• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, examining the information vacuum surrounding the ‘out of the blue’ proposal, made public on 4th January 2023, to amalgamate the Whitby secondary schools, widely perceived as a step towards academisation.

~~~~~

As a long-established scrutineer of, and commentator on, local government conduct, foremost in my mind at all times is that we live in a democracy. Our elected Council members (and, no less so, the paid public servants who are entrusted with the task of carrying out their decisions), occupy positions of public trust. Their duty is to carry out the will of the people.

I would ask readers to keep this in mind as I recount my attempts to discover the rationale behind this hugely unpopular proposal to close Eskdale School.

The North Yorks Enquirer has published approaching a thousand of my articles. Of present interest, and in the present context, I would hope readers may have seen two in particular.

1) On 24th February, my Open Letter to the Co-Chairs of the WSP Board of Governors (Christina ZANELLI and Su CROSSLAND) and the fairly recently appointed WSP Executive Head Teacher (Mr Jamie HENSHAW) sought answers to some of the questions parent and carers of Whitby school children (past, present and future) have been asking me:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/open-letter-wsp/
  

I wanted to know why it was that, in a letter to parents/carers dated 22nd May 2022,  the Co-Chairs had misrepresented the newly-appointed Executive Head Teacher (Mr Jamie HENSHAW) as having, in his previous position, “led” the Newcastle Academy to an (improved) OfSTED rating of ‘Good’.

He did no such thing. Follow the link and you will see that I produced the documentary evidence underpinning this assertion.

Unfortunately, Ms CROSSLAND and Mr HENSHAW ignored my Open Letter, leaving it to Ms ZANELLI to respond, which she did – though not from her WSP account; rather, from her Yorkshire Endeavour Trust (YEAT) account. Ms ZANELLI perhaps mistook her desired future for a present-day reality?

In any event, Ms ZANELLI did respond to me, apologising for a “genuine mistake”, pleading “a clerical error” as her excuse for the 22nd May 2022 misinformation and excusing herself (and Ms CROSSLAND) on the grounds that they are “unpaid volunteers with full time jobs, and as such errors do sometimes occur”.

Obviously. But surely, as an honourable man, Mr HENSHAW would have been at pains to correct a misinterpretation that ‘bigs him up’ beyond his desserts, PDQ? But he did not.

This surprises me because, by all accounts – and with the exception of my own correspondence – Mr HENSHAW has been a prolific responder to emails who has been keen to make it his personal business to deal with a large volume of correspondence to the Whitby Secondary Partnership (WSP), including Freedom of Information requests (though I find no record of Mr HENSHAW being an ICO Registered Data Controller/Processor) to which he has evinced considerable expertise in the application of exemption clauses under which information can be lawfully withheld. I suspect he may have had help from Northallerton. Then again, perhaps withholding information is part of his skill-set.

2) In my second article, I reproduced the full text of my exchange with Ms ZANELLI. This appeared in the Enquirer on 27th February 2023:

•  http://nyenquirer.uk/wsp-zanelli-responds/

In my response to Ms ZANELLI, I pointed out that she had misrepresented the circumstances of Mr HENSHAW’s appointment. Ms ZANELLI’s email contained further factual errors (which, when dealing with “unpaid volunteers . . . do sometimes occur”). It overlooked my request for verification of certain documents already in the public domain. Ms ZANELLI declined to meet with me, stating that she was busy. I reproduce this correspondence in full so that readers may be assured of complete transparency.

~~~~~

I was disappointed by Ms ZANELLI’s next response. Her tone had changed markedly. I was no longer ‘Dear Mr Ward’ – I was ‘Dear Nigel’. She was no longer “Christina Zanelli – Headteacher – Lealholm Primary School – CEO – Yorkshire Endeavour Academy Trust – Strategic Lead – Yorkshire Endeavour English Hub“ – she was, “regards Christina”. Pseudo-friendly PR mode, I would suggest.

——– Original Message ——–
Subject:       queries
Date:            Tue, 28 Feb 2023
From:           Christina Zanelli <c.zanelli@whitbysecondarypartnership.org>
To:                Nigel
CC:                Su Crossland <s.crossland@whitbysecondarypartnership.org>, Jamie Henshaw <j.henshaw@wsp.org>

Good Morning Nigel

In regard to the Ofsted report, you have misunderstood the context.  The school had previously been inspected by as a Local Authority School called Sir Thomas Boughey High School, it then became an Academy and in the eyes of Ofsted the report I previously attached becomes the first report of the new academy.  In actual fact it is the same school, staff children, parents etc – just a new name.  Mr Henshaw became the Executive Principle in September 2020 when it was ‘requires improvement’ and he led it to the next inspection judgement of good.  I have attached the previous report.

In regards to the documents – the figures were provided by NYCC as part of the consultation so I believe them to be true.  I am unable to comment on the newspaper article as I was not associated with the governing body at this time.

Thank you for your kind invitation for a sticky bun! I have a very busy schedule at the moment – but should an unexpected gap appear then I will be in touch.

regards

Christina

I might add, at this point, that Governors in general do not have an especially good record when it comes to the appointment of Head Teachers – which may explain why staff have come to me with stories of bullying and drunkenness in the work place, resulting in massive pay-offs under the strictest of Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs). Small wonder that there have been “financial issues” at Eskdale. One Governor, in particular, appointed a Parish Clerk with a gambling addiction who had been previously censured by his professional body, the Magistrates Association, for less than total honesty.

Governors may wish to note that, in both cases, half an hour on Google could have pre-empted such rank stupidity.

Ms ZANELLI and Ms CROSSLAND may choose to believe that when they appointed Mr HENSHAW, they appointed an ‘educator’. I believe they appointed a ‘corporate facilitator’. It is not the same thing – and it is not what Whitby wants or needs right now. What Whitby parents and carers emphatically do not need is facile errors made by “unpaid volunteers”.

So, naturally, I responded to Ms ZANELLI with my customary candour, politely correcting her errors and repeating my earlier offer to meet:

——– Original Message ——–
Subject: Re: queries
Date:      Wed, 1 Mar 2023
From:     Nigel
To:          c.zanelli@whitbysecondarypartnership.org

Ms Christina ZANELLI – Co-Chair Board of Governors: Whitby Secondary Partnership (WSP) and Chief Executive Officer (CEO): Yorkshire Endeavour Academy Trust (YEAT)

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Christina,

Thank you very much for your email of Tuesday 28th February 2023. I note that you have reverted to your WSP identity. Thank you for that; it precludes further confusion.

My thanks again for your very prompt consideration of, and response to, my email of Monday 27th February 2023.

I hope that you will find the following remarks helpful.

I am sure that you are aware that your amalgamation proposal has met with fierce opposition from parents/carers, staff, former staff and former Governors – as well as the wider Whitby and Esk Valley public.

This may be because the general perception is that a a radical change appears to have been promulgated, precipitately, by just four members of the Board of Governors (one of whom – Mr HENSHAW – is perceived as a ‘newcomer’ to the debate, with no roots or permanent home in Whitby), giving the appearance of a cloistered decision all too easily characterised as high-handed and narrow in scope.

