Why is a restaurant the only answer ?

Horsham District Council seem obsessed with moving ahead with the doomed restaurant plan for the Town Hall. On this page we take another look at the reasons behind this and the alternatives.

The Blue Flash Music Trust asked for clarification of the Cabinet’s Old Town Hall intentions 27 Jan 2011;

In the light of the apparent zero budget set for the Old Town Hall until 2014, what are the Council's plans for immediately enabling the Horsham public to use and promote their building for community and artistic use once more please; or what alternative to the aforementioned for the Old Town Hall is currently being planned?

ANSWER FROM GORDON LINDSAY

We recently requested a market update from our property agent and, as a result we intend to re-market th e Town Hall seeking a restaurant tenant in accordance with the original Council decision. We are confident that we will attract significant commercial interest and, as a result the cost of improving and maintaining the building will not be a burden on future Council Tax payers. In addition we are likely to achieve a significant annual sum in rent which will help to keep the Council Tax down in future.

I am due to receive a report shortly seeking authority for the expenditure required to fund the marketing exercise. Pending the completion of the marketing exercise and the grant of a lease to a suitable restaurant operator, we will not offer the building for general hire. The Town H all is expensive to operate and maintain. The income from lettings prior to January 2010 was considerably below the operating costs. Maintaining this position helps the Council to better manage its finances and avoid a business rates liability of about f1000 per month.

The Council also considers that suitable alternative venues are available to Hire in the Town for public, community or artistic use.

We realise that our analysis of the answer might not be popular in some quarters. However, the welfare of Horsham District is at stake and someone has to be prepared to effectively say that “The Emperor is wearing no clothes!”

The verbal answer to the question above was given by Gordon Lindsay (Finance) who looked like he was reading from a script that was not his own. Consequently, due to the answer being read in a dead pan style which was difficult to follow, the Trust asked for clarification in writing. However, the same script was not subsequently produced (as the tape of the Cabinet meeting will ultimately confirm). This is not the first time ‘collective amnesia’ has befallen the Council on the Old Town Hall.

In October 2007, a sub-standard and inaccurate report ended up ‘unanimously approved’ in the minutes. However, residents in the public gallery that were present saw no discussion or vote take place.

In February 2009 the Chairman of the Planning Committee declared “there is no secret that this is the Council’s own application”. However, in the minutes the matter ended up as an OTH planning application from a Mr Josh Leon - and this ultimately led to an erroneous judgement in the High Court. An e-mail from the Leader of the Lib Dem Councillors concerning the Council’s own application can also be used in evidence when the issue comes back to court again (along with the fact that the Council paid for the planning fee (£335) and the plans (just over £10,000).

a) The delay caused Bill's to pull out of Horsham. Previously it had been claimed in the press that this was the result of delay caused by the Court case. However, the report by Ray Lee, Director of Development last summer said:

"Due to delays in Government Office clearance for the Listed Building Consent the finalisation of the lease has slipped. Commencement of work on the building is now likely to be late Spring".

Bill's Produce was also made fully aware by the Trust of the likely timetable for the court case and Bill's were not apparently worried by this. One would have to look for an alternative reason for them withdrawing therefore.

(i) The embarrassingly superior bid by Gondola that was withheld under FoIA by the Council but finally unearthed by the District Auditor

(ii) The failure of HDC to deliver, on a timely basis, the promise of alfresco dining to Cote in East Street (Bill's sister company).

b) Bill's moving to Reading was Horsham's loss, Reading's gain. However, this was a false contrast. We wrote to the District Auditor last summer informing her that there was no delay caused by us or the Court case, as Bill's was concentrating on the Reading and Covent Garden branches and would not be ready for Horsham until Spring 2011. Bill's was due to be open in Reading irrespective of what happened in Horsham and this is confirmed by the various press releases about the Reading branch.

The failure of the Council to reveal the terms of the conditional draft OTH lease under the Freedom of Information Act is currently before the Information Commissioner's Office. This is the latest in a long line of FOIA requests refused by the Cabinet which makes a mockery of ‘open government’.

The lack of accuracy in the Cabinet answer might have led to these comments being removed. Once again, we do not blame Councillor Lindsay for this as the words did not appear to be his own.

"We recently requested a market update from our property agent and, as a result, we intend to re-market the Town Hall .... I am due to receive a report shortly seeking authority for the expenditure required to fund the marketing exercise."

The answer doesn’t make clear whether an update from the property agent was actually received. The £5,000 fee for consultancy had already been settled by the Council last year according to the District Auditor.

