• – an “Open Letter” to MIKE GREENE by NIGEL WARD, urging immediate action to salvage the Council’s headlong descent into the gutter.

~~~~~

Mr Mike GREENE – Head of Paid Service & CEO – Scarborough Borough Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Mike,

Good day to you.

Were it not for the Council’s policy of intercepting emails to and from Council personnel and members of the public, it would be my pleasure to address you in a more private way.

However, we are where we are . . .

It must be disconcerting to discover that my many concerns regarding the probity of your Councillors and Officers are now being vindicated in such a public manner. I refer, of course, to recent news articles.

I would like to renew my invitation to you to join me for a coffee and a sticky bun (my treat) so that we can progress matters “unter vier Augen” (as the Germans say).

In the meantime, let us begin by addressing the most recent in a long line of disingenuous statements and actions which, taken together, have plunged Scarborough Borough Council into the depths of disrepute – on your watch.

False Statements

A local news outlet has reported on statements made by the Leader at Full Council on Monday 24th January 2022. I quote:

“Scarborough Borough Council is continuing to work with Flamingo Land on proposals for the former Futurist Theatre site.”

[my emphasis in bold type]

Having reason to believe this statement to be untrue, I made arrangements to draw it to the attention of certain interested parties. This appears to have had the desired effect; the same news outlet published a statement from Mr Gordon GIBB (Flamingo Land’s Chief Exec), which it pleases me to reproduce, in its entirety, thus:

Allow me to focus your attention on two particular sentences:

“Flamingo Land has not discussed our plans with Cllr Siddons since shortly after he became Council Leader a number of years ago“.

. . . and:

“Cllr. Siddons’ recent comments regarding the Scarborough Councils continuing work with Flamingo Land on proposals for the former Futurist site could not be further from the truth.”

[my emphasis in bold type]

I hope we can agree that this is tantamount to calling the Leader a liar. The Facebook user “on the Clapham omnibus” has been using that very word; “liar”.

Yet within the same article, a response from the Leader was in due course published:

It is noteworthy that the Leader has not refuted Mr GIBB’s statement, either in word or in spirit. He has not even addressed it. Qui tacet consentire videtur; “He who is silent is taken to agree”.

The Leader’s statement “we have been in discussions with Flamngo land as our preferred bidder for some time” is not compatible with “Flamingo Land has not discussed our plans with Cllr Siddons since shortly after he became Council Leader a number of years ago“.

Nevertheless, “discussions with Flamingo Land” must surely be a matter of documentary record (if only in the form of an email trail arranging meetings, in person or over Zoom). This may explain why an overwhelming majority of members of the public believe Mr GIBB – why, one might ask, would he publish a press statement in the knowledge that any falsehood might render him liable to a libel action? Conversely, why would the Leader sidestep refuting Mr GIBB’s statement if the documentary material with which to do so was to hand?

The remaining three paragraphs of the SIDDONS statement are flim-flam. Of course Flamingo Land can withdraw if there is no formal contract; of course Flamingo Land’s withdrawal necessitates a search for another developer; of course whatever is developed on the site should be of value to the town.

Forgive my use of a colloquialism, Mike, but this is pure, unadulterated bullshit. It has long been my view that the man is full of it.

Anyone in the business of citing examples of the phrase “weasel words” would struggle to do better than the SIDDONS statement. I am sure you are aware that the phrase “weasel words” means “words used in order to evade or retreat from a direct or forthright statement or position”. Coming from the same mouth that promised us “a new era of openness and transparency”, these “weasel words” are particularly hypocritical and deeply offensive.

Surely, after the flim-flam has evaporated, the Leader must either file claim against Mr GIBB under the terms s.1 of the Defamation Act 2013 – or resign from the Leadership and the Council forthwith.

There can be no place for liars in public life.

Declarations of Interest

When the extraordinary omission of required information within the Leader’s Urgent Decision of 17th December 2021, dealing with the acquisition of the two properties at 1 St. Helen’s Square, was first drawn to my attention, I was non-plussed:

It seemed to me to be a logical impossibility that the Leader could have omitted either to make Declaration of his personal acquaintance with the vendor of one of the properties (the maisonette), or to have requested and obtained a Special Dispensation to withhold Declaration. Yet that is exactly what the word “None” signifies. He did neither.

It was, at that time, a matter of record that, despite having made the requisite Declaration regarding his personal acquaintance with the vendor of the same property (the maisonette) at a minuted meeting of the Scrutiny Board on 8th July 2020, Councillor Subash SHARMA [Lab.] omitted to re-iterate his Declaration, when acting as Chair, at the Planning & Development Committee meeting of 9th December 2021. How it could be that the Monitoring Officer failed to identify that omission is beyond my power of explanation, given that his earlier Declaration is on the record.

In making Declaration of his acquaintance with the vendor, Councillor SHARMA ensured that, by way of the minutes of that meeting and the video-recording (the public record), all members of the Council, of the public and of the press – and the Monitoring Officer – were unambiguously informed of his acquaintance with the vendor. Having served on the 2015-19 Council with the vendor, it would have been dishonest for Councillor SHARMA to have acted otherwise.

Alas, at the Planning & Development meeting, he did act otherwise. The minutes show that he did not re-iterate his Declaration. The precedent he set, he later disregarded. That seems to me to be an open and shut case. Whether or not the infraction satisfies the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 in respect of designation as a criminal offence is not for me to decide. It does, however, have an impact on the Leader’s conduct.

Returning to the Leader and the absence of an appropriate Declaration/Dispensation, it is clear that the same requirement which moved Councillor SHARMA,  in July 2020 , to provide a Declaration disclosing his personal acquaintance with the vendor – which he did, as the minutes (and video) confirm – now fell upon the Leader when signing-off his Urgent Decision to disburse Council money (i.e. public money) to his close personal acquaintance, the vendor. What was encumbent upon the Chair of Planning was equally encumbent upon the Leader – morally, perhaps more so, for Leadership carries a greater burden of moral rectitude.

Aside from the complete record of minutes and other Council documentation, social media screenshots, title deeds, valuations, messages, emails and video-clips, etc., which ascertain the inalienable facts of the case, consideration must also be given to the wider significance of a Council Leader having apparently wittingly concealed his association with a Labour Group colleague (the vendor) – a ‘Friend’ on social media – within the process of a property purchased at a price advantageous to that vendor. The requirement to provide a Declaration of Interests exists specifically to rule out any appearance of impropriety, however remote. And now we have Mr GIBB publicly stating that the Leader’s words “could not be further from the truth”.

Yet a far-from-remote appearance of impropriety is inherent – indeed, is concretely manifest – in the difference between the price paid by the Council to the vendor for the maisonette (£100,040) and contemporary estimates (£57,000) – a sum significantly down on the price originally paid by the vendor (£80,000).

Reports emanating from the Market Hall on Saturday 18th December 2021, assert that the vendor was cock-a-hoop over the deal, as well he might be.

It is irrelevant to claim – as some of the Leader’s followers have claimed – that the Leader was unaware of the requirement to make a Declaration. His obligation, where his own knowledge may have been insufficient, was to consult the Monitoring Officer. Besides, ignorance of the law is no defence in law.

You are almost certainly unaware of the private email exchanges between members in the light of what I will dub “Flamingo Gate” and “St. Helen’s Gate”. They are incandescent with rage; they feel themsleves at risk of being tarred by the present administration’s brush of sleaze and corruption.

You may (possibly?) be aware that I wrote to the Deputy Monitoring Officer, Ms Carol REHILL, on 12th January 2022 (like a number of elected members, I refuse to engage with the Monitoring Officer, who I regard as inept and dishonest), offering to provide evidence and testimony in these matters. You will find a copy of my email to Ms REHILL at the foot of this page. I have received no acknowledgement – much less, thanks.

I can interpret this as an open invitation to submit the same evidence and testimony to the Court of Public Opinion. If you would be so good as to instruct Ms REHILL to solicit my evidence/testimony, I will be happy to furnish it to the Investigating Officer – always provided that the Investigating Officer is NOT Mrs DIXON.

I close by directing your attention to the Cc:– recipients of this email. Where it is approriate to copy-in SBC Councillors, I have used their private email addresses via Bcc: to circumvent the Council’s draconian email interception system.

Finally, if you are to staunch the haemorrhage of probity departing your Council – our Council – you must grasp the nettle, Mike. As Chief Executive, it is your duty to take the Leader to one side and explain that the Council, as an institution, is bigger than his inflated ego. He must go. Now.

I call upon you to do just that.

Kind regards,

Nigel

PS: I had intended to make detailed reference to the Independent Persons’ vindication of my critique of Councillor Paul RILEY [Ind.] and his entirely unsatisfactory backhanded apology to Councillor PHILLIPS [Con.] over his disgusting “bed-wetter” remarks in Council, and to Councillor John ATKINSON [C.I.M.] regarding his hypocritcal reproach to second-home owners; these low-order lapses can wait for another day.

——– Original Message ——–

Subject:	Standards (Evidence, etc)
Date:	Wed, 12 Jan 2022 18:47:11 +0000
From:	Nigel
To:	Carol.Rehill@scarborough.gov.uk

Ms Carol REHILL – Deputy Monitoring Officer – Scarborough Borough Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Carol,

I hope you are in good health and fine spirits as we move into a New Year.

In the expectation that the present re-evaluation of the Council’s Standards Procedures will move us into a new era of “openness and transparency”, I write to provide evidence in support of recent Formal Complaints.

Please review and download the following articles, published on the North Yorks Enquirer; each contains highly pertinent documents and/or video evidence:

http://nyenquirer.uk/predetermination-argos-planning/

http://nyenquirer.uk/5-sbc-lab-cllrs-compromised/

http://nyenquirer.uk/leaders-secret-deal-challenged/

http://nyenquirer.uk/3-5m-secret-deals-revealed/

I can confirm, having been present at the Planning & Development Committee meeting of 9th December 2021, that no Declarations were made by members of the Labour Group in respect of 1 St Helen’s Square.

I place myself at the Standards Committee’s service in regard to attending meetings, where I will be happy to respond to questions (subject to the advice of my attendant legal representative). It would be remiss of the Standards Committee to decline my offer, since members would thereby expose themselves to allegations of cover-up were they to turn a blind eye to conclusive evidence. I am sure you agree.

Very kind regards,

Nigel

PS – I will be forwarding this email to selected Councillors, for obvious reasons.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, revealing the ante on the next round of SBC ‘investment’.