In such circumstances, as in most, perception is (almost) everything.

This negative perception has been compounded by a paucity of accurate information and a plethora of conflicting speculation.

You point out that I am in error to have omitted the fact that the Sir Thomas Boughey Academy is, in all practical terms, a continuation of the Sir Thomas Boughey High School.

Touché. However, the fact that you omitted, in your earlier email (of Monday morning), any mention of that circumstance may have contributed to my ignorance on that point (for which I apologise).

Nonetheless, now that I am in possession of the relevant dates, I remain puzzled.

You state that the present WSP Executive Head Teacher, Mr HENSHAW, joined the Sir Thomas Boughey Academy in September 2020. The final OfSTED Report for the Sir Thomas Boughey High School (I thank you for attaching the Report to your email) is dated February 2017 – some three-and-a-half years before Mr HENSHAW’s arrival at the Academy. It is noteworthy that the Sir Thomas Boughey High School had previously enjoyed an OfSTED rating of ‘Good’. There appears, therefore, to have been three-and-a-half years of remedial endeavour before Mr HENSHAW’s involvement.

The first OfSTED Report for the Sir Thomas Boughey Academy is dated February 2022 – some five years after the predecessor school’s final Inspection, and only eighteen months after Mr HENSHAW’s arrival at the Academy.

Hence, it is, in my view, rather stretching the point to claim that Mr HENSHAW “led” the Sir Thomas Boughey Academy to ‘Good’, having covered only the final 30% of its period of informed return to its previous rating of ‘Good’ – even disregarding the unfortunate “clerical error” of you and your Co-Chair wrongly identifying the Newcastle Academy as Mr HENSHAW’s previous appointment (in your May 2022 letter to parents/carers).

As members of the public, we cannot easily evaluate the extent of the Sir Thomas Boughey High School’s progress during the 70% of its endeavours before Mr HENSHAW’s arrival.

Together, these discrepancies and inaccuracies have contributed to the common perception that Mr HENSHAW is not the ‘cure all’ that he has been presented as being.

This perception is further compounded by the widely-held belief that the present Head Teachers at Whitby’s secondary schools are well-liked, well-respected and considered to be more than competent. In consequence, many believe that Mr HENSHAW has been, as it were, ‘parachuted in’ (by the LEA?) for no other purpose than to propel the Whitby schools to academisation, with little or no regard to the pupils, their futures and their degree of choice – only the “financial issues” (to which you have alluded). Mr HENSHAW’s appointment has also been seen as a slight against the competence of the existing Heads.

The proverbial ‘done deal’ is the phrase foremost in many parents’/carers’ minds.

If these perceptions are mistaken, there is work to be done to rectify this misapprehension.

Surely it would be appropriate for you and your Co-Chair to write to the same parents/carers who received your 22nd May 2020 letter, correcting your “clerical error”. I think you should, to set the record straight.

I thank you for confirming your belief that the NYCC tables are accurate. The fact is that they have been doing the rounds on social media and I could not know, with certainty, that they were authentic. I am happy to take your word for it that they are. Thank you again for that.

I am sorry to hear that you cannot find time for an informal chat. Email correspondence, by its very nature, can be seen as cold and calculating. Conversely, a candid exchange of views over a coffee can achieve much in a context less redolent of the formal overtones that tend to add adversarial ‘colour’ to email correspondence. It is true that I write with care, but I chat freely and amicably.

I had hoped that you would be eager to persuade me of the benefits of amalgamation (and subsequent academisation), so that I could present to my extensive readership a more holistic view of your ambitions for the schools and the pupils. I mean, by that, that if your narrative ‘stacks up’, I will be happy to report it – fairly and squarely.

So please reconsider; an hour or so of your time (and mine; we are all busy people) might ‘grease the wheels’ of good communications, to the greater good of all concerned. There is the starting point from which we can all aspire to progress.

I promise, I will make you feel welcome.

Very kind regards,

Nigel

Regrettably, Ms ZANELLI has since ‘gone to ground’. No further response. Shutters down. Bottled it.

This is the second time Ms ZANELLI has passed up an opportunity to explain to me why the Governors have chosen their only option to amalgamate and why it is the best option – so that thousands of NYE readers could have an insight into the Governors’ conclusion and an opportunity to evaluate it properly for themsleves. Opportunity may not knock again.

Perhaps Ms ZANELLI feels that she would be unable to present a narrative that does ‘stack up’? Or perhaps she has been instructed to avoid providing any explanation or rationale for the amalgamation/academisation proposal – just as she and her colleagues have avoided standing accountable for their decision to Whitby Town Council, whose invitation to attend and explain has apparently also been declined, much to the annoyance of Whitby Town Mayor, Councillor Linda WILD:

• https://www.thescarboroughnews.co.uk/education/whitby-mayors-fury-as-school-governing-body-declines-to-discuss-schools-merger-plan-at-council-meeting-4049207

Personally, I think it most likely that the publication of former Eskdale School Head Teacher David BRADLEY on 2nd March 2023 may have convinced Ms ZANELLI and her colleagues that nothing she could say to me would ‘stack up’ her case – not for one moment:

• https://www.whitbycommunitynetwork.org/2023/03/02/eskdale-school-opinion-piece-by-david-bradley-former-headteacher/

In my view, it is difficult to believe that Mr HENSHAW’s appointment as Executive Head Teacher served any other purpose than as a response to ‘pressure’ applied by North Yorkshire County Council’s Corporate Director of Children and Young People Services, Mr Stuart CARLTON – who replaced Mr Pete ‘Pants on Fire’ DWYER after the last (failed) attempt to destroy Eskdale School, in 2016.

Despite assurances that Local Government Reorganisation (the abolition of North Yorkshire’s seven District/Borough Councils) would save £57 million, it has recently been admitted that there is now a massive £30 million ‘black hole’ in the new unitary authority’s finances. Thus, Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) has resulted in a net £87 million deficit. Plans to claw back that deficit rest in the hands of the County Council’s senior Officers – Mr CARLTON and his colleagues.

As an aside, I should mention that I do not warm to Mr CARLTON. I endeavoured to apprise him, in October and November 2017, of serious managerial mismanagement at a historically famous North Yorkshire School in Richmondshire. Mr CARLTON ignored my email, though his PA did eventually respond, thus:

“Nigel. I can confirm receipt of your email in the Director’s office and I can assure you it has been brought to Mr Carlton’s attention.”

Really? Nevertheless, my information mysteriously coincided, in January 2018, with the sudden ‘departure’ of a certain Head Teacher. I expect Mr CARLTON does not warm to me . . .

The Way Forward

Granted that the present dilemma of having to maintain three school buildings – collectively only two-thirds utilised – is not financially sustainable; two would suffice.

And granted that selling off the Eskdale site for housing development (with the prospect of a large cash injection and a significant revenue stream, in perpetuity, in the form of Council Tax charges from those houses) must be very appealing to an authority with an £87 million shortfall to rectify, how can a proposal that deprives pupils of educational choice be justified on strictly educational grounds (which is why schools exist)?

