Enquiries to:
Information Team
Our Ref:
Various as below
Email addresses as per requests detailed below.
Dear Mr Lee,
Freedom of Information requests received 15 September 2017 onwards
Thank you for the series of 21 substantial interlinked requests, which you have submitted
since 15 September 2017 to date. In summary, these all relate to interlinked matters on
regeneration and comprised a combination of both Information Request and comment. Our
apologies for the delay, which has on this occasion been necessitated in view of the scale
and extent of the questions raised.
Response:
We would at this stage draw your attention to Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 which allows a Local Authority to refuse what is deemed to be a vexatious request.
The volume and extent of requests received from yourself during a short period on what are
related matters are such as to be considered a manifestly unjustified, inappropriate or
improper use of a formal procedure and designed to cause disruption to the relevant
Officers and Service Areas identified by generated additional administrative and
bureaucratic work.
Whilst noting the breadth and extent of your recent requests we are on this occasion
providing responses as appropriate. However, any subsequent requests received from you
on these and related matters, in terms of subject, extent and volume, will be considered in
the context of the potential application of Section 14.
We would also advised that whilst dealing with these requests has necessitated substantially
in excess of 18 hours in which circumstances we would ordinarily apply a Section 12
Exemption under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. However, we have
on this occasion undertaken the relevant searches of records to respond to you.
Turning now to the extent of requests to which this letter addresses, these are summarised
below as follows –
Date
Ref.
Pages
Subject
15.09.17
555326
2-4
40-50 Percy St 53 - 57 Upper Parliament St
Relationship Between Liverpool City Council
17.09.17
557190
4-5
North Point Global Hong Kong
Former Welsh Presbyterian Chapel on Princess
17.09.17
557199
5-6
Avenue Mr Bill Maynard
Promotional developments overseas by City
17.09.17
557204
6-8
Council representatives
NPG LTD Chinatown Ltd National Crime
17.09.17
557209
8
Agency London Cllr Ann O'Byrne
Liverpool Echo payments from the LCC past 5
17.09.17
557212
8-9
years.
1
How much has Liverpool City Council paid to
18.09.17
557215
9
Trinity Mirror
20.09.17
557224
10-11
Mr Nigel Russell relationship with LCC
22.09.17
557233
11-15
Elliot Group
557235 &
27.09.17
15-18
50 Rodney Street Liverpool L1 9AA
557239
27.09.17
557241
18-20
Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited
The Elliot Group Website Councillor Ann
30.09.17
557377
20-28
O’Byrne
01.10.17
557382
27-28
Paramount - London Road
Part one Refurbishment of The Irish Centre
09.10.17
558345
29-30
Liverpool 8m
Part 2 When did the two Universities team up
09.10.17
558352
30-32
with ( MBPT) Irish £8m project
Chinese Investors meeting with Councillor Gary
10.10.17
558497
31-33
Millar
10.10.17
558514
33-34
Councillor Gary Millar’s meetings in Hong Kong
The Welsh Presbyterian Church in Princes Ave
11.10.17
558701
34-35
Liverpool. Bill Maynard
12.10.17
558703
35-37
Liverpool FC Car Park Anfield
12.10.17
558914
37-38
The Beautiful Ideas Company
The Former Welsh Presbyterian Chapel - Baltic
17.10.17
559296
38-41
Creative CIC
Dealing with each of your requests in sequence, our responses are as follows –
555326 –
40-50 Percy St & 53-57 Upper Parliament St
1.
It states on the site notice that Elliot Lawless is the applicant - When was the
Tendering process carried out in relation to these properties and who carried out the
Tendering process?
2.
Have the Council sold these houses in their entirety or have they just sold the
Leasehold or the Freehold?
3.
If the Council has sold the houses - how much did they sell them for?
4.
If the Council sold the Leaseholds - how much did LCC sell them for?
5.
If they sold the Freeholds - how much did the sell them for?
6.
Please indicate the date and name of the Council committee when this
development/refurbishment was discussed
7.
Please supply the date when this application went to Planning for permission
8.
In the last 6 years which LCC properties/leaseholds/ freeholds have been sold to
2
Elliot Lawless, The Elliot Group or any company associated in any way with Elliot
Lawless
Responses –
Liverpool City Council confirms that it holds information relevant to the terms of your
request, our responses being as follows –
1.
The Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given
the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert
part/all the properties back to their original town houses to improve the offer in the
locality, none of the offers received met the Council’s aspirations or financial
expectations.
One of the interested parties, The Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council
with a revised scheme, and more importantly a substantially increased financial offer,
which is significantly higher than any other offer received for a town house conversion
scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders – 13.5 (ix)) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing
schemes which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the
view of the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be
prejudiced by inviting tenders.
The transaction has yet to be concluded with a number of final points remaining to be
resolved.
2.
The properties have not yet been sold. Please refer to our response at (1) above. The
buildings are owned Freehold by the City Council. It is proposed to grant a 250-year
lease of the properties with the lessees under an obligation to carry out development
of the block.
3.
The properties have not yet been sold. Should the sale complete the purchase price
will be publicly accessible at the Lands Registry.
4.
The properties have not yet been sold. Should the sale complete the purchase price
will be publicly accessible at the Lands Registry.
5.
The properties have not yet been sold. Should the sale complete the purchase price
will be publicly accessible at the Lands Registry.
6.
All disposals are approved by the Director of Regeneration & Employment Services
under the approved Scheme of Delegation and in accordance with Contract Standing
Orders (13.5 (ix)). All approved delegated sales are reported to the Regeneration
Select Committee.
7.
The planning application was registered with the City Council’s Planning Department
on 31 August 2017.
8.
The following properties –
3
50 Rodney Street
Norfolk Street phase 2
Norfolk Street phase 3
Toxteth Community College
Land at Park Lane–EMR Park Lane Limited
80 Rodney Street
242 Upper Parliament Street
______
557190 –
Relationship Between Liverpool City Council North Point Global Hong Kong
1.
Can the Liverpool City Council please supply all information that would either confirm
or prove otherwise that both Cllr Gary Millar and Ellen Culter (Invest Liverpool) were
on a business trip representing the council in Hong Kong on the 31/10/2015.
2.
Can the Council also supply all information that would explain why Cllr Gary Millar
and Ellen Cutler are present in photographs that are evidently promoting North Point
Global, well before Chinatown had gone to the Planning committee?
These photographs show Cllr Gary Millar holding hands with the following people:
* Mr Samson Law Hong Kong Homes, Agent for NPG Ltd
* Mr Peter A McInnes Chairman [and then] Promoter of NPG Ltd
3.
Could you please supply all information that would explain why, the then, Lord
Mayor, Gary Millar was in another photo with Mr Peter McInnes standing behind a
huge scale model of the Liverpool project known as (North point ) Pall Mall a £90
million unfunded disaster.
4.
According to an investor who has been interviewed by ITV News, she would not have
invested in the Baltic development if she had not been encouraged by Cllr Gary Millar
She was also told by North Point Global that the development was backed by
Liverpool City Council and the Government [the Liverpool City Council Logo was on
North Point Global's website and promotional posters.]....please explain
5.
Who gave permission to NPG to use the Liverpool City Council logo on their website
and promotional backdrops [Photographs indicate that LCC's logo on NPG's
backdrops would have been clearly evident to Cllr Millar at the time.]
Response
1.
Councillor Millar and Ellen Cutler were in China and Hong Kong on behalf of the City
Council and Invest Liverpool/Liverpool Vision respectively. This visit did not however
extend to representing or promoting individual developments, only to promoting the
city of Liverpool itself.
2.
Councillor Millar and Ellen Cutler were in China and Hong Kong on behalf of the City
Council and Invest Liverpool/Liverpool Vision respectively. This visit did not however
extend to representing or promoting individual developments, only to promoting the
city of Liverpool itself. For North Point Global as the developer to promote the
scheme in the overseas investment market prior to securing planning consent would
not be uncommon for a scheme that was to be funded through ‘fractional sales’. It is
4
common practice for developers to soft market schemes and warm up the investment
market to the investment opportunity prior to securing planning consent. Clearly the
marketing costs will be incurred at the developers risk.
3.
The photos to which you refer are not City Council images and, as such, we would
advise that you contact the third party organisation displaying these images.
4.
We do not consider this question a valid Freedom of Information question. This is a
statement of an opinion held by an individual and does not relate to any information
held by the City Council. Additionally, for clarification, neither Liverpool City Council or
its representatives are involved in the direct selling of any development schemes.
5.
The use of the logo by the developer was not sanctioned and once the City Council
became aware of its use, the developer was instructed to remove the City Council
logo from all marketing and promotional material and websites.
______
557199 –
Former Welsh Presbyterian Chapel on Princess Ave Mr Bill Maynard
1.
The council sold the site to Merseyside Building and Preservation Trust (MBPT) for
£1 in 2014 - is this statement true? Mr Bill Maynard is part of (MBPT) as Chair and
was seeking funding as high as £8million pounds.
2.
Could the Liverpool City Council please indicate if Mr Bill Maynard had worked for
the Council in the past, been given any other building to work on or been a part time
adviser or been paid for his services by the Council?
3.
Erica Rushton was also a part of this as was Mark Lawler. Can the Council indicate if
Erica Rushton was given a job at the Liverpool City Council and what role was she
given within the Council?
4.
Mark Lawler, Erica Rushton and Bill Maynard had plans for the Welsh Presbyterian
Church what were these plans please?
5.
Did the Council support MBPT in their bid for Heritage Lottery Funding for up to £4m
to fund the development, while Baltic Creative was working on an application for £2m
from the European Regional Development Fund?
6.
What Due Diligence process was used when Mr Bill Maynard, Erika Rushton, were
chosen to buy the church for £1.00 and who owns the land?
Response
1.
Any information and documentation associated with the registration and titles of
properties acquired or disposed of by the City Council are already available in the
public domain and reasonably accessible to you via the Land Registry Search Facility,
which may be accessed via the following weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search )
2.
No. Mr Bill Maynard is not a current or former employee of the City Council, either as
a direct employee or advisor. In addition, no services or building works have been
procured from Mr Maynard.
5
3.
Ms Erika Rushton formerly worked for the City Council’s then Neighbourhood
Management Team prior to 2010.
4.