~~~~~

On Tuesday 19th October 2021, SBC Cabinet met to resolve, inter alia, Item 12 on the Agenda – the decision to purchase Pavilion House and Comet Corner as a part of the so-called Station Gateway project. The Agenda stated “see attached report” – needless to say, the report is not available to members of the public. How many Councillors have seen it? Seven?

Two days later, on 21st October 2021, the Scarborough News published an article entitled “Scarborough Council ‘forced’ to pay ‘substantial premium’ for Pavilion House as purchase plans approved”. The body of the article appeared under the following sub-heading:

• “Scarborough Council has revealed it will pay a ‘substantial premium’ in purchasing Pavilion House to ensure that a major redevelopment scheme can go ahead.”

Within the article, we find some interesting quotations:

[My emphasis, in bold type]

Leader SIDDONS has been quoted as stating:

“The station gateway project will kick start Scarborough’s blueprint and unlock wider investment in the town centre to stimulate economic growth and much needed environmental change.”

The reference to “environmental change” is presumably a cursory nod to the Council’s 5th September Resolution to trumpet a climate emergency – though these concerns apparently do not extend to the hypocrisy of firing off thousands of pounds worth of fireworks, with their plastic cylinders and other non-biodegradable residue, over the South Bay on New Year’s Eve. And this at a time when major cities around the world have cut back on New Year’s fireworks displays. The Council also committed to examining what measures it can take to protect wildlife and wildlife habitats in the Borough. Scaring the bejasus out wildlife is apparently one of those measures. Talk about dead from the neck up!).

A number of Councillors have expressed puzzlement over two elements of the Station Gateway strategy.

Firstly:

If SIDDONS’ new ‘flagship’ is such a wonderful idea, why has the “substantial premium price” paid for Pavilion House been withheld from the public?

Secondly:

Just how much was that “substantial premium price”?

Clearly, the Scarborough News was unable to elicit these pieces of information.

Could it be that Leader Councillor Steve “Openness & Transparency” SIDDONS [Lab.] anticipates a public backlash against another ill-considered venture into the world of entrepreneurial property speculation? Could it be that few Councillors or members of the public would consider it wise to enter into a deal from which, according to Councillor RILEY [Ind.], “we could get nothing and resort to further borrowing”. St.Nick’s/TraveLodge, ARGOS . . .

I can now confirm that SBC really did pay a “substantial premium”, through the vendor’s solicitors, DWF Law LLP.

It paid £2,602,199.90 for Pavilion House –  a million more than was paid by the last purchaser, who would appear to have invested nothing in the building in between – and this at a time when the post-pandemic ‘work from home’ ethos is impacting on demand for office-space in town centres all over the country.

Hopefully, I will be disclosing much more, including details of the Comet Corner nonsense (the Council paid ‘market value’ – £833,736.68 –  again via DWF Law LLP), in a future article. Meanwhile, ponder that purchase-price total for the two properties – £3,435,936.58 – and bear in mind that the Council was contracted to paya mere £1M for the former ARGOS building, but reckoned on a total of £22M (some reckon nearer £30M) to complete the project, including demolition, rebuild and furbishment.

It would be naïve to imagine that the £3.5M cost of the property acquisitions alone represents the sum total of the ‘re-modelling’ of Pavilion House and Comet Corner. A local architect points out that, because of the structural peculiarities of Pavilion House, demolition and re-build is the most likely way forward. The Council has already indicated that such is definitely the case with Comet Corner. It is therefore unsurprising that sources within the Town Hall have expressed concern that completion of the so-called Station Gateway project could easily amount to a further Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) 40-year borrowing in the order of ten times the cost of acquiring the freehold on the properties – i.e. £36M-£40M – by a Council 16 months away from ceasing to exist. The incoming Unitary Authority will be as delighted as the ratepayers.

So we begin a New Year with another highly secretive machination – remember how the whole ARGOS nonsense only entered the public domain when Enquirer editor Tim THORNE published the ‘Top Secret – Highly Confidential’ ARGOS documents? We now have another open-ended, costs-unknown example of  Labour’s ‘Spend, Spend, Spend’ foray into the fantasy world of playing Monopoly with the public purse. Naming the ‘architect’ of these property acquisitions may offer few surprises to astute observers, but since I am yet to obtain documentary evidence, I must save that for another day. Suffice it to say that these are not the sole fruits of a well-hatched plan.