Clearly, it cannot.

To my mind, this confirms that the proposed amalgamation/academisation – and Ms ZANELLI stated this to me herself in her email of Monday 27th February – serves another purpose; the purpose of addressing certain “financial issues”.

Nowhere in her correspondence has Ms ZANELLI set out the case for the amalgamation/academisation proposal addressing educational needs or preferences.

The obvious conclusion is that, as is usual with local authorities, it is all about the money – the money that has been lost through managerial mismanagement and incompetence on the part of those same senior Officers who miscalculated the cost of LGR, to the tune of £87 million.

The County Council (NYCC/NYC) is desperate for every penny – and the kids will have to like it or lump it. Never mind their talents. Never mind their options. Never mind their futures.

Readers who have followed Scarborough Borough Council’s antics on the Enquirer will be familiar with the name Mr Richard BRADLEY, who was brought in to ‘drive through’ various ventures that were fully expected to arouse strong public hostility (e.g. the ARGOS project) – he failed. Or what about Mr Marc COLE, who was drafted in to ‘drive through’ a number of unpopular projects (he has failed to deliver the HQ Hotels development in the North Bay, the absurd Station Gateway project and the despised and totally impracticable proposal to turn Scarborough West Pier into a tourist plaza)?

In my view, Mr HENSHAW is no different. He is another ‘outsider’, a ‘whizz kid’ brought in to ‘drive through’ a fiercely unpopular proposal – in effect, to brush aside the will of the people.

Clearly, neither he nor Mr CARLTON has reckoned on the diligence and tenacity of the parents and carers of Whitby.

Former Eskdale Chair of Governors Mike WARD has set out seven different options (as a minimum) to tackle the problems of the Whitby educational provision. There may be more. There may even be an option that is more financially viable than the present hodge-podge. After all, the Governors have already conceded that there is no desperate hurry – no need for a ‘rush to judgement; amalgamation has already been pushed back to September 2024.

We have eighteen months to arrive at the best possible solution.

So what is needed now – instead of a heavily biased so-called “consultation” that, in reality, is intended only to ‘rubber stamp’ a ‘done deal’ – is a professional appraisal of all of the various options, conducted by people with more appropriate credentials than the “unpaid volunteers” who have brought us to this distasteful impasse. Or by senior Officers who are angling to obviate their own shortcomings.

Then, when all of the information has been collated, analysed, compared and evaluated – reducing the list to a viable few – why not resolve this stand-off with a democratic poll to establish the will of the people?

Let the people of Whitby VOTE on the best option. After all, this is about something much more important than money; it is about lives and futures. It is about democracy.

Social media ‘flyer’

A MUST READ Open Letter to the Board of Governors of Eskdale School, on behalf, surely, of a sizeable majority of Whitby’s parents and children.

Please read it – and act!

~~~~~

To the Headteachers and Governors of Whitby Secondary Partnership

Mr Jamie Henshaw (executive head), Ms Susan Boyd (Caedmon College head), Mr Phil Nicholson (Eskdale head), Co-chairs of the Board of Governors Christina Zanelli and Su Crossland, Jamie Henshaw, Mark Taylor, Jane Mortimer, Andrew Mitchell and David Rae.

~

At 4:00pm on January 4^th 2023, the first day back following the Christmas break, without prior notice or consultation, the staff were called to hear your decision to close Eskdale School. Stating that the way forward as you saw it, was to amalgamate with Caedmon College. Taking a whole 47 minutes to explain your controversial decision, the meeting finished at 4:47pm where emails were promptly sent out to parents and guardians of students forcing them to break the news and explain that the governors of their school wished to close it

WHY NOW?

On the outside, this looks like a similar fight to last time – to save one of the town’s beloved secondary schools, but underneath it is very different and with many more disturbing issues than previously.

We ask if this decision is at the end of a well thought out period of research and planning, if so why isn’t this plan on the table in front of everyone in Whitby and District to view?

Why is it that when asked where this plan is, the only response we recieve is that all the details will be part of the six- week consultation period?

We are not against change, but expect it to be done with time, planning & discusion.  We do not want a rushed through quick fix that is set to failure, repeating last mistakes and deal untold damage to hundreds of children. Our children have already lived through unprecedented times and lost so much of their education.

WHY THE RUSH?

The timescale might look good on paper but how is it going to work in the real world?

The final decision will be made on June 20th 2023. How are you going to transition all the children in a month including many with Special Educational Needs before they break up for summer?

We guess the reply we might receive from you is that it will be in the consultation document but surely a well considered plan would have been presented at this proposal to limit the upset and disruption caused to all the children.

The poor Year 6s of our local primary schools. No matter what school they have chosen, if this goes ahead, they won’t be getting the one they picked. A 1,000 plus secondary school was not one of the options presented to them at the time. The children will also get the added bonus of having to wait an extra three anxious months for a decision as to whether they will have a place. The move from primary to secondary is a massive jump normally, without the unknown playing on their minds.

What about the pupils already in both schools – Caedmon and Eskdale? They are at the schools for a reason and they have chosen them. Seven years ago it was decided by North Yorkshire County Council that the town needed that choice. Lowering pupil numbers has been blamed, but Eskdale has only recently experienced lower pupil numbers due to issues with higher management and less advertising of the school. Caedmon College, together with its 6th Form, has been running at just over 50% capacity  since at least 2018/19 with the 6th Form students averaging 165 pupils enrolled in total per year. If Eskdale is amalgamated into Caedmon College, there will still be a 300 shortfall in pupils compared to capacity. What happens when your quick fix fails? Do the children get forced on to one site? Do we amalgamate some primary schools? Anything to keep the dream alive?

Have the decision makers among you considered the irreversible effect a quick ill-thought-out move will also have on children with Special Educational Needs (SEN)? Some of these children have Educational Health Care Plans (ECHPs) which are designed especially for the educational settings they are in. Your plans are already causing significant distress to these children.

Since 2021 between the two secondary schools they have had an astonishing total of eight headteachers. These being made up of actual heads, acting heads, associate head, interim head and our current executive head. How is this constructive for a settled educational environment? How are staff meant to have good working conditions when they don’t know who is going to be in charge every few months? There is clearly a problem further up the management ladder.

It was mentioned by a local county councillor on social media that the new school would have a new name and a new ethos. However, in real terms this would mean parents of children in the Whitby area footing the bill for its new identity. This includes paying for the cost of a full new uniform and PE kit before the start of the new school year in September 2023 – just two months after a decision.

We want there to be a transparent and in-depth look into Whitby Secondary Education. We do not want any more short-term fixes and name changes (of which there have been many) and no more short-sightedness.

However, this all takes time and kids are worth your time to get this right. More than one option needs to be explored in depth with the whole community allowed to see the plans for themselves.

We have written this letter to you now before the decision is made whether your plan to shut Eskdale will be consulted on because we feel the children, staff and wider community deserve answers.

Our children deserve a well-thought-out, well-led and well-funded secondary education provision which can be achieved if you work together in partnership with the community.

If you do not get this right now you are failing our children and future generations.

From the members of the Keep Choice in Whitby and Save Eskdale School Campaign Group

Guest Author Alderman Murphy shares his views on the recent Houdini routine at Scarborough Borough Council – and those who made it possible.

