Scores of minutes and email exchanges relating to the controversial purchase of a run-down property by village commissioners have been released under Freedom of Information.

Port St Mary Commissioners had initially declined to release many of the documents but have now done so following a complaint to the Information Commissioner.

They reveal that concerns were raised early on about the purchase of Manxonia House which critics argued went through without commissioners being shown all the information they needed.

A report on the potential purchase put to the board on February 24, 2016, explained the project would remove an eyesore, provide higher quality office accommodation for the Commissioners and improve the investment return on reserves.

Minutes of a closed meeting at Port St Mary town hall on April 27, 2016 show agreement to purchase had been concluded at a purchase price of £190,000.

In June that year, commissioners, again in private session, unanimously approved the purchase and associated borrowing.

In July the Commissioners petitioned the local government unit of the DoI to borrow £221,000 for the purchase and refurbishment of Manxonia House.

In September they discussed a letter from a ratepayer but said they couldn’t respond fully due to commercial sensitivity.

That letter was from a chartered surveyor who said she did not believe it to be a prudent purchase and urged commissioners to ’withdraw now’ rather than leave ratepayers with ’an albatross round our necks’.

Another letter from a ratepayer was sent to the local government unit objecting to the petition, claiming renovation costs would be considerably in excess of the purchase price.

It was a claim disputed by the then Commissioners’ clerk Alastair Hamilton, who resigned in early 2018. It is his wife Jill who submitted the latest FoI request.

Borrowing approval for the project was given on September 30, the documents show.

On October 26, Commissioners were told the building had been purchased. But no public statement was made until November 17.

Mr Phair queried how the purchase had been financed as no agreement for borrowing had been approved by the board.

He was told the intention was now to fund it from reserves, which stood at £400,000.

Fellow commissioner Ian Skelly, in an email on October 3, said he was ’growing tired at the lack of detailed information from Alastair that is coming to the table’, and he was withdrawing his support of the project.

Valuation

In a private board session on November 6, Mr Hamilton said a structural report had been undertaken before the purchase and he would circulate a copy to all members.

He said the total project was estimated at £300,000 including the £190,000 purchase price.

A valuation report, included among the documents released under FoI, shows significant water ingress and damp penetration were found throughout the property which would require ’urgent and extensive’ works.

On the 23rd of that month, Mr Phair emailed the clerk seeking clarification on points raised in a structural report which indicated that the roof would need to be replaced.

He said the clerk had previously advised there was no need to re-roof.

The same day commissioner Rob Hirst emailed saying ’my main worries are we were not given the full information to make an informed decision’.

In June 2017, the DoI received a second petition about Manxonia House in connection with a plan to sell part of the building.

Steve Willoughby at the local government unit expressed concern that this was a ’fundamental’ change to the basis on which the original petition was approved.

He added: ’It does not appear that the process carried out so far follows the usual financial regulation.’

The Commissioners subsequently withdrew the petition.

In December 2017, commissioner Michelle Haywood, who is now the board’s chairman, lodged a formal complaint against Mr Hamilton, accusing him of attempting to ’railroad’ major capital expenditure items through with ’piecemeal information and poor justification’.

Business case

In February last year, the Commissioners received a FoI request from Isle of Man Newspapers requesting a copy of the Manxonia business case.

The original business plan didn’t change even when structural surveys showed how much restoration work would be required.

Minutes of a board meeting in private session noted that members voted with four in favour and three against to amend the last paragraph of the FoI response to read: ’The purchase of Manxonia House did not contribute to the increase in the rates.’

An options paper in June 2018 revealed total spending including purchase, renovations, surveys, reports and insurance topped £274,300 and a further £35,000 was needed in order to complete the renovation.

An internal investigation later found there was no evidence that a full and fair formal tender process was carried out in respect of replacement windows and doors.

In a letter to the Commissioners in July 2018, Mr Hamilton took issue with the chairman’s statement that Manxonia House was purchased without a survey being in place.

He said: ’For the record, every action taken by me was the result of a properly constituted board decision and therefore outcomes must be owned by the board.’ Mr Hamilton said board members in office in early 2016 all received copies of a survey and valuation by Black Grace Cowley.

Manxonia House was surveyed and reported on again in the spring of that year and a further condition report was carried out by chartered surveyors in August, some three months before the purchase in late October, he said.

Responsibility

’To state in a public meeting that the building had not had a single survey is devoid of veracity or more likely an attempt to shift responsibility for incompetence from the board to me.’

Black Grace Cowley’s report, however, notes that it is not a building survey and parts of the property which were inaccessible were not inspected.

In July last year, the board voted to put Manxonia House on the market. It is still for sale.