The property agent at the last count was Josh Leon of Davis Coffer Lyons on a marketing fee of 10% commission. In theory, there should be no need for any additional marketing budget unless DCL has walked away from the contract. If so, questions would need to be asked.

This also begs the question as to why this new OTH marketing budget (if at all necessary) wasn't sensibly set as part of Thursday's budget papers (so prompting our question to Cabinet). Indeed, the Cabinet seems to be acting inconsistently and irrationally as we were approached in an e-mail by Councillor Dr David Holmes before Christmas informing us that the Council Leader (Robert Nye) was prepared to entertain a community solution.

"We are confident that we will attract significant commercial interest ..... In addition we are likely to achieve a significant annual sum in rent which will help to keep the Council Tax down in future."

Question: Why does the Council only exercise this option for a community facility in a town area where a Community Governance Review has been undemocratically denied by an out-of-town Cabinet? Why not exercise this option across the entire District and so keep Council Tax down much more? Why does this Cabinet, whilst apparently drowning in hypocrisy, insist that Parish Council’s are an essential part of democracy in rural areas but deem them a potential ‘unnecessary layer of cost and bureaucracy’ in the town areas that have traditionally paid the operational costs for the Old Town Hall?

Question: What makes the Council think that it can attract significant interest for restaurant use in a much less sympathetic climate? People's disposable income is likely to drop considerably over the next three years and the competition amongst restaurants, as a result of the Council's policy, is much keener.

The previous marketing exercise, one executed in much better circumstances, only finally yielded two firm bids at less than market value. That said, the Gondola bid of £20,000 more (£72,500) was probably acceptable in monetary terms because of its additional commitments of leaving the building intact and showing the public around the cells. There is no explanation therefore, as to why the final Gondola bid was not accepted by the Council and even worse; no reasons given as to why the evaluation of the bid criteria and scoring of these were manipulated to give Bill's as the apparently irrational answer. The Council only have themselves to blame for the collapse of the Bill’s Produce OTH venture therefore. No ethical company such as Bill’s could entertain being selected above another in such circumstances.

Furthermore, the Council’s restaurant strategy couldn’t have been launched at a worse time. World food prices have rocketed in the last year. The January hike in VAT will further hike these prices and hurt across the board. Other government tax changes will particularly hit Horsham’s middle class. Throw in the inflationary effect of fuel prices, with inflation significantly outpacing wage rises; and you have some very severe conditions for the restaurant sector to operate in.

Question: how much less than the market value of £75,000 would the Council be prepared to accept for the Old Town Hall?

The Cabinet's restaurant strategy is consequently looking doomed to failure. Its only ‘stand alone’ chance of success was to attract independent restaurants which couldn’t easily be found elsewhere. However, things have moved in the opposite 'chain restaurant' direction with Tortellinis being replaced by Giraffe, Ask moving into the King’s Head and Wagammama also coming to Horsham in the spring. The sad fact for the Cabinet is that people can much more easily visit chain restaurants in their own location; unless there is another unique draw to persuade them to come to Horsham. The recommended 'Community & Folk Arts Centre' based on the Tourism Strategy for Horsham District document by Locum Destination Consulting was, and still is, that unique draw. The Community Development Partnership has tried to come up with an alternative strategy for the last three years and failed.

Question: How many restaurants failing in the town is it going to take for the Council to admit they were wrong and change course?

Answer: On past experience, particularly from the experience of the Old Town Hall debacle, all of them!

As above, any new restaurant planning application for the Old Town Hall will automatically trigger a 're-run' of the High Court case and further costs due to the Council's previous non-declaration about its own planning application. Next time there will be no mistake and the question of our standing to oppose the application will not be an issue (as a result of the previous judge’s comments). Any new restaurant is likely to 'run for the hills' as soon as it learns of this saga and the Council would appear to have a duty to disclose this information to potential bidders at the start of any new OTH marketing exercise.

We believe that it is in every Horsham resident’s interest to support the Trust against the Council in a further Court case. We currently see the same questionable tactics being employed where the Cabinet is currently putting forward its own application for East Street in the name of another individual and so might similarly avoid independent scrutiny. Next time, the same tactic might be used by the Cabinet to put a waste disposal plant at the bottom of your back garden. Who are you going to appeal to? The Council itself?