The City Council was and remains supportive of any proposals which will bring
heritage assets of community value back into active and sustainable use. With regard
the proposals which you refer to, the City Council was advised of and made aware of
these organisations and plans. With regard to the specific details of their proposals,
we would advise that you contact the organisations directly.
5.
The City Council was and remains supportive of any proposals which will bring
heritage assets of community value back into active and sustainable use. As such
when organisations are seeking to make bids for lottery or grant funding, the City
Council will naturally seek to engage with and as far as practicable support
organisations in making bids insofar as any proposals clearly align with the City
Council’s strategic priorities. With regard to the specific organisations concerned, we
would advise that you direct your questions to the relevant organisations and the
Heritage Lottery Fund. Additional information as regards how the City Council seeks
to support the restoration of heritage assets may be seen in the Cabinet decision of
15 October 2015, which may be accessed via the following weblink –
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1201&MId=14964
6.
Appropriate checks were undertaken. Any information and documentation associated
with the registration and titles of properties acquired or disposed of by the City Council
are already available in the public domain and reasonably accessible to you via the
Land Registry Search Facility, which may be accessed via the following weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search )
______
557204 –
Promotional developments overseas by City Council representatives
1.
Which individual, in Liverpool City Council instructed Cllr Gary Millar and Ellen Cutler
to go to Hong Kong for the 31/10/2015 and to meet Samson Law and Peter McInnes
to, evidently, promote NPG Ltd?
2.
Has Cllr Ann O'Byrne ever communicated with any member of the Hong Kong Homes
sales team, or indeed Samson Law, the Director of this company.....if so, please
supply copies of all communications
3.
NPG Ltd stated that they were to bring 1000 jobs to the city, 30 million in taxes and
over £300 million in investment. Instead, they, [PHD1 Construction, BILT Group, NPG
and Chinatown Development Company] have created havoc in the city;
developments left as bombsites, sub-contractors unpaid and investors not knowing if
their investments will be built or their money recouped.
4.
Having contacted the relevant Government office and obtained the relevant
regulations on Due Diligence, please supply all information that would indicate why
companies with no available accounts, in two cases, companies that had only just
been incorporated and with no history of ever successfully being involved in a
development of such significance and importance....would be permitted to become a
'preferred developer'. This would indicate a complete lack of adherence to Due
Diligence.
6
5.
Was any of the Chinatown land sold as freehold to NPG Ltd or its sister company or
to Mr A Garcia, Peter McInnes. Did her office [Cllr Ann O'Byrne] and or (Invest
Liverpool) help or give any form of grants loans to the above names and companies
with regards to the land or start up fees in Pall Mall and Chinatown?
6.
In terms of individuals involved in developments in Liverpool and lack of Due
Diligence:
a).
Nigel Russell had a police record when he dealt with the Council and is now
going to be prosecuted for alleged fraud
b).
Tony Freeman has a previous police record and has recently been arrested
[Pinnacle] [c] Samuel Beilin [spokesperson for NPG] has a previous police
record and will soon be up before the courts.
c).
Lee James Spencer [dubious business history] [director of NPG] will soon be
up before the courts
d).
Peter Anthony McInnes - ex business associates that are in prison for drugs
and gun crime [please see statements made by Judge at Proceeds of Crime
court cases and statements made by DC Watson
7.
Please indicate why Cllr Ann O'Byrne ignored Due Diligence in respect of so many
developments
Response
1.
Councillor Millar and Ellen Cutler were in China and Hong Kong on behalf of the City
Council and Invest Liverpool/Liverpool Vision respectively. This did not however
extend to representing or promoting individual developments, only to promoting the
city of Liverpool itself.
2.
No, Councillor Ann O’Byrne has not had nor is she aware of any communications with
any member of the Hong Kong Homes sales team or Samson Law.
3.
This is a statement of opinion and not a question as such we do not consider this
comment to be a valid Freedom of Information request.
4.
The City Council undertook due diligence into Chinatown Development Company
Limited, which was the SPV that the Council was contracting with in relation to the
Great George Street sites. The actual starting point for the due diligence was driven
by the commercial deal between the leaseholder of the Phase 3 site to the eastern
end of the site and Chinatown Development Company Limited.
5.
There has been no disposal of the Council’s freehold interests in any of the three
parcels of land that make up the New Chinatown site. Chinatown Development
Company Limited acquire the residual interest in a 150 year Lease from the leasehold
of the Phase 3 site (the most easterly part of the site). The Council grant a 250 year
Lease interest in the Phase 1 parcel of land adjoining the Hardy St. The middle parcel
of land (Phase 2) remains in the Council’s ownership.
There have been no grants of any form provided by the City Council, Invest Liverpool
7
or Liverpool Vision to either North Point Global or Chinatown Development Company
Limited in relation to the Pall Mall or New Chinatown developments.
6.
This would appear to be a statement and as such this is not a valid Freedom of
Information request.
7.
With regards to all projects or developments requiring the formal agreement of the
City Council, the City Council undertakes relevant and appropriate due diligence in
accordance with both the requirements of the City Council Constitution and all
relevant legislation.
______
557209 –
NPG LTD Chinatown Ltd National Crime Agency London Cllr Ann O'Byrne
1.
Cllr Ann O'Byrne in a statement and on TV has said she was in talks with the NCA.
Has Cllr Ann O'Byrne followed up on this and has she now met them?
2.
Has she handed over a full report on this matter and what steps is she taking to
protect investors money in terms of Chinatown, Baltic House, Berry House and North
Point?
3.
Has Cllr Ann O'Byrne handed over the Minutes of ALL her meetings in relation to
these disastrous developments to the NCA, including who got the land deals and
why?
4.
Will Ann O'Byrne also be informing the NCA that many months previous to the
collapse of NPG, she had been sent comprehensive information on individuals
involved in these developments and also information that strongly indicated that NPG
was never going to complete these developments. Cllr O'Byrne decided, along with
her colleagues, to ignore these warnings.
Response
Questions 1 to 4 will be dealt with in the round as follows –
Councillor Ann O’Byrne did not say she was in talks with the NCA. Councillor O’Byrne said
that the City Council had reported its concerns to the NCA. With regard to the remaining
elements of this request, these are addressed below.
Due to the way the NCA operates and the current court case between Liverpool City
Council and New Chinatown Development, it is not appropriate to say more, other than to
point out the subject matter of the referral was not any process that involved Liverpool City
Council, in particular any land acquisition and that the council will always co-operate fully
with any law enforcement agency and respond to their requests.
This concludes our response and comments on this matter.
______
557212 –
Liverpool Echo payments from the LCC past 5 years.
1.
Can the Liverpool City Council please supply all information on the dealing with the
8
Liverpool Echo regarding all payments to this newspaper in a form of adverts and
taking out print paid space, over the last 5 years please.
2.
What did the Council spent per year on all adverts and notices to the Liverpool echo
Response
1.
Payments relating to the Liverpool Echo are made to Trinity Mirror North West and
North Wales Ltd. Information on such payments is already included in published
information available on the City Council’s website and is therefore reasonably
accessible to you at –
http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/budgets-and-
finance/transparency-in-local-government/ and
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13493&path=0
2.
Payments relating to the Liverpool Echo are made to Trinity Mirror North West and
North Wales Ltd. Information on such payments is already included in published
information available on the City Council’s website and is therefore reasonably
accessible to you at –
http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/budgets-and-
finance/transparency-in-local-government/ and
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13493&path=0
______
557215 –
How much has Liverpool City Council paid to Trinity Mirror
1.
How much has Liverpool City Council paid to Trinity Mirror, specifically for its
publication the Liverpool Echo but not exclusively, for print space, advertising and all
other media and any services whatsoever over the last seven years.
2.
What is Liverpool City Council's annual budget in regard to all print space, advertising
and all other media purchases to all media outlets, in particular Trinity Mirror Group of
Newspapers.
3.
Is the above budget in any regard whatsoever, recovered from council tax payments.
Response
1.
Payments relating to the Liverpool Echo are made to Trinity Mirror North West and
North Wales Ltd. Payments relating to the Liverpool Echo are made to Trinity Mirror
North West and North Wales Ltd. Information on such payments is already included
in published information available on the City Council’s website and is therefore
reasonably accessible to you at –
http://liverpool.gov.uk/council/budgets-and-
finance/transparency-in-local-government/ and
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecCatDisplay.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13493&path=0
2.
Liverpool City Council does not hold a specific budget in relation to print space,
advertising and all other media purchases or budgets that are identifiable to a specific
supplier. Payments to Trinity Mirror North West and North Wales can relate to a
number of services and would therefore come from a number of budget lines
depending on the nature of the purchase e.g. Publications, Advertising, Events,
Printing etc. Payments to Trinity Mirror North West and North Wales can relate to a
number of services and would therefore come from a number of budget lines
9
depending on the nature of the purchase e.g. Publications, Advertising, Events.
3.
There is no direct link between these expenditure budgets and Council Tax
payments. Council Tax is one of the income budgets that funds the net cost of all
Council services.
______
557224 –
Mr Nigel Russell relationship with LCC
1.
Did Mr Ged Fitzgerald give or offer any professional advice or guidance, or counsel
or procure any help whatsoever in regard to buying land or obtaining any leases for
either Mr Nigel Russell or Mr Peter McInnes from Liverpool City Council for the time
period 2010 to date.
2.
Was any professional advice or guidance sought from Mr Tony Freeman at Pinnacle
Alliance in regard to Liverpool City Council projects from Mr Ged Fitzgerald.
3.
Did Mr Tony Freeman seek to counsel or procure any information or advice on
Liverpool City Council projects for the period 2010 to date, from Mr Ged Fitzgerald.
4.
Was Mr Ged Fitzgerald known to Mr Nigel Russell in any professional capacity
whatsoever
5.
Was Mr Ged Fitzgerald known to Mr Nigel Russell in any personal capacity
whatsoever.
6.
Did Mr Ged Fitzgerald or his office or agents offer help or advice in any way or
matter, whatsoever in regard to the following city centre developments
a)
Alexander Terrace Hatton Garden Liverpool.
b)
12 Gradwell Street Liverpool.
c)
The Paper Mill Henry Street Liverpool.
d)
St Joseph's student accommodation Woolton Road Childwall Liverpool.
e)
The Richmond Hotel Hatton Garden Liverpool
f)
9 Rodney Street Liverpool.
7.
Did Liverpool City Council employees or agents offer any professional help or advice
or counsel or procure Mr Nigel Russell obtain or seek to obtain the above
developments in any way or form whatsoever.
