Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Caltongate's collapse sees city chiefs miss out on £2.5 million

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 09 June 2009
CITY leaders have missed out on a multi-million-pound windfall with the collapse of the Caltongate scheme, new documents have revealed.
The papers – released under the Freedom of Information Act – show that the council was expecting to net around £5 million in total from the sale of council-owned buildings and land for the controversial Old Town development.

Half of the money was
banked as a deposit, but the rest of the cash never arrived from developer Mountgrange Capital before its £300m Caltongate project collapsed in March after the firm went into administration. Among the buildings that made up the deal are nine one-bedroom flats on the Canongate and the Canongate Venture office block.

An old garage opposite the council's headquarters on East Market Street, along with a series of archways and waste land further up the street were also council-owned land needed for the scheme.

The huge gap site on New Street, a former bus depot, and Old Sailors' Ark homeless hostel were already owned by Mountgrange.

The council's documents, which were prepared by consultants Cushman and Wakefield, also reveal how the city's professional services industry has missed out an estimated £14.5m in fees as a result of the project being halted.

In January, city leaders revealed they were already facing a £13m shortfall in the amount of money expected to be raised by selling council land over the next few years as a result of the economic slowdown.

Although city leaders today said they would pursue the outstanding cash, campaigners have hit out at the terms of the deal, which was struck by council chiefs back in 2007.

Sally Richardson, spokeswoman for the Save Our Old Town campaign, said: "The reason that this document was kept out of the public domain for so long is that if a financial expert not in the pay of the developers or council had seen it, they would have seriously questioned its claims."

A council spokesman said: "To date, we have received £2.4m in respect of the sale of these sites, which will remain in council ownership as long as the balance of £2m remains outstanding."



The full article contains 370 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 09 June 2009 9:56 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Caltongate development
 
1

Buttress,

09/06/2009 10:45:46
Only five million for a prime site in Edinburgh? Dodgy deals and ineptitude characterise this whole nasty mess. The Canongate Venture and the Salior's Ark are, of course, listed buildings. No reason to demolish other than greed.

Seems that Mountgrange were being handed land on a plate.

Disgraceful.

2

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 09/06/2009 11:09:29
read the pie in the sky document here
http://www.eh8.org.uk/
3

Buttress,

09/06/2009 11:35:56
Thanks!
4

Statsman,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 12:08:42
Why are the council being run like a used car business? Our taxes are meant to pay for services. If the council wants to wheel and deal on the property market then these funds should be separate from that.

Now the council are closing schools because a property deal fell through? Disgraceful.

No wonder planning consent is given to eyesores when the council is relying on the money to pay for basics. Perhaps it should start sorting out the mismanagement and waste endemic in the way it is run instead of punishing the taxpayer twice?
5

Mallory,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 12:19:53
Why would City Chiefs be getting this money? Surely it belongs to the people with the Council looking after it in trust?

Or are we talking brown envelopes?
6

Sarah B,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 12:20:48
Statsman (4) - I gather there was an article in yesterday's EN about the Council borrowing £70m to bail out Waterfront Edinburgh Ltd, Parc and something else (I couldn't find the article online).

So, the Council is not just cutting other services to prop up its property interests but actually borrowing to do so. And this on top of borrowing for its tram contribution.

7

alfonsa pedrosa,

embra 09/06/2009 12:24:05
Very large brown envelopes.
8

Buttress,

09/06/2009 13:30:24
And of course, having decanted the occupants of the tenements and the Canongate Venture, the council isn't getting any income. The rent is still owed by Mountgrange.

What happened to the cash from the UK government for the GS heating scheme (which wasn't going to be part of the 'affordable' housing, which was to be shuffled off elsewhere. Well, couldn't have the less than rich living at Caltongate, now could we?).

And why is the Chamber of Commerce so quiet? It supported Mountgrange to the hilt!
9

Buttress,

09/06/2009 13:33:12
And hang on:-

'A council spokesman said: "To date, we have received £2.4m in respect of the sale of these sites, which will remain in council ownership as long as the balance of £2m remains outstanding." '

If these are to be flogged off, then surely it should be on the open market, with a proviso that there is no demolition? And community groups and those who will preserve/repair the buildings given priority?
10

Buttress,

09/06/2009 13:51:37
Indeed, another question to be asked is - has the council signed a contract with these shysters to sell all this land and the buildings? If so, how lawful is it, when, and what does it say?