~~~~~

So the third Vote of No Confidence (VoNC) brought against LABOUR leader, Steve (“It’s a Dog’s Breakfast”) Siddons, was lost and the dictator continues his shambolic rule of the Borough. This result will, I suspect, be disastrous for us – “the little people” – but the gang in the Ivory Tower will no doubt be rejoicing that Siddons’ luck has held yet again.

Mind you, I say luck but it was actually the votes of the usual suspects that enabled Siddons to cling to power. As happened in the two previous VoNCs, Siddons had the support of so-called Independent Councillor Janet Jefferson and her five Independents.

These six so-called Independents were supported by the two Green Party members, Cllrs Will Forbes and Neil Robinson, who won their seats in the Falsgrave and Stepney ward on a Green Party ticket.

However, if you voted Green in Stepney and Falsgrave, expecting to get a Green Councillor, you wasted your vote. These two jolly green giants have supported Siddons and his loony left Labour Party chums like good little lap dogs right from the start of the current madness and, true to form, betrayed their electorate yet again, and voted to save Siddons again.

Sadly, voter betrayal is not, at SBC, only restricted to these two groups. There was also a small band of ex-Tories, who once the Conservatives lost power, dumped their true blue tickets – which was the only reason they got elected in the first place – and suddenly decided they now wanted to become ‘unaffiliated’ Independents.

These ex-Tories, now displaying their disloyalty to their party and their total disregard for the wishes of those who voted for them, would not have stood a chance of being elected had they actually stood as Independents and yet now here they are, elected on a Conservative ticket, supporting a socialist LABOUR leader.

This disgraceful display of voter betrayal, one would think, would be difficult to surpass, but this, after all, is Scarborough Borough Council, so perhaps it will not surprise anyone to learn that there is one further, even greater, betrayer of the electorate and that is so-called (again) Independent Councillor John (“Acko”, or, as some call him “Wacko”) Atkinson.

Now Atkinson, who some might recall beat me by 49 votes in the Northstead Ward, was something of a surprise winner in 2019.

Prior to the election, Atkinson was something of a nobody. Nothing changed there, to be honest, but unlike me, while I was campaigning to get as many Independents as possible elected throughout the Borough, neglecting –  I have to say – my own campaigning in the Northstead Ward, Wacko was busy doing what I should have been doing, and that is knocking on doors drumming up support.

Anyway the result, as they say, is now history and Wacko got elected and I got stuffed: not that I am bitter gerrrr.

Anyway, be that as it may, we are now heading towards new elections in May and the fate of some of these individuals, that is the few brazen enough to put their name on a ballot paper, will be in your gift.

My guess is that Siddons will sit this one out. He has, after all (if my post bag is anything to go by), got more chance of being arrested on the South Cliff than elected.

However, there will, I suspect, be some current Councillors (Siddons’ supporters) who, in May, will think they can fool the electorate again and pretend it was not them who kept this rotten regime in power.

My feeling is, you won’t be fooled again.

For my own part, I shall be putting my name forward, as a a genuinely independent Independent, in Scarborough’s NEWBY ward. So brace yourselve, my fellow residents, in the NEWBY area. I do not intend to make the same mistakes I made in 2019; MURPHY will be contacting you, no trips to TUSCANY for me.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, updating readers on a significant development in the attempts to scrutinise Scarborough Borough Council’s ill-considered proposals to ‘regenerate’ Scarborough’s West Pier – in disregard of climate change predictions.

~~~~~

Readers familiar with the exemplary work of the Enquirer’s Harbours corresponsent, ALLAN ROBERTS, will share my gratitude to a number of right-thinking SBC opposition Councillors who have forwarded the following Freedom of Information request to me so that the wider public can obtain a better grasp of the issues at stake.

The FOIA request appears to have been inspired – in part, at least – by ALLAN ROBERTS’ most recent article – Another £1M+ “Lost at Sea”.

The FOIA was submitted by email at 10:48am on Tuesday 11th January 2022, addressed to SBC’s FOI department and Cc:’d to the requestor himself, who has apparently then forwarded it to a number of Councillors – which is how it found its way to me.

Given that FOI requests and responses must be logged on the Council’s (public-facing) FOI Disclosure Log, the Enquirer should have no difficulty in obtaining (and publishing) the responses (if any), although it would appear to me that the Council may struggle to provide “open and transparent” responses without causing considerable embarrassment to its own Officers and Leader. We shall see . . .

In my view, the above FOIA request has the appearance of having been drafted by a well-briefed solicitor experienced in Council matters.

In the almost twelve years since the Highpoint Rendel scandal, the Yorkshire Post covered SBC plans for up-grading sea defences from Aquarium Top to beyond the Spa, a great deal of money has been spent (see ALLAN’s article) with little to show but waste paper in the form of disregarded consultants’ reports. It is now timely to examine how the SIDDON’s regime proposes to ‘regenerate’ the West Pier. It seems not to have crossed the administration’s mind (?) that the same rising sea-levels threatening the Spa will also threaten the West Pier and, indeed, Foreshore Road.

Aside from the asset value of the Spa itself (including the millions spent on its ‘regeneration’), consider the properties (businesses/livelihoods) at risk along Foreshore Road and the commercial facilities at West Pier. Countless assets are at risk.

Meanwhile, the Scarborough News has reported (11/01/22) that the Council is proudly boasting about spending £850K to protect 40 properties at Robin Hood’s Bay.

Both of the above-mentioned reports feature the classic one-liner:

“To do nothing is not an option”

Yet for twelve years, nothing has been done. One has the impression that the Council has been very shy of coastal protection programs since the scandalous Highpoint Rendel fiasco of 2004/5. Read all about it here:

• http://nyenquirer.uk/the-return-of-riby/

and here:

• https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/scarborough-coastal-defence-scheme-what-went-wrong-03-03-2005/

Incidentally, it will not have escaped readers’ notice that Robin Hood’s Bay falls within Councillor Jane MORTIMER’s ward.

Councillor MORTIMER (pictured above) was a Conservative Councillor for donkeys’ years, before bailing out and declaring herself an ‘Unaffiliated’ member, i.e. without political affiliation. She will, no doubt, express gratitude for the Council’s largesse, on behalf of her electors (of course), by her timely support for Councillor SIDDONS in Monday’s Vote of No Confidence. Isn’t that the way backs are scratched?

Meanwile, and bearing in mind the Council’s virtually unanimous Resolution (5th September 2021) to commit to Labour Councillor Theresa NORTON’s call for positive action on a number of ecological fronts, I was shocked to see this photo (once again, thank you, Councillor) of Council workers scraping sand off Foreshore Road and dumping it directly onto the beach.

Of course, that sand is not just sand; it is sand sullied by oil, tyre rubber, dog feces and who knows what else. Look how dark it is; almost black with contaminants.

Readers may be aware that there have been two wildlife health crises recently – hordes of dead shellfish washed up and a great number of dogs seriously ill after exercising on our beaches. I am not suggesting that the Foreshore Road stupidity caused either of these tragedies. Still, Councillor NORTON will not be best pleased.

I would like the name and position of the Officer or Team Leader who ordered this typically-Council blind stupidity. And this from Officers who are so terrified of coronavirus that they insist on meeting members socially distanced at the other end of a Zoom connection. Somebody needs to take this Council by the scruff of its ‘Paid Service’ neck and drive some commonsense into it. A real Leader, perhaps? A Cabinet, appointed strictly on merit? Ah, we can dream . . .

Returning to the above FOIA request; should it receive an “open and transparent” response, it may even reveal whether “lessons have been learned”, or whether consultants and bean-counters will continue to grow fat on ratepayers’ money.

South Bay certainly did not get its sea-defences.

“Who Got The Dough?”

Somehow, I expect Officers to dodge placing that sort of self-incriminatory information in the public domain.

Call me cynical, but my guess is that there’s more chance of catching the Leader having attended a wine-and-cheese party during lockdown . . .

Preliminary Findings

Mason Clark Associates Ltd

09/12/2021
£85,638.10
Scarborough Harbour West Pier
Feasibility Studies.

25/11/2021
£45,419.00
Scarborough Harbour West Pier
Feasibility Studies

11/10/2021
£50,923.65
Scarborough Harbour West Pier
Feasibility Studies

04/10/2021
£20,039.67
Scarborough Harbour West Pier
Feasibility Studies

TOTAL = £202,020.42 – Scarborough Harbour West Pier Feasibility Studies

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting on a last-minute, last-ditch attempt to avoid facing the music.

