Question from Michael Drakeford to GBC 13.10.05
I wish to ask the Leader of the Council the following questions.
You will be aware that I have been in communication with the Council regarding the numerous planning appeals made by the local businessman, Mr Michel Harper.
Whilst I very much support private enterprise, and those who wish to improve both the quality of life in our town and who bring commercial benefit, I am disturbed about the sums of money Mr Harper is costing the local taxpayer, of which I am one.
I am told that Mr Harper has, either directly or through his businesses, over the last 10 years made 23 appeals against the refusal of planning applications.
Furthermore, like many residents I deplore the lack of an active Civic Hall, which was until recently a major attraction hosting numerous and varied activities for thousands of residents.
I understand that in the time of the Liberal Democrat administration, during the process of awarding of a contract for a new civic hall, there was a threatened legal challenge by Mr Harper. I recall that this challenge was not proceeded with, as, entertaining an abundance of caution, the Council stopped the process and started again.
When the Conservatives came to office, a further attempt was made to move ahead and Taylor Woodrow was appointed as contractor. This appointment, was challenged by Mr Harper, who sought a judicial review of the Council’s decision, which I can only assume hindered his personal plans. That request was firmly rejected by a judge last year.
Mr Harper’s actions caused a substantial delay and Taylor Woodrow, as a consequence of this delay, pulled out. I believe that had Mr Harper not raised the objection, the Civic Hall would have been completed in 2006. As it now stands the new date even for commencement of building works will not be until 2007 at the earliest.
I personally estimate that these challenges by Mr Harper have cost us, the taxpayers of Guildford, possibly millions of pounds, let alone the loss of an important amenity, and employment for not only the staff at the civic hall, but also the entertainers appearing there.
I would like to ask the following questions in order to fully appreciate the cost of these actions:
a) Can you tell me how many of the 23 planning appeals by Mr Harper have been wholly successful and what has been the cost of dealing with these 23 appeals for the local taxpayer?
b) Can you comment on the likely cost caused by the objections regarding the Civic Hall? I would appreciate both actual costs to date and the estimated increase in costs for the replacement of the Civic Hall.
c) Can you do something to stop a further such challenge, the type of which may be considered by some, to be vexatious?
I truly believe that it would be damaging for the town should another appeal by Mr Harper or indeed his associates, lead to further unnecessary and costly delay.
Michael Drakeford
13.10.05
Answer to Michael Drakeford from GBC 13.10.05
I thank Mr Drakeford for his interesting question. While he refers to Mr Michel Harper, I must make it clear that my answer encompasses Mr Harper personally and his various companies.
I appreciate the concerns expressed by Mr Drakeford in his question and, like many other residents and council taxpayers, share them
Turning to his specific question.
a) Of course, any disappointed applicant is perfectly entitled to lodge an appeal. Of the 23 planning appeals by Mr Harper during the last ten years, just 5 of these were allowed in full.
The Council does not usually keep a specific record of how much it costs to respond to each individual appeal, and in those cases a calculation has been.
The costs to the Council, including counsels’ fees, consultants’ costs and planning officer time, of dealing with planning appeals instigated by Mr Harper’s business entities, are estimated to be in excess of a quarter of a million pounds at £261,000. (£5 per household)
b) The Council received the first intimation of a challenge from Mr Harper in relation to the replacement of Civic Hall in March 2002. The actual costs from that date upto 23 April 2005, are:
Counsel’s Fees: £88,000
GBC Legal staff time: £271,000
External Legal & Property Advice £466,000
A total of £825,000
It is difficult to say precisely how much of this expenditure would have been incurred had Mr Harper not mounted his various challenges. However, a cautious estimate of the work not associated with dealing with the challenges would reduce the overall expenditure by a maximum of 35%, making a sum of at least £536,000(£10.40 ph) directly attributable to Mr Harper’s actions.
Mr Drakeford refers to the estimated increase in costs for the replacement of the Civic Hall. The main impact of Mr Harper’s unsuccessful legal challenges on the Civic project is the rising costs, which would not be incurred had there been no challenges. This cost cannot be calculated precisely, but is assumed to be several million pounds.
The Council has identified that the replacement will be funded by disposal of land for redevelopment and a cash contribution by the Council.
When the Council first set about its plans to rebuild the Civic Hall under the Liberal Democrat proposals, some £2million pounds had been allocated to meet the shortfall. Following the first of the delays created by Mr Harper, when we took control of the council this cost was revisited, and we had to increase the council provision to £5 million, an increase of £3million, (£58 ph) thanks to the delay created by Mr Harper. The costs would have been capped at around that level had Taylor Woodrow not withdrawn, following his latest challenge. The further delay now created as a result of Mr Harper’s actions will no doubt increase the shortfall to be found even further, which is why we have now included a reconsideration of the refurbishment option, discounted when the council first knew the Civic Hall was approaching its sell by date.
c) Mr Drakeford has indicated some people consider Mr Harper’s challenges to be vexation and challenging to the democratically elected council, whether Liberal Democrat or Conservative.
We have considered whether it might be appropriate to take some form of legal action to prevent Mr Harper interfering further with the Council’s priority plan to provide a much-wanted replacement for the Civic Hall. But I, for one, would not be willing, at this stage, to authorise further expenditure by this Council on initiating litigation against Mr Harper or his companies as it would add yet more costs and further delay.
I trust this answers Mr Drakeford’s question.
