• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, who, following over 1,000 articles examining questionable activities in our local authorities, has for the very first time been taken to task for a substantive inaccuracy. PLUS – Scrutiny Committe voting scandal revealed!
  

~~~~~

Introduction

On 2022, an article under my by-line entitled “The Stench from the Pool” was published in the North Yorks Enquirer:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/stench-from-the-pool/

Following a letter of complaint to Enquirer editor Tim THORNE, I find it incumbent upon me to issue a correction and apology to SBC Councillor Guy SMITH [Y.C.I.A.].

I unreservedly apologise to Councillor SMITH and thank him for setting straight my otherwise unblemished record for accuracy. I am sorry, Guy.

Councillor SMITH’s Complaint

Councillor SMITH’s complaint to the Enquirer reads as follows:

The following extract from my article “The Stench from the Pool” is reproduced below.

Underlined in red is my erroneous assertion that Councillor SMITH was one of three Councillors who voted AGAINST the call-in.

I sincerely hope that Councillor SMITH will accept my apology and correction and I have written to him under separate cover formalising my apology.

Given that the Council persists in its ludicrous “email interception” policy, I can only hope my apology eventually reaches Councillor SMITH . . .

However, beyond setting the record straight for Councillor SMITH, I believe I also owe it to readers to explain the consequences of Councillor SMITH’s assertion that he voted neither FOR nor AGAINST the call-in – nor did he ABSTAIN.

Procedural Impropriety

Readers who follow the machinations of Scarborough Borough Council will immediately recognise that without Councillor SMITH’s vote AGAINST the call-in, the call-in should have been UPHELD – meaning that the Decision to proceed with the sale of the site of the former Indoor Swimming Pool and the adjacent carpark should have been sent back to Cabinet (and, perhaps, subsequently to Full Council) for reconsideration.

Further – and because the voting procedure seems to have deviated from the constitutional requirements (an event known as a “procedural impropriety”) – the Cabinet Decision to sell the land under the terms approved by Cabinet is susceptible to Judicial Review – an appeal to the Court to overturn an erroneous decision on the part of the Cabinet.

It is unclear whether this departure from procedure during the vote was an error on the part of O&S Chair Councillor Guy COULSON [Con.], or whether the blame lies with the Officer who advised him – Mrs Lisa DIXON, Director of Legal & Governance and Monitoring Officer.

Regular readers will recall that this is not the first occasion upon which Mrs DIXON has been accused of ‘mishandling’ a vote.

The Scarborough News covered the fiasco of the vote on whether or not to review the ARGOS ‘regeneration’ project in an article entitled “Review into Scarborough Council’s £22m scheme for old Argos building set to go ahead after dramatic vote”, published on 7th September 2021.

Within that article, statements attributed to Mrs DIXON aroused both mirth and anger – the mirth arising from Mrs DIXON’s claim to have misheard due Councillor Alf ABBOTT [Con.] to “an ear infection” (when, in fact, it is Councillor ABBOTT who is hard of hearing); the anger arising from the widely-held view that Mrs DIXON was seeking to assure the administration’s preferred outcome by any available means. If the latter, she failed.

I covered these events in an article entitled “ARGOS: Out For The Count?”, published the following day, 8th September 2021 – exposing in great detail the shameless chicanery over the vote. My article concluded with a legislative and constitutional analysis by Enquirer occasional contributor, Andy STRANGEWAY, campaigner and former East Riding of Yorkshire Councillor, who untangled the mess in greater detail in an article here on the Enquirer entitled “Lisa Dixon Attempting Red Herring”, published on 9th September 2021.

Errors in counting votes may occur once in a blue moon. However, the law recognises what is know as a “pattern of behaviour”. Now that we have Councillor SMITH’s testimony that the Overview & Scrutiny vote was also ‘mishandled’, one may well imagine that the prosepect of a successful Judicial Review are significantly enhanced.

The matter of “procedural impropriety”, alas, does not end here.

Councillor COCKERILL’s ‘Intervention’

I believe it is a matter of public interest that the disclosures made by Councillor Mike COCKERILL, Group Leader of the Cluster of Independent Members [C.I.M.] – which both the Monitoring Officer and her Deputy, Ms Carol REHILL, were so anxious to conceal from press and public scrutiny – are revealed here in the public domain.

Emails between an ‘alternative’ developer (BT) and various members of Paid Service are reproduced below (the ‘alternative’ developer’s name and company details have been redacted; otherwise, the correspondence is shown as written, in chronological order:

Following his intervention at the O&S meeting, Councillor COCKERILL was away for a short while. Upon his return, he entered into the following correspondence with Deputy Monitoring Officer Carol REHILL:

As can be seen, Ms REHILL has made no attempt to deal with Councillor COCKERILL’s concerns; his questions remain unanswered.

I believe I can predict, with some confidence, that the cries of “CORRUPTION!” will continue reverberate through the Council Chamber until such time as a diligent external investigation, ideally by the North Yorkshire Police (or some other institution with comparable investigatory powers) establishes how and why a strong and competive bid, from a long-standing partner of the Council (BT), for the site of the former Indoor Swimming Pool was ignored for over three years.

Meanwhile, I repeat my view that Mr Nick THOMAS MBE must be wondering what kind of a deal he has been drawn into.

All in all, Councillor Guy SMITH’s determination to have his position publicly addressed can only be seen as highly commendable.

What remains is to see which of our elected members will have the courage and integrity to challenge the ‘mishandled’ vote . . .

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, examining conflicting versions of another puzzling sell-off – the Scarborough North Bay Indoor Swimming Pool.