~~~~~

The three recent resignations from the Independent Group (reducing its number from 10 to 7) now need to be off-set by the resignation of Councillor Jane MORTIMER from the Conservative Group, in order to perform the necessary re-allocations at the Extraordinary Meeting of Full Council scheduled for today, Tuesday 19th January (at the later time of 3:00pm).

On Monday 18th January 2020, Scarborough Borough Council Democratic Services (in fact, Mr StJohn HARRIS) sent notification to members outlining  recent changes in the membership of political Groups. These changes must be embodied within the memberships (and Chairships) of Committees, in order to preserve the same political proportionality as the Council as a whole.

Within the hour, in a classic case of ‘Hello, left hand; I’m right hand!’, this re-adjustment to the business laid out for Tuesday’s Extraordinary Meeting was countermanded and the Meeting cancelled/postponed.

The Council had changed its tune – as the following email to all members from Monitoring Officer, Mrs Lisa DIXON, confirmed:

Councillors

Following the recent resignation within the Conservative Group, it is necessary to recalculate and reassess the seat allocations within Committees to ensure that the statutory requirements around proportionality are met. As part of this work, it may be necessary for officers to consult further with Group Leaders. 

For this reason, we are cancelling the full Council meeting due to be held on 19 January 2021. We will reschedule the meeting shortly, possibly for next week. 

Kind regards

Lisa Dixon

Director

Scarborough Borough Council 

Monitoring Officer

Funny how Mrs DIXON purports to be unaware (or omits to mention) that the revised proportionality figures had already been calculated and transmitted to members earlier, by Me StJohn HARRIS.

A far more plausible explanation for this pretence of unawareness on the part of the Monitoring Officer, in terms of what work had already been accomplished by her Democratic Services team, is that other resignations are in the offing in the days ahead and other opportunities will likely arise for the Leader to persuade, cajole or browbeat members into propping up his tottering administration. A delay of a week or two will give Councillor SIDDONS time to exercise his charm – if nothing distracts him. I expect something will.

It is a fact of life in local authorities – long-standing members assure me – that Leaders (generically) reward support with ‘juicy’ appointments. Anyone for a Mayorship? A Chairship? A delegation to a prestigious external body like the Police, Fire & Crime Panel? If I were a cartoonist (which I am not), I would be tempted to depict members running hither and thither across the floor of the Council Chamber in pursuit of banknotes fluttering in the air from the raised hand of the Leader. Ho, ho, ho.

I believe few would disagree with my opinion that influential positions – and the ‘power’ and money that goes with them – should be granted strictly on merit and emphatically not as a form of currency with which to ‘buy’ political support. In my view, that is a form of corruption and I want no element of it in our Council.

Well, I happen to know (no thanks to an unimpressed Newby resident) that Councillor SIDDONS had offered that Licensing Committee Chairship to Councillor Jane MORTIMER, surmising (perhaps rightly) that it would appeal to her vanity. The Conservative Group, rightly or wrongly, had advised Councillor MORTIMER (concerning whom I have a woeful tale to tell when I can find the time – two, in fact) about the likely real purpose behind Councillor SIDDONS’ apparent largesse, but Councillor MORTIMER, already basking, one may readily imagine, in the highly congenial kudos of her very own Chairship, preferred to resign.

Councillor MORTIMER is now listed as ‘No political affiliation’ – which some may read to signify that she is in it only for herself.

Far be it from me – or anyone else – to draw any such conclusions from the Schedule of Allowances on the SBC website:

https://www.scarborough.gov.uk/home/open-data-and-foi/councillors-allowances

The Chairship of the Licensing Committee entitles the position holder to an Allowance of £7,171.60 per annum – 1.66 times the basic Allowance of £4,320.24 per annum.

The Conservative Group may well feel pretty disgusted that Councillor MORTIMER’s net gain for abandoning the Conservative Group – after thirty years of the Party covering her electioneering expenses – amounts to the ‘princely sum’ of £2,851.36 per annum. The knock-down price of infamy is £7.81 per day – a Big Mac with Fries and a small coffee.

I am not privy to any Conservative Caucus (on Zoom or otherwise), but if I sit perfectly still for a moment, I fancy I can hear mutterings of “Judas! Judas!”. In fact, even that sells it cheap. Councillor MORTIMER may actually have struck a good deal; according to Wikipedia, thirty pieces of silver are worth $216 (about £150) at todays prices.

Of course, Councillor MORTIMER may feel deeply affronted by my opinions, just as I may feel deeply affronted when I encounter venality where I expect and demand integrity. Reporting my perception of what has taken place constitutes legitimate criticism and a necessary constraint on the liberties taken by elected and paid public servants.

Here in the Borough of Scarborough, not all Councillors possess the temperament for public life and mistakenly believe that they are exempt from criticism – perhaps on the basis that they are poor, weak ‘victims’ whose delicate psychological equilibrium excuses them from all liability. Some would characterise critical comment as provocation justifying threats – and acts – of violence.

That opinion is at odds with the Judgment of the Law Lords (Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Griffiths, Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Browne-Wilkinson and Lord Woolf) who, in the famous case of Derbyshire County Council -v- Times Newspapers (1993), established the following definitive interpretation of statute; Case Law: 

• “It is of the highest public importance that a democratically elected governmental body, or indeed any governmental body, should be open to uninhibited public criticism”
  

There is nothing equivocal about that.