Meanwhile, a Happy New Year to all our readers.

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, highlighting a probable breach of the Localism Act 2011, in relation to ARGOS, the (mini) Town Square and a ‘Top Secret’ purchase.
  

~~~~~

On Wednesday 8th July 2020, one year after the Council carried a motion to demolish the former ARGOS building, Councillor Subash SHARMA [Lab.] attended a meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Board in his capacity as Substitute for Councillor Joanne MAW [Lab.] who had (presumably) given apologies for her absence.

The minutes of the meeting confirm that Councillor SHARMA quite correctly, in my view, declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4:

1. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Councillor Sharma declared a personal interest in agenda item 4, Call-In – Cabinet decision – Scarborough Town Centre regeneration (student accommodation scheme) (reference 20/114), as he was known to Paul Cross, who had a freehold above the newsagents.

All Councillors (if not all readers) should be aware that failure to declare an interest is prohibited by s.30 – s.34 of the Localism Act 2011, so Councillor SHARMA was on the right side of the law.

The “freehold above the newsagents” (at 1, St Helen’s Square), as the Land Registry confirms, was indeed in the ownership of Mr Paul David CROSS:

Mr Paul David CROSS may be well-known to readers and residents – just as he is well-known to members of the Scarborough & Whitby Labour Party – having served as a Labour Councillor at SBC during the previous administration, from May 2015 to May 2019.

Thus, in any Council meetings addressing ARGOS or the adjacent premises at 1 St Helen’s Square – whether Full Council or any of the Committees – Labour Councillors in attendance have been under the same legal obligation as Councillor SHARMA to declare their acquaintance with Mr CROSS, so as not to fall foul of the Localism Act.

Unfortunately, since Councillor SHARMA’s declaration on 8th July 2020, there have been a number of meetings addressing either (i) the proposal for the ‘regeneration’ of the former ARGOS building or (ii) the development of a so-called ‘Town Square’ on the Newborough end of St Helen’s Square. I have located no other declarations by Labour members.

In particular, and of exceptional significance, there was the meeting of the Planning & Development Committee on Thursday 9th December 2021, at which Planning Applications for both the ARGOS demolition/re-build and the development of the (mini) ‘Town Square’ were addressed.

The Scarborough Borough Council YouTube Channel covered the meeting. At 02m 48s, readers may confirm for themselvers that only Councillor John CASEY [Ind.] and Councillor Paul RILEY [Ind.] made declarations. Councillor Bill CHATT raised the possibility of Predetermination by some members.

Thus, I can state with confidence that the four Labour members in attendance, including the Chair, did NOT declare an acquaintance with Mr Paul David CROSS:

• Councillor Subash SHARMA (Chair)
• Councillor Stuart CAMPBELL
• Councillor Rich MAW
• Councillor Theresa NORTON

Councillor SHARMA cannot plead ignorance; as shown above, he did declare his acquaintance with Mr Paul David CROSS at the 8th July 2020 meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Board, even though Councillor SHARMA did not serve concurrenly with (then) Councillor Paul CROSS. By his own admission, they were certainly well-acquainted, as members of the same Group, and that is why Councillor SHARMA was legally required to declare that relationship at the Planning & Development Committee meeting on 9th December 2021, as he had done previously (and correctly) at the 8th July 2020 meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Board.

Whatever Next?

I should, perhaps, have been shocked by my next discovery. I was not.

Readers and Councillors may not be aware that, on Friday 17th December 2021, a Leader’s Urgent Decision was recorded:

(I need hardly add that the Director’s report referred to above is not to be found on the Council’s website – even in redacted form).

As we see, Councillor SIDDONS has not declared his personal acquaintance with the owner of the property.

I cannot confirm information passed to me from within the Town Hall to the effect that this latest ‘Top Secret’ property acquisition – of an undisclosed property, for an undisclosed sum – is one of two properties of interest in the immeditate vicinity of Newborough.

On the ‘highly likely’ list, I would include (i) the former ARGOS building (which the Council is contracted to purchase, contingent upon the rejection of the Planning Application on 9th December 2021), and (ii) 1 St. Helen’s Square (which the Council proposes to demolish in order to create space for its (mini) ‘Town Square’ proposal (for which Planning consent was granted on 9th December 2021). It could, of course, be the purchase of some other property (presumably in this country).

At the top of this article, we saw that Councillor Subash SHARMA correctly declared an interest when taking part in a discussion about the ARGOS ‘regeneration’ project – his personal acquaintance with Mr Paul David CROSS.

Allow me to emphasise the following extract from the Leader’s Urgent Decision of 17th December 2021, reproduced above:

None. Nothing to declare.

The Cabinet member in question is, of course, the Leader – Councillor Steve SIDDONS. He declared no interests.

But Councillor SIDDONS served alongside (then) Councillor (now) Mr Paul David CROSS, from 2015-2019.

It is my view that, as in the cases of Councillors Subash SHARMA, Rich MAW, Theresa NORTON and Stuart CAMPBELL (at the Planning & Development meeting on 9th December 2021), the Leader had a legal duty to declare his close acquaintance with Mr Paul David CROSS, just as Councillor SHARMA did at the meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Board on 8th July 2020.

Councillor SIDDONS must surely be aware that failure to do so runs the risk of the public perception being that he has authorised the expenditure of public funds to secretly purchase a property, at an undisclosed price, from his old mucker, Mr Paul David CROSS.

It is precisely for the purposes of “openness and transparency” – and to permit scrutiny of the Council’s financial activities by press and public – that the Localism Act (and the Councillors’ Code of Conduct) prohibits non-disclosure (failure to declare). One might correctly state that it is anti-corruption legislation.

This is not to say that a corrupt act has taken place; merely that the law enacted to prevent corruption appears to have been flouted and these appearances merit a diligent investigation.

In my view, such situations should never arise. The Council employs a Monitoring Officer (Mrs Lisa DIXON – salary: £75K p.a.), amongst whose duties, as one of the Council’s three Statutory Officers, is the regulation of members’ interests. Part of that duty is to report breaches of the relevant sections of the Localism Act 2011 to the Police.

I do not engage with Mrs DIXON. Head of Paid Service and CEO Mr Mike GREENE is aware of that. Mr GREENE does not engage with me.

So I have provided the documentary and video evidence set out above to members of the Opposition Groups, in the hope that they will abide by Article 7 of the NOLAN Principles:

“. . . and be willing to challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs.”

Over to you, Councillors.

The ever-popular Alderman NORMAN MURPHY provides our latest Guest Author article.

~~~~~

Oh dear, how sad; glorious Leader of the Council, Steve (“It’s a dog’s breakfast”) Siddons, did not get his flagship project, the ARGOS scam, through Planning. Just when he was probably about to pop open another bottle of the finest Italian champagne in celebration of his glorious victory over the “little people” (as, it is rumoured, he contemptuously calls residents), his dreams were shattered when a majority of elected members voted to throw his pet £30 million ratepayer-funded, ARGOS project, under a bus.

Not, I hasten to say, a bus that might be found in the Old Town of Scarborough; they are like hens’ teeth.

Anyway, although the Scottish developers, Buccleuch Estates, and their partners in crime, Wrenbridge Developments, did everything they could to bully residents and Council members into accepting the ARGOS scam crock of crap, the majority of residents, and just enough elected members, pissed on their bonfire.

