After years of expensive-for-the-council-taxpayer wrangling, Stockport Council had to take Offerton Precinct owners Tenbest to court, as they failed to deliver the redevelopment of their own site, as anyone knowing the situation at the time knew they would (except the LibDem Stepping Hill Councillors), some of whom were thick and some somewhat more sinister.
http://www.sheilaoliver.org/due-dilligence-checks—not-at-stockport-mbc.html
Did the Tenbest directors have friends at court at Stockport Council run by the LibDems?
This was the head office of Tenbest, the owners of Offerton Precinct. 200 companies were run from this small, shuttered shop in North London. Amazingly the companies luxurious auditors offices were located in the same small shop.
Did Stockport Council carry out any due dilligence checks on these owners, who ultimately cost the council taxpayers yet more money and left the people of Offerton with such a disgusting precinct? I guess not.
The owners of Offerton Precinct allowed it to fall into serious disrepair and dilapidation. The owners of the Libsburne Garage, who had successfully run a local business and employed local people for 25 years, were told their premises would be compulsory purchased and that land sold to the owners of the Precinct to re-develop it. The owners of the garage thought this an appalling situation and decided to come up with first class plans to develop their own site themselves, consulting with local people and trying to place on the site exactly what local people told them they wanted. Local people said they wanted to keep the much-loved Indian restaurant, the Pharmacy, the convenience store and the local vets. They said they didn’t want a very big store building and they didn’t want more housing.
The Council insisted that a large store be built. It became obvious that there would be no end-user for the store. Supermarkets either wanted very small stores or giant ones like the Tesco at Portwood. The Council insisted it knew best.
From the agenda document Executive Meeting 12/8/14
“Offerton Precinct Development
This scheme relates to the redevelopment of the Offerton Precinct.
Possession took place on 1st July 2013 whereupon payments began to flow to the affected parties.
It is hoped that these costs will be covered by the proposed indemnity from Tenbest. If the costs
exceed the indemnity from Tenbest, the shortfall will be raised through Directly Funded Borrowing.
Negotiations continue with regards the amount of compensation, with no substantive progress
having been made during Qtr 1 of 2014/15. It is unlikely that negotiations will be completed in the
short term but it is hoped that they will be completed during the current financial year.”
I was trying to sort out the problem of the dilapidated Offerton Precinct. What were the LibDem councillors on Stepping Hill Area Committee doing to sort the situation out – my guess is diddly squat.
Meikle, Goddard, Corris x 2, Alexander x 2, Weldon, Smith
So we see from the above answer that over the decade the Council has approached the owners on an ongoing basis re the poor condition of the Precinct.
1) On 22/3/11 notice was served on the owners under S59 of the EPA
2) A written interview under caution was sent to the owners on 14/11/1 (how does on “send” an interview>?).
3) Planning Enforcement Team also wrote (no date) with a list of improvements needed. What are they?
In the meantime, the Council has been pursuing a longterm resolution via redevelopment – involving negotiations with the owners and other parties. I suspect from my knowledge of the owners’ methods and morality (in court) including a complete disregard for the law, that they are deliberately delaying and their scheme to get out unscathed is being worked on as we write. The legal case I know of lasted 10 years and the comments of the judge speak volumes about the sort of people we are dealing with.
Missing information includes the list of improvements required by S215 of the Town and Country Planning Act (and are they under way?)
Which councillors were involved and how often were they involved?
What the SMBC’s exposure in the event of having to accept “no deal” in December 2012?
This process must have cost the Council a considerable amount of money and with no progress visible even one month into the last quarter of 2012 and the owners, I suspect, do not intend to have the matter resolved sooner. Otherwise, with their apparent financial muscle, why would they want nothing done – even repairs – clearly failing these repairs the postion is made less likely to be resolved. I am sure the owners are prepared for an exhausting, drawn out affair costing them the minimum.
Beware!
The above analysis was by someone much clever than I am.