".. the cost of improving and maintaining the building will not be a burden on future Council Tax payers"

Says the Council that has spent considerable sums on, and given grants to, community halls outside of the town. However, the costs of the Old Town Hall for the taxpayer could be reduced to zero immediately by simply following the advice of the OTH Advisory Group as recommended in February 2006. This was the reason that the OTH Advisory Group under Alan Harris was formed in the first place. Conversely, the Council is unlikely to get away with zero cost while it attempts to find a new restaurant that the people of Horsham overwhelmingly do not want. Another High Court Judge in the case of the Trust versus the Local Government Ombudsman also pointed out that the true operational costs of the OTH that particular year had only been circa £13,000. This is much less than amounts previously claimed by the Council even though it was a sum escalated by Council neglect. His Honour also ruled that, because the money wasted by the Council on the community bid had been wasted for all taxpayers - and not just the special charge payers of the town - it was exempt from any corrective action by the LGO (Section 27.6 [c] Local Government Act). This was obviously a correct decision in law, but small comfort for the taxpayers of Horsham District and a severe blow to the ‘cost conscious’ claims by the Cabinet.

Says the Cabinet that unnecessarily spent sixty times as much in an unplanned overspend on the Acorn scheme. In fact, it costs very little to run the OTH as most of the booked cost is for centrally incurred Council overheads that the OTH does not benefit from. At the same time, the opportunity for any income is denied by the Cabinet because they won't allow the community to book the building. In being empty, this lovely historic structure will depreciate faster and run an increased risk of vandalism and squatters moving in. As at 31st January 2011 the Town Hall has laid empty and been denied income to the taxpayer for no reason. What a waste - and a lack of good grace - from this Cabinet?

"Maintaining this position helps the Council to better manage its finances and avoid a business rates liability of £1,000 per month."

By this logic, the Council would close all of the District's community halls. However, if the Council outsourced the marketing and management of the OTH to the winning community bidder (the Blue Flash Music Trust being a not-for-profit charity) as recommended by the Old Town Hall Advisory Group in February 2006, 80% of the rates would be exempt and the Council would have discretion to waive the other 20%. The same saving and much greater benefits to all residents and local businesses could be made by outsourcing to the winning charity that has consistently demonstrated a track record of professionalism and delivery.

It was noted that a Cabinet member recently parted company with his Government on the extension of the allowable period for empty homes. It is a shame that the Cabinet member in question doesn’t extend the same logic to unnecessarily empty community buildings. In fact, the Cabinet effectively defies its own government on Localism and the Big Society too. If the Cabinet had followed the advice from Alan Harris’s Advisory Group on the OTH in 2006 it would have been a successful implementation of the ‘Big Society’ before its time.

"The income from lettings prior to January 2010 was considerably below the operating costs. "

This is because the Cabinet refused to follow the terms of the Council’s September 2006 resolution and let out the top floor. The Chairman’s second OTH Advisory Group also oversaw the increasing of the losses and the decreasing of usage in general - the exact opposite of the Council mandate from September 2006. The lack of income and usage was entirely of the Council’s own doing, probably we think as a result of the Cabinet’s secret agenda for the building. Professional marketing and management under an outsourcing agreement with the Trust as recommended by the first Old Town Hall Advisory Group would have balanced the books and delivered substantial benefits to all since 2006. This move was unfortunately unconstitutionally blocked by the Cabinet in March 2006. The Cabinet did not have the authority to defy long-standing Council policy.

"We intend to re-market the Town hall seeking a restaurant tenant in accordance with the original Council decision."

This is inaccurate. The restaurant decision was taken by the Cabinet in February 2009. The Council meeting of February 2008 voted only to "seek expressions of interest." At the time when the Cabinet took the decision to actively pursue a restaurant option a year later there was only one verbal offer from Bill's Produce on the table – seemingly not enough to justify the decision which ended in a further two years of turmoil (thus far).

"The Council also considers that suitable alternative venues are available to hire in the Town for public, community or artistic use."

Horsham's long-standing theatre group 'Theatre 48' folded up as a result of being unnecessarily ousted from the OTH with a consequent loss of rental. Other groups report that they are struggling in alternative, inferior venues that do not suit their needs.

The Old Town Hall debacle is symbolic of the wider messes that Council Members have allowed the Cabinet to get them in to in recent years. This is not a question of politics; simply the fact that the Cabinet is hugely ‘out-of-touch’; plagued by considerations of petty politics and personalities; and unrepresentative of the District as a whole. Backbench Councillors from all parties must reclaim the Council from the Cabinet in the cause of rationality and ethical behaviour; and so avoid the current suffering of the residents and businesses of Horsham District. If they can’t institute such reforms for themselves, then all current Councillors must be swept from power and a Community Governance Review urgently launched.