“UNINHIBITED PUBLIC CRITICISM”.

I am a member of the public and where I see grounds for criticism, I will criticise – without fear or favour.

And remember this: ‘They Work for You’ is written on the label, so to speak. We employ them. We may scrutinise their actions. We may freely comment on the opinions we form as a logical consequence of our scrutiny. That is the law and it serves nothing for inadequate or feeble-minded public servants to posture and strike the implausible pose of innocent victim. It does not wash; it is the first resort of the coward and the bully.

Curiously, this present article is the second in a matter of days, following Tim THORNE’s piece “Broken Promises #4” (Tim exposed Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF’s U-turn over the ARGOS project, when her elevation to Cabinet doubled her Allowances from £4,320.24 per annum to £8,640.48), in which a bright light has been shone on members’ susceptibility to ambition (and its attendant additional remuneration), as outlined above.

They tell me power corrupts . . . money, no doubt, lends a hand.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reminding voters of a four-yearly opportunity to hold elected Conservative Councillors to account.

~~~~~

As predicted, not all 22 of the Scarborough Borough Councillors who voted in favour of the demolition of the Futurist Theatre are standing for re-election on 2nd May 2019. To put that another way, two have deprived electors of an opportunity to manifest their displeasure – namely, outgoing Mayor Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.] and former Cabinet Portfolio Holder, and Labour renegade Councillor Vanda INMAN [Ind.Ind.]. Others have migrated to safer Conservative wards. Those who have braved the ballot box have this much in common: they may run – but they can no longer hide.

It is noteworthy how few Councillors representing Scarborough town wards (about one-quarter) and how relatively many representing Whitby wards (about three-quarters) voted for the demolition. By and large, Scarborough town members voted to save the Futurist, but the elected members in Whitby followed the party line.

Prominent Tory Councillors absent from the list are former Leader and Mayor, Councillor Tom FOX [Con.] (who, prudently, was absent on the day of the vote) and Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Con.] (who voted against demolition). No doubt, both had their reasons. Both have been touted as zealous pretenders to Councillor BASTIMAN’s rickety ‘throne’.

It would be unfair to be too hard on some of the culprits. There is no prospect of advancement beyond Basic Allowances without dancing to the Leader’s tune. Councillors who hope to achieve anything – either for their electors or for themselves – can climb the ladder only by supporting the Leader’s masterplan – whether it makes any sense or not. That is the price of party membership.

We may never know whether the decision to demolish the Futurist Theatre will serve Scarborough ell. What we do know is that the process and methodology by which it was achieved, as Councillors Norman MURPHY [Ind.] and Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.] have asserted, has been dishonest from start to finish. I cannot vote for dishonest.

The Culprits

Here, for voters’ ease of identification, are the names, parties and present wards of those Councillors (pictured above) who betrayed the will of the people and voted for the demolition of the Futurist Theatre.

1) Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] (Scalby) – Present Leader of the Council and very much a prime mover in the long-predetermined demise of the theatre. No-one to whom I have spoken can remember a more unpopular Leader.

2) Lynn BASTIMAN [Con.] (Stepney) – The Leader’s spouse and formerly a Councillor in Stepney ward, but obviously running scared and this time is standing in Newby ward. My only recollection of her making any contribution to Council proceedings – other than her contribution to demolishing the Futurist – was to claim a Special Dispensation to vote against the Motion of No Confidence in her husband and his Cabinet. How sweet.

3) Godfrey ALLANSON [Con.] (Hertford) – Long-serving Tory backbencher and all round yes-man (or, as some would have it, puppet), ALLANSON lives in the village of Muston which forms a small part of the new Hunmanby ward. Best-remembered for having run the now-defunct Muston Scarecrow Festival – into the ground. Noted, too, for having turned a blind eye, a deaf ear and a vacant expression when his ward colleague (then, a fellow Conservative Councillor) was summarily dismissed from the Cabinet over a disability issue and subsequently illegally prohibited from attending meetings and interacting with Officers by outgoing (one can imagine why) CEO, Jim DILLON.

4) David CHANCE [Con.] (Whitby – Mayfield) – CHANCE has been insisting that he would not be standing this time around but looks to have had his arm twisted on account of the Tories’ uphill struggle to attract new candidates. Or indeed old candidates. As an Executive North Yorkshire County Councillor, his interests now lie in Northallerton, where the Allowances are far more generous and the prestige so much greater.

5) Guy COULSON [Con.] (Whitby – Esk Valley) – Another yes-man, COULSON succeeded previous incumbent Jim PRESTON, whose resignation followed the discovery by the SBC IT Officer that he had been viewing explicit porn videos on his Council computer. (Perhaps he is a chum of Robert GOODWILL MP?). It has been said that, in Esk Valley ward, a clod in a coma will be elected providing her/his rosette is blue. Who am I to disagree?

6) Simon GREEN [Con.] (Cayton) – Was Mayor (arguably the worst ever – and that is some achievement!) at the time of the demolition vote and, as such, held the casting vote should it have been needed. Had Councillor INMAN abstained, rather than defying her party policy, the Mayor’s casting vote would anyway have carried the demolition Motion. His performance was unforgettable – like something out of a Python sketch.

7) David JEFFELS [Con.] (East/West Ayton) – Another yes-man who has seen it all, done it all and worn the lettering clean off the T-shirt. JEFFELS is a personable enough elderly gentleman who has always been happy to play follow-my-leader. In short, just what Ayton wants.

8) Andrew JENKINSON [Con.] (Newby) – At the time, a Portfolio Holder, so very much one of the knowingly guilty, JENKINSON is also the Councillor who described the electorate as “thick”. Remember, folks – you get what you vote for. If you are thick enough to want “thick” . . .

9) Helen MALLORY [Con.] (Seamer) – Helen MALLORY is the Portfolio Holder who would have us believe that the £9M unsecured loan to BBL is safe because the Council owns the freehold of the land , never mind about Lloyds TSB and Abbey Commercial Investments Ltd holding charges on the built-asset.

10) Jane MORTIMER [Con.] (Whitby – Robin Hood’s Bay/Fylingdales) – So far out of touch that she probably thought that she could vote for the demolition without any backlash at the ballot box. Anything is possible.

11) John NOCK [Con.] (Whitby – West Cliff) – NOCK is another Portfolio Holder and, again, a Whitby Councillor – so perhaps he too thought that he could vote for demolition without any consequences – just as he defended Peter JACONELLI’s hebephile sex crimes without any consequences. Anything is possible.

12) Clive PEARSON [Con.] (Whitby – Danby) – Another virtually invisible yes-man.

13) Heather PHILLIPS [Con.] (East/West Ayton) – PHILLIPS is another yes-person. In fact, a well-rewarded yes-yes-yes-person – which is how it works in the Tory hierarchy.

14) Martin SMITH [Con.] (North Bay) – Having been obliged to change ward (the North Bay Ward has been abolished), SMITHY is now trying his luck in Northstead ward. He is one of those particularly disingenuous Councillors who indicated his intention to vote against demolition and was only dragged back into line by DB’s application of the stick and the carrot. Another mediocre ex-Mayor.

15) Roberta  SWIERS [Con.] (Cayton) – Another virtually invisible yes-person.

16) Philip TRUMPER [Con.] (Whitby – Esk Valley) – Another yes-man, remembered only for his inappropriate Tweets.

17) Sandra TURNER [Con.] (Whitby – Streonshalh) – Portfolio Holder focussed on her own ward but ever a team player.

18) Callum WALSH [Con.] (Weaponness/South Cliff) – Yet another yes-man. Virtually invisible and totally ineffectual. This ward is now Weaponess & Ramshill.

19) Bill CHATT [Ind.Ind.] (Woodlands) – Bill CHATT is an ‘independent’ Independent (i.e. not a member of the Independent Group) but is widely considered to be a Conservative in all but name. Critics maintain that he only stands as an Independent because a Conservative has more chance of being molested than elected in Woodlands. He is another Portfolio Holder who is focussed on his own ward – but almost invariably holds the Tory line.

20) Mike COCKERILL [Ind.Ind.] (Filey) – Another ‘independent’ Independent, COCKERILL has been vigorously supported and defended by the Leader in the face of sustained criticism and adverse reports in the national press, even though he is nominally an Independent – a thick Tory in the thinnest possible disguise. He is another Portfolio Holder and, like Bill CHATT, would struggle to achieve election on a Conservative ticket.

• an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, examining continuing fierce resistance to the proposed Women’s Refuge at Danes Dyke, Newby, Scarborough.
  