However, although eight members of the planning committee decided, very sensibly, to support the wishes of the residents who had so recently voted them into office, and rejected the ARGOS scam, seven, disgracefully, put two metaphorical fingers up to their constituents, and supported Siddons ARGOS scam.

In supporting Siddons ARGOS scam, all of these seven members, in my view, completely betrayed the residents who had taken the trouble to vote for them.

Moreover, four of the seven – Chairman Shubash Sharma (Labour: Newby Ward); Paul Riley (Independent: Hunmanby Ward; Rich Maw (Labour: Weaponess Ward and Theresa (“Gluey”) Norton (Labour: Eastfield Ward) – not content with shamefully betraying residents wishes, also, in petulant outrage at not getting their own way one suspects, proceeded, in one way or another, to insult fellow members of the committee, ridicule residents and totally ignore the Council’s own procedural rules.

Councillor Paul Riley, who one can only assume has totally lost the plot, opened the offensive against those who opposed the ARGOS scam by insulting Councillor Heather Philips and shouting at her that she should “Be less of a bed wetter”.

What point the clearly enraged Riley was trying to make by this preposterous outburst is unclear. It just seemed as though somebody had given Riley a few insulting remarks to say and he just blurted them out as opportunity allowed.

What Riley’s comments had to do with the Planning Application I don’t think he or anyone else could explain. They appeared to have been thrown across the chamber just as insults and had no other purpose other than to offend.

Next up came loyal Labour footsoldier Rich Maw. Maw, like Riley, had nothing to add to the debate over the Planning Application but was very keen to tell everybody that he thought that remarks made on social media indicating that some members of the public thought that those who were supporting the ARGOS scam were in some way corrupt was unfounded and unfair.

Now, I don’t wish to be picky, Maw me old china, but it strikes me that residents and, more importantly, ratepayers who can quite clearly see that the preposterous ARGOS project is a scam, might consider that your backing for the scam might not be because you actually think it will bring regeneration to the Borough of Scarborough but for, ulterior, perhaps corrupt, motives.

Indeed, as one Old Town resident put it to me only recently, when explaining to me how corrupt he thought the present administration was; “If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and swims like a duck it probably is a duck”. Enough said.

It is, I would suggest, Councillor Maw, a simple question of trust. And as I see it, there are very few residents, if any, who have any trust in anything you, and especially your master Siddons, tells them.

Finally, up pops “Gluey” Norton, determined to add her thoughts to those of the nitwits who had already made fools of themselves.

“Gluey”, presumably freshly un-stuck from some motorway or other, had apparently, found time to attend the meeting, and was intent on having her say.

“Gluey”, ever the eco-warrior, wanted to know if ratepayers would be paying to have electric vehicle charging points installed for the students.

Well, at this question, as you might imagine, the dopey Officers did not know where to hide themselves and I am sure that, right at that moment, they would have liked the ground to open up and swallow them.

Here were the Officers, busily telling everyone who would listen, that students did not have cars and that parking would not be an issue and now “Gluey” has just given the game away by confirming not only that they would have cars – expensive electric ones – but we should be paying for them to be charged up.

Never mind that the ARGOS scam would add another £30 million on to our rates bills, “Gluey” now wanted ratepayers, including her own already hard-pressed constituents in Eastfield, to pay for students’ cars to be charged up – cars, we might note, that her master Siddons had repeatedly said they would not have.

However, what is perhaps more worrying than the disgraceful and contemptible behaviour displayed by Councillors Riley, Maw and Gluey Norton is the fact that the supposedly impartial Chairman of the Committee, Labour’s Cllr Sharma, just completely ignored their bully boy tactics and allowed them to say and do as they pleased.

The current Labour administration, led by Steve (“It’s a dog’s breakfast”) Siddons is, I would suggest, confirmed by the disgraceful behaviour of his supporters. Sharma, Maw, Riley and Norton proved to be completely out of control.

This administration cares about nothing but the retention of power. The views of residents and what they might want, or indeed need, plays no part in the thinking of this Labour-led dictatorship.

Nonetheless, despite his dictatorial leadership, Siddons cunning little plan to force through the ARGOS scam was defeated and his cronies Sharma, Maw, Riley and Norton were shown up for what they really are; puppets of the regime, not representatives of the people.

Siddons, it is reported, is furious, and of course one suspects a firm of Italian builders are probably not too happy either. Just when they thought they might be able to crack open another magnum of, some say, ratepayer-funded champagne to celebrate their victory over the “little people”, the Planning Committee rejection must have forced the celebrations to be put on hold.

However, one suspects that this will not, if Siddons remains in power, be the last we have heard of the ARGOS scam. Although the barrack block of bedsits Siddons wants to inflict on the residents of the Old Town has been rejected by the Planning Committee, my guess is that he will not give up; there is, after all, still the temptation of £30 million quid of ratepayers’ money to play for.

I don’t think anyone now believes that the ARGOS scam has, or ever has had, anything to do with regeneration. It always was, and still is (in the view of all the ratepayers who have contacted me at least), about the “privileged few” getting their sticky little mitts on our money.

Sharma, Maw, Riley and “Gluey” Norton, and of course all those elected members who support the Siddons regime, should, I would contend, consider their positions very carefully. They should remember that they were elected into office to SERVE the residents of their respective wards, not to slavishly support the ambitions of an incompetent and dictatorial “Dog’s breakfast” leader.

Moreover, I would further suggest that any elected members who currently support Siddons should consider very carefully how the residents of the Borough will remember them once Siddons’ disastrous term in office ends. There will, I would guess, be no luxury villas for them to retire to.

Which reminds me; if anyone wants to get hold of enough Italian marble to tile a swimming pool, I think I might know where you might be able to get some going cheap. 

Arrivederci suckers!

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, offering an opinion on a back-handed apology from an unrepentant member of SBC’s Independent Group.

~~~~~

Following my comments on the meeting of the SBC Planning & Development Committee’s rejection of the Planning Application for the ‘regeneration’ of the former ARGOS building on Newborough in Scarborough, Councillor Paul RILEY [Ind.] has issued a private ‘apology’ to Councillor Heather PHILLIPS in respect of the offensive remark he made to her:

“be less of a bed-wetter”

I emphasise ‘private’ because Councillor RILEY’s ‘apology’, addressed directly to Councillor PHILLIPS and shared with all Councillors, has not been released into the public domain – which is where his insulting comment was uttered.

Such is the weasel-worded nature of Councillor RILEY’s ‘apology’ that I do not intend to reproduce the full text, selecting only the ‘book-ends’ of the first and last paragraphs so as not to distract from just how sanctimonious and insincere it is.

It begins:

Dear Cllr Phillips,

First of all, please may I apologise for any distress caused by my clumsy use of an unpleasant word during the debate at planning last week. The word was intended metaphorically rather than literally. However, it was disrespectful and I should not have used it.

The political process involves making critical remarks about each other’s arguments and policies and, on occasion, alluding to inconsistencies.  Provided we refrain from personally abusive remarks, it should be possible to conduct debate in this way without triggering a complaint to the Standards Committee every time we say something mildly disagreeable to one another.

 

Regards,

 

Cllr Paul Riley

Hunmanby Ward

• “Provided we refrain from personally abusive remarks”

Councillor Paul Riley [Ind.]

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, reporting very briefly on the Planning & Development Committee meeting held on Thursday 9th December 2021.

