A company owned by former Plymouth Labour councillor Christopher Pattison has purchased the council's Midland House building for £755,000, raising questions about the sale process and whether taxpayers received fair value.
Midland House (Plymouth) Ltd, which lists Christopher Philip Pattison as its sole director, acquired the building from Plymouth City Council in a deal that will see it converted into 34 residential apartments and ground-floor office space.
Pattison previously served as a Labour councillor for Ham ward - the same ward represented by council leader Tudor Evans OBE.
Questions Over Sale Process
The sale has prompted concerns about whether proper due diligence was conducted and if the price represents fair value for a building with significant development potential.
According to Freedom of Information responses, Plymouth City Council only verified that Pattison's company had "funding for the purchaser to complete the acquisition" but did not check whether adequate funding was in place for the full regeneration project.
When asked about the financial capability of the buyer, the council confirmed it had only sought "evidence of funding for the purchaser to complete the acquisition from the Council" - not the substantial costs of converting the building into 34 apartments.
Development Plans and Profit Potential
The building is being converted to provide "serviced office accommodation" on the ground floor and "circa 34 residential apartments to rent on the upper floors," with works currently in progress.
However, the council confirmed it "does not hold information" about expected profits from the development, raising questions about whether the sale price reflected the property's true potential value.
If you'd like to help us continue holding Plymouth authorities to account, please consider making a small donation to support us.
The £755,000 purchase price for a building capable of housing 34 residential units, alongside serviced office space, has prompted questions about whether Plymouth residents received fair value for their asset.
Plymouth's rental market has seen significant growth in recent years, with new residential developments commanding premium rents. The conversion of Midland House into over 30 rental units plus office space represents substantial commercial potential that may not have been fully reflected in the sale price.
The council confirmed it "does not hold" information about the current official worth of the building, suggesting no recent independent valuation was conducted before the sale.
Inside Knowledge Advantage?
Pattison's background as a former councillor raises questions about whether his inside knowledge of council operations and property portfolio gave him an unfair advantage in the acquisition process.
Former councillors often retain detailed knowledge of council assets, development plans, and property values that could prove valuable in commercial dealings with their former authority.
The connection between Pattison and the current council leadership through their shared Ham ward representation adds another layer of concern about potential conflicts of interest.
Transparency Concerns
The council's responses reveal limited transparency around the sale process:
No information held about current market value
No verification of development funding capability
No details about profit projections or return on investment
Unclear whether competitive bidding took place
The sale appears to have been concluded with minimal scrutiny of the buyer's ability to complete the challenging conversion project or assessment of whether the price reflected fair market value.
Due Diligence Questions
The council's admission that it only checked funding for the purchase itself, not the full development project, raises serious questions about due diligence standards.
Converting a building into 34 apartments requires substantial capital investment, planning expertise, and project management capability. The council's failure to verify these factors suggests inadequate protection of public interests in the sale.
This approach contrasts sharply with standard commercial practice, where buyers' financial capability to complete proposed developments is thoroughly assessed before major asset disposals.
Pattern of Concern
The Midland House sale comes amid broader questions about Plymouth City Council's property disposal practices and relationship with former political figures.
The council has faced previous criticism over asset management decisions and transparency in commercial dealings, making this latest transaction particularly significant for public confidence.
What the Council Says
Plymouth City Council has defended the sale process, stating that "a fully transparent process was followed throughout the sale of Midland House after it had been declared surplus for operational use."
The council confirmed that "the sale was an officer - and not a member - decision" and outlined their assessment process: "Prior to marketing, an assessment criteria was agreed, allocating a weighting of 50% to purchase price, 30% to conditions, 10% for timescales to purchase and 10% for future use."
According to the council, they "received five offers for the freehold interest by the closing date" and selected "the offer that scored highest against the criteria – and was unconditional."
However, this response raises additional questions about the process and criteria used.
Questions Requiring Answers
The council's response, while providing some clarity, raises additional important questions that Plymouth residents deserve to have answered:
If price was weighted at only 50%, what were the "conditions" that made up 30% of the assessment?
How did the scoring system work, and who determined the criteria weightings?
Were any conflicts of interest declared by bidders or considered in the assessment?
What were the other four offers, and how did they score against the criteria?
Why was development funding capability not included in the assessment criteria?
How does "future use" worth only 10% ensure the best outcome for the community?
What independent valuation informed the 50% price weighting?
The weighting system appears to prioritise speed and convenience over maximising value for taxpayers, with price representing only half the decision-making criteria.
The sale of public assets should be conducted with the highest standards of transparency and due diligence to ensure taxpayers receive fair value for their property.
About this story: Information obtained through Freedom of Information Act responses and public company records. PlymLeaks has submitted additional FOI requests to examine the sale process and decision-making procedures.
George Granton is the lead writer at PlymLeaks, investigating Plymouth’s public authorities to expose mismanaged projects, wasted spending, and decisions that impact residents.
Plymouth's taxpayer-funded leisure facilities are operating discriminatory swimming sessions that exclude transgender women while providing no equivalent sessions for men, leaked documents have revealed.
Sign up for the PlymLeaks newsletter and get the latest investigations, updates, and insights on public authorities in Plymouth delivered straight to your inbox. Stay informed, stay aware, and help hold power accountable.