8.
Did Mr Ged Fitzgerald or any employee or agent of Liverpool City Council seek to
allow Mr Nigel Russell to obtain for £1,the property, 9 Rodney Street Liverpool.
9.
Do Liverpool City Council have a full and proper audit trail and deed and title transfer
of the above property to Mr Russell
10. Will Liverpool City Council supply for public inspection the deed and title transfer of 9
10
Rodney Street Liverpool to Mr Nigel Russell.
11. Was Mr Ged Fitzgerald or any employee or agent of Liverpool City Council, have any
knowledge whatsoever, in regard to Ms Julie McInnes being employed by Liverpool
City Council or its agents.
12. Did Mr Ged Fitzgerald or any employee or agent of Liverpool City Council ever
conduct or hold meetings with Ms Julie McInnes in her capacity as the managing
director or director of PHD1.
Response
1.
No.
2.
No.
3.
No.
4.
No. Liverpool City Council does not hold any information as regards any knowledge
Mr Nigel Russell may have.
5.
No. Liverpool City Council does not hold any information relevant to this question.
6.
No.
7.
No.
8.
No. Neither the Chief Executive or any Officer of the City Council has sought or
undertaken any such actions.
9.
Yes.
10. All information and documentation associated with the registration and titles of such
properties are already available in the public domain and reasonably accessible to
you via the Land Registry Search Facility, which may be accessed via the following
weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search )
11. No. The City Council is not aware of any knowledge by Mr Fitzgerald in respect of Ms
Julie McInnes.
12. No. The City Council is not aware of any employee conducting or holding formal
meetings on this matter with Ms McInnes.
This concludes our response and comments on this matter.
______
557233 –
Elliot Group – The Caribbean Centre, 40-50 Percy Street & 53-57 Upper Parliament
Street
1.
When did Liverpool City Council Sell the Land known as Kingsley Place, Upper
Parliament Street Previously known formally as The Caribbean Centre.
11
2.
Who is holds the title deeds to the above said property.
3.
Who is responsible for Council Tax on the above said property,
4.
Are Liverpool City Council aware that the above said property is being advertised for
sale by the Elliott Group.
5.
Are Liverpool City Council aware that The Elliott Group are offering for sale the said
property, to potential investors through their website www.elliot.co,
6.
Have Liverpool City Council entered into any negotiations whatsoever with the Elliott
Group for the sale of the said property.
7.
As of 22 September 2017, if the above property is still owned by Liverpool City
Council, why is the City Council allowing the Elliot Group to portray that it is the legal
owner of the said property, to the general public.
8.
Has Liverpool City Council received any offer for the said property from The Elliott
Group.
9.
Has Liverpool City Council received any offer for the said property from any other
interested parties whatsoever.
10. In regard to the property 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 and 53 -57 Upper Parliament
Street Liverpool 8 when was the lawful tendering process undertaken in relation to
the said properties.
11. In regard to the said properties at 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 and 53-57 Upper
Parliament Street Liverpool 8 who carried out the lawful tendering process.
12. In regard to the said properties at 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 and 53-57 Upper
Parliament Street Liverpool 8 has Liverpool City Council sold the properties leasehold
or freehold.
13. In regard to the said properties at 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 and 53-57 Upper
Parliament Street Liverpool 8 what sale price did Liverpool City Council achieve on
completion of the sale.
14. In regard to the said properties at 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 and 53-57 Upper
parliament Street Liverpool 8 what sale price did Liverpool City Council achieve for
the sale of the leasehold.
15. For the period 2010 to 2017, how many properties either freehold or leasehold or any
properties whatsoever have been sold by Liverpool City Council to The Elliott Group
or associated companies or agents whatsoever.
16. Did councillor Ms Ann O'Byrne, her office or agents offer advise or help in any way
whatsoever, The Elliott Group obtain the said properties.
17. How did Liverpool City Council determine that The Elliott Group should be the
preferred contractor/purchaser for the said properties.
18. How did Liverpool City Council determine that the The Elliott Group were fit and
12
proper contractors to purchase the said properties.
19. Why did Councillor Ms Ann O'Byrne refuse to make any comment when she was
informed that the properties at 40-50 Percy Street Liverpool 8 would only be sold to
investors in China and not to local people in Liverpool.
20. Did Liverpool City Council employees or agents offer any professional help or advice
or counsel or procure The Elliott Group to obtain or seek to obtain any properties
whatsoever from Liverpool City Council.
21. Do Liverpool City Council have a full and proper audit trail for any properties sold or
leased to The Elliott Group.
22. Will Liverpool City Council supply for public inspection all title deed of transfer and
any relevant documents whatsoever in regard to any properties sold or leased to The
Elliott Group.
23. Will Liverpool City Council provide for public inspection all relevant minutes of
meetings dates of meetings and any other contact between Liverpool City Council
and The Elliott Group in regard to the sale or lease of any properties to The Elliott
Group.
24. In regard to question 22 and 23 above will Liverpool City Council provide copies of all
relevant documents requested in the above questions.
Response
1.
The City Council has not sold the Caribbean Centre.
2.
This information is publicly available and reasonably accessible to you via the Land
Registry website
(www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search )
3.
There is no Council tax payable in respect of the property as this is a commercial
property, for which Business Rates are instead liable. Given the property remains in
the ownership of the City Council any liability for Business Rates payable – less any
deductions arising from the premises being vacant – is with the City Council.
4.
The City Council is not aware of any such advertisements. Appropriate checks will be
undertaken with regard to information such as that provided within your request and if
necessary the third party will be advised of the continued ownership of the premises
by the City Council.
5.
The City Council is not aware of any such advertisements. Appropriate checks will be
undertaken with regard to information such as that provided within your request and if
necessary the third party will be advised of the continued ownership of the premises
by the City Council.
6.
The Council is working with the African Heritage Caribbean Centre and the Elliot
Group to see if it is possible to provide new housing and more importantly a new
Caribbean Centre.
7.
The City Council currently retains ownership of the property and is unaware of any
third parties otherwise claiming to own or have an interest in the property. The City
13
Council has not sold this property.
8.
Yes. The City Council is working with the African Heritage Caribbean Centre and the
Elliot Group to see if it is possible to provide new housing and more importantly a
new Caribbean Centre. If this proposal is progressed this will result in a formal
agreement and associated planning application in due course.
9.
No. The City Council is working with the African Heritage Caribbean Centre and the
Elliot Group to see if it is possible to provide new housing and more importantly a
new Caribbean Centre. If this proposal is progressed this will result in a formal
agreement and associated planning application in due course.
10. The Council marketed the properties (40-50 Percy Street and 53-57 Upper Parliament
Street), seeking expressions of interest, in 2015.
11. The City Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015.
Given the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and
convert part/all of the properties back to their original townhouse layout to improve the
housing offer in the local area, none of the offers received met the Councils aspirations
or financial expectations. The assessment of any formal tender offers received was
made by Council Officers from Regeneration, Finance and Legal in accordance with
the requirements of the City Council Constitution and all relevant legislation and forms
part of the assessment and due diligence process.
12. Negotiations are ongoing with a view to the sale of the properties on a Leasehold
basis with an option to purchase the Freehold reversion on completion of works.
13. The transaction has not yet been concluded. Once the sale process is complete
details of any prices paid will be available Land Registry Land Registry Search
Facility, via the following weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search
14. The transaction has not yet been concluded. Once the sale process is complete
details of any prices paid will be available Land Registry Land Registry Search
Facility, via the following weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search
15. Details as follows –
50 Rodney Street
Norfolk Street phase 2
Norfolk Street phase 3
Toxteth Community College
Land at Park Lane
80 Rodney Street
242 Upper Parliament Street
16. The City Council will respond to requests from interested parties in respect of
property or sites marketed or due to be marketed for disposal and regeneration. Any
requests or queries relating to individual sites are dealt with by Officers and not
Elected Members. All inquiries are dealt with in a consistent manner irrespective of
the requestor and is given in accordance with Council procedures and policies.
17. The Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given
14
the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert
part/all of the properties back to their original townhouse layout to improve the housing
offer in the local area, none of the offers received met the Councils aspirations or
financial expectations.
One of the interested parties, the Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council;
with a revised scheme and, more importantly, a substantially increased financial offer
which was significantly higher than any other offer received for a townhouse
conversion scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes
which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in view of the
relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be prejudiced by
inviting tenders”.
In this instance it was determined that the revised proposals best matched the City
Council’s aspirations to improve the housing offer in the local area.
18. Appropriate checks were undertaken
19. This information is not held by the City Council.
20. No.
21. Yes.
22. All information and documentation associated with the registration and titles of such
properties are already available in the public domain and reasonably accessible to you
via the Land Registry Search Facility, which may be accessed via the following weblink
–
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search
23. The types of meetings to which you refer to are not required to be formally recorded
through the production of Minutes or Action Notes and as such this information is not
held.
24. Please refer to our responses above.
______
557235 & 557239 –
50 Rodney Street Liverpool L1 9AA
1.
Did Liverpool City Council own the property 50 Rodney Street Liverpool 1? (The
Property)
2.
When Did Liverpool City Council own the said Property?
3.
Who did Liverpool City Council purchase the said property from?
4.
What purchase price did Liverpool City Council pay for the said property?
5.
Did Liverpool City Council purchase the property Freehold or Leasehold?
15
6.
If the property was purchased Leasehold did Liverpool City Council subsequently
purchase the freehold?
7.
When did Liverpool City Council Purchase the Freehold?
8.
Why did Liverpool City Council purchase the said property?
9.
When did Liverpool City Council sell the said property?
10. Why did Liverpool City Council sell the said property?
11. Who did Liverpool City Council sell the said property too?
12. Was the property sold leasehold or Freehold?
13. What was the length of time (days) Liverpool City Council owned the said property?
14. What length of time (days) did Liverpool City Council owned the Freehold of the said
property?
15. At the point of sale by Liverpool City Council where there any conditions or covenants
in place in regard to the said property?
16. Was the said property advertised for sale?
17. How was the said property advertised for sale?
18. Was a tendering process used for the sale of the said property?
19. What tendering process was used for the said property?
20. When was the said property advertised for sale and or the tendering process take
place? (Date)
21. How did Liverpool City Council determine that Elliot Lawless should be the preferred
purchaser of the said property?
