In the end ASDA's bid for the site (without planning permission) was bigger than Tesco, who by the way bid the highest amount for the land but only if it had planning permission.
This is very interesting indeed. Maybe I've been dozy, but I was not aware that Asda had acquired the site unconditionally, and will therefore remain owners even if they don't get planning consent. If that is the case, they are taking quite a risk. What is the source for this fascinating information, Victor?
As for this:
Therefore all this talk of "The college has to sell the land to the highest bidder" is rubbish. The highest bidder was Tesco and they decided not to sell to them!
.... I have to plead guilty to using misleading words. It's not rubbish, but I could have expressed it more accurately. I've been a college governor (not at camsfc), and I know a bit about this. The basis of it lies in the governors' statutory duty to 'safeguard the assets of the institution', which is enshrined in the Instrument and Articles of all college governing bodies. This means, among many other things, that when the governors dispose of land or any other assets, they have a duty to do so on the best terms - so I should have used the words 'the best offer' rather than 'the highest bidder'. Given the obvious difficulties in getting planning permission for a supermarket in an area zoned for housing, the college and their legal advisers must have been astonished to receive an unconditional offer from Asda, and I can quite see that the lawyers could have advised the governors that an unconditional offer was a much better one than a higher offer which was conditional on getting planning consent. I hope that clarifies the position, and my apologies if I caused any confusion.
Meanwhile, I'm wondering why Victor is being so coy about Asda's letter to the councillors. Is there something there he doesn't want us to see
