When Salford City Mayor, Paul Dennett, was elected ten months ago, he promised more transparency about the dealings of Salford Council. Since then, in line with previous Mayor Ian Stewart, there has been no transparency whatsoever in the Council's financial dealings relating to property and big business.
On 13th February, at a 'Property and Regeneration Briefing', the Council looks set to approve "support to the development of 100 Greengate and 2 New Bailey Square".
'100 Greengate' is the massive glass building opposite Manchester Cathedral, also known as the first of the two Embankment blocks; also dubbed the 'Ugly Sisters' by planning aficionados. This development has been mired in secrecy since, in 2014, Ian Stewart made the Council formally liable for an eight year pre-lease on the whole of the first office block, guaranteeing 100% of the rent (see previous Salford Star article – click here).
More 'Council support' is also being given to the posh office block Two New Bailey, part of the English Cities fund (ECf) redevelopment, again underpinned by Council money and secrecy. ECf is a partnership between Muse Developments, the Homes and Communities Agency and Legal and General...
...The latest Salford City Council tables for all spending over £500, shows that in December 2016 the cash-strapped Council, which is closing its own buildings to save money, paid £686,625 to Legal and General Pensions for 'rent'. Was this to shore up One New Bailey? Or something else? The Salford Star has had to put in a Freedom of Information request to find out.
Information on the latest Council support for 100 Greengate and Two New Bailey is being withheld from the public using the justification of 'commercial confidentiality' ... An accompanying 'Public Interest Checklist' sets questions like...
Will disclosure help people to understand and participate in public debate about current issues? NO
Will disclosure help people to understand why the Council has taken certain decisions? NO
Will disclosure allow individuals and companies to understand decisions made by the Council that have affected their lives? NO
Will disclosure reveal incompetent, illegal or unethical decision making or examples of malpractice? NO
Is there a clear and coherent reason why the community in general would benefit more from information being withheld? YES
The Council justifies all this by stating merely that "The report contains confidential financial information, options and proposed actions to support the consideration of development". So that's ok then?
Also on the agenda for the 13th February meeting is something to do with 'Part WGIS (Western Gateway Infrastructure Scheme) - Loan and Grant Agreement' – which was originally £15million of grants (£4million) and loans (£11million) for Peel Holdings Port Salford. Salford Council was to pay all interest on the £11million loan until 2016, which worked out at £360,000 per year in repayments (see here).
Is this new agreement, to be rubber stamped on 13th February, better or worse for Salford residents? According to the 'public checklist', disclosure will 'damage another organisation or person's interests, without giving the public any useful information', although when the checklist asks 'Is there a clear and coherent reason why the community in general would benefit more from information being withheld?', the answer is `NO'!
Of course, the Salford Star could just ask Salford City Council what the hell is going on. But Salford City Council believes it is above answering questions from the media and hasn't responded to enquiries from the Salford Star for over four years.
Transparency? Accountability? Democracy? Donald Trump would be proud of Mayor Paul Dennett...
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(3).jpeg)
.png)
(1).JPG)
