NOT uphold their constitutional duty, which is primarily the 1871 Act that created the commons. The Act states at clause 34; “The Conservators shall at all times keep the commons open, uninclosed, and unbuilt on, ... and shall by all lawful means prevent, resist and abate all encroachments and attempted
encroachments on the commons, and protect the commons and preserve them as open
spaces, and resist all proceedings tending to the inclosure, or appropriation
for any purpose of any part thereof.”
Sections 35; "... It shall not be lawful for the Conservators, except as in this Act expressed, to sell, lease, grant, or in any manner dispose of any part of the commons" S36 goes on in a similar vein in terms of preservation.
A senior lawyer at the Charity Commission specifically instructed the then trustees to ensure compliance to both the 1871 Act as well as the Charities Act's provisions on the sale of land. The Conservators and Simon Lee ignored both, and they did so deliberately.
The “most valuable element” introduced by Neil Mills is utter baloney. In her justification Neil Mills introduces “pressure from developers”. There was NO pressure from developers to increase massing and density, none, it is a fiction. There was no “larger development” or “increased profitability” as suggested by Neil Mills. The initial scheme, the polyclinic was the ONLY proposal and ended as a financial disaster which the NHS threw out. The NHS then did a cosy deal with WBC based on false assumptions which do not stand up to the most basic examination. Over £4m of taxpayers money was wasted on the scheme, Justine Greening MP raised questions in the Houses of Parliament over the failure by the WPCT. The WPCC entered into a sham transaction for a failed scheme, which they lied about.
The restrictive covenant is a red herring, the restriction in the agreement was to tie the council’s hands at the time. It is not listed as a covenant. The school and flats cover 100% of the site, the site was developed to the extent that all the access road is on common, the school’s playground is on the roof.
Neil Mills goes on to argue that the £300,000 of improvements should be taken into account. Again Neil Mills stane is refuted by the facts. Even the WPCC’s soft and gerrymandered Daniel Watney valuation totally discounted the £300k, (confirming it was a cost of the development). The WPCC's lawyers discounted the £300k. The WPCC’s own board minutes at the time dismissed the works to the common (ie the £300k) as being a receipt to the commons.
Neil Mills is simply making up alternative facts to suit her agenda of supporting the failed trustees at whatever cost to her own credibility.
The Commission’s report was a whitewash, but notwithstanding the laundering, levy payers now fully understand they have been lied to for years by the WPCC and Simon Lee.
Neil Mills continues to spend tens of thousands of levy payer taxes to bury the undersale of Mill House (losses of £3.6m) and the unlawful land swap with the Royal Wimbledon Golf Club, gifted a huge slice of common by the WPCC. Common protected by an Act of Parliament.
The next election for trustees is fast approaching.
John Cameron ● 2049d9 Comments