After a great deal of digging (something the CCBC officers clearly haven't done) it seems the Mochdre site owners are the Conygar Investment Company PLC, details as follows:
The Board of Directors
N J Hamway (Non-Executive Chairman)
R T E Ware (Chief Executive)
R H McCaskill (Finance Director)
P M C Rabl (Director)
M D Wigley (Non-Executive Director)
Company Secretary
R H McCaskill
Registered Office
Fourth Floor 110 Wigmore Street London W1U 3RW
The report into the leasing doesn't seem to be available - at least, not easily. However, some quotes from the report refer to "weaknesses in the processes" and that "Conwy council "missed steps" and "failed" in its process to acquire the lease of a site in Mochdre".
In response, the council stated they will be
"clarifying the roles and responsibilities of staff members involved in acquisitions"
"introducing a new system of checks and balances so that the most senior staff are aware of and have final sign-off on arrangements on high value leases before they are entered into"
"implementing a comprehensive programme of training for staff"
Well, of course, CCBC is only a newly formed council - oh wait, no, it isn't but when it was formed on April Fools' day, in 1996 (how's that for a sense of humour?) it chose not to avail itself of sharing the services of the large councils adjacent to it and preferred to empire build instead - at a cost of millions to council tax payers - and then had to start learning everything from scratch when it could simply have shared.
But let's see what inspirational changes they're going to make:
1. They're going to clarify the roles and responsibilities of staff members involved in acquisitions. Wow. They've been in existence now for 23 years and yet they've never developed a system for ensuring staff can't simply buy what they want without reference to the council?
Q. Whose responsibility has it been to create and refine systems covering staff involved in major acquisitions? The council tax payers deserve to know.
2. They're going to introduce a new system of checks and balances so that the most senior staff are aware of and have final sign-off on arrangements on high value leases before they are entered into.
Q. Apart from ending the sentence with a preposition are they actually saying that before they decided to make this change junior staff could spend hundreds of thousands on a whim without anyone checking? Q. And how difficult is it to set an amount above which the signature of the chief financial officer is needed?
Q. More to the point, who will be implementing these recommendations and how much will they be paid? Because I reckon we could form a committee and do it for nothing.
3. The final point is one that - if it weren't so farcical - could provide the basis for a TV sitcom: They're going to implement a comprehensive programme of training for staff.
Q. So are they saying that the staff were not, in fact, trained before all this? I admit, if the office boy can go out and complete a 35-year lease for £20k per month - which is what they seem to be saying has happened - then yes; apparently the staff are not trained very well - if at all.
Some final questions remain and I really think we should push for answers on these:
1. Whose signature is on the lease?
2. Whose responsibility is staff training?
3. Were the sellers advised as to the potential purpose of the building?
4. Have the person or persons responsible for identifying the facilities and signing the lease been asked if they have any relatives, friends, associates or vested interests in the company that owns the site?