Gordon, I’m not sure making excuses for the Council making a wrong decision in the first place and then throwing good money after bad makes any sense.Mastcraft came on board in 2016. The Victoria Hall trust issues came to light quite soon after that, we’ll before any planning application was submitted.Indeed, in January 2019 the council’s (taxpayer funded) mouthpiece Around Ealing reported:‘There has been some slippage in the programme arising from the building’s status as an asset of community value and the fact that part of the building is held in trust. In particular, the council is seeking approval from the Charity Commission to change the way that part of the building, including the Victoria Hall, is managed in the future.Proposals received during the community asset moratorium period have now been considered by the general purposes committee and their recommendation is that cabinet agrees to proceed with the Mastcraft proposal. Cabinet will meet in February to consider this. However, the council is still waiting for a decision from the Charity Commission. To prevent further delays, Mastcraft has started the planning application process. However, no work will start on site before Charity Commission approval has been given.’So rather than hedge bets, or be told by the council that nothing could be done until the position of the Hall was clarified, Mastcraft went full tilt into planning. Doubtless they were encouraged to go so by Julian Bell, whose confidence in his own abilities knew no bounds. If they incurred costs then that’s their own fault, not something Ealing residents should be covering. Perhaps if Bell and his cronies were covering such costs themselves they might have had second thoughts.Of course there will have been some upfront costs to Mastcraft, but not disclosed and certainly nothing in the region of £350,000 before any plans were drawn up.You say: ‘I presume the council was willing to become a respondent in the case and take on the costs because the Charity Commission assured them that they would not lose and the council had to do so if it was paying the costs’.If that was the case then those responsible should be sacked or removed from office immediately. The one guarantee of legal cases is that you cannot predict the outcome, least of all if that prediction is coming from a body whose decision is being challenged. Every lawyer I’ve spoken to about this case over the years has said the same thing, that the property of the trust is paramount. Incompetent or irresponsible, take your pick.Of course the Town Hall should remain a public building and this council should take some responsibility for the assets in its care. Who knows what the repair costs are now. Arthur Breens asked some years back, when this hotel was still on the cards, what works were needed and how much they would cost. Of course he never received a response.
Simon Hayes ● 213d