Secret deal to reopen Barbican on cue for snooker

Today, following a request for documents under the Freedom of Information Act, the Evening Press can reveal how City of York Council has secretly negotiated a rent-free, short-term lease with prospective centre operators Absolute Leisure to get the centre reopened. MIKE LAYCOCK reports.

RONNIE O'Sullivan and other snooker stars should once again be appearing at York's Barbican Centre this autumn.

It had been thought the prestigious UK Snooker Tournament, covered nightly on national TV, might have to go elsewhere this year following delays in plans to redevelop the complex. The Barbican has stood unused since last autumn's contest finished.

But the documents obtained by the Evening Press show for several months, City of York Council has been engaged in negotiations with Absolute Leisure Ltd (ALL) to get the centre reopened on a short-term lease - free of both rent and business rates.

Now Absolute Leisure boss Tony Knox has confirmed the company is planning in "a matter of weeks" to take over the Barbican, so the tournament can go ahead this year.

He said the company would also be opening the centre for other events before the snooker "but as yet haven't made any final decisions as to what they will be".

Asked whether York's Festival of Remembrance could be staged there, he said he understood the organisers were planning to go to the university this year, but would do what he could if asked to help. He said there were no plans to open during Royal Ascot at York week.

A World Snooker spokesman declined to comment on whether the tournament would return to York this year.

He said: "We have always enjoyed having the snooker in York. It's a great venue. We have not announced our dates and venues this season, but we will in due course."

Meanwhile, the Barbican files uncovered by the Evening Press show the rent-free deal's legality was queried earlier this year by the council's audit and fraud manager, Max Thomas.

Mr Thomas said although the lease would only be for a maximum of 12 months, in the past the Audit Commission had raised concerns about the council granting rent-free leases "because we are effectively subsidising the activities of a profit-making company, which as a result gives them a commercial advantage over similar operators".

He said: "Such an arrangement could also be ultra vires, since we have no specific power to pay such subsidies. The risk in this situation is that other leisure operators might challenge the fairness and legality of the proposed arrangement with ALL."

He recommended the legality should be checked before proceeding.

John Urwin, senior property surveyor, said the proposal was fully backed by council leader Steve Galloway, who would prefer it to keeping a public asset dark and prone to vandalism. Mr Urwin said it was costing the council £1,000 a week for security, and it was also having to keep the building warm and pay various service contracts.

Suzan Hemingway, head of civic, democratic and legal services, said she noted the Audit Commission's concerns, but believed the arrangement was predominantly about continuing existing activities on a smaller scale temporarily, rather than facilitating the commercial activities of ALL.

She said if the building remained unoccupied for up to 12 months, the risks and costs to the council would increase, and the authority had an obligation to ensure its assets were being effectively managed.

The council said today it expected the temporary arrangements to start shortly. "The ball is in Absolute Leisure's court. There is no legal problem with the approach," said a spokeswoman.

Ernie Dickinson, of campaign group Save Our Barbican (SOB), claimed Absolute Leisure was effectively getting a rent-free deal anyway.

He said: "The lease they have been offered is almost rent free anyway. It works out at about £50 a week for 250 years - that's what they are going to be paying. That's not a great deal for the taxpayer."

Elsewhere, the files reveal the extraordinary frustration felt by officers and others over delays in redeveloping the centre due to a legal challenge mounted by SOB campaigners. SOB is seeking a judicial review of the decision to grant planning permission for a massive block of 240 apartments overlooking Barbican Road, without conducting an environmental impact assessment.

Last October, John Urwin emailed to council chief executive David Atkinson: "After this length of time, we do not intend to be beaten at the last hurdle by a few misguided citizens. Therefore I can assure you we will robustly defend the application."

The chief executive replied he was reassured by the officer's approach, and what he wanted was to "deliver the knock-out" at the early stage, when SOB was applying for leave for a judicial review rather than a later substantial hearing.

Council leader Steve Galloway, in a letter to Andrew Cossins, of the developers Barbican Venture (York) Ltd, revealed his anger at SOB's challenge, saying: "Personally, I think it is outrageous that taxpayers' money should be made available to pursue a judicial review against a democratically-taken decision, which in turn will have to be defended by the use of council taxpayers' money."

Mr Cossins had earlier emailed Coun Galloway to express disappointment that SOB had obtained legal aid and to offer the opportunity for the councillors' advisers to work in collaboration with his planning team. He ended his message with: "As the saying goes, don't let the ******* grind us down!"

In an email, dating back to this March, Martin Foster, director of FPD Savills, York and property consultant to Barbican Venture (York) Ltd, speaking of the delays caused by the judicial review application, wrote: "Frustrating is not a strong enough word for the delays these people are causing."

Another email, by John Urwin, dated January 12, shows the council underestimated SOB's chances of success at the beginning of the year, saying: "Our legal team believes the council's defence of the judicial review is robust, and the protesters' challenge will be kicked out at the first stage in late February." The challenge is due to go to the High Court in London next month. The council spokeswoman said today she did not think "any public comment is appropriate on the personal views of individual officers, expressed privately to colleagues."

But Mr Dickinson, of SOB, today branded the council comments "absolutely outrageous". He hit out at the critical comments in the previously unpublished documents, he said were attacking residents "defending their right to enjoy their homes in peace and quiet".

Mr Dickinson, who said the information would now be put before the ongoing judicial review, added: "It's time Coun Galloway remembered who elected him."

Other papers in the file show the council's licensing chief, Dick Haswell, was strongly hoping last November that a late-night licence application by Absolute Leisure would be dealt with by magistrates, rather than by the council, under new national licensing arrangements.

He said throughout the debate on the transfer of licensing from magistrates to local authorities, there had been criticism of councils determining applications for their own premises. "Wherever we are in offloading the Barbican, residents will for many years see it as council property," he said in an email to Mr Urwin. He said it would also be seen by objectors as a "get-out."

He said the system would be new, "and I would not like our members to be exposed to such a controversial issue so soon." Under the new regime, objectors would also have the right to appeal.

Absolute Leisure, which withdrew its application to magistrates last month, has just applied to the council for a late licence. The council insisted last week its licensing committee would deal with it impartially. Asked today if the authority had any concerns now about determining the application, following Mr Haswell's comments last autumn, the spokeswoman said: "It was entirely Absolute Leisure's decision to withdraw the application from the magistrates court. We have no choice in the matter - it is now the council's responsibililty to deal with these applications."

Mr Dickinson said SOB was currently looking into whether it would be legal for the council to make the licensing decision.

Paul Snape, spokesperson for Barbican Venture, said: "The continued delays to this proposed development that has the support of the majority of York residents is a source of frustration to everyone involved.

"The inconvenience and cost to the residents of York has frustrated Andrew all the more - as a local businessman and lifetime resident of the city he has the interests of York and its people at heart. It's worth bearing in mind that whilst the development has been standing still as a direct result of the actions of SOB, the property market and wider economy hasn't, and the longer this process is dragged out, with no foundation, the more the protesters are costing the city of York."

Updated: 09:30 Monday, May 23, 2005