22. Did Liverpool City Council employees, agents offer any professional help or advice
whatsoever, or counsel or procure Elliott Lawless purchase the said property?
23. Do Liverpool City Council have a full and proper audit for the purchase and sale of
the said property?
24. Will Liverpool City Council provide for public inspection all the deeds of transfer and
all relevant documents whatsoever appertaining to the sale of the said property?
25. Will Liverpool City Council provide for public inspection or provide full unedited
documents of all meetings and minuets of meetings or any documentary evidence or
contact whatsoever between Liverpool City Council or agents, and Elliot Lawless in
regard to and appertaining to the said property?
26. Did Liverpool City Council instruct its own solicitors to deal with the purchase and
16
subsequent sale of the said property?
27. If Liverpool City did not instruct its own solicitors to deal with the purchase and sale of
the said property which firm of solicitors dealt with the same?
28. What department within Liverpool City Council dealt with the purchase and sale of the
said property?
29. Which Liverpool City Council officers dealt with the purchase and sale of the said
property?
30. Where any Liverpool City Councillors involved in any way whatsoever in the purchase
and or sale of the said property.
Response
1. Yes.
2.
From early 20th Century to 27 October 2016
3.
Records not available
4.
Records not available
5.
Freehold
6.
Not applicable
7.
Early 20th Century
8.
This information is no longer retained on file nor is this required to be for operational
purposes.
9.
27 October 2016
10. The Leaseholder approached the City Council with a view to purchasing the freehold
reversion.
11. The Leaseholder
12. Freehold
13. The Council owned the property for many years (see above)
14. See previous answer.
15. No.
16. No. The Council did not advertise the property for sale. It was sold to the leaseholder.
This is in accordance with the requirements of the City Council’s Scheme of
Delegation and Contract Standing Orders – CSO 13.5 (ix).
17. Not applicable
17
18. No. The property was sold to the leaseholder. Information as regards the current
ownership of the property is available from the Land Registry Search Facility, which
may be accessed via the following weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search
19. Not applicable.
20. Not applicable
21. Mr Lawless was the leaseholder.
22. No.
23. Yes.
24. All information and documentation associated with the registration and titles of such
properties are already available in the public domain and reasonably accessible to
you via the Land Registry Search Facility, which may be accessed via the following
weblink –
www.eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/wps/portal/Property_Search
25. The types of meetings to which you refer to are not required to be formally recorded
through the production of Minutes or Action Notes and as such this information is not
held.
26. The Council’s solicitors dealt with the sale of the property. The purchase occurred in
Early 20th Century and records are not available.
27. Not applicable.
28. Property and Asset Management Services dealt with the sale of the property. The
purchase occurred in the early 20th Century and specific records are therefore not
available.
29. The following City Council Officers – Regeneration Officers, Head of Property & Asset
Management Services, Assistant Director – Physical Assets, Director – Regeneration
& Employment Services.
30. Councillor Malcolm Kennedy was consulted in accordance with Constitutional
requirements in his then the capacity of Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Transport
& Climate Change.
______
557241 –
Peel Holdings (Land and Property) Limited
1.
I would like a response and information on Mr Lindsey Ashworth, Peel Development
Director, as to why has he been using (Antonio Garcia BLOK Architecture) in a
number of writeups in the Liverpool Echo?
2.
Is the Liverpool city council working in partnership with Peel land and or Mr Ashworth
on the Liverpool water front using Mr Antonio Garcia of BLOK Architecture?
18
3.
Has Mr Antonio Walker and Blok Architecture been selected as the preferred lead
architect company for both the Liverpool city council and peel land with regards to the
Liverpool water front project?
4.
Can the council and Cllr Ann O'Byrne please state if this person "Mr , Antonio Garcia
BLOK Architecture is the same person who held talks with both Ann O'Byrne Mark
kitts in regards to the Chinatown project or PHD1, North point global, North Point
(Pall Mall) Mr Garcia said: “From the beginning we have had a vision for an
essentially Chinese development that will breathe new life and vibrancy into an
historic but recently declining area.North Point Global was backed in the venture by
its Chinese investment partners and the UKTI’s Regeneration Investment
Organisation - although it was not selected as the preferred developer for the site
back in June 2015 by Liverpool City council and former site owners Urban Splash
because PHD1 Contractors where yet its SPV China Town Developments Company
gained the leases somehow.
5.
Mr Garcia is linked to the below persons and companies and yet Peel Land and Mr
Ashworth are still using his company BLOK why has the council not said nothing?
Lee James Spence, Samuel Beilin, David Choules,
MISS KATE ELIZABETH PARRY
CLLR PETER MITCHELL
MR PETER ANTHONY MCINNES
MR PAUL JAGOTA
MR CRAIG MALCOLM WILLIAM BLACKWELL
LITL PROPERTIES LTD (07345747)
Lisa HAMPTON
PUMPFIELDS REGENERATION COMPANY LIMITED, This is Mr A Garcia's new
company linked to: Acentus real estate which is selling the Metal works apartments
in Leeds St liverpool.
Mr Lee Spence is a part of this as is Simon Clarke and Peter McInnes office address
is in St Helens but works from the Albert Dock in NPG office.
BALTIC HOUSE DEVELOPMENTS LTD
CHINA TOWN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD
PHEASANT (ST HELENS) LIMITED
ST GABRIELS (LIVERPOOL) LIMITED
6.
Additionally could you tell us the relationship between Liverpool City Council and the
Bramley Dock site. Do you own the land or lease it from Liverpool City Council?
7.
How are Everton Football Club going to buy the land for the proposed Stadium via
19
Peel Holdings or Liverpool City Council?
Response
1.
It is a matter for Peel Holdings as owners of the land to determine what third parties it
choses to contract with. This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council and as such we
do not hold any information - please therefore direct your question to Peel Holdings.
2.
Liverpool City Council is working with Peel Holdings in order to progress their wider
regeneration proposals including the Liverpool Waters scheme. However, with regard
to the selection and appointment of any consultants, planners or architects used by
Peel Holdings, this is a matter directly for Peel Holdings as the developer and owners
of the land to determine who it choses to contract with. This is not a matter for
Liverpool City Council and as such we do not hold any information - please therefore
direct your question to Peel Holdings.
3.
Liverpool City Council is working with Peel Holdings in order to progress their wider
regeneration proposals including the Liverpool Waters scheme. However, with regard
to the selection and appointment of any consultants, planners or architects used by
Peel Holdings, this is a matter directly for Peel Holdings as the developer and owners
of the land to determine who it choose to contract with. This is not a matter for
Liverpool City Council and as such we do not hold any information - please therefore
direct your question to Peel Holdings.
4.
The City Council and its representatives meet and engage with representatives from
various external agencies in the course of considering proposals for regeneration and
investment projects across the city.
5.
Peel Group is a PLC and will make their own assessments as regards their
consultants. This is not therefore a matter for Liverpool City Council and as such we
do not hold any information - please therefore direct your question to Peel Holdings.
6.
This question is directed to Peel Holdings. In terms of Liverpool City Council we
would refer you to the meeting of Cabinet of 31 March 2017, report reference RTC/45
for further information –
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1201&MId=15591
7.
We would refer you to the decision of Cabinet on 31 March 2017 entitled ‘Everton FC
New Stadium - Deal Terms (RTC/45)’. This may be accessed via the following
weblink –
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=1201&MId=15591
______
557377 –
The Elliot Group Website Councillor Ann O’Byrne – re property at Percy
Street/Parliament Street
1.
What are the council’s expectations for the property?
2.
How many people expressed an interest in the properties?
3.
How many people actually tendered for the properties?
20
4.
What was the highest bid?
5.
Who made the highest bid?
6.
What were the individual bids?
7.
How much was the substantial offer from The Elliot Group.
8.
How did The Elliot Group match the Councils expectations for the property?
9.
Secondly, what are the “Contract Standing Orders”?
10. Under what circumstances do they apply to the tendering process?
11. Which section or part or paragraph of the Contract Orders was applied to the decision
to allow The Elliot Group to be the sole contractors?
12. Who was the relevant director who made the decision?
13. Who was the relevant cabinet member who made the decision?
14. Will the council provide copies of all evidence used in forming the decision?
15. Will the council provide copies of all evidence used in promulgating the decision?
16. Why would the offer from The Elliot Group be prejudiced, in inviting further tenders?
17. Will the council provide full written reasons for the decision to award The Elliot Group
the contract?
Response
1.
The Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given
the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert
part/all the properties back to their original town houses to improve the offer in the
locality, none of the offers received met the Council’s aspirations or financial
expectations.
One of the interested parties, The Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council
with a revised scheme, and more importantly a substantially increased financial offer,
which is significantly higher than any other offer received for a town house conversion
scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes
which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the view of
the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be prejudiced by
inviting tenders.
The transaction has yet to be concluded with a number of final points remaining to be
resolved.
2.
173
21
3.
21
4.
The highest bid was submitted by the Elliot Group. Until the transaction has concluded,
details as regards the values of the highest bid remains the subject of negotiation with
the bidder. In view of this fact, the City Council has therefore considered whether any
Exemptions as set out within the Freedom of Information Act be applied, in this
instance specifically the exemption in respect of commercial confidentiality (Section 43
(2)) Our considerations and assessment are set out below.
Section 43 (2) – Prejudice to Commercial Interests
Turning firstly to matters of potential prejudice to commercial interests of the City
Council. The disclosure of the requested information would be prejudicial to the City
Council’s commercial interests insofar as seeking to secure the best possible price is
secured for the commercial transaction and for similar transactions. .
Section 43 (2) – Public Interest Test
In considering the public interest test and its application in the context of the
information retrieved, as is standard practice when dealing with all such issues, the
City Council has carefully considered the factors both for and against disclosure of the
information held.
The City Council does not consider that generic public interest arguments are relevant
in the majority of cases as indeed this one – rather, the specific circumstances and
nature of the information enable this to be focused and therefore more refined.
Factors in favour of disclosing the information –
(i)
transparency of the process with which the City Council negotiates with third
parties; and
(ii)
the level of public interest in disclosure.
Factors against disclosure of the information –
(i)
the requested information relates to a commercial contractual transaction which if
disclosed would compromise the ability of the City Council to secure the best
possible financial and commercial terms for asset disposal transactions given
that any bidders would be aware that any bids would be disclosed whether
successful or not. The disclosure of information of this type relating to either party
would subsequently compromise the City Council’s ability to effectively conduct
negotiations on future transactions and could give rise to an actionable breach of
confidence as well as inhibiting the effectiveness of the City Council’s
negotiations on future commercial projects; and
(ii)
the level of public interest – limited.