~~~~~

When the Planning & Development Committee of Scarborough Borough Council met on 12th March 2015, it considered PLANNING APPLICATION (14/02380/RG4) – LAND AT DANES DYKE, NEWBY – the proposed Women’s Refuge. The Minutes show that Planning Consent was GRANTED in accordance with Officers’ recommendations, despite strong dissent from Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] (Scalby Ward) –  who was a mere two months away from assuming the Leadership – and Newby ward Councillor Andrew JENKINSON [Con.], who can generally be found following faithfully in his Svengali’s footsprints.

According to the Council’s own specification, the Danes Dyke location matched the requirement criteria exactly; none of the other prospective sites complied.

Only the Danes Dyke location is suitable. No Danes Dyke? No Refuge.

The Safeguarding Joint Commissioning Plan 2012-2016 for the whole of North Yorkshire (inc. City of York Council) stated that its number one priority is:

• “Safeguard Domestic Abuse Accommodation based services and specialist floating support services as much as possible.”

According to this Independent report, around 200 women and children fleeing from domestic abuse are turned away from refuges each day in England.

So, with no provision at all in the Borough of Scarborough, I wondered why Councillor BASTIMAN was so fiercely opposed to an ideally qualified Refuge for ‘battered wives’ in a ward only neighbouring his own. Was it really just the NIMBY factor? Was Councillor BASTIMAN simply trying to placate NIMBY voters fretting over the value of their properties?

Hardly likely, given the comfortable margin of his majority two months later at the May 2015 local elections.

Councillor JENKINSON, who also opposed the Refuge, was also comfortably elected in the Newby ward itself (158 votes clear of Councillor Vanda “The Woman Who Condemned The Futurist” INMAN [Lab.>Ind.]), despite the Women’s Refuge Planning Consent, so the NIMBY factor would appear to have exerted no discernible effect.

Following the Planning Consent, Councillor BASTIMAN told Newby residents “I will fight it all the way”. And fight he has.

Question: Could the Leader’s antipathy to the Refuge be nothing more than a natural reflection of his general attitude to the fairer sex?

I decided to visit this topic because of the recent allegations against Councillor BASTIMAN, citing his alleged “sexist [i.e. misogynist] bullying”. This was not the first I had heard about the Leader’s negative attitude to women.

But returning to the progress of the Women’s Refuge; on 14th July 2015, Cabinet met to consider Finance Director Nick EDWARD’s Report and approve one of the following options:

That tell-tale “Cabinet is asked to consider…” opener is, in fact, a clear indication that Councillor BASTIMAN had no intention of allowing the Women’s Refuge to go ahead – not if he could wangle it (“I will fight it all the way”).

A subject of much post facto discussion was the fact that the Leader, having voiced strong dissent at the Planning Hearing (and thereby having evinced clear ‘predetermination’), was nevertheless able to take part in the debate and the vote because neither the Monitoring Officer, Mrs Lisa DIXON (she of the miraculous ‘dispensations’), nor anyone else, found the temerity to challenge him.

Approached by Councillors afterwards, Mrs DIXON ‘deemed’ that, so long as Councillor BASTIMAN had retained an ‘open mind’, all was in order. Mandy RICE DAVIES comes to mind. Still, I should like to hear Mrs DIXON explain how “I will fight it all the way” amounts to an ‘open mind’. If that is not ‘predetermination’, then we may as well strike the word from the dictionary.

Councillor BASTIMAN’s emailed Objection of 3rd December 2014 does not give the appearance of an ‘open mind’ – rather, it is unequivocal (and, typically, rather rude).

Point 5, in particular, is downright offensive – “Is the secure boundary there to protect the proposed residents or the existing residents in the nearby properties?” This in not a valid objection; it is a superfluous rhetorical question – and a slur. It is pure BASTIMAN – petty, small-minded and obnoxious.

Despite both the then-Mayor Councillor Tom FOX [Con.] and Councillor Dilys CLUER [Green.] attending Cabinet to speak forcefully in favour of Option 1 – selling the land to Home Group and thereby giving the Refuge the ‘green light’ –  and despite that view being supported, when it came to the vote, by Councillor Bill CHATT [Ind.] and Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Con.]), Cabinet perversely resolved to adopt Option 3 – sell the land to the highest bidder – i.e. seek up to £15K per plot rather than accept Home Group’s offer of £5K per plot (the same standard figure that SBC had previously agreed over the Whitby Helredale development) to build the Women’s Refuge.

So the Leader had his way and the Women’s Refuge was kicked into the long grass – but not without the Leader making some enemies along the way. It was commonly discussed, in Council circles, that the then Deputy Chief Executive Hilary JONES, who, in my experience, was nothing if not compassionate, humane and sympathetic to vulnerable women and victims of domestic violence, was deeply uncomfortable about the way the Leader had imposed his will on the Cabinet and Mrs DIXON, who, she felt, had been placed in a compromised position, though (needless to say) that is not something she shared personally with me.  That supposed discomfort is said to have played a large part in Hilary JONES’ decision to leave SBC – that, and her increasing disquiet about the Council’s lack of transparency and accountability.

On 29th September 2015, the Resources Scrutiny Committee met to consider a Call-In of the Cabinet Decision, lodged by Councillor David BILLING [Lab.], whose eloquent argumentation in favour of the Women’s Refuge was reinforced by the fact that one of the signatories to his Call-In was (surprisingly) a Tory – Councillor Jane MORTIMER [Con.]. According to the Council grapevine, the Resources Scrutiny Committee meeting had been deliberately delayed, at the Leader instigation, in order to lessen the impact of its challenge to the Cabinet decision. The Leader, as we know, does not accept challenge with a good grace.