~~~~~

Having attended the ARGOS Planning meeting, I am now able to report first-hand.

I will not bore readers (or myself) by rehearsing the many arguments AGAINST the Officers’ Recommendation to grant consent to the Application – or even the few FOR.

The video is on the Council’s YouTube Channel and readers may pick over it at will.

The bare result of the vote to endorse the Officers’ Recommendation to grant Planning consent was as follows:

Many readers will be delighted with this result, but there is more to it than the bare numbers might suggest.

In any case, there is nothing to prevent the Applicants from lodging an Appeal – or, for that matter, lodging a fresh Application based on a revised design. Equally, there is nothing to prevent the Applicants trying their luck elsewhere. They tell me that the University of Florence is open to offers.

There are other ramifications which bear some consideration.

Personally, I was expecting a tied result, with Councillor Subash SHARMA using his Chairman’s ‘casting’ vote to carry the Recommendation.

Granted that the members were always likely to divide along party lines (as is so often the case), what stands out for me is that two members of the Independent Group voted contrary to expectations – not only contrary to public expectations but also (and here lies the significance) contrary to the will of the Leader, whose ‘flagship’ enterprise this entire ARGOS fiasco was.

(I should perhaps not be too hasty to say “was”, as there is every reason to suspect that yet another (a third) Application will soon come to our attention).

The fact that Councillors Phil KERSHAW [Ind.] and John CASEY [Ind.] voted AGAINST the Officers’ Recommendation (to their great credit) signals a significant split in the Independent Group and a departure from the oft-stated support for the ARGOS ‘regeneration’ project of Independent Group Leader, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.] (Castle Ward), who is clearly no longer able to command all six (since the resignation of Councillor Andy BACKHOUSE, now ‘Unaffiliated’) of her ‘troops’ in support of the SIDDONS-led Labour administration.

Remembering that there are only 12 Labour Councillors, in ‘alliance’ with (now) only 4 Independents (making a total of 16 votes at Councillor SIDDONS ‘command’ – his own included – it is clearly a moment over-ripe with the potential for another Vote of No Confidence in the Leader.

Even with the support of the 4 Unaffiliated members (Councillors BACKHOUSE, LYNSKEY, MALLORY and MORTIMER), Councillor SIDDONS could count on only 20.

In a 46-member Council, 20 votes buttereth no parsnips.

In my view, Councillor SIDDONS can make a start on clearing his desk.

One other matter merits a mention.

Shortly before the vote, Councillor Paul RILEY [Ind.] rounded off an interminable waffle (which included describing the public as “silly” and as “talking rubbish”) with some rather offensive personal remarks directed at Councillor Heather PHILLIPS [Con.] and there was a brief walk-out by the Opposition members. On their return, Councillor RILEY was soon at it again, admonishing Councillor PHILLIPS to “be less of a bed-wetter”, and thereby confirming that there was at least one person in the building “talking rubbish”.

It is said that “Politics makes for strange bedfellows”. This would appear to be particularly true in the south of the Borough. Councillor PHILLIPS has been subjected to a number of attacks from that quarter, one of which resulted in the conviction of Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF [Ind.] in Scarborough Magistrates Court – her second conviction of an aggressive nature – though the Standards Committee has yet to address her conduct.

It seems that Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF’s animosity towards Councillor PHILLIPS has infected Councillor RILEY, her fellow Hunmanby Ward Councilor, either by osmosis or some other intimate form of transmission. I cannot discern any other reason why Councillor RILEY should have uttered the those words (“be less of a bed-wetter”), in Committee and in the public domain, other than to be as offensive as possible – albeit, followed by a reluctant and (to my ear) transparently insincere apology and an appeal to the acceptability of “robust” language.

When Councillor RILEY kicked off, a voice from the public gallery incensed, no doubt, by RILEY’s behaviour, was heard to cry “You insolent p*i*k!”.

I can confirm this, and so can my companions, because that member of the public was me, employing the language of my cultural heritage. No better than him, you may think – but I am not bound by the Councillors’ Code of Conduct and the NOLAN Principles – and I sincerely hope that, quite soon, neither is Councillor RILEY. We have had enough of the language of the peat bog in this Council..

Unsurprisingly, I returned to my home in Whitby to find myself privy to the following email from Deputy Mayor Councillor Roxanne MURPHY [Y.C.I.A.], who has spoken out before on this subject:

Colleagues

Well, I didn’t think we would ever see a member put their foot in it quite so much and be so disrespectful to the people we serve again after Cllr Bastiman’s comments after the last election, but alas, here we are with Cllr Riley.
 
Calling the public we represent, and have wholly said they do not want this development as, and I quote “the people are talking rubbish” is this the same people who elected you?

To then go on and call a member a “bed wetter” this is quite frankly disgusting and although retracted, I’m sure members find this wholly abhorrent.
 
All of the above must stop. I’m pig sick of it. How’s about, we start using the last few months we have to make a positive impact on our borough residents. Listening to what they want, for once and not what officers want

Welcome
Any comments or standards complaints as is the norm now.

That such insults should be uttered in the Chamber by one of the Leader’s ‘B’-Team fits precisely into the established pattern of Councillor SIDDONS, throwing Safeguarding to the wind if it risks undermining his precarious grip on ‘power’. Like Councillor Roxanne MURPHY, I am pig-sick of it. It shames the Council – and, with it, the Borough.

Together with the Leader’s disregard for his promises of “Openness & Transparency”, of involving all members in decision making and listening to the will of the people, this latest disgraceful display of petty malice will give grounds enough, to all reasonable and fair-minded members, to call upon Councillor RILEY for his resignation.

I conclude by reporting that the talk last night was all about a third and urgent call for a VOTE of NO CONFIDENCE in the Leader, whose ‘flagship’ has sunk, for the moment at least, and is unlikely to be refloated by a new Leader.

The king is dead; long live the king!

