THE ongoing saga concerning Mid Devon District Council’s proposal to sell the Crediton Council Offices it owns in Market Street to a private buyer rather than Crediton Town Council continues.

Four individuals from the town, Paul Tucker, Judith Tucker, Jonathan Ward and Margaret Haydon, wrote to Mr Stephen Walford, Mid Devon District Council’s chief executive, to lodge an official complaint about the proposed sale of the building to a private buyer rather than Crediton Town Council.

They wrote, as reported in the “Crediton Courier” on July 13: “As citizens of Crediton and council tax-payers of Mid Devon District Council we feel that we have suffered adverse discrimination by the District Council in that we have supported the advantageous sale to Tiverton Town Council of their offices but have been denied the same advantage here.

“We also question the fact that we are being deprived of a valuable community asset without any public consultation whatsoever and the apparent democratic deficit in the District Council’s proceedings by which the sale decision was made.

“We would be grateful if you would give us details of your complaints procedure without delay. We would like to resolve the matter as soon as possible so as to avoid having to report these issues formally to the Ombudsman.”

MDDC RESPONSE

Andrew Busby, Group Manager for Corporate Property and Commercial Assets, Mid Devon District Council, wrote the following reply, which was dated July 16.

He wrote: “Thank you for your letter of July 4 addressed to the Chief Executive, regarding the sale of one of the District Council’s assets, the council office building in Crediton.

He has passed your complaint to me, as the council’s Group Manager for Corporate Property and Commercial Assets.

As you will be aware, the council stopped providing services from this building in 2016.

In 2017, the council decided to explore options for disposing of this building, and further to a decision taken on June 14, 2018 by the council’s cabinet, has resolved to sell it.

I note that your letter makes a complaint about this transaction being treated differently to another.

This general point has been addressed at numerous public meetings, where it has been made clear that decisions on individual assets will take into account the individual circumstances surrounding the asset.

The council does not have a blanket policy requiring the sale of assets at any given price or with any particular set of conditions attached. Each transaction is considered on its merits.

Your letter also makes reference to the lack of public consultation as part of the decision-making process. 

This decision was taken in accordance with the council’s governance process, and decisions were taken in public - albeit I acknowledge that the specific details of the transaction being discussed were held in restricted session (known as ‘part 2’ restrictions) due to the inherent commerciality of the options being discussed.

The decision went through cabinet, was ‘called-in’ via the council’s official scrutiny process, and went back to cabinet for a final decision. 

This was a decision made, appropriately and correctly, by the council’s cabinet.

I am unclear how any suggestion of ‘democratic deficit’ in the council’s proceedings is ‘apparent’ as your letter suggests.

I note that, in disagreeing with the decision of the council, you reference a desire to complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, and you have requested details of the council’s complaint procedure in advance of this, which I have attached.

If you wish to make a further complaint under stage 2 of the council’s procedure, this will follow ‘stage 2’ of this process and will be dealt with by either a Director or the council’s Chief Executive, in accordance with that procedure.

I trust this answers your questions.”

ANOTHER LETTER TO MR WALFORD

Following Mr Busby’s reply, the four who raised the complaint wrote the following reply to Mr Stephen Walford, dated July 26.

The letter reads: “We wrote to you on July 4, to complain that we are suffering severe adverse discrimination by your Council as Tiverton has received an extremely generous arrangement for the return of their Town Hall and we have not been allowed the same terms for our Council Offices in Crediton.

In the first instance you passed our letter to Mr Andrew Busby for attention but we regret that we are not satisfied with Mr Busby’s reply and must accordingly ask you to respond to our complaint yourself.

We are only too well aware that your Council ceased to provide services from our Council Offices in 2016 – to the great distress and inconvenience of the citizens of our area.

Indeed, this made it all the more important for Crediton Town Council and the other assistance organisations now occupying the Offices to remain to do what they could to fill the gap.

This building has provided various forms of public service to the area for over 150 years. It is in the centre of the town, well-known and accessible to all and there is simply nowhere else that can replace the service and convenience it offers.

As Council Tax payers of Mid Devon, we do not accept for a moment that decisions such as this should be taken in isolation.

The Council does not need to have a specific policy to operate according to principles of natural justice and fairness between the different parts of its district.

Moreover, we cannot recall any public meetings in Crediton where the people affected by this decision could express their views and concerns on the matter.

Had the individual circumstances of the matter been truly considered on their merits we do not believe the Council could possibly have come to the decision it has anyway.

According to the Local Plan, Crediton is designated as a hub for this end of the District to serve not only itself but, according to Devon County Council, about 25 surrounding rural parishes. No hub can operate without a centre.

Because a decision was made according to your rules does not automatically mean that it is democratic.

Any system which permits a decision of the full Council to be overturned by just three councillors out of 42 cannot possibly be called democratic in any ordinary understanding of the word.

In the District Council’s Constitution, under the heading of ‘Community’ in your list of corporate priorities, particular reference is made to working with Town and Parish Councils and supporting local communities to retain and develop their local facilities and services.

Moreover in an article you wrote for the “Crediton Gazette” of April 24, 2018 you talk about working up masterplans for ‘improving and regenerating our town centres’.

Pointing out that each of the towns is different you nevertheless state that the Council’s ‘ambition for each should be equally (our italics) as lofty and unwavering’.

Clearly some ambitions are more equal than others as those for Crediton seem to have almost immediately descended into a disastrous and destructive kick in the teeth.

We must accordingly request that the District Council immediately reverses its decision to sell Crediton Council Offices to a commercial buyer and instead returns the building to the people of Crediton on the same terms as Tiverton.

This letter is signed by the same people as signed our letter of July 4, Paul Tucker, Judith Tucker, Jonathan Ward and Margaret Haydon.”