~~~~~

Readers may have encountered an article published on the ThisIsTheCoast (TITC) website on Monday 15th August 2022 which asserted that Scarborough Borough Council had voted unanimously in favour of approving the sale of the site of the former Indoor Swimming Pool (built by public subscription in 1972, derelict since June 2017, and now demolished), to Nick THOMAS MBE, for the purpose of building a 100-room four-star hotel and adjacent carpark.

This came as a considerable surprise to me. As a keen follower of Council activities, I was sure (and, having since checked, I was right) that Full Council has NEVER been given the opportunity to vote on the matter – unanimously or otherwise.

Yet according to TITC, the deal is done and Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Neighbourhoods Councillor Tony RANDERSON is impressed and delighted.

The truth behind TITC’s erroneous assertion is that the deal has NOT yet been done because, in point of fact, it has been called in and will be addressed by the Council’s ‘Places & Futures’ Overview & Scrutiny Committee on Wednesday 31st August at 2:00pm. at the Town Hall (and, one would hope, on the Council’s YouTube Channel).

The call-in – Proposed by Councillor Heather PHILLIPS [Con.], Seconded by Councillor Clive PEARSON [Con.] and supported by Mike COCKERILL [C.I.M.], Phil TRUMPER [Con.] and Bill CHATT [C.I.M.] – was lodged on Thursday 28th July 2022 (the day of the Extraordinary Meeting at which the Vote of No Confidence in YCBID’s governance arrangements was carried unanimously).

This was EIGHTEEN DAYS before the TITC article was published.

A further TEN DAYS before that, on 18th July 2022, SBC published the following Press Release, making it clear that the matter was addressed by Cabinet – not Full Council:

One can only conclude that the Council neglected to mention the call-in – either to TITC or to Councillor RANDERSON.

As can be seen from the above extract from the Scrutiny Committee’s Agenda (Items 6 & 7), the matter will be addressed in camera (i.e. with press and public excluded from the Committee’s deliberations), which probably explains why the true state of affairs seems to have been withheld from TITC – yet another example (if another were needed) of the “openness and transparency” that Leader Councillor Steve SIDDONS [Lab.] promised would be the hallmark of his administration.

The Cabinet Extract Minute and the Report of the Director (MC) – signed off by Marc COLE, authored by Alex RICHARDS (Project Manager) and Carol REHILL (Deputy Monitoring Officer) referred to at the foot of the Agenda, are available here and here, respectively.

Readers will recall that Commercial Director Richard BRADLEY was happy to pay £14M of ratepayers’ money for the 116-room St Nicholas Hotel (Travelodge).

Is £1M really the best price available for the swimming pool site for a 100-room new-build, with parking? No wonder it has been called in!

Worse yet, I can confirm that Councillors had been attempting – unsuccessfully – to obtain the background papers for weeks and finally succeeded only last Thursday 18th August 2022 – and then only after Complaints were lodged with outgoing CEO Mike GREENE.

I can also confirm that there has been a institutional determination to conceal the details from members and this is now under investigation by – wait for it – Carol REHILL.

The call-in itself may be no close call. Consider the membership of the ‘Places & Futures’ Overview & Scrutiny Committee:

I would anticipate that the two Conservatives, the C.I.M. member and the Y.C.I.A. member will all support the call-in – i.e. four in favour of the call-in, thus blocking the sale of the site.

The Independent, the Green and the Labour members are certain to oppose – i.e. a possible five against the call-in – i.e. five in favour of the Cabinet Decision to proceed with the sale for a paltry £1M.

Judging by the extremely vocal opposition to the hotel proposal throughout social media, it is safe to say that this would be yet another massively unpopular SIDDONS’ flagship proposal forced through behind a veil, in total disregard of the residents and businesses whose lives and livelihoods stand to be blighted, just like the ARGOS proposal and the fiercely opposed West Pier ‘regeneration’ nonsense. No-one could reasonably claim that this administration has ‘listened’ to residents and businesses.

But not so fast. It is possible that only two Labour members are able to attend without assistance. And the Green member has a mind of his own. Or not, as the case may be. It could pan out 4:4.

This would force a tie – in which case, the Chairman holds a casting vote. The Chairman is a Conservative . . .

All this is as it should be.

But why all the secrecy?

Answers, please, in an unmarked envelope.