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD reporting on a dramatic turn of events at yesterday’s (Mon. 1st Nov. ’21) meeting of Scarborough Borough Council.

~~~~~

I hope readers will forgive me for deferring a detailed report on the Full Council meeting of Monday 1st November 2021 until a later date.

My deliberations have been interrupted by a remarkable turn of events, the full significance of which becomes immediately apparent when we recall last month’s stabbing to death of Sir David AMESS MP [Con.] (Southend West), and the steps now being taken to ‘beef up’ procedures for the protection of elected representatives. Only last week, a 52-year-old man was arrested for the considerably lesser offence of sending threatening and abusive emails to his MP.

During Item 9 of Monday’s meeting of Full Council, the debate turned to the matter of long-held concerns regarding the safety of elected members who have been subjected to threats of murder and other acts of violence. These crimes have been covered up for far too long.

Receiving no credible assurances, the Conservative Group rose from their seats and, as an act of protest, left the meeting en masse.

On returning home, I noted the following post on social media:

It should be noted that the Conservatives were accompanied by Councillor Bill CHATT [C.I.M.].

Councillors are aware that I have corroborated every element of Councillor BASTIMAN’s allegations from direct personal experience (more of which, later).

Before proceeding, I would ask readers to contemplate the public and political reaction that we might anticipate, in the present political climate, if the Councillor referred to in Councillor BASTIMAN’s statement was not a woman, but rather a man threatening female colleagues. The talk then would not be of Sir David AMESS but of Wayne COUZENS, the killer of Sarah EVERARD.

During the evening, I noted the following post by Neil HERITAGE [Y.C.I.A.] from his private and personal Facebook profile onto his Councillor Neil HERITAGE Facebook page – i.e. Councillor HERITAGE was making the point that his posting should be considered as formal comment, in his capacity as Councillor and not merely as a private individual, a member of the public:

I have also received the following statement from Councillor Mike COCKERILL, Leader of the Cluster of Independent members [C.I.M.], shortly before publication of this article:

Alderman Norman MURPHY has also provided the Enquirer with the following statement:

“As a victim of the unwarranted and very disturbing threats to which Councillors Bastiman, Heritage and Cockerill have referred I should like to register my support to their valid protest.”

All of this stands in edifying contrast to the remarks made by Councillor Paul RILEY [Ind.], whose ‘special relationship’ with the perpetrator is a source of some concern to more responsible members:

Great to see the Village People coming out in their true colours

Cllr Paul Riley

Hunmanby Ward

If Councillor Paul RILEY wishes to reduce this very serious issue to petty facetiousness, he must permit me to observe that he apparently treads where even John Wayne BOBBITT would hesitate to go . . .

The identity of the Councillor to whom Councillors BASTIMAN, HERITAGE & COCKERILL – and Alderman MURPHY – refer has been fully exposed in several previous articles here on the Enquirer and on the widely-read web-site of campaigner Andy STRANGEWAY. This is because the hard evidence – as opposed to sworn witness testimony – contains explicit examples of these death threats, including notes, emails and even audio recordings – all of which the North Yorkshire Police has elected to disregard on grounds of the “mental health” circumstances of the perpetrator.

None of which explains why the perpetrator, in such lucid moments as may ever arise, has NEVER uttered one word of apology, remorse or regret to any of her victims.

It has always seemed to me that the risk of injury or death of an elected member (neither more nor less so than any member of the public) should over-ride concern for the perpetrator’s alleged mental health cicumstances, which can be treated or, at least mitigated, without risking injury or violent death to innocent victims.

How serious a crime is it to threaten someone’s life?

The law is to be found under s.16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861:

16 Threats to kill.

A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

Ten years in prison seems serious to me.

Earlier in the year, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Ind.], Leader of the Independent Group, took six weeks to reject a Formal Complaint against her highly dangerous fellow member – on the risible grounds that her Group’s Constitution had never been signed off by members, leaving her with no formal powers to take any action. Apparently, Item 7 of the NOLAN Principles of Public Life did not occur Councillor JEFFERSON:

This failure to “challenge poor behaviour wherever it occurs” would not, I am quite sure, be acceptable to a victim’s widow or widower, child/children, sibling or parent.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, we now have a Scarborough Borough Councillor – in fact, a member of the Labour-led administration’s allied Independent Group and a Portfolio Holder, Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF [Ind.], already twice convicted of violent offences, having engaged in well-evidence acts and threats of violence against political opponents and members of the public, yet still the present Leader, Councillor Steve SIDDONS [Lab.] shies away from taking action to protect his Portfolio Holder and/or her intended victims.

Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF’s reaction to the protest bespeaks the volatility and lack of self-control that has made members extremely nervous of attending physical meetings:

Councillor SIDDONS’ Lab./Ind. administration remains unperturbed and seems even to welcome this style of ‘debate’.

How much more disgrace can this travesty of a Leader bring down upon our Council?

That question is, of course, rhetorical. A keener question would be:

Why is the Leader tacitly condoning this utterly unacceptable state of affairs?

My opinion is that, such is Councillor SIDDONS’ addiction to ‘power’, he will do nothing to risk eroding his desperately precarious grasp by standing down his Portfolio Holder – even if lives are at risk. Bear in mind that Councillor DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF was the one who ‘leaked’ the Top SECRET ARGOS documents – an ‘offence’ which, according to Monitoring Officer Mrs Lisa DIXON amounted to Malfeasance in Public Office and risked, on conviction, a sentence of life imprisonment. (Some people lead charmed lives).

My opinion is that Councillor SIDDONS will continue to disregard members and residents in pursuit of his flagship ARGOS proposals, his repeated acquisition of over-priced dilapidated buildings (St Nicholas Hotel Travelodge, Pavilion House, Comet), his ego-driven failed attempt at an East/West local government reorganisation, etc, etc, etc – to the end of leaving his indelible stamp on the face of the town – SIDDONS WAS HERE.

My opinion is that Councillor SIDDONS will continue in this indefensible vein – even when lives are at risk.

The Leader, by the way, was not present at the meeting (he has apparently tested positive – for COVID-19 (not, as some wags have suggested, for rabies). His function was assumed by his so-called Deputy, Councillor Liz COLLING [Lab.] who, as ever, conclusively eclipsed her Leader’s customary standard of performance.

There is talk amongst opposition Councillors of boycotting the remainder of Councillor SIDDONS’ term of office. I oppose this strategy, it would give free rein to a number of impending disasters.

The Council Chamber is the proper and only forum in which to challenge Councillor SIDDONS. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that even the Conservative defectors (Councillors LYNSKEY, MALLORY and MORTIMER) will allow their personal malice to blight the Borough by supporting SIDDONS in what now seems an inevitable Vote of No Confidence.

by NIGEL WARD

~~~~~

Foreword

On Monday 15th March 2021, I provided SBC’s Chair of Audit Councillor Andrew BACKHOUSE [Ind.] with a courtesy copy of the following Open Letter to CEO Mike GREENE.

Late in the evening of Thursday 18th March 2021, having allowed the Chair of Audit an opportunity to read and digest my Open Letter, I emailed him again, asking him if he would be so good as to point out any error(s) he may have detected in my interpretation of the subject matter, in order to spare the CEO (and/or myself) from any unnecessary embarrassment.

With his wonted courtesy, the Councillor BACKHOUSE has come back to me – without identifying any fault in my reasoning (for which I have already thanked him) – and he has passed on my concerns to the CEO and the MO, requesting their consideration and advice.

Mr Mike GREENE – CEO and Head of Paid Service – Scarborough Borough Council

IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Mike,

May I have the temerity to draw to your attention an extraordinary procedural impropriety disclosed to me by the Portfolio Holder for Corporate Resources and ‘Leader of the Independent Group’, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON, in the following form of words contained in an email to me allegedly sent on  6th March 2021:

“With reference by the requestor with regard to the query pertaining to a Constitution of  the Independent Group. I can confirm that the said document has not been formally signed or adopted by the Independent Group. Therefore as an Independent Group, we do not have an adopted Constitution.”

Few readers – and perhaps least of all, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON – will, at first glance, grasp the astonishing significance of this candid admission.

Allow me to explain, for Janet and our readers.

The membership of Scarborough Borough Council (like almost every Tier 2 and Tier 3 Council in the country) divides itself into politically affiliated Parties or Groups. The political breakdown of SBC presently looks like this:

All but 2 of our 46 Councillors (Councillors MALLORY and MORTIMER) are affiliated to one or another of 6 Parties/Groups.

In fact, Labour, the Conservatives and the Greens all represent political Parties (and sit on the Council in Groups bearing the same names) which, between them, account for 28 of the 46 seats. (13 + 13 + 2 = 28).

There are 2 politically unaffiliated Councillors [Unaff.] – Councillors MALLORY and MORTIMER.

The remaining 16 Councillors belong to one or another of 3 Groups comprising members who are not representatives of political Parties – the Independent Group [Ind.], the Yorkshire Coast Independent Alliance [Y.C.I.A.], and the Cluster of Independent Members [C.I.M.]. (7 + 5 + 2 = 16).