The above factors were, in the opinion of the City Council, finely balanced. However, a
key factor in the application of the Exemption was that of the ability of an organisation
such as Liverpool City Council to undertake and ultimately complete commercial
negotiations on matters relating to transactions of this type. Were information of this
22
nature to be routinely disclosed, the ability of the City Council to achieve the best
possible commercial and financial outcomes for the use of public funds as well as
supporting regeneration and wider activities under its general powers of competence,
and to be able to continue and conclude such negotiations would be significantly
prejudiced.
Having carefully considered the above factors, and in view of the ongoing nature of
negotiations on this matter, the City Council considers that, at this stage, the
application of a Commercial Confidentiality Exemption under the provisions of Section
43(2) FOIA is justified and therefore withholds the requested information.
Should the sale complete the purchase price will be publicly accessible at the Lands
Registry.
5.
The highest bid was submitted by the Elliot Group. The Council marketed the
properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given the large number of
apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert part/all the properties
back to their original town houses to improve the offer in the locality, none of the offers
received met the Council’s aspirations or financial expectations.
One of the interested parties, The Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council
with a revised scheme, and more importantly a substantially increased financial offer,
which is significantly higher than any other offer received for a town house conversion
scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes
which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the view of
the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be prejudiced by
inviting tenders.
The transaction has yet to be concluded with a number of final points remaining to be
resolved.
6.
With regard to this element of your request, details of individuals bids reflect the
commercial considerations and methodology of individual bidders. In view of this fact,
the City Council has therefore considered whether any Exemptions as set out within
the Freedom of Information Act be applied, in this instance specifically the exemption
in respect of commercial confidentiality (Section 43 (2)) Our considerations and
assessment are set out below.
Section 43 (2) – Prejudice to Commercial Interests
Turning firstly to matters of potential prejudice to commercial interests of the City
Council. The disclosure of the requested information would be prejudicial to the City
Council’s commercial interests insofar as seeking to secure the best possible price is
secured for the commercial transaction and for similar transactions. .
Section 43 (2) – Public Interest Test
In considering the public interest test and its application in the context of the
information retrieved, as is standard practice when dealing with all such issues, the
23
City Council has carefully considered the factors both for and against disclosure of the
information held.
The City Council does not consider that generic public interest arguments are relevant
in the majority of cases as indeed this one – rather, the specific circumstances and
nature of the information enable this to be focused and therefore more refined.
Factors in favour of disclosing the information –
(iii) transparency of the process with which the City Council negotiates with third
parties; and
(iv) the level of public interest in disclosure.
Factors against disclosure of the information –
(iii) the requested information relates to a commercial contractual transaction which if
disclosed would compromise the ability of the City Council to secure the best
possible financial and commercial terms for asset disposal transactions given
that any bidders would be aware that any bids would be disclosed whether
successful or not. The disclosure of information of this type relating to either party
would subsequently compromise the City Council’s ability to effectively conduct
negotiations on future transactions and could give rise to an actionable breach of
confidence as well as inhibiting the effectiveness of the City Council’s
negotiations on future commercial projects; and
(iv) the level of public interest – limited.
The above factors were, in the opinion of the City Council, finely balanced. However, a
key factor in the application of the Exemption was that of the ability of an organisation
such as Liverpool City Council to undertake and ultimately complete commercial
negotiations on matters relating to transactions of this type. Were information of this
nature to be routinely disclosed, the ability of the City Council to achieve the best
possible commercial and financial outcomes for the use of public funds as well as
supporting regeneration and wider activities under its general powers of competence,
and to be able to continue and conclude such negotiations would be significantly
prejudiced.
Having carefully considered the above factors, and in view of the ongoing nature of
negotiations on this matter, the City Council considers that, at this stage, the
application of a Commercial Confidentiality Exemption under the provisions of Section
43(2) FOIA is justified and therefore withholds the requested information.
Should the sale complete the purchase price will be publicly accessible at the Lands
Registry.
7.
With regard to this element of your request, the transaction has not yet concluded and
subject to active dialogue. In view of this fact, the City Council has therefore
considered whether any Exemptions as set out within the Freedom of Information Act
be applied, in this instance specifically the exemption in respect of commercial
confidentiality (Section 43 (2)) Our considerations and assessment are set out below.
Section 43 (2) – Prejudice to Commercial Interests
24
Turning firstly to matters of potential prejudice to commercial interests of the City
Council. The disclosure of the requested information would be prejudicial to the City
Council’s commercial interests insofar as seeking to secure the best possible price is
secured for the commercial transaction.
Section 43 (2) – Public Interest Test
In considering the public interest test and its application in the context of the
information retrieved, as is standard practice when dealing with all such issues, the
City Council has carefully considered the factors both for and against disclosure of the
information held.
The City Council does not consider that generic public interest arguments are relevant
in the majority of cases as indeed this one – rather, the specific circumstances and
nature of the information enable this to be focused and therefore more refined.
Factors in favour of disclosing the information –
(i)
transparency of the process with which the City Council negotiates with third
parties; and
(ii)
the level of public interest in disclosure.
Factors against disclosure of the information –
(i)
the requested information relates to a commercial contractual transaction which if
disclosed would compromise the ability of the City Council to secure the best
possible financial and commercial terms for asset disposal transactions. The
disclosure of information of this type relating to either party would subsequently
compromise the City Council’s ability to effectively conduct negotiations on future
transactions and could give rise to an actionable breach of confidence as well as
inhibiting the effectiveness of the City Council’s negotiations on future
commercial projects; and
(ii)
the level of public interest – limited.
The above factors were, in the opinion of the City Council, finely balanced. However, a
key factor in the application of the Exemption was that of the ability of an organisation
such as Liverpool City Council to undertake and ultimately complete commercial
negotiations on matters relating to transactions of this type. Were information of this
nature to be routinely disclosed during ongoing negotiations, the ability of the City
Council to achieve the best possible commercial and financial outcomes for the use of
public funds as well as supporting regeneration and wider activities under its general
powers of competence, and to be able to continue and conclude such negotiations
would be significantly prejudiced.
Having carefully considered the above factors, and in view of the ongoing nature of
negotiations on this matter, the City Council considers that, at this stage, the
application of a Commercial Confidentiality Exemption under the provisions of Section
43(2) FOIA is justified and therefore withholds information on this matter (for the
avoidance of doubt, the application of this Exemption extends to all correspondence
extant between the City Council and the third party on the basis that this includes
25
details which, if disclosed could have a harmful impact on the commercial and financial
interests of both parties and give rise to an actionable breach.
Should the sale complete the purchase price will be publicly accessible at the Lands
Registry.
8.
The Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given
the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert
part/all the properties back to their original town houses to improve the offer in the
locality, none of the offers received met the Council’s aspirations or financial
expectations.
One of the interested parties, The Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council
with a revised scheme, and more importantly a substantially increased financial offer,
which is significantly higher than any other offer received for a town house conversion
scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes
which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the view of
the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be prejudiced by
inviting tenders. The relevant Contract Standing Order is 13.5 (ix).
The transaction has yet to be concluded with a number of final points remaining to be
resolved.
9.
The Contract Standing Orders form part of the City Council’s Constitution and are the
basis under which the Council may undertake various commercial transactions.
These are already in the public domain and reasonably accessible to you via the
following weblink –
(http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecSDDisplay.aspx?NAME=SD6837&ID=6837&RPI
D=11484721 )
10. Contract Standing Orders and Financial Regulations apply to the entire process and
given the conduct of transactions.
11. Contract Standing Order 13.5 (ix), which states –
“Disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes which will have a
regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the view of the relevant
Director in consultation with the relevant Cabinet Member and the Cabinet Member
for Finance and Resources could be prejudiced by inviting tenders”
12. Decisions made under Contract Standing Order 13.5 (ix) may be taken by the
Director Regeneration & Employment Services in accordance with the provisions of
the Scheme of Delegation.
13. In the event of a decision being required, the Cabinet Member would be a consultee
and does not make the decision. The relevant Cabinet Member was that for
Regeneration, Transport & Climate Change.
14. Once a decision has been made then this will be published within records of Delegated
Decisions which are in the public domain and accessible via the following weblink –
26
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecCatDisplayClassic.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13560&pat
h=536 . However, at this stage no decision has been made and the proposals remain
under consideration subject to active dialogue.
15. Once a decision has been made then this will be published within records of Delegated
Decisions which are in the public domain and accessible via the following weblink –
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/ecCatDisplayClassic.aspx?sch=doc&cat=13560&pat
h=536 . However, at this stage no decision has been made and the proposals remain
under consideration subject to active dialogue.
16. As indicated above the process is ongoing and no final decision has yet been made.
As is practice across all public and private authorities when dealing with commercial
transactions, it is appropriate to have a clear approach to how such negotiations are
conducted. Once a preferred bidder is identified it is entirely appropriate to enter into
negotiations on that basis until such time as a final agreement is reached. If a final
agreement were unable to be reached then alternative offers would be invited and
considered. The potential prejudice would be for a preferred bidder to incur
expenditure whilst such negotiations continued.
17. The Council marketed the properties, seeking expressions of interest, in 2015. Given
the large number of apartments already in the area and a desire to try and convert
part/all the properties back to their original town houses to improve the offer in the
locality, none of the offers received met the Council’s aspirations or financial
expectations.
One of the interested parties, The Elliot Group, subsequently approached the Council
with a revised scheme, and more importantly a substantially increased financial offer,
which is significantly higher than any other offer received for a town house conversion
scheme.
In view of the increased offer, it was agreed to proceed with the revised offer rather
than go back to the market on the grounds (as permitted under Contract Standing
Orders) that the “disposals of property to developers who are proposing schemes
which will have a regenerating effect on the City and investment which in the view of
the relevant Director in consultation with the Cabinet Member could be prejudiced by
inviting tenders.
The transaction has not yet concluded and subject to active dialogue.
______
557382 –
Paramount - London Road
1.
Could the council please tell me if they have looked into the safety of the 120
students living in this unfinished building "The Paramount" in London road and have
the council held talks with the MFRS with regards to this matter and tested the
cladding?
Response
1.
