Market Square community events; objection at bottom of the pics.

Bill’s plans to remove yet another
community space

Objection 14 August 2012

Dear Mr. Brown,

We would like to object to the application made on behalf of Bill's Produce for Market Square tables and chairs and umbrellas.

We believe that the approval of this application to dominate Market Square and remove a long-standing community space would be another example of Council bias in favour of Bill's Produce as well as removing a valuable community space. This will be disastrous in the long-term for the Horsham taxpayer. If suppliers cannot be certain that Horsham District Council contracts and licenses are awarded on merit, they will be discouraged from dealing with the Council. The lack of fair competition will lead to higher costs, lower quality and significantly less 'value for money' for the Horsham taxpayer. Due to the HDC Cabinet's irrational and stubborn pursuit of Bill's, the Bill's Produce project managers from COTE now have absolute leverage over the Council. The Council are clearly not in a position to make a fair and objective decision on this application.  

We attach photographs of previous performances in Market Square. Competitive sport, such as we have seen in an amazing Olympics, is not the only way to keep fit and entertain people. Where the Horsham community once met and performed in Market Square for free, or met cheaply in the Old Town Hall, if COTE has its way, you can soon pay through the nose and further line the pockets of the Bill's/COTE financial backers.

Additionally, we feel that the proposal for Bill's to dominate Market Square is unfair to other local businesses who are not being given the same opportunities and favourable terms. As far as has been revealed by the Council, Bill's Produce has not yet signed the lease for the Old Town Hall. They therefore have no right to make the application from that address. Unlike other local businesses, it seems Bill's Produce is not required to take any risks due to the ongoing HDC favouritism. For example, in 2009 the Council paid for the planning application and designs for the Old Town Hall using £10,300 of taxpayer’s money; self-approved the application; and then handed the designs over to an agent of Bill's. We are sure that all local businesses would like to enjoy similar benefits. The Council has declined to issue any details of the proposed Old Town Hall lease this time around, rather than blank out any commercially sensitive information like before. We believe this is because the terms of the proposed lease will also be disproportionately favourable to Bill's and that the other tenants of the Council are likely to object if the details are made public. 

In 2009 Bill's was irrationally selected above Ask Ltd. Ask bid £72,500 per annum compared to Bill's £54,000. Ask pledged other benefits as well as making minimal impact on the Grade II listed building compared to Bill's destruction i.e. cutting a large hole between the two floors and destroying the unique architectural feature of the purpose-designed solid arches. the Council claimed that Bill's was recommended by Davis Coffer Lyons. There was no evidence in the District Auditor investigation file that this was the case, but it would raise a tricky question "Why would DCL want to accept a significantly lower commission?" We have yet to find out whether the original Bill's bid (not signed, dated, or on headed paper) was written by DCL also. It remains a possibility that the Council shortlist for the Agent was drawn up by COTE. The lowest bid to meet the Invitation To Tender (ITT) criteria was from Carr Priddle in Brighton. The reason for rejecting this bid was not recorded. Davis Coffer Lyons was appointed without rationale and the terms of the ITT extended to include consultancy. This was without proper authority according to the Council's financial regulations. 

In 2012, Bill's was irrationally selected over W J King by the Council, with the scores similarly manipulated. 

The Council's own consultant, who cost the taxpayer £5,000, indicated at the start of the Council's Old Town Hall restaurant project that Bill's Produce in the Old Town Hall would be a threat to other local businesses. As above, this consultant also happened to be from the Agents (Davis Coffer Lyons) appointed by the Council, who were also the sole Agents in Bill's Covent Garden deal. The words "conflict" and "interest" spring to mind as previously referred to by the District Auditor. It is also worth remembering that seven years ago, Bill's was negotiating 'under the table' with the HDC Cabinet about moving into the Old Town Hall. This was against Council policy for "community use" at the time.

In our view therefore, the potential of fair competition has been replaced with unfair competition and ultimately the Horsham taxpayer and other local businesses will be the losers. We would therefore urge the rejection of this application.

Yours sincerely,

RM

for BFMT.