Back
to SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage
So where is the business plan for
Community Right to Buy
Cultybraggan Camp?
James Irvine
Teviot Scientific, Cultybraggan Farm, Comrie,
Perthshire
Filed 14 Aug 07
©www,land-care.org.uk
Summary
There is less than a week left before the members
of the Comrie Development Trust (CDT) have to decide whether or
not to exert their right to buy the decommissioned MOD Cultybraggan
Camp under the Community Right to Buy legislation of the Land Reform
(Scotland) Act 2003. But there is not a vestige of a credible business
plan in sight.
Substantial sums of money from the public purse
have been spent employing Consultants whose brief it was to advise
the CDT. A business plan, devised by the Consultants working along
with the CDT, was required to show that such a project was, or was
not, both economically and environmentally sustainable, while providing
benefit to the Community.
At the penultimate open meeting of the Trust yesterday,
13th August, before the decision to buy or not to buy is to be made
on 20th August, the Consultants in conjunction with the Trust conspicuously
failed to do so.
Some of the numerous
Nissan huts at
Cultybraggan Army Camp
(Photo ©Kimpton Graphics)
Introduction
The Comrie Development Trust (CDT) decided to
use the opportunity under the Land Reform (Scotland) Act 2003 to
register an interest in buying the Cultybraggan MOD Camp when it
was put on the market by the MOD, who regarded it as being surplus
to their requirements almost 3 years ago.
The Cultybraggan MOD Camp is surrounded by 520
acres of Cultybraggan Farm. It is a parcel of land in the middle
of Cultybraggan Farm. That parcel of land had been compulsorily
purchased by the MOD from Cultybraggan Farm in order to create a
Prisoner of War (POW) Camp in World War 2.
The fact of the matter is that the MOD have being
trying to sell this site for getting on for the past 3 years. The
delays have cost the taxpayer, who pays for the MOD, very substantial
amounts of money.
Historic Scotland
The first obstacle the MOD met in their attempt
to sell this land was Historic Scotland. They clamped down on the
sale. Historic Scotland had been in receipt of suggestions, allegedly
from a very small number of individuals, that the site should be
preserved as a POW Camp for the Nation. This was on the grounds
that some particularly nasty Nazis had been kept there, and that
they had committed murder on one of their members. Hardly something
to celebrate.
The charming face of Historic Scotland
at a
CDT open day to promote the possible buy out of
Cultybraggan Army Camp for the Community.
Historic Scotland pays no attention to the economic
consequences of its decisions to issue Statutory Orders.
Is she an angel in an ivory tower?
(To enlarge photo Click
Here)
Photo©Kimpton Graphics
Historic Scotland took the greater part of two
years to make a very superficial report, which resulted in them
placing a Grade A Statutory Order on a row of Nissan huts, chosen
from the large number available, that went right down the middle
of the camp (1).
But then Historic Scotland is not an organisation
that is concerned with any economic considerations that might arise
from the consequences of their decisions. They may, or they may
not, provide grants for the upkeep of the property on which they
have place their draconian statutory orders.
Historic Scotland truly operates in an ivory tower.
Community Right to Buy
But then the Head of Historic Scotland used to
be the Chief Civil Servant at the Scottish Executive's Environmental
and Rural Development Department, that has done so much under the
Labour/LiberalDemocrat Coalition to undermine Scotland's farming
and fishing industries, putting ideology well ahead of realism.
He seemed to be set on continuing in the same vein in his new position.
The actions of Historic Scotland, not only incurred
loss of taxpayers' money on account of the fact that the MOD had
to maintain their decommissioned property for some 2 years while
Historic Scotland thought about it, but the placement of an A listing
preservation order on a row of tin huts down the middle of the site
very substantially reduced the financial value of the site: some
say by as much as several £millions, if it were to go on the
open market.
But no sooner had Historic Scotland eventually
reached their decision, but the Comrie Development Trust (CDT) stepped
in. They prevented the site going on the open market by registering
an interest in the land under the Community Right to Buy legislation.
After some preliminaries, the window of opportunity they had available
was another six months to make up their minds whether they or not
they wanted to buy it. And if they did want to buy it, to find the
cash. A set of rules needed to be followed, but their was abundant
help from the Scottish Executive and others to help them in their
task, including the form filling.
That six months is up in 3 weeks, on the
7th September 2007.
So how have the CDT been using this six months?
And what have they got to show for it?
A key step in the Community Right to Buy process
is an "independent" valuation. This is done by an assessor
appointed by the Scottish Executive in the form of the District
Valuer, with no right of appeal.