Liverpool City Council Building Control have carried out site inspections to determine
the compliance with building regulations, this has included several meetings both on
site and at the Fire Service HQ with Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service. Both
Merseyside Fire and Rescue Service and Liverpool City Council Building Control are
satisfied that the requirements of the Building Regulations and the Regulatory Reform
27
(Fire Safety) Order 2005 have been met, and are satisfied that the building can
remain partially occupied in accordance with the conditions of the final certificate
issued by the approved inspector.
The cladding is considered to comply with the requirements of the building
regulations and has not been tested in accordance with post Grenfell DCLG
guidelines because the material used is a cementitious board that is non-combustible
and therefore fit for purpose.
______
558345 –
Part one Refurbishment of The Irish Centre Liverpool 8m
Two years ago, as part of the ECHO’s relaunched Stop the Rot campaign, it stated that the
Irish Centre in Mount Pleasant was the focus of an ambitious £8m development plan which
aimed to keep "talented graduates in the city." Could you please explain:
1.
Just why and how would this very overpriced ambitious £8m project keep talented
graduates in the city?
[The two Universities have questioned this remark as misleading and could not
understand how the graduates could or would benefit from this at all?]
Echo quote: "But although progress has appeared slow, we can reveal these
proposals are still on track – major repair work is finally set to begin, and a funding
application made to hopefully ensure the development plans become a reality."
2.
Which LCC individual supplied the Liverpool Echo with this information
3.
Who will be doing the major repair work?
4.
Who will be funding it & how much is it going to cost?
5.
Had Cllr Ann O’Byrne within the last 4 weeks had approval from any funding body in
relation to the Irish Centre
Response
1.
We would advise you direct any comments as regards media articles to the relevant
publication as the quote you have supplied was not made by a City Council Officer or
Councillor but rather is part of the text of the article. With regard to the remaining
elements this question these are a statement and as such are not a valid request
under the Freedom of Information Act. However and to offer context and with
reference to the article to which you refer, the establishment of a business and
innovation hub would assist individuals – including talented graduates – with the
establishment of small businesses thereby supporting graduate retention as well as
job creation.
2.
If you refer to the content of the article, it is clear that Councillor Ann O’Byrne
responded to the inquiries of the newspaper. However, whilst a small number of
quotes may be directly attributable to Councillor O’Byrne, the remainder of the article
was produced by the reporting journalist as a result of their own work and as such we
would advise you direct any further comments directly to them.
28
3.
Quadriga has been appointed to undertake urgent works to make the building, wind,
weather tight and secure.
4.
The urgent building works, which will make the building wind, weather tight and
secure are being funded with £10,000 from Historic England, £10,000 from
Merseyside Building Preservation Trust and approximately £10,000 from the
Council’s Planning Revenue budget.
5.
Until a development partner is identified, a scheme worked up and planning and listed
building consent secured, it is not possible to say what the project cost will be. The
City Council is not aware of any funding bid or funding approval in relation to the
Wellington Rooms or the Irish Centre in the last 4 weeks.
______
558352 –
Part 2 When did the two Universities team up with ( MBPT) Irish 8m project
1.
Please supply all information in relation to the past failed enterprises and the
proposed hotel .
2.
When did the two Universities team up with (MBPT) and LCC? Please supply a copy
of the legal paperwork and indicate who will end up with the freehold land?
3.
Did the Council refuse the hotel application because a city councillor wanted it for a
dance studio? Was that Councillor - Frank Prendergast?
In March 2016 it was reported that a £30,000 architectural study had been
commissioned which would focus on the condition of the building and provide definite
options and costings for its refurbishment.
4.
Where did this £30,000 come from and to whom did it go ? Person or company
please. Then the following month, the project took another step forward when OMI
Architects, who are based in Salford and were working on another building on the
ECHO’s Stop The Rot list – Lister Drive Library in Tuebrook – had been appointed.
5.
OMI Architects is Mr Andy James could the Council please explain how this company
got the contract and how much has been paid out to-date?
In November 2016 £121,000 of repair work was due to begin on the Irish Centre,
however, delays have meant the contract for this work is only expected to be
awarded this month.
6.
Who is this funding coming from and who is it going to?
Deputy Mayor of Liverpool Cllr Ann O’Byrne told the ECHO: “A survey has found that
the structure of the building is generally sound but identified that urgent works were
required to prevent further deterioration of the historic fabric. The works comprise:
works to the roof, masonry and internal repairs to address issues associated with
water getting in.
7.
Who did the survey and how much were they paid?
"Historic England has awarded a grant of £60,500 to jointly fund the urgent works with
the city council. Specialist conservation contractors have been invited to tender and
29
the contract is expected to be awarded this month. It is estimated the urgent works
will take four months to complete."
8.
Please state when these works took place and who was paid the £60,000
"Cllr O’Byrne explained: “A feasibility study highlighted a range of options for the
future use of the building. The preferred option was the creation of an ‘Innovation
Hub’."
9.
Please explain in detail what will be the function of this Innovation Hub
The Merseyside Building Preservation Trust was commissioned to carry out a soft
market test with developers with a track record in heritage-led regeneration. Their
task is to develop the detail of the hub proposal in terms of design, cost, value and
funding options with a view to submitting a Stage 1 funding application to the Heritage
Lottery Fund by the end of this year.
10. When did this application go in and how much funding was requested?
Declan Doolin, who is on the committee of the St Michael’s Irish Centre in Boundary
Lane, Everton, would like to see part of a redeveloped Wellington Rooms used as a
new Irish Centre.
11. Will a new Irish Centre be part of the plan?
Response
1.
With regards to any previous proposals for a hotel within the Wellington Rooms
building, extensive searches of the City Council’s records have identified that this
information is no longer retained by the City Council. With regard to specific details of
Planning Applications submitted for the site these are already in the public domain,
we would refer you to the City Council’s Planning Explorer search facility to access
this information –
http://northgate.liverpool.gov.uk/PlanningExplorer17/GeneralSearch.aspx
2.
The two Universities are part of a stakeholder group that includes, the City Council,
MBPT, Historic England, Liverpool Science Park and Knowledge Quarter which has
been brought together to drive forward the regeneration of the Wellington Rooms.
3.
No. Decisions on any Planning Applications are made by the City Council in its
capacity as Local Planning Authority and each individual application is considered on
its own merit.
4.
The £30,000 to fund the building feasibility study and building survey, was funded in
equal amounts (£10,000) by Historic England, Liverpool City Council and MBPT. The
feasibility survey and study were undertaken by OMI Architects.
5.
OMI Architects were appointed following a competitive tendering process. The
feasibility study cost £30,000, in line with the funding that had been secured for the
project. The relevant project – namely the feasibility study – has been completed and
the work invoiced for.
6.
The funding to deliver the building urgent works contract is coming from Historic
30
England and Liverpool City Council. The funding will be paid to the preferred
specialist contractor, in accordance with an agreed works schedule and when signed
off by an independent project manager or cost consultants.
7.
This point has been dealt with in response (5) above.
8.
The building works commenced on 12 February 2018. Quadriga are undertaking
these works.
9.
The Merseyside Building Preservation Trust have being commissioned to undertake
out a soft market test with a range of developers with a track-record in heritage-led
regeneration. It is not the purpose of the soft market test to develop the detail of the
innovation hub proposal in terms of design, cost and value. The purpose of the
exercise for MBPT is to test all the options in the feasibility study in the market. The
outcome of the test might be that an innovation hub is the most appropriate and
viable end-use.
The Council and MBPT would then work with a preferred developer on the most
appropriate end-use to look at funding options with a view to submitting a Stage 1
funding application to the Heritage Lottery Fund in late 2018.
10. There has been no application for Stage 1 HLF funding submitted to date.
11. The City Council is aware of the Irish Centre’s aspirations for the Wellington Rooms,
in terms of the building being, developed for an Irish Centre and cultural venue.
Representatives of the City Council have met with Declan Doolin to discuss those
aspirations. The Irish Centre have been advised that they would need to work up
those proposals, develop a robust, viable and sustainable business plan for
consideration. The City Council has instructed MBPT that as part of the soft market
test, they should engage with the Irish Centre as an interested party. Clearly the
viability of the business case will be key and bringing a development partner to the
discussion.
______
558497 –
Chinese Investors meeting with Councillor Gary Millar
1.
Cllr Gary Millar, Was with the Chinese Consul General in Manchester at a party on
the 6th October 2017 could Liverpool City Council please tell us was he on business
for the council or was he acting alone?
2.
Did any other member of Liverpool council attend this party/ Dinner in Manchester?
3.
This matter was also talked about on Radio Merseyside by a friend of Cllr Millar.
4.
Will Liverpool council please state for the public record if Cllr Millar will be going back
to the far east, China, Hong Kong acting in the same role (Assistant Mayor & Mayoral
Lead for Business & International Trade)?
5.
So many Chinese investors have wanted to talk face to face with Cllr Millar over his
bad advice at the dinner in Hong Kong he was with NPG Ltd Staff, Along with Peter
A McInnes, and Samson Law who the Manchester police are now looking into, along
with other depts will Cllr Millar please talk to the police over this meeting?
31
6.
Chinese investors who have lost out so much money over their investments in
Liverpool. Hong Kong is now part of China, So would Cllr, Millar talk to the police in
China and Hong Kong as to his dealing with NPG Ltd and Samson Law?
7.
New evidence of Cllr Millar endorsing NPG in Hong Kong back in 2015 will now be
passed on Chinese Consul General's office in Manchester They should be
questioning Cllr Millar over the disaster, not inviting him for dinner.
8.
Will Cllr Millar also talk to the UK police and other departments in Manchester and
London?
9.
The matter also may be passed on to Anti-Money Laundering Suspicious Cases Unit
Abu Dhabi - UAE and China others.
10. Cllr Ann O'Byrne had stated she was in talks with the NCA, will she pass on any new
details about Cllr Millars Hong Kong meeting and past dealing with the above names
to any and all police units?
11. Will Cllr Millar also please tell as what he knows with regards to Peter A McInnes
moving from Dubai and moving to the USA ?
12. Has Cllr Millar ever being paid by NPG Ltd and or Peter McInnes/ Samson Law/ or
Tony Freeman/ or had gifts or other items?
