sent 24/10/2013
Dear Harvey
Please treat this as a formal request for information (FOIA
request).
The Task & Finish Panel have recently asked a series of
questions to Dr. Sue McGonical which have now been published on the TDC website
as an appendix to the upcoming meeting on the 31st October 2013. As
the answers are in the public domain I would like to raise some questions under
an FOIA.
Also, I believe, you stated at a previous meeting of the
T&F you said that a full disclosure of all papers was not an issue as only
current negotiations would remain confidential. Is that still the case?
Both Ian Driver and Richard Nicholson asked broadly the same
question as follows:-
Letter from SFP Ventures UK Ltd dated 2 June 2009 page
27: This letter states that Wetmore Investments will be funding the
construction of the hotel through a £5million investment.
What checks did the Council make into the
validity of this claim e.g. obtaining
copies of development agreements with SFP,
and what steps did the council take
to check the bonafides of Wetmore
Investments e.g. securing information about
company registration and ownership of Wetmore Investments and
copies of its accounts. Was Wetmore Investment
ever contacted by the council?
Dr. Sue’s answer
External solicitors were used to validate the ability of
Wetmore to provide the agreed level of finance, and that a binding legal
agreement was in existence.
Having investigated both SFP and TDC over this affair for
many months and accumulated much written evidence Dr. Sue’s answer comes like a
bolt out of the blue and raises more questions than answers.
In the interest of openness please would you answer the following:-
Who were the External Solicitors?
Prettys
Who instructed them and the date they were
formally engaged?
They were not instructed by
the Council as they were the developers solicitors.
What was their brief?
The Council had asked the developers
solicitors to confirm that their client held a genuine offer of funding
from Wetmore Investments in respect of the construction of the hotel and
that a binding funding agreement was in place.
Was their final report to Council Verbal or
written?
The Council did not receive a
report, only a letter of confirmation from Messrs Prettys. However, ths letter
was received by the Council in confidence and therefore will not be
disclosed to you - Section 41 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 refers.
Where is this report?
Please see my reply to question 4 above
Why wasn’t it included in the Pleasurama file
given to the members of the T&F panel?
This is a request for an explanation, not a
request for recorded information
Who are Wetmore?
The Council hold no relevant information
Where are they based?
The Council hold no relevant information
What was their financial standing?
The Council hold no relevant information
.
How long was the offer of £5M available for?
The Council hold no relevant information
.
Who owns Wetmore?
The Council hold no relevant information. Please note that at the
meeting of the Pleasurama Site Development Review Task & Finish Group
held on 31October 2013, officers advised the Group that no further due
diligence had been carried out in respect of Wetmore Investments other
than the confirmation letter sought from Messr Pretty's.
How much was the Solicitor Invoice for?
There was no invoice as Messrs. Pretty's were
not the Council's solicitors
When was it paid?
N/A
.
Who authorised payment?
N/A
.
Why weren’t the findings part of the appendixes
to the 2009 agreement?
This is a request for an explanation
not a request for recorded information.
My response was to ask the following questions
Thank you for your belated response.
In your answer to question 4 and your responses to the T&F
panel you stated all the evidence was available and was handed over.
Can you explain why this letter from Prettys has never been
disclosed to the T&F and why it is not included in the appendixes of the
2009 agreement? Surely this is material evidence that should have been
disclosed to the T&F panel.
Finally I would like to remind you that you stated to the
T&F that in your opinion there was nothing in the 2009 agreement that
should not be in the public domain. Have you changed your mind?
