king oswy

[veggismiennicht]

Poor Developer cannot afford just over 27k to help school places etc
surely theses costs should have been budgeted for before buying land etc
If project would be unviable if developer has to pay just over 27k surely planning officials should be panicking as with only a 27k contingency on these properties and winter coming will they get finished

[Lord Elpus]

I have not posted since May, I'm enjoying some time away from politics but just to set the record straight;  HBC Planning Committee over the last few years have let various 'developers' off with at least £600,000 in 106 monies which should have been used to enhance the lives of residents. 

There has been a number of Officer briefings urging Committee Members to do the right thing, those requests have usually fallen of deaf ears, I fact one leading Tory Councillor did not even attend the main briefing on the Wynyard application although he was in the building at the time, £450,000 was lost to HBC in 106 money that day.

I suspect some Members of the Planning Committee have personally benefited from these decisions, I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that.   

Hartlepool deserves better.

[Lord Elpus]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOKK385Nfk4#t=12

[Land Phil]

Is there any point complaining considering complaints appear to get heard by attendees of the same trough ?

[fred c]

I emailed a question for Full Council last Thursday at 1.34pm, it was refused on procedural grounds, apparently questions have to be in by 12 noon on the Thursday before the meeting, what difference 1 hour 34 minutes makes in answering a question that won`t be asked for a week is a tad puzzling to say the least.

Being a cynic i prefer to think the contents of the question has more to do with it than does the 1 hour 34 minutes....... openess, transparency, acccountability......... My A**e


I like many council tax payers find it more than a little odd that the council can in effect "Subsidise" a local housing develpoper, if the developer is not able to budget for the development, the threat of it being non viable should not be layed at the door of HBC, they should "Reduce Their Profit Margin"

With that in mnd I would like an answer to the Question below.

Why when the council has just announced financial cuts of approximately £650,000 with the probablility of more serious cuts to follow, have the authority agreed to waive a contribution of £27,495 the developer of the King Oswy Pub site was expected to make to boost local primary school places after it heard the payment would make the scheme unviable ?



Only In Hartlepool & Only Under The Mob

[Land Phil]

Can any of the friendly councillors on this forum work that question into the general discussions that take place in the meeting please ?

[for fawkes sake]

The circumstances surrounding the £27,000 in lost donation to local schools is important. The council's planning system seems to have dismissed the money as being 'insignificant' but I doubt if the local schools who have lost out would see it that way especially at a time when we all know they are strapped for cash - any cash. Of equal curiosity though, is the lack of reference to the covenant which exists on the land and which states that it should only ever be used for the purpose of a public house.

Now you could easily argue that the need for a pub on the site no longer exists, which may very well be the case, but the covenant itself still exists and it can't be ignored yet it looks like it has been - again to the benefit to the developer.

We know from the Domes fiasco that covenants are important and may have to be 'bought out' by the developer before any development proceeds yet I read through the full details of the planning application report and couldn't find a single reference to the existing covenant. This can only suggest a concerted effort by all those involved to ignore the whole matter; something which I believe needs to be seriously challenged in case it is allowed to set a dangerous precedent.

[steveL]

I doubt if the Poison Dwarf gives a Castlemain XXXX about covenants especially if they come between him and his wallet.

[Lord Elpus]

The circumstances surrounding the £27,000 in lost donation to local schools is important. The council's planning system seems to have dismissed the money as being 'insignificant' but I doubt if the local schools who have lost out would see it that way especially at a time when we all know they are strapped for cash - any cash. Of equal curiosity though, is the lack of reference to the covenant which exists on the land and which states that it should only ever be used for the purpose of a public house.

Now you could easily argue that the need for a pub on the site no longer exists, which may very well be the case, but the covenant itself still exists and it can't be ignored yet it looks like it has been - again to the benefit to the developer.

We know from the Domes fiasco that covenants are important and may have to be 'bought out' by the developer before any development proceeds yet I read through the full details of the planning application report and couldn't find a single reference to the existing covenant. This can only suggest a concerted effort by all those involved to ignore the whole matter; something which I believe needs to be seriously challenged in case it is allowed to set a dangerous precedent.

Covenants are not relevant to a planning application, they are a civil matter between two parties.

'Planning permission says that you may build; it does not say that you can, and the existence of planning permission does nothing to remove the legal impediment'.

[testing times]

So who would be the two 'relevant parties'?

[seaton]

How can the Council refuse informationin the running of Hartlepool, Pink Paper, when the people of Hartlepool are funding the town through Council Tax, it's the taxpayers money and we want to know what they are doing with it.
It's like the Chairman telling the shareholders in a company it's got nought to do with you how I spend the company funds !