13. Will Cllr Millar please state if he had held talks Mr (Samuel Beilin) in Liverpool and or
Hong Kong in regards to selling £350,000 apartments off plan in both Chinatown and
the Baltic House in Norfolk St Liverpool, as a number of investors from Hong Kong
and China had meeting in Liverpool with Samuel Beilin who was a part of NPG Ltd
and known to Cllr Millar, would Cllr Millar please try to recall this person?
14. Will Cllr Millar please tell us if he held talks with Pinnacle Manchester, who had sold
both the Quadrant, Shaw St Liverpool and Paramount, London Rd in which was a
scam run by Mr Tony Freeman from Hong Kong and the UK, Mr Freeman may have
been at the meeting in Hong Kong when Cllr Millar was there, Has Cllr Millar held any
talks with him or his office staff both in Hong Kong and Liverpool?
Response
1.
Liverpool City Council holds no information about a party. Councillor Millar requested
a meeting to meet the new deputy consul and the consul general as part of his
ongoing efforts to build relations with China both in the UK and within China. There
was a meeting on the 6th October followed by a formal dinner, hosted by the Consul
General. The topics of discussion were IBF, future trips to China and a general
update.
2.
Councillor Millar was accompanied by a member of staff from Liverpool Mutual
Homes.
3.
This is not a valid question, no response is therefore required.
4.
Yes. Cllr Millar visited China in November as part of an academic trip with the
Confucius Institute, and represented the city of Liverpool in Xi’an, Shanghai, Qingdao
32
at the end of the trip.
5.
Cllr Millar has not provided investment advice to any potential investor in either LCC
or private schemes. All investors are always advised to make their own assessment
of the potential investment risk, with appropriate due diligence, which should also be
carried out by the investment agency they use.
Liverpool City Council, including its representatives, will always make themselves
available to respond to any questions from law enforcement agencies.
6.
Liverpool City Council advises anyone who believes their investment has been lost
due to illegal activities to report it to the appropriate authorities.
Liverpool City Council, including its representatives, will always make themselves
available to respond to any questions from law enforcement agencies.
7.
This is not a valid question, no response is therefore required.
8.
Liverpool City Council, including its representatives, will always make themselves
available to respond to any questions from law enforcement agencies.
9.
This element of your request is not valid under the Freedom of Information Act.
10. Councillor Ann O’Byrne did not say she was in talks with the NCA. She said that the
Council had reported its concerns to the NCA. Due to the way the NCA operates and
the current court case between Liverpool City Council and New Chinatown
Development it is not appropriate to say more, other than to point out that the council
will always co-operate fully with any law enforcement agency and respond to their
requests.
11. Liverpool City Council holds no information on this and Councillor Millar is unaware of
any movements of Peter McInnes.
12. No.
13. Councillor Millar is unaware of any of Samuel Beilin’s business activities and has
never met him in regards to New Chinatown, or any of North Point Global’s schemes
or developments. Councillor Millar has no business relationship with him.
14. No. Councillor Millar did not.
______
558514 –
Councillor Gary Millar’s meetings in Hong Kong
Could Liverpool council please supply all information, on the trip to Hong Kong with
Councillor Gary Millar, Assistant Mayor & Mayoral Lead for Business & International Trade
and his photos with Samson Law and Peter A Mcinnes at the NPG Ltd sales / LCC
partnership 31st October as new information has just come to light.
1.
Cllr Millar has he ever met a lady called " Chans Chan" in the same hotel ( Hong
Kong) on that night?
33
Note: Chans Chan, was working for Peter A McInnes, Tony Freeman and Hong Kong
Homes, Mr Samson Law, who was linked to Liverpool@ Landlord from Hell, Mr Nigel
Russell.
2.
Cllr Millar, has he held talks or met " Amie Tsang" British Senior Lawyer in the same
meeting in Hong Kong?
Note: Amie Tsang was working with both the seller and the poor investors in Hong
Kong, Liverpool, Baltic House Norfolk St and Chinatown and Manchester.
3.
Did Cllr Millar in Liverpool fix or set up a talk in with "Mick Coyle" at Radio City in Jan
2017 in which Salesman for NPG Ltd plugged these apartments in Chinatown and
Pall Mall?
4.
Cllr Millar may be a friend of Mick Coyle Yes or No?
5.
Cllr Millar has he ever used a PR company Known as Bond PR in Liverpool who
works with NPG Ltd?
6.
It will help if Cllr Millar can recall all these persons in Hong Kong as many are saying
he was a part of this?
Response
1.
Liverpool City Council holds no information on this, as there was no meeting in Hong
Kong with anyone called Chans Chan. Councillor Gary Millar is not aware of meeting
anyone called Chans Chan. Councillor Millar has no record or recollection of meeting
her.
2.
Liverpool City Council holds no information on this, as there was no meeting in Hong
Kong with anyone called Amie Tsang. Councillor Gary Millar is not aware of meeting
anyone called Amie Tsang. Councillor Millar has no record or recollection of meeting
her.
3.
No. Councillor Millar did not.
4.
Liverpool City Council holds no information on the personal friendships of any of its
staff or representatives. However, Councillor Millar confirms that he considers Mick
Coyle a friend.
5.
Liverpool City Council holds no information on the previous personal business
relationships of councillors. However, Cllr Millar confirms he has never used Bond PR.
6.
This is not a valid question under Freedom of Information legislation.
______
558701 –
The Welsh Presbyterian Church in Princes Ave Liverpool. Bill Maynard
1.
Can the Liverpool City Council please explain why it has taken so long for this project
to start and as to why a vast amount of over prices grants are needed £6m plus
others fees?
34
2.
Will Liverpool Council please act and ask MBPT to hand this back to the council as
no work or funding is coming from Bill Maynard or MBPT?
3.
Please I have asked many times has Mr Bill Maynard worked with the LCC or worked
for the LCC in the past 15 years?
4.
Also will LLC please tell the public has Erica Rushton worked in the past 15 years for
the LCC or has she worked alongside the LCC?
5.
Has Erica Rushton worked with the Mayor of Liverpool in the past 8 years?
6.
If so please state on what projects in Liverpool has she been on with the Mayor?
7.
Will Liverpool council please state on record what links it has to been given grant
funding from the "European Regional Development Fund" and do you have a contact
names and full address fro (ERDF) Please?
Response
1.
This is not a valid question under Freedom of Information legislation.
2.
This is not a valid question under Freedom of Information legislation.
3.
Mr Maynard is neither a current or former City Council employee. The City Council
will engage with will engage with and offer advice to all key stakeholders and
interested parties in respect of projects and regeneration initiatives across the city,
which includes the Merseyside Building Preservation Trust of which Mr Maynard is a
representative. We do not retain nor do we have any operational or legislative
requirement to, details of all contacts or communications we have had with the
Merseyside Building Preservation Trust or its agents.
4.
Ms Erika Rushton formerly worked for the City Council’s then Neighbourhood
Management Team prior to 2010. In her current capacity as Chair of Baltic Creatives
CIC Ms Rushton will from time to time engage with the City Council on matters which
the City Council are the relevant body or consultee.
5.
The It is routine practice for the Mayor, Councillors and Officers to have contact with
key stakeholders on matters of interest when relevant to do so, however regeneration
activities within the city are managed by Officers in the Regeneration Directorate in
partnership with relevant organisations such as Baltic CIC.
6.
Regeneration activities within the city are managed by Officers in the Regeneration
Directorate in partnership with relevant organisations such as Baltic CIC. Ms
Rushton and the Mayor do not work directly on any projects in the city.
7.
With regard to the final element of your request – insofar as this relates to the
European Regional Development Fund, relevant information is available from the
UK Government via the following weblink –
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/england-
2014-to-2020-european-structural-and-investment-funds
______
558703 –
Liverpool FC Car park Anfield Cllr Nick Small - £186,000 in taking
35
1.
Could the Liverpool council and or Cllr Nick Small please name all the good causes in
the local communities who had funds to benefit from the £186,000 in cash?
Note "Anfield, County and Kirkdale wards are all set to benefit from the profits of the
community car park run on football match days at Priory Road".
2.
Please name all the companies and or persons who were to benefit from this project?
3.
Were Liverpool FC part of this?
4.
Who owns the car park and in total what cash over the years has been taken?
Note The Beautiful North Partnership, which was established to improve the local
area and has its address as: BEAUTIFUL IDEAS COMPANY (NORTH) CIC 19
Devonshire Road, Princes Park, Liverpool, Company number 09138025
5.
Why is the LCC given Erika Ann Rushton the name of" Neighbourhood Director"
and what is her role with this car park in Anfield?
6.
Is LCC paying any fees or commissions to Erika Rushton for her services in running
this car park or is her role free to the public?
Note Assistant mayor Cllr Nick Small, chair of the Beautiful North Partnership
community interest company, said: “The community car park has been a tremendous
success, improving life for the local community and raising money which we can now
reinvest back into the local area.
7.
Please can Cllr Nick Small account from the 1st week one as to all cash income and
where has it gone?
8.
Will LCC please tell the public has Cllr Ann O'Byrne had any role / part in this with
Erika Rushton and have these in the past worked together on other LCC projects?
9.
Is the car park still in use and if so who runs it and where is the income going to?
10. Can the LCC please tell me the link to a person: Gemma Louise McGowan as also
being a part of "Beautiful North Partnership" at the same time running this other
company.
11. THE ISLA GLADSTONE OUTSIDE CATERING LTD Company number 07665811
Could the LCC please ask Cllr Ann O'Byrne is she or any other family member and or
friends linked to this company "THE ISLA GLADSTONE OUTSIDE CATERING LTD"
12. Will the LCC please supply the information on who owns the land and or the building
of the Isla Gladstone and what’s the rents or and other income to the LCC in the
event LCC do own it?
Response
1.
This question should be redirected to the Beautiful Ideas Community Interest
Company (CIC) who would hold any relevant information as opposed to the City
Council. We would however advise that the car park to which you refer operated by
the CIC ceased at the close of the 2015/16 football season.
2.
This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
36
3.
This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
4.
Liverpool Football Club. With regard to the second element of this question this
information is not held by the City Council and we would redirect you to the Beautiful
Ideas Community Interest Company (CIC) who would hold any relevant information
5.
Liverpool City Council is not aware of Erika Rushton ever having been designated a
‘Neighbourhood Director’ by Liverpool City Council.
6.
This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
7.
This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
8.
Insofar as this question relates to the activities of the Beautiful Ideas Community This
is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
9.
