Are we seriously expected to fall for this again?
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/new-school-sports-facilities-and-bus-service-in-9million-agreement-by-developers-of-1-200-home-estate-hartlepool-1-8637994
Is that the wind rustling in the trees I hear ??
Quote from: testing times on July 10, 2017, 09: AM
Are we seriously expected to fall for this again?
http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/new-school-sports-facilities-and-bus-service-in-9million-agreement-by-developers-of-1-200-home-estate-hartlepool-1-8637994
Well, I think you can take it as read that the money for a swimming pool for Brierton will go through. The disproportionate amount of money directed towards Manor/Rift House has been going on for years while the equally 'deprived' Brus Ward gets nothing.
The sustainable bus deal where a service is provided for 5 years between 7am and 6pm sounds like a subsidised bus service to me. Why only five years? if you need a bus service you need a bus service.
It refers to paying for lights at the Wolviston roundabout, last time I looked, the roundabout was in Stockton, shouldn't they pay?
An article in the current Private Eye mention that 40% of houses that get planning permission never get built. Also that whilst agricultural Land has doubled in price in the last 60 years Land with Planning Permission has increase 1200%!
Here is my theory, a certain short arsed Councillors on the Planning Committee has always spoken against the SWE.
I think there is a very simple reason for this, development of the SWE if done to a decent standard would have an impact on sales potential of the proposed development at Wynyard.
Its in the short arses mates best interests to see the SWE fail to even start because then he's more chance of selling homes at Wynyard.
Remember this was the same short ar** who argued against the developer at Wynyard having to pay £450,000 in 106 money, this was against Officer recommendation. There was only one person benefited, short ar**'s best mate.
Would this be the same short-arsed councillor who sold the King Oswy site to 'a developer at a 'paper loss' and then argued for the £27,000 106 Money linked to the development to be waived because paying it would make the development non-viable?
Quote from: steveL on July 19, 2017, 08: AM
Would this be the same short-arsed councillor who sold the King Oswy site to 'a developer at a 'paper loss' and then argued for the £27,000 106 Money linked to the development to be waived because paying it would make the development non-viable?
Also know as 'What's in it for me'.
There should be an independent investigation into the abandonment of the town plan and subsequent planning applications in Hartlepool...............non-minuted meetings between developers and council officials......what was that all about ?.....maybe the opposition group could table such a motion ?
Only in Hartlepool and Only Under the LabTor Coalition