Unbelievable!

[minime]

This lovely fictional story came through my door today. How are the findings now different from the previous report and how were Jean and Paul instrumental in championing the voice of the people?!?! We obviously missed something. They didn't even back an appeal for full council to review the gypsy site decision.

[mk1]

And the other has made less appearances than lord Lucan.

That is absurd. The two are nowhere near comparable.

There have at least been reported  sightings of Lord Lucan!

[clav 73]

And he was I thinking the town plan was scrapped so houses could be built in Wynyard when along it was Paul beck and the invisible women

Where will the site go if a need arises as all I takes is one living in a council house to ask to have a site and the council must provide one by the law brought in by Iain wrong

[steveL]

This is something of a disgrace really.

The 'Renaissance' Consultants have indeed completed their exercise and have reached precisely the same conclusions as before and, as before, Labour are desperately playing on the difference between the words 'need' and 'demand'.

It's a tricky one to follow this one:

a 'Demand' is the number of traveller people in town who would consider moving on to a dedicated site if one was available

a 'Need' is the number of people who want to exert their legal right to live on a dedicated site NOW which obliges any council who doesn't already have such a site to build one.

As I said, this is precisely the situation we were in before and which CAB initially tried to use to say there was no certainty any site would be built.

Just as then, these new consultants have concluded that there is a 'demand' from about 14 travellers currently living in brick built houses in town but there is no immediate 'need' to build a traveller site at the moment because none of those 14 are currently jumping up and down claiming their legal right. However, the council is still obliged to 'designate' a site just in case one of those 14 changes their mind and suddenly decides he wants to move out of his brick house and back into a caravan. CAB is relying on the 'wing-and-a-prayer' hope that, because a lot of those 14 are actually quite young and don't have much of a history of living in a caravan, that they're unlikely to do so. Even so, HBC MUST still designate a site.

Consequently, we will now enter the 'site assessment' phase when a number of sites will, in theory at least, be assessed against laid down criteria (sound familiar?) So, given that absolutely nothing has changed - would anyone like to take a guess at the eventual result of that assessment?

I'm predicting a ward-wide, deja vu moment as people find themselves once again sitting in Hart Village Hall listening to CAB desperately trying to explain the difference between 'demand' and 'need'

The only thing that has really changed is that the town is now £2.4m poorer after CAB scrapped the local plan in order to get the Wynyard Housing Plan through for Wells' mate.

[mk1]

There is no need to run a consultation to realise what is going to happen. Hart is a lost cause for Labour . They know they are going to end up  losing the 2 remaining seats. True they will  run a candidate (I presume Mum SCAB) on the  nudge-nudge wink-wink promise that she will use her influence to prevent son and son-in-law dumping the site on them. The fact is Hart is going to get the site because all wards with Labour councillors and the Tory stronghold do not want it.
It is a cast iron certainty that the site is going to stay in Hart.

[marky]

The 'consultation' was always a smoke screen. Give the guy his due, I remember steveL predicting exactly this situation way back when the local plan was first scrapped.

On that point, it's interesting to note that a £7m deficit in Musgrave's development company last year has now been wiped out. Land designated for employment which is suddenly re-designated for housing is worth considerably more. And what a fortunate coincidence for him that there's now going to be no Wynyard Hospital on the land next to it. Some people have all the luck, don't they?

It really is time that Central Government started to take an interest in the planning function of HBC.

[steveL]

You're too kind  Not that it helps the situation much right now.

The thing that pisses me off is the absolute gaul of Paul Beck. I'm still trying to get over his 'wasn't me' speech about Manor Residents but now I recall his refusal to back the original call-in request on the Hart decision, his not attending the Finance and Policy meeting where the decision was made, his contrite but ultimate disingenuous apology in the village hall. He seems to be willing to say absolutely anything to dig himself out of the s**t - and with no shame whatsoever.

[Jeff]

'Paul and Jean were instrumental in championing the voices of local residents'

Well, as a local resident may I state that they are not championing my voice, or any of the local residents I speak to.

If they were to champion the voice of the majority of residents then they would have stood down by now.

Maybe they should champion the voice of the ex employees of MRA who are still owed thousands of pounds.

Paul Beck is fighting for his political livelihood come May and Jean Robinson already has no chance of re-election in the Ward, as her total disinterest and lack of engagement proves.

The report does not state where the sites will be, if the 'need' is exercised, but as all other sites apart from Hart Village have been thrown out, then it doesn't take a genius to work out that this is all smoke and mirrors.

Guess Beck has just started his electioneering early.

[for fawkes sake]

I do wish local councillors would at least get the spelling right on their leaflets. Some can and some clearly cannott.

[Sanddancer]

I thought long and hard about starting a thread on here this morning after receiving the flyer....I really couldn't think of anything to say in response to the sheer gall of these two claiming success in campaigns over the gypsy site and Hartfields medical practice...I still cannot get my head around these claims for success. Words fail me.

[Paul Thompson]

There is a new rule within HBC, ie
"If you say it out loud, then its true !"

Have a giggle at the email he sent me this week.....

Dear Councillor Thompson

Thank you for your email.
I can assure you that I have not misled full council, nor have I taken part in any wrongdoing.

I consider this matter closed and will not respond to any  further correspondence from you on this matter as I am very busy doing my job as ward Councillor.

Kind regards

Paul Beck

This was in response of this email that I sent him on 31 October, after his statement at council the night before...

Good Afternoon Paul

Further to last night's council meeting when you made the following statement : "I  would just like to say in reply to Cllr Thompson, myself and Stephen Akers Belcher were never legally trustees of that organisation".  The organisation that I had referred to was Manor Residents Association. (MRA)

Were you aware that MRA was the organisation that I was referring to ?

I find it hard to understand who you could possibly believe that you were never a trustee of MRA, when indeed it was you who went to the press on 10 July 2013 and declared that you had indeed resigned from MRA (http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/another-hartlepool-councillor-resigns-from-troubled-manor-residents-association-1-5838127) . Why would you resign from an organisation that you were never a trustee of ? Seems too complicated for me?

Furthermore, I have a copy of an email received from the Charity Commission dated 11 July 2013 which includes the following statement "I can confirm that Mr Stephen Akers-Belcher and Mr Paul Beck both appear as trustees on the 31st March 2012 Annual Return form."

Clearly, both you and the Worshipful Mayor were trustees of Manor Residents' Association at the time when much of the alleged wrongdoing took place and you were certainly both trustees when employees of the organisation were being paid less than the minimum wage, yet you are seemingly denying this.

It is imperative therefore that you to publicly (via the Hartlepool Mail) clarify the position, otherwise you may stand accused of deliberately misleading both council and the public, which would, in my view, make your position as an elected councillor untenable.

Best wishes

Paul

[Bimba1]

Truly  is Unbelievable minime.

CAB is relying on the 'wing-and-a-prayer'

He sure is SteveL

Hart Smallholdings West is "essentially the least sustainable of the 16 sites"  and on  public record/video... a legal nightmare is 'waiting in the wings'

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/video-hart-gypsy-site-least-sustainable-says-hartlepool-planning-officer-at-packed-meeting-1-6088694

[Bimba1]

Jeff

Well, as a local resident may I state that they are not championing my voice, or any of the local residents I speak to.

I agree,  though I would also like to add another name to the unbelievable deluded duo and that name is Keith Fisher... if he too intends to stand again.

[Jeff]

Saying all that...... I haven't received the flyer yet....maybe it is only going to a select few

[minime]

Some Hart residents also received this letter a couple of weeks ago.  The final paragraph is one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever read: