Council deny offer made in Kilcock estate saga

KILDARE County Council has rejected a claim that offers on the completion of a Kilcock estate have been made by its receiver, writes Henry Bauress.

KILDARE County Council has rejected a claim that offers on the completion of a Kilcock estate have been made by its receiver, writes Henry Bauress.

Residents in Kilcock’s Chambers Park estate whose developer is in receivership say that offers have been made by the receiver but the Council (KCC) has denied this.

Ken Mitchell, secretary of Chambers Park Resident Association, said there has been a dispute between KCC and KPMG, the appointed receiver of Glenford Construction (Kilcock) Ltd - the developer of Chambers Park in Kilcock.

KPMG claimed that they have made several offers to try and resolve the situation, but that the Council have always denied that any offer had been made.

The Council told the Leader this week that there has been “no formal offer” by the Receiver.

Mr. Mitchell said it seemed that the the crux of the issue is the outstanding development levies. Another problem is that a bond required by the Council was allowed to run out.

Mr. Mitchell said it seemed KCC are more interested in making a profit rather than looking after residents and are indeed happy to continue this impasse for the foreseeable future. Responding, the Council told the Leader: “Any claims to the contrary that the council are more interested in making a profit rather than looking after residents are unfounded and will not distract the Council from its objective to deliver the satisfactory completion of the development for the residents.”

Mr. Mitchell said KCC seem unwilling or unable to negotiate.

The Council said “no formal offer has been made by the receiver to date and therefore KCC could not have refused to accept any such offer.

It also denied an ongoing dispute between KCC and KPMG and negotiations regarding Chambers Park.

“Local councillors have always been kept informed of progress in this case and are aware of negotiations to date,” it said.

“While the issue of outstanding development levies may not be an issue for Glenford Construction/KPMG, the letter dated 10 October 2011 requested that the council accept an amount in full settlement of all outstanding remedial works and development levies. The Council confirmed, on 1 December 2011, that there is no provision in current legislation to accept a reduced amount in full settlement of development levies imposed by planning permission. The council’s role is to ensure that all development levies due are paid.

On the bond, the Council said it advised the developer the bond was expiring and latter that it had expired. It added that it has taken enforcement action in this regard.

In summary, the Council said: “There has been no formal offer made by the receiver to date and therefore KCC could not have refused to accept any such offer. All correspondence to date has been strictly on a “without prejudice basis” and relates to some of the specific issues under consideration. Further discussion is still required in relation to these specific issues and other issues and the manner in which any such agreement could be implemented remains uncertain.

“Discussions are ongoing between KCC and KPMG regarding Chambers Park. The council’s position in this regard has always been that we will consider any proposal which delivers the satisfactory completion of the development for the residents so that it can be taken in charge and this remains the council’s sole objective.

- Henry Bauress