In the event, the challenge was further strengthened by Councillor Tom FOX [Con.], who emphasised that, prior to Cabinet’s July 2015 decision, neither Cabinet nor Full Council had ever expressed any aspiration to sell the land at market value; the Refuge had arguably greater value – ethical value –  as a social service asset; the implication being that the Leader’s objections had been conjured out of thin air.

Despite the best cross-party efforts of Councillors BILLING [Lab.], CHATT [Ind.],  MORTIMER [Con.], CLUER [Green], Tom FOX [Con.] and Norman MURPHY [Ind.>UKIP>Ind.], the door was slammed on the Home Group proposal in favour, ostensibly, of holding out for a better offer which, in the event, has never materialised.

Few believed that ‘more money’ was all the Leader wanted; it was commonly mooted that it was more a case of what the Leader did not want – a Women’s Refuge at any price. However, given today’s SBC strategy of selling off the family silver (and The Futurist’s grand piano), it is clear that, courtesy of Home Group, SBC is now sitting on a piece of land with planning permission – i.e.  a piece of prime surplus silverware.  Follow the money.

But the urgent need for a Women’s Refuge had already been well-established and everything appeared to be in place for it to go ahead. I was horrified by the ward-by-ward breakdown of domestic violence incidents in this 2014/15 Domestic Incidents Summary:

That shows a prodigious number of victims with no safe haven – in Eastfield alone, 198 recorded domestic incidents – on average, that’s four victims per week with nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.

Repeat after me, “Duty of Care . . . Duty of Care . . . Duty of Care.”

Victims are presently being transported to York or Middlesbrough – away from family support, family doctor, schooling, the lot.

But it is clear that the only discernible obstacle has been the Leader, Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.]. Readers are invited to consider for themselves what that conveys to us about the Leader’s compassion, as a human being, and appreciation of his Duty of Care, as a public servant.

In a very much behind-the-scenes sort of way, a battle of wills was in progress between the former and present Leaders – Councillors BASTIMAN and FOX – which was odd, to say the least, given that Councillor Derek BASTIMAN [Con.] had assumed the Leadship with Councillor Tom FOX’s tacit blessing. It is another pointer to the theory that the demands of Leadership have proved too much for Councillor BASTIMAN, whose style in Council is hectoring and scornful and falls far short of the smooth urbanity of Tom FOX. My guess is that, given a second shot at endorsing a successor, Councillor FOX would prefer another candidate. Looking at the present Cabinet, he might be hard-pressed to pick a viable alternative, with not one good speaker amongst them capable of articulating a vision, a purpose a methodology.

That aside, the Resources Scrutiny Committee resolved as follows:

. . . thus sending the Decision back to Cabinet, where the Leader would have to fight his battle once more.

On 20th October 2015, Cabinet considered the Report of the Resources Scrutiny Committee, which was summarised by Officers under the following three options:

Without so much as a passing mention of ‘predetermination’, Cabinet resolved in favour of Option (iii) – to give members an opportunity to consider an increased offer by Home Group (which would have secured the future of the Women’s Refuge). This was reported in the Scarborough News as a GREEN LIGHT for the Refuge.

But Home Group’s revised offer (thought by some to be merely a strategic bluff) did not meet the £15K per plot expectation (presumably as Councillor BASTIMAN intended) and the deal finally foundered and would appear now to be moribund.

So despite clearing all the regulatory hurdles, the Danes Dyke Women’s Refuge has never to this day been built  – and many Councillors are beginning to wonder why. So am I.

The Council’s official line is that central government is to blame:

But are Councillors really comfortable with the fact that the Borough can still offer no Women’s Refuge provision for ‘battered wives’ and their endangered children? Would they rather have a bike race (paid for out of the Parking ‘surplus’)?

And there has been other ‘fall-out’ worthy of public consideration.

Upon his promotion to Leader of the Conservative Group, Councillor Joe PLANT [Con.], by now firmly established as the Leader’s ‘Baldrick’, promptly dislodged Councillor Jane MORTIMER [Con.] from her Chairship of the Planning & Development Committee (replacing her with Councillor Phil ‘Tweet Tweet’ TRUMPER [Con.], who has since disgraced himself with inappropriate re-Tweets denigrating victims of the Grenfell Towers disaster) for her ‘disloyalty’ in supporting the Womens’ Refuge Planning Application in the first place.

Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Con.] has been out in the political wilderness since his support for the Refuge and has reportedly (and repeatedly) been the butt of some rather unpleasant sniping by both BASTIMAN and PLANT. It must be remembered that Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE [Con.] resigned from the Cabinet after the Whitby and Filey No Confidence votes in the Leader and Cabinet, interpreted by many to mean that Councillor BACKHOUSE himself had no confidence in the Leader – not forgetting his further ‘disloyalty’ in opposing the Futurist demolition . . .

Now allegations of “sexist bullying” against Councillors BASTIMAN and PLANT have made their inevitable re-appearance, some Conservatives are re-appraising Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE’s credentials with a view to him replacing Councillor BASTIMAN as Leader after the 2019 elections, if not sooner. It would be a prudent step if the Council hopes ever to redeem its dreadful and declining reputation.

But far be it from me to suggest that the Leader is motivated by nothing more tangible than a ‘downer’ on women (though there are only two in his Cabinet). Everybody tells me that he is, in fact, deeply admiring of women, loving the way they move and dress. This would appear to be borne out by the presence on the Council of his spouse, Councillor Lynn BASTIMAN [Con.] – a presence that (it has to be said) appears more dutiful than political, given that she seldom (if ever) speaks – though always votes (with the Leader). A feminine touch, nonetheless.

The question now, as we move towards the last year of the present Council, is this:

• Who is going to get the Women’s Refuge back on track?

Perhaps the mooted ‘merger’ (widely considered a ‘done deal’) between Yorkshire Coast Homes (YCH) and Coast & Country Housing (C&CH) will achieve the 15,000-unit threshold for much-needed central government funding? That could kick-start the process and secure the financial means to bring the Women’s Refuge to belated fruition – good PR for both housing associations. Then again, Councillor FOX’s spouse Ros FOX (herself a former SBC Councillor) has recently completed her term as Chair of YCH, so one favourable voice has been lost.

• Who can we look to drive things forward?

That plot at Danes Dyke, with Planning permission, is more than just another piece of the family silver, to be flogged off to one of the Council’s preferred developers. It is a lifeline to hundreds of vulnerable women and chidren.

Councillor Bill CHATT [Ind.], the Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Housing & Public Health, was re-appointed to the Board of YCH in September, having served a 9 -year term previously). He is thus ideally placed to facilitate a deal.

So come on, Councillor CHATT – step up to the plate. I will organise some Tories to back you up. Let us share a New Year’s Resolution – to provide the ‘battered wives’ of the Borough with a place of sanctuary and safety. If it saves one innocent life – murder or suicide – it will bring far greater reward than ‘market value’.