Perhaps it was no surprise that the valuation
came out at an allegedly staggeringly low figure of £350,000
for some 90 acres of a mixture of potentially prime commercial land,
rough agricultural land and a cottage that the MOD had so seriously
neglected that they labelled it as a "stone tent".
"The valuation was too high for agriculture use and
too low for commercial interest",
is the view of many.
Even the CDT were pleasantly surprised at the
low valuation, which was well below the value the MOD had placed
on it. So it looks as though the taxpayer, who of course funds the
MOD, was set to loose another substantial amount of money.
The CDT obtained funds from the Scottish Executive
to employ a team of consultants to come up with ideas as to how
the Comrie Community could use the site in a manner that was sustainable
both environmentally and economically, and in a way that was beneficial
to the Community. These are essential conditions required for the
purchase to go ahead, if the purchase price was to be met out of
the public purse: such as the Land Fund of the Lottery.
Indeed, I was a member of the CDT working group
on the project when it was initially set up. But after suggesting
that perhaps the ethical thing to do was for the Camp to be offered
back, at valuation, to Cultybraggan Farm, from which it had been
compulsorily purchased, I was quietly dropped from the working group
and classed as a "stakeholder". There was remarkably little
communication thereafter from the CDT with myself as the owner of
the surrounding property, and not an insignificant contributor to
the local economy and environment.
Access to funding from the public purse amounting
to something approaching £250,000 continued to pour into the
CDT to enable it to come up with a business plan that would meet
the requirements of both economic and environmental sustainability.
But in spite of warnings from myself and others,
the Consultants spent much of their time seeking the opinions of
Comrie residents, amounting to some 2000 souls, as to what they
would like to see done, irrespective of any economic considerations.
The good citizens of Comrie were assured that the project would
not cost them a single penny, and if everything went wrong their
total liability would be £1 if they happened to have signed
up as a member of the CDT, which was free.
The good people of Comrie in free thinking
mode,
where economic considerations are irrelevant.
The event: a CDT open day in Comrie Community Centre to promote
the possible Community buy out of Cultybraggan Camp
at the expense of the Public Purse
(To enlarge photo Click
Here)
Photo ©Kimpton Graphics
So they were on a free ideological trip of whatever
took their fancy: even to the extent of seriously compromising other
people's property. Suggestions abounded that had no credible chance
of being funded. But they were laboriously documented in a report
published by the Consultants in conjunction with the CDT (2). It
was but another case of political correctness gone mad. The cost
was that valuable time was wasted.
But this public consultation exercise did establish
that there was no over-riding need in this affluent Community for
any particular project relevant to the site in question.
Touchingly, at an open meeting on 25th June, a
well-meaning lady indicated to the CDT that she would be prepared
to make a contribution to the funds to buy the site. She asked the
gathering of rather more than 100 if anyone else would like to do
so. There was stony silence. No, this affluent community - one of
the most affluent in rural Scotland - was not prepared to contribute
a bean. They wanted it all from the public purse in one form or
another, for free and with no financial burden for themselves if
things went wrong.
But clearly the Consultants were directed by the
CDT to get enough of the residents of Comrie to vote for the bid
to buy to go ahead, and then think about a feasibility plan later.
Any marketing device to achieve that initial goal appeared to be
fair game, even although much of it was based on fantasy.
Concern over too much hype rather than substance
in the manner in which the project has been
handled by the CDT
As the time past within the crucial 6 month window,
I for one became increasingly concerned that spin was taking precedence
over substance.
Apart from the interim report already referred
to in which the Comrie residents were enticed into thinking virtually
anything was possible (barring the token statement of having to
comply with economic considerations), the CDT seemed to have a direct
line to press coverage of any of their meetings. Any voices that
expressed concern never got a mention. There appeared to be no minutes
of open meetings that the public had ready access to. There was
no website that could serve as a ready means of communication between
members of the Trust, who are the ultimate voters. It was all becoming
a fantastic PR exercise, master-minded by experts in the art.
The Consultants/CDT in their interim report even
had the cheek to publicly suggest that Cultybraggan Farm could be
split in two, with some of its main fields separated from the steading,
without as much as a phone call to the farm. To me this appeared
to be mis-selling at a pretty high level. The architect, as a member
of the Consultant team, was talented in terms of his imagination
but without any apparent thought as to how such fantasies might
be realistically achieved.