The land to which you refer is owned by Liverpool Football Club who acquired the
majority of the site from Liverpool City Council during 2014/15 and who ran the car
park from 2015. As such we would advise you redirect any questions with regards to
the use of the land directly to them.
10. This is not a matter for Liverpool City Council. Please refer to our response (1) above.
11. This is not a valid question under the Freedom of Information Act. As such please
direct such questions to the company concerned.
12. Liverpool City Council owns the land and the property. The Isla Gladstone Company
manages and operates the building on behalf of the City Council under a licence for a
fixed period of five years expiring August 2019. The City Council receives an income
of £26,000 from the company.
______
558914 –
The Beautiful Ideas Company
1.
Can Liverpool city council please tell us if Erika Rushton worked for Liverpool
council’s first economic development department? If so for how long and did she
resign?
Note
The Beautiful Ideas Company began as the Beautiful North, set up to change
perceptions of the north of the city. It opened a community-run car park on a former
school site for visitors to park their cars on match days. The money generated was
matched with the government-baked LaunchPad fund, and now a pot of £600,000 is
available to enable ‘Beautiful Ideas’ – new businesses and community enterprises of
benefit to the north of the city
2.
Who are the Launch Pad fund and it linked to LCC, how did this £600,000 benefit the
north of the city?
3.
Can Liverpool council please tell us as to where this cash went and what accounts
are there?
37
Response
1.
Erika Rushton formerly worked for the City Council’s then Neighbourhood
Management Team prior to 2010. With regard to the remaining elements of this
question we would advise that Liverpool City Council would advise that it considers
the requested information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis that this
constitutes personal data and that Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act
2000 is engaged.
Specifically, with regard to posts within the City Council and indeed other public
sector organisations, advice and guidance issued by the Information Commissioners
Office (ICO) indicates that when dealing with requests such as this, consideration be
given to the seniority of role and to what degree an individual Officer or former Officer
may reasonably expect their information to be disclosed in response to information
requests.
In this instance it is the City Council’s determination that the individual concerned
could not be anticipated to have any reasonable expectation that information on their
former employment with the City Council would be disclosed on the basis that the role
concerned is not one of sufficient seniority nor one which could reasonably be
anticipated to be placed under such level of public disclosure.
2.
This question should be redirected to Government insofar as it relates to the Launch
Pad Fund to the Beautiful Ideas Community Interest Company (CIC) who would hold
any relevant information as opposed to the City Council.
3.
This question should be redirected to the Beautiful Ideas Community Interest
Company (CIC) who would hold any relevant information as opposed to the City
Council.
______
559296 –
The Former Welsh Presbyterian Chapel - Baltic Creative CIC
Can you please supply details on the Former Welsh Presbyterian Chapel on Princess Ave
Liverpool 8. The council sold the site to Merseyside Building and Preservation Trust
(MBPT) for £1 in 2014.
1.
MBPT trustee Mr Steve Power in a long telephone call with myself, has stated he
now owns this building and the freehold land and had put in for a Grant of £4.2
million to the lottery and then wanted to put in for another £2 million with the (ERDF)
Mr Steve Power has also stated he has on the inside a very good contact within the
Liverpool city council when it come to getting things done? Can the LCC please tell
me the name of this person within the council?
2.
Can LCC please explain as to why this building has been left in such a poor state
and after 3 years will the council ask what MBPT new plans are as a witness has
come forward to say that the funding sent in to the H L F (Lottery) was over priced
and to cook the books to get as much as they could.
38
3.
Has the Liverpool city council got any council members linked to these persons, Mr
William Maynard MBPT, Mr Mark Lawler, Mr Steve Power MBPT and Erica
Rushton?.
4.
Will the Liverpool city council please give all details of this other company and were
the LCC the "Mayor" Cllr Ann O'Byrne and other members of the Mayor's team even
linked or helped set this company up, The Baltic Creative CIC?
5.
Has the council ever sold land in the BalticTriangle to this company Baltic Creative
CIC?
6.
Has the council given any long leases to Baltic Creative CIC? ( Besides 61-65
Norfolk St) Note: Cllr Ann O'Byrne has just awarded the four storey red brick
warehouse at 61 – 65 Norfolk Street, to Baltic Creative CIC.
7.
Did Cllr O'Byrne put this out to any other Liverpool company besides Baltic Creative
CIC in which Mr William Maynard and Erica Rushton are linked to and what has the
ratepayer got out of this deal, or how much will LCC make on this deal for the city of
Liverpool?
8.
Has the LCC and or Cllr Ann O'Byrne taken any part in getting loans and free grants
for Baltic Creative CIC? Note: The Charity Bank and the European Regional
Development Fund (ERDF) have provided a total funding package of £2.6 million to
complete the redevelopment and refurbishment of the property. The Charity Bank
have provided a commercial loan, whilst ERDF has proved a grant of £768,512.
9.
Mr Bill Maynard is part of (MBPT) could the LCC please supply all other past building
MBPT have worked on with the LCC and all grants and payments made to Mr
Maynard and MBPT?
10. Could the Liverpool city Council please indicate if Mr Bill Maynard had worked for the
Council in the past, been given any other building to work on or been a part time
adviser or been paid for his services by the Council?
11. Can the Council indicate if Erica Rushton was given a job at the Liverpool City
Council and what role was she given within the Council and why she had to resign?
12. What is the link with the Mayors office and Baltic Creative CIC as a whistleblower
within the LCC has said the Mayors office were behind this company? These are the
words of a member of the LCC, not mine.
Response
1.
The City Council will respond to and engage with individuals or organisations seeking
advice with regard to projects which support the regeneration or restoration of
buildings across the city with a view to seeing these being brought back to active
community use. There is no single designated point of contact for individual
developers, rather any requests are dealt with by Officers from within the
Regeneration Directorate on a case by case basis.
2.
We would advise that you contact the owners of the building directly with regard to
any specific queries you may have as regards their proposals for it. The City Council
39
continues to actively seek to work with partners and stakeholders in respect of all
heritage assets across the city with a view to seeing these being brought back to
active community use.
3.
With regard to this element of your request, we would refer you to the Register of
Interests entries for all members of the City Council, which are in the public domain
and provide details of all registrable interests –
http://councillors.liverpool.gov.uk/mgFindMember.aspx?XXR=0&AC=USERSEARCH
&ST=Enter%20name
4.
With regard to the Baltic Creative Community Interest Company (CIC), this
organisation was established in 2009. Details of the history of the organisation –
including a timeline chronology may be accessed via the following weblink –
https://www.baltic-creative.com/about/story/
5.
With the exception of 1/63 Norfolk Street, no other sales or disposals have been made
of assets from Liverpool City Council to Baltic Creatives CIC.
6.
With the exception of 1/63 Norfolk Street, no other sales or disposals have been made
of assets from Liverpool City Council to Baltic Creatives CIC. With regard to the
remaining element of this question, the City Council would advise that all decisions
with regard to the sale or otherwise disposal of assets are made in accordance with
the City Council’s Constitution, Scheme of Delegation, Contract Standing Orders and
Financial Regulations and are either made by Officers under the Scheme of
Delegation following relevant consultation or if required by Cabinet.
7.
With regard to the disposal of assets, these are marketed inviting expressions of
interest or, in the event of an expression of interest from a third party to a specific site
then the City Council will engage with interested parties and review proposals in the
context of their regeneration value and the financial benefit this may offer to the City
Council. The marketing of properties is not undertaken by Councillors.
8.
The City Council will offer practical advice to organisations seeking loans and grant
funding from external agencies however it is a matter for the individual organisation to
draft and submit their own funding applications. As previously stated, we are aware of
the longstanding work of the Baltic Creative CIC in the City and will engage with them
and other key local stakeholders and offer advice as appropriate.
9.
The following payments are recorded as having previously been made to Merseyside
Building Preservation Trust –
Subject
Value
Invoice Date
FENCING WELSH CHURCH
-7,200.00
16/01/2012
FORMER WELSH PRESBYERIAN
CHURCH
-4,800.00
03/07/2014
**AGREED CONTRIBUTION**
WELLINGTON ROOMS
-10,983.00
14/11/2016
CONTRIBUTIONS WELLINGTON
ROOMS
-9,017.00
06/09/2017
40
** Payment made in respect of urgent building works, which will make the building
wind, weather tight and secure will be delivered by a specialist contractor funded by
£10,000 from Historic England, £10,000 from Merseyside Building Preservation Trust
and approximately £10,000 from the Council’s Planning Revenue budget.
10. Mr Maynard is not a former City Council employee or advisor in any capacity, paid or
otherwise.
11. Erika Rushton formerly worked for the City Council’s then Neighbourhood
Management Team. With regard to the remaining elements of this question we would
advise that Liverpool City Council would advise that it considers the requested
information to be exempt from disclosure on the basis that this constitutes personal
data and that Section 40(2) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 is engaged.
Specifically, with regard to posts within the City Council and indeed other public sector
organisations, advice and guidance issued by the Information Commissioners Office
(ICO) indicates that when dealing with requests such as this, consideration be given to
the seniority of role and to what degree an individual Officer or former Officer may
reasonably expect their information to be disclosed in response to information
requests.
In this instance it is the City Council’s determination that the individual concerned
could not be anticipated to have any reasonable expectation that information on their
former employment with the City Council would be disclosed on the basis that the role
concerned is not one of sufficient seniority nor one which could reasonably be
anticipated to be placed under such level of public disclosure.
12. As indicated in our response at (8) above, the City Council is fully aware of the
longstanding work of the Baltic Creative CIC in the City and will engage with them and
other key local stakeholders and offer advice as appropriate. Baltic Creative CIC is an
independent company and is not part of the City Council.
______
This concludes our responses on these matters. As we have not provided all of the
information you have requested we are required to serve you with a Section 17 Notice,
please treat the following as such.
If you remain dissatisfied, you may also apply to the Information Commissioner for a
decision about whether the request for information has been dealt with in accordance with
the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The Information Commissioner’s website
is www.ico.gov.uk and the postal address and
telephone numbers are:- Information Commissioner’s Office, Wycliffe House, Water
Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF. Fax number 01625 524 510, DX 20819,
Telephone 01625 545745. Email –
xxxx@xxx.xxx.xxx.xx (they advise that their email is
not secure)
Yours sincerely
M Jones
Mike Jones Deputy Head of Democratic Services & Information Manager
41