But what exactly is a Group? How is a Group defined?

Sections 8 and 9 of the Local Government (Committees and Political Groups) Regulations 1990 – LG(CPG)R 1990 – inform us that:

(Incidentally, the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 also sets out such requirements).

The monumental significance of Councillor JEFFERSON’s formal assertion now becomes crystal clear. I remind you of her precise form of words:

“With reference by the requestor with regard to the query pertaining to a Constitution of  the Independent Group. I can confirm that the said document has not been formally signed or adopted by the Independent Group. Therefore as an Independent Group, we do not have an adopted Constitution.“

Having spoken to a representative number of members/former-members of the ‘Independent Group’, I am assured they did not sign, nor were they called upon to sign (either by the ‘Group Leader’ or the Monitoring Officer), any such notice; nor did the ‘Group’ Leader or ‘Deputy Leader’ co-sign any such notice.

As Councillor JEFFERSON has confirmed, the members of the ‘Independent Group’ neither signed nor adopted the ‘Independent Group Constitution’ (which would serve as such notice), the first line of which states:

1 Group Name

1.1 The name of the Group shall be the Independent Group (“the Independent Group”) of Councillors, which is a recognised group of the Scarborough Borough Council.

This document, according to Councillor JEFFERSON and a number of other members, was neither signed, approved nor delivered to the “proper officer” (the Monitoring Officer) and “the Independent Group” is therefore not “a recognised grouep of the Scarborough Borough Council”.

It is apparently the case that the ‘Independent Group’ members have not been in compliance with the legislation as cited above, at least throughout the ‘life’ of the present Council – i.e. since May 2019.

I regret to have laboured the point; however, it has far-reaching ramifications.

As ‘Leader’ of the ‘Independent Group’, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON must take fully responsibility for this calamitous error of omission.

Why calamitous?

Firstly, precisely because the ‘Independent Group’ (by its ‘Leader’s’ own admission) is evidently not legally constituted (and is therefore not a Group), its members appear to have held no entitlement to inclusion in the politically proportionate distribution of Group seats (and/or Chairships) on Committees.

I find it both extraordinary and calamitous that the Monitoring Officer has apparently failed to take note of this omission so vital to democratic fairness. A very significant number of Decisions and Resolutions of Committees may now have to be revisited, on account of the procedural impropriety inherent in them having been passed by Committees whose memberships have been, for some considerable time, fundamentally so flawed as to raise serious questions over their legitimacy. This is not trivial.

Take, for example, the Leader’s recent creations – the ‘Lives and Homes’ Overview & Scrutiny Committee and the ‘Places and Futures’ Overview & Scrutiny Committee. (I find it equally extraordinary that the Leader has ridden out not one, but two Votes of No Confidence reliant on the support of the ‘other half’ of his much-vaunted ‘alliance’ with what now appears to have been an ad hoc collection of members not formally constituted as a legitimate Group – which is not quite the same (if you will pardon a moment of levity) as stating that they are an illegitimate bunch  – though some, perhaps, may hold that very opinion).

Joking apart, there are, as I am sure you will readily perceive, some rather serious governance ramifications.

One immediate consequence of Councillor JEFFERSON’s astonishing disclosure is that Councillors John CASEY, Jim GRIEVE and Paul RILEY (all ‘newbies’) have never hitherto held membership in a legitimately constituted Group. They are thus unaffiliated and have therefore held no entitlement to sit on either of these two new (or anyother) Committees:

There is also a far from insignificant pecuniary component to this wholly unsatisfactory situation.

Firstly, Councillor Janet JEFFERSON would appear not to have been entitled to a Group Leader’s Allowance throughout her tenure as ‘Group Leader’. In my view, she should, by rights, have to repay the difference between Basic Allowance (£4,320.24) and Group Leader’s Allowance – i.e. £6,480.36 (1.5 x £4,320.24) minus £4,320.24  =  £2,160.12) pro rata, over the period during which she has been ‘Group Leader’ of an unconstituted (i.e. illegitimate) ‘Group’.

In a further example, for Councillor Andrew BACKOUSE, who is Chair of the Audit Committee, such repayment would amount to £2851.36, pro rata, over the period during which he has been Chair of the Audit Committee.

I could go on . . .

It is regrettable that I am able to discern only one plausible alternative explanation for what I have set out above, namely, that Councillor JEFFERSON has sought to deflect my concerns by an act of misrepresentation – but surely that cannot be the case?

I regret, too, that I am constrained to offering you the foregoing opinions in an Open Letter. As you know, my emails are diverted to a ‘single point of contact’ (SPOC) folder and may not be viewed for weeks, or even months.

This present matter is too pressing, by far, to be delayed by such nonsense (and I will be writing to you shortly on the matter of the interception of emails to and from Councillors).

I am, as ever, very happy to meet with you (socially distanced, of course), or to speak on the telephone, to assist you in resolving this very unfortunate state of governance maladministration.

