Expert advice is being dismissed

In last week’s publication Mr P Kornycky suggested that ‘I’d nailed my colours to the mast’ in ‘branding’ Rookwood Golf Course as an underperforming asset.

However, the facts speak for themselves and the cabinet member for finance has already explained why this is the case in his letter of last week.

Mr Kornycky asked me a question in this publication and I simply responded to that. He has now put forward more points as facts, though they appear to me to be more as personal opinions.

I could reply at some length about the inconsistency of dismissing inflation whilst promoting land appreciation, or pointing out that proposals for Rookwood retain 70 per cent of the land as greenspace, the council retaining ownership on the greater part of the site for example.

However, I don’t think a letters column is an appropriate vehicle for such detailed arguments, so I’m

happy to agree to disagree with Mr Kornycky and I don’t plan to comment further on this aspect.

I do feel however, that it is appropriate to respond to the repeated question about ‘proper independent advice’ on s123 of the Local Government Act 1972.

Mr Kornycky dismisses the advice of the council’s own team of professional experts with ACA, CIPFA, ACCA and RICS qualifications as simplistic, preferring instead external consultants.

As it happens the council has already employed external legal experts to examine the council’s title to the land. They advise that it is uncertain whether any clawback to the original owner would simply stop after 45 years and they suggest that they might still then have a reasonable claim on any profits from development.

Many readers must think it bizarre to be debating events that may or may not occur half a lifetime in the future. In any event there is no merit in incurring more cost simply because Mr Kornycky disagrees with the professional opinion of a whole team of internal and external experts.

It is also suggested that the council should not ‘promote’ Rookwood unless that has been agreed by cabinet or council and there is some clandestine plot to avoid scrutiny.

In actual fact councils are required to consider their own land holdings when preparing a Local Plan. The site is included in the Council’s Regulation 18 Consultation Document, which was approved by cabinet.

Public consultation on this site was even extended beyond the Regulation 18 close date and it has since been a matter of much public discussion. As with any site, if Rookwood is allocated in the Regulation 19

Plan it would be subject to a full public examination.

I do though agree that there would be savings in management costs should a new unitary council replace the district council and Mr Kornycky recognises that this is a real future risk rather than a threat, as suggested by another writer to this publication.

That matter will be decided by others but I fear that any management savings wouldn’t even touch the sides in plugging the budget gaps in adult social care and children services currently experienced by upper tier authorities, such as our own county council.

GLENCHIPP Chief Executive Horsham District Council