Since it was difficult to get a fair opportunity
to express my concern at the public meetings I wrote a letter to
the local newspaper, the Strathearn Herald, who were kind enough
to publish it (3).
The problem with the manner in which the public
meetings on the subject of buying the Camp were being run by the
CDT came to a head at their meeting on 25th June 2007.
This important meeting was so poorly run that
i wrote a formal complaint to the CDT. Central to that complaint
was the manner in which, in my view, the chairperson manipulated
the meeting so as to stifle expression from the floor of the house
about the content of the presentations by the Consultants and by
the CDT officials.
The technique, well used by such bodies as Scottish
Natural Heritage (SNH) and other such government agencies or quangos,
is to divide up the audience into small groups, and to spend the
discussion/debating time with the chairman going round from table
to table. Then, having done that, the trick is to announce what
he has perceived to be the opinion of the meeting. But in reality
there has been no proper debate. The supposed justification for
such a practice is to give folk who may not wish to speak in public
a chance to have their say through an appointed spokesperson at
each of the numerous tables.
But then the chairperson just happened to be the
Chairman of the Government quango "Paths for All". The
CDT Chairperson just happens to be is an employee of SNH. The Secretary
of CDT and another key member of the CDT Cultybraggan Camp Working
Group are both highly successful members of PR companies that are
heavily involved in extracting funds out of the public purse and
charitable bodies for community purposes, but allegedly have little
or no experience in running a manufacturing as opposed to a service
enterprise.
While professing their interest in hearing opposing
as well as supportive views, it would appear that the techniques
they were using use were more in line with salesmanship, rather
than those required for achieving true debate.
But even on the 25th June there were noises from
the floor of the house as to where a credible business plan was
going to come from. Even then the question was asked,
"Are we supposed to hear the business plan on 13th August,
vote on it on the 20th August, and buy the property on the 7the
September?"
The answer, remarkably, was
"Yes".
There was certainly no sight of the beginnings of a credible business
plan on 25th June, nor any signs on the horizon of one emerging.
Again, the theme was hype rather than substance.
The meeting of Monday 13th August 2007:
no business plan in sight
The style of the meeting was radically
changed. There was an impartial chairman. The debate was open to
the floor. The outcome was striking different from earlier meetings.
The presentation by the Consultants
was remarkable for the virtual total absence of a business plan.
The nebulous suggestions that were put forward by the Consultants
clearly could not meet the costs of running the site. No attempt
at a cashflow prediction was made. The architect continued with
his fantasies, having made no effort that I knew of to try and convert
them into reality. There appeared to be no attempt to face up to
the basic constraints incumbent on the site, and how to overcome
them. Remarkably the gathering was told that it would be much easier
to do that once they had ownership of the site. So in the meantime
they were apparently not bothering.
Among the suggestions for use of
the land were the provision of storage facilities within the Nissan
huts that were passed their sell by date by several decades. But
that is unlikely to generate significant cash. Apparently, potential
clients would be expected to commit themselves before the huts were
regenerated at an estimate cost of some £12,000 each. In my
experience, those who are thinking of renting want to see the finished
article before they commit themselves financially: not the other
way round.
It was only after repeated demands
from the floor that the Consultants released their estimated costs
of mothballing the site as a worse case scenario. But, among those
who have experience of land management, the figures they produced
lacked credibility.
The situation was not helped by
the presentation by the CDT Secretary, regarded as the prime mover
in this enterprise. His brief was to explain the funding for the
project. But it was presented with the approach of a PR guru with
an eye on getting what he regarded as the right vote (i.e. buy the
Camp) rather than from the perspective of a business venture, which
of course it has to be.
Again, it was only after persistent
questioning from the floor that it emerged that, although interest
free substantial loans were available, punitive rates of interest
came into effect after 2 to 3 years at a current rate of 9.5%. That
is a lot of money. That is a big burden that would clock in within
a very short time scale.
Again, various charitable trusts
were said to be willing to provide interest free loans for a limited
period. Understandably, they would want to see some economic sustainability
after a year or two. That is why a business plan is so essential.
But, even the beginnings of one, was just not there.
We were told that it was not possible
to produce hard and fast cashflow predictions. But no one was asking
for that: just predictions based on a reasonable assessment of what
might be possible, both on a worse case scenario and on a more optimistic
but still realistic basis. Any business man assessing a new venture
would know that. If he wanted money from a bank he would have to
provide such figures. His banking credibility would depend on his
reputation for submitting figures based on what appeared to be possible
as opposed to fantasy.