Yours, with very kind regards,

Nigel

A Letter to the Editor from a very defensive Independent Councillor, Paul RILEY, expressing his resentment of criticism and general lack of political ‘savvy’. With a view to untangling his misconceptions, the editor has asked Nigel to offer an opinion, by annotation, on a paragraph-by-paragraph basis.

~~~~~

Dear Sir,

I was grateful to North Yorkshire Enquirer[sic] for publishing a letter to introduce myself as a candidate nearly two years ago.

The Enquirer has often provided a useful commentary on developments in our region. However, I deprecate some of the recent output, much of which amounts to little more than ad hominem abuse towards the leadership of Scarborough Borough Council and I fail to see any justification for that.

Three points here:

1) Councillor RILEY, you have stepped off on the wrong foot by your facile error in mistaking the title of this news magazine: it is the North Yorks Enquirer.

2) Thank you, Councillor, for acknowledging the part played by the Enquirer in securing your election by publishing the ‘manifesto’ from which you have long since departed. You might also have acknowledged that the free publicity you obtained was augmented by the Enquirer’s exposure of the grand follies of your Conservative rivals.

3) Thank you for endorsing our “useful” commentaries. There has been no “abuse towards the leadership”. There has been copious well-documented criticism of the patent lack of leadership, through both absence and plain inadequacy.

Perhaps you might allow me to respond to one or two points in your rather confused post on 1^st February.

By all means – though it may be disadvantageous to your future electoral prospects.

I do claim to be Secretary of Scarborough and District Civic Society: mainly, on the basis of my election to that position in March 2018 and in subsequent years. I did not feel the need to speak out about the sneaky boundary move by the Tories to exclude the Futurist from the conservation area because that move and the decision to demolish that building preceded my involvement with the society.

It is regrettable that neither in your rôle as Secretary of the Scarborough & District Civic Society, nor in your somewhat limited capacity as a Parish Councillor (Parish Councils are normally offered an opportunity to comment on major Planning issues), you were either unaware or too shy to comment on a matter so dear to you – the Conservation Area boundary changes. Perhaps you never noticed?

The conservatives have a poor record on care for our heritage, in particular with their failure to progress a proper appraisal of the Scarborough central conservation area. They even allowed the lovely old building on Huntriss Row housing their own headquarters to fall into wrack and ruin. As a longstanding member of the Victorian Society, I was pleased when the façade of the Old Con Club was saved by the last minute intervention by the VS to list it.

None of this unsolicited comment has any bearing on the article to which you purport to reply. You seem, like your ‘running mate’, to be using the Enquirer as and when suits, as a platform to further your own relatively trivial agenda. Does your membership of the Victorian Society permit you to comment on wider issues – such as murder threats, cover-ups, fake identities, leaks of confidential documents and the like?

It is curious that you should expect me to back last week’s move, which would have put the Conservatives back in control of the borough council – presumably to give their sneakiness free rein – in view of their poor record on matters I care about.

“Last week’s move” – by which I assume you mean the Vote of No Confidence – was very far indeed from being an attempt to re-instate the Conservatives. Did you not notice that all five signatories to the Requisition were Independents? The objective was to achieve a Leader worthy of the title and an opportunity to implement a Rainbow Cabinet comprising the best-on-merit members for each Portfolio. As a ‘newbie’, perhaps such details may have flown over your head?

Party politics are a fact of life. I have voted for all the major parties in recent years, although in elections these days, I tend to vote for the individual rather than for the party label. You seem to imply that, having been elected as independents, and even though the 14 of us elected as such were only a minority on the council and could not agree amongst ourselves, we should then all just refuse to engage with the political parties.

Party politics are indeed “a fact of life” – at local level, a damaging, dishonest and potential corrupt “fact of life” in which loyalty is bought and paid for with blandishments, Committee Chairships and delegations to far-flung outside bodies (facilitating exaggerated Mileage claims). Party politics at local level is insidious, invidious and the root of all of the disastrous decisions that have plagued this Borough for decades. Yet you, a nominal Independent, continue to prop it up.

In the event, ten of us took the mature decision to offer support to Cllr Siddons, when he was the only member prepared to put his name forward to lead the council for the next four years.

Councillor SIDDONS was the only member foolhardy enough to imagine that, with a secure following of only thirteen fellow Labour members, he could lead a Council with 20 ‘newbies’ to accommodate. Events have demonstrated the sheer naïvety of his ambition.

In my view the partnership running the borough council have[sic] shown they[sic] are putting community above ideology for the common good. There has been a proper review into Futurist and now careful cross-party consideration is being given into how the council can maximise the potential of this key strategic asset. I am glad that this administration will be conducting the difficult negotiations to make sure we make the most of the North Bay assets. I fully support the consultation exercise which lead to the Better Borough report. I know the administration has supported both Scarborough and Whitby in their town deal applications and sought to ensure Filey is not overlooked with officer time being provided to work on a Filey Investment Plan. This is not an exhaustive list and when something is put forward which I cannot support, I may well vote against it.

You view is myopic. The Castle Ward community has been abandoned. The Futurist site is home to … a fairground ride. The negotiations over the North Bay assets were compromised by the rash remarks uttered by Councillor SIDDONS in his ‘acceptance of Leadership’ speech. The administration has been entirely Scarborough-centric. You will vote against its proposals only when you obtain a better understanding of how local politics actually works. On your present performance, that may take some time.

With respect to the Argos building, that was an example of cross-party agreement for the long-term good of the borough. The previous administration is to be commended for developing the Town Centre Strategy and the Argos proposal was the first major opportunity for the new administration to build on that platform.  Every member of the Conservative and Labour groups supported it along with the majority of the independent councillors.

The “cross-party agreement” you claim supported the ARGOS regeneration was not supported by your far more experienced ‘running mate’, to the degree that she was vociferous in her objection to it, even to the point of ensuring, in the public interest, that its “Highly Confidential” documentation found its way into the Enquirer (and thus, the public domain) – an offence, according to the Monitoring Officer, of Misconduct in Public Office. I trust you were not in any way party to that offence?

It should cement in place a key relationship with Coventry University, who will surely pay[sic] a key role in providing the sort of practical training needed for young people to make a success of their lives. It addresses the sad phenomenon whereby a large proportion of the 16-25 year-old demographic feel they have to leave the borough to obtain qualifications and then they never come back.

Coventry University may indeed play a key role in providing practical training; it plans to do much of it on-line. Even if it were viable to provide accommodation, the ARGOS site is a very poor choice. Well-informed members of the Civic Society have commented on their preference for the old Comet site, which does not fall within the (Tory-revised) Conservation Area.

Of course, the financial metrics are unattractive and many of us voted for the scheme despite our misgivings. I perhaps allowed myself to be persuaded after listening to Cllr Bastiman’s passionate and eloquent exhortation not to let this “golden opportunity” to slip from our grasp … to rid the town of one of its most unattractive buildings and kick-start the regeneration of a deprived ward.

So are you for it or against, Paul? Are you anti-Conservative, or pro? And you are being most disingenuous here. Councillor BASTIMAN’s negotiations over the ARGOS building were unconnected with CU – that was the brain-child of JD, in search, it is widely understood, of an Honorary Doctorate.

The council is, of course, reviewing its whole regeneration policy after the disappointment of not securing Future High Street Funding. Wrenbridge are still working to put a proposal before the planning committee which will serve their needs and at the same time respond to the rich mixture of heritage assets, many of them listed, surrounding the site on three sides. I fully concur with the careful approach the council is taking as articulated by Cllr Colling in her statement during last week’s debate.

The “disappointment” of failing to secure the Future High Street Funding is entirely a function of believing that a worthless proposal (scrabbled together by a man far better qualified to empty the waste-paper baskets in the Council Chamber) ever had a hope of impressing central government – any more than it impresses local business leaders, landlords and residents. The “careful approach” with which you so graciously “concur” is nothing other than a tactical withdrawal, otherwise characterised as a headlong retreat.

In my brief intervention in the debate last week, I alluded to the toxic atmosphere which seems to be orchestrated by outside forces seeking to exploit the current situation where the pandemic has restricted normal positive interaction between members.  The email I alluded to had precious little positive to offer, being little more than a ragbag of innuendo, petty animosities and attempts to warm up past controversies.  Having learned nothing from the fiasco of the failed coup the previous year, the proponents of the NCV were still unable to put forward any sort of program or even let us know who the new council leader would be. In the event, 25 of us had the good sense to vote down the proposal.

The “toxic” atmosphere to which you have referred, in Council, is almost entirely due to members rightful intolerance of threats and anonymised hate mail. Would you not agree that refering to campaigners/journalists as “pathological” is itself “toxic” (and a certain breach of the Councillors’ Code of Conduct) – to say nothing of the irony inherent in raising that subject when pathology bestrides Hertford Ward with impunity? It is not from the Enquirer that threats have been issued. I was privy to the discussions between those who supported the No Confidence Vote. Unanimously, they sought an open (i.e. not whipped on party lines) Leadership contest (a so-called ‘beauty contest’) and a Rainbow Cabinet to replace the present Leader and his hybrid hodge-podge Cabinet – half Labour, by his own appointment, and half Independent, by Councillor JEFFERSON’s. In the event, with the notable exceptions of the Labour-biased nominally Conservative Mayor and the recently disaffected Councillor MORTIMER, the vote divided on party lines. Business as usual. Yet you are willing to embrace such scurrility as “a fact of life”? My advice to you is to learn something about how things works in the Town Hall. Your present grasp is deeply flawed to the point where you are exposing yourself as being green as grass.

Regards,

Cllr Paul Riley

Hunmanby[sic] Ward

I believe you will find, Councillor RILEY, that your seat is in Hertford Ward. Thus, your first and