Exclusively Yours

[marky]

I've got a real bad feeling about this.

So the council gives an, as-yet-unknown, developer 4 months to do a land survey. It's a guess, but I'd say in 4 months time the developer announces that they've found 'contamination issues' and so reduce their offer price accordingly. Someone at HBC states how important it is that more facilities are provided in town for those with brain damage and in any case - there's 200 zero hour contract, minimum wage care worker jobs on offer. Minutes later HBC agrees to sell the land at a reduce rate to a developer whose name we still don't know.

Yes if we'd told him to p**s off another developer may have come along prepared to pay the market price but suddenly providing extra facilities for brain damaged people and those 200 jobs become all important and it would take sooooo long to find another developer willing to pay the market rate. Oh and did I say we need the money!

There's a rabbit off here - I know it, You know and Everyone else knows it.

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/business/hartlepool-council-agrees-exclusivity-period-for-new-health-centre-1-6791829

[one direction]

This exclusivity agreement was covered in the meeting below:

http://www.hartlepool.gov.uk/egov_downloads/18.08.14_-_Finance_and_Policy_Committee_Agenda.pdf

Try Item 26 for another stich up! North Star and Gus Robinson Developments. Sold for undisclosed price?

[fred c]

Something Stinks & It`s not The Dumps..... What happened to the Peer Group Reports.

They were extremely critical of our council several years ago & It`s worse now then ever.

[steveL]

These 'little arrangements' are becoming far too frequent - as is the habit of HBC to Pink Paper information which does not fall into the Exempt information criteria as laid down by Whitehall. Such occurrences, according to Whitehall should be 'rare and exceptional' but with HBC they occur as a matter of routine. I can see no reason at all why the developer involved in this 'little arrangement' shouldn't be named; nor can I see why the prospect of additional bungalows is reason enough to offer land up for a lower price than market value.

Some time ago, I remember an OFSTED report into a particular school being 'pink papered'. The same report was freely available as a download on the OFSTED website so we promptly downloaded and published it.

'Exempt Information', as far as HBC is concerned, increasingly means information that they simply would rather the public didn't know and that is way outside anything that Whitehall thinks what it should be.

As an aside, I notice the attempt of Manor House Councillors to have any money from the New Homes Bonus from the Eskdale Road sale ring-fenced to be used solely within the ward. The availability of land for sale/development does not fall evenly across the town so if this were allowed to happen then wards with no prospect of additional development would lose out significantly. Besides, could anyone image Mad Dog taking the same stance over development at Wynyard, South Fens or within Rural West?

[Inspector Knacker]

As an aside, I notice the attempt of Manor House Councillors to have any money from the New Homes Bonus from the Eskdale Road sale ring-fenced to be used solely within the ward.

Why...? ....and what exactly could or would they do with the money and who would decide........?

[fred c]

Councillors....... Public Money....... & Manor Councillors, should not be mentioned in the same sentence after the Manor Residents Scandal.