It was as one highly respected
local businessman proclaimed from the floor
"all on the basis of a wing
and a prayer: an irresponsible gamble: it is like buying a pup".
But the Consultants and the CDT
Secretary persisted that the business basis for the Community purchase
was based on the very favourable evaluation that had been placed
on the land. The low valuation was their main asset. The valuation,
as already been stated, was set by the Scottish Executive's own
appointed valuer.
"We can always sell it,
or bits of it, if things do not work out",
proclaimed the CDT Secretary.
But he has just finished telling
us, almost as an aside, that the benevolent charitable bank that
they were depending on for running costs would hold an interest
in the property and in the disposal of any part of it. Of course
they would, or they wouldn't be a bank for much longer.
We can negotiate an exchange
of land within the village to the advantage of the community",
he stated. Although this had possibly
something to do with social housing, there was no clear explanation
as to how it would operate.
The land in question has no sewerage
and has very poor public road access. It has a history of major
security problems. The MOD have failed to maintain the land satisfactorily
in terms of vermin control - especially rats, foxes and rabbits.
Once it is known that the MOD no longer owns the site, drug addicts
and hare coursers are likely to have a field day. It would be easy
to hide in a site that is inadequately secured, that has some 70
odd tin huts and which has gates that open out to the neighbouring
farm land. Would such a site provide secure storage facilities?
The representative from the Scottish
Executive when asked directly seemed to have no problem with the
Community selling off the land to the highest bidder as long, perhaps,
they did not do so within a few days. But is this really the spirit
in which substantial amounts of lottery funding (through the Land
Fund) should be spent in supporting a highly affluent community?
Although the CDT Secretary made
light of it, the situation is likely to be far from being a happy
one when the Bank begins to call in its loan. This it will do when
its interest payments are not being met, or they see little prospect
of them being met. It should also be remembered that just at the
end of last week, the international money market suffered a severe
shock with a massive fall in the stock exchanges around the globe.
That arose out of the American banks lending too much on poor security
- the so-called sub prime market.
Whoever buys it, the successful
development of the land will depend on achieving both good access
and sewerage. The key to both of these lies with the surrounding
farm. But as owner of that farm I remain unconvinced that the CDT
are capable of acting as a responsible business organisation. They
have had 6 months of opportunity, but have only come up with publicly
stated fantasies, with no attempt at a serious business approach.
The farm is not a charity. It was bought through an individual's
hard work, not as an inheritance handed down to someone born with
a silver spoon in his/her mouth - the obvious target of the Land
Reform (Scotland) Act. Until such time as the CDT can show that
they can function as a credible business enterprise, there will
be no deal made between the CDT and the farm.
The CDT profess that it is essential
to buy the land to have control, so that
"commercial interests do
not act out of the Community's control and take the money away
elsewhere with all the profit."
This omits to mention, of course,
that commercial investment can bring great advantages to the community,
and that not all commercial enterprises are "bad". Again,
the idea was being heavily used as a useful bit of spin that contains
only a partial truth.
An oft repeated slogan of the CDT
is
"ownership of land brings
opportunity"
but they omit to mention the corollary
"it also brings responsibilities"
The trouble is the CDT venture
"Community Right to Buy Cultybraggan Camp" has, at this
very late date, failed to show much sign of responsibility.
The presentations at the CDT open
meeting on 13th August 2007 opened with the announcement that the
chairman of the relevant Lottery Fund Committee had proclaimed that
"the Comrie project promises
to be the most significant example of sustainable development
in Scotland"
But is he just another promoter
of spin? How can he justify such a statement when even the good
residents of Comrie have little idea of what the business plan is,
let alone whether or not it is sustainable in any sense.
Thus, the basic premise for going
ahead with the purchase of the decommissioned MOD Cultybraggan Camp
has not been met. There has to be a business plan that shows, at
least in outline, that the project is both environmentally and economically
sustainable while providing benefit to the Community. The CDT, with
the help of their expensive Consultants, have conspicuously failed
to meet that basic requirement.
References
1. Irvine, james (2006). Comrie
Development Trust starts its bid for Community Right to Buy: the
latest episode in the sad saga of Cultybraggan Army Camp
See SOCIAL/ECONOMIC/POLITICAL Homepage, filed 10 Sep 06,
www.land-care.org.uk Click
Here to View
2. Comrie Development Trust (2007).
Cultybraggan Community Planning brief: March 2007
3. Irvine, James (2007). Letter
to Strathearn Herald Click Here
to View
Finis
|
