Saturday 22nd June 2024,
North Yorks Enquirer

Broken Promises #4 – Cllr Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff

Broken Promises #4 – Cllr Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff

“Broken Promises” is a series of articles looking at the promises of councillors who were elected to Scarborough Borough Council in May 2019 and their actions as your Borough Council representatives since.

Belatedly, fourth on the list is Cllr Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff who represents Hunmanby ward.

On Friday 12th July 2019 Cllr Donohue-Moncrieff attended a full council meeting and voted against spending £22million of Borough taxpayer’s money to demolish the old Argos building and redevelop the site. The redevelopment would see accommodation built for 195 people with a small number of retail units.

Cllr Donohue-Moncrieff spoke at the meeting and is quoted in The Scarborough News:

“The problem I have at the moment is the lessons from previous borrowings and the projects that are struggling now have not been learnt.”

On Tuesday 16th June 2020, as Scarborough Borough Council’s Portfolio Holder for Environment and Sustainability, which coincidently carries with it an additional allowance of £4,300 per annum, Cllr Donohue-Moncrieff attended a cabinet meeting and voted for spending £22million of Borough taxpayer’s money to demolish the old Argos building and redevelop the site.

Information provided by SBC to councillors and the public estimated the new building would be worth £7.5million on the open market, some £14.5million less than the borrowing Cllr Donohue-Moncrieff signed the Borough taxpayer up for.

The £22million of additional debt Cllr Donohue-Moncrieff signed the ratepayers of Scarborough Borough Council up will see an extra £300 debt added per registered elector, giving a total debt per head of £650.

Amazing how an extra £4,300 per annum and a fancy title will change the minds of elected members, eh?

If anyone is interested in looking at high risk financial details of the hopefully soon to be officially shelved Argos project, the Enquirer published the information in Not For Publication. The information within the article is still the subject of an investigation by the council’s internal audit team. The council’s bumbling monitoring officer will no doubt be updating the elected members of the investigation into the document leak at the next council meeting.

Comments are closed.