11

Old Town Resident,

edinburgh 09/06/2009 13:57:39
Complaints have been made to both the Competition DG and the Internal market DG of the EU Commission, because of the extent that Mountgrange Caltongate Ltd may have been provided with privileged access and offered exclusive consideration in pursuance of its commercial objectives, it follows that competing bidders, both actual and potential, have been unlawfully discriminated against, and public resources unlawfully exposed to risk in this case.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Caltongate-given-a-Black-mark.3761926.jp#2464090
12

Buttress,

09/06/2009 14:04:09
Indeed. And I posted then:

'This was a recent EU ruling on a similar land sale to that regarding Caltongate:

Land Securities' Stratford plan dealt blow by EU ruling

Ben Cook, Regen.net, 28 April 2008


Developer Land Securities' hopes of signing an agreement with Newham Council to extend a shopping centre in the borough have been dealt a blow by a European Union ruling.

The property company has, over the last four years, been developing plans for a mixed-use extension to its 350,000 square foot Stratford Centre in east London. The extension would have involved the development of land owned by Newham Council.

But an EU ruling on a case in France means Newham Council has been forced to put the contract out to full tender.The ruling - which related to a case involving Roanne town council - has established the principle that public development agreements are bound by EU procurement rules. Previously, such development agreements were not considered to be work contracts falling under EU procurement legislation.

Land Securities says it was close to signing a deal with Newham Council and the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation to work on the project, but now the contract has been put out to tender via the Official Journal of the European Union.

The Stratford Island Regeneration Project will consist of an extension to the shopping centre as well as educational facilities for the University of London.

A spokesman for Land Securities, which owns the shopping centre, said the company was "disappointed" with the ruling.

He added: "The Stratford centre has development potential and we will take a view on what is the best way forward."'

13

Buttress,

09/06/2009 14:14:56
In fact:-

'Thank you for your request for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA) dated 16 February 2009. You also ask why section 74 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 does not
apply in this instance. As explained in the response to your FoI request dated 27 January 2009, it is for local authorities themselves to decide if a disposal is at less than best consideration that can reasonably be obtained. As also explained, I believe City of Edinburgh Council claim the transaction between it and Mountgrange Ltd was a sale of land on a fully commercial basis which would explain why the council did not refer the sale to Scottish Ministers for a decision under section 74.'

Well we all know the business acumen of the council and how much it can be trusted, don't we?

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/sale_of_land_at_less_than_market


14

Buttress,

09/06/2009 14:17:43
April 22nd:

'Papers held by the Scottish Government only relate to inquiries made by the European Commission, following a complaint received concerning Edinburgh City Council and the Caltongate Development. It remains the case that to release the papers we hold on this matter would contravene Section 32 (1) (a) (ii) relations between the United Kingdom and any international organisation or international court.

The European Commission take a general view (of which I have some previous experience) that there should be no release of papers, relating to ongoing inquiries they are making, until they have formed a
conclusion. It is therefore the appropriate position for the Scottish Government to respect this point of view, as long as the case remains
ongoing.

I have checked again yesterday, before replying formally today, that no response has yet been received by the European Commission at this stage. I would invite you to keep in touch with officials on
this matter who could consider release after this point, but will also of course have to take into account, at that point, any information requirements relating to the release of papers when an organisation is in administration.'
15

Statsman,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 14:25:51
6 Sarah B

Wow! This is a recipe for disaster.

I suppose they don't mind gambling like this when the taxpayer can bail them out should they lose?
16

PaulB,

Edinburgh 09/06/2009 16:52:43
Buttress I do feel you may be getting a little obsessed by Caltongate?
17

Buttress,

09/06/2009 17:20:07
Do you? Well, never mind. You don't have to read it. But best to get the information in the public domain is my view.

Have a nice day now!
18

Rap,

10/06/2009 17:02:15
Paul,
Aren't you concerned where your taxes are going, how they are being spent? How accountable the civil servants are? If not you should be.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Today's Vote

Should the Old Town’s Caltongate development be revived in its original form?
Yes, it was an innovative and stylish proposal
No, it was not in fitting with the Old Town
Yes, but it needs to be done more cheaply

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.