THE PUBLIC should know how the shares of Denbighshire Leisure Limited (DLL) will be allocated, before the sale of the public owned asset to an investment fund is completed, a councillor says. Last week the Local Democracy Reporting Service exclusively revealed that River Capital, a subsidiary of the Merseyside Special investment fund (MSFI), hopes to complete the £1.5m purchase of the Denbighshire County Council asset.
Councillors voted to sell (DLL) behind closed doors late last month, leading to Plaid Cymru member Cllr Gwyneth Ellis resigning from the cabinet. Conservative leader Cllr Brian Jones also heavily criticised the deal. The council claims selling DLL would save the public money and “safeguard services for the future”. If the deal is completed, the council will retain ownership and responsibility of the related buildings.
A county councillor, who has asked to remain anonymous, said the council owes it to the public to explain how shares in the newly formed company will be distributed and to whom. “This sale is harming Denbighshire County Council’s reputation. I’m worried about transparency and openness,” they said. Sign up for the North Wales Live newsletter sent twice daily to your inbox.
“It’s really difficult to judge how much the shares are worth. DLL will say the shares aren’t worth anything because it is a loss-making company. So it’s difficult to say what the company and the shares are worth, but the public should know who is getting what and what is going where.”
They added: “It is clear how the public interest is best served by having this debate in public. The public deserves to know who is going to own DLL. The public should know who the shareholders will be.”
Denbighshire County Council, DLL and Investors River Capital declined to comment. Rhyl councillor Justine Evans was also unhappy how decisions had played out.
“I just feel it is a wasted opportunity and that others should have been explored, namely Denbighshire themselves being the investor,” she said.
“That way, the money would have come back into the council. I felt uneasy about the whole sale to be honest, just because it is a public asset. As councillors we were put in a difficult position. We weren’t given much notice to make a decision on that scale. We asked for it to be in part one (publicly debated) because I knew the public would be suspicious if it was done behind closed doors. They should have just done it in part one so people could have listened to the debate.”
She added: “Because it was behind closed doors, people feel there is something to hide. There should have been more transparency, and as councillors, we should have been made aware what the plans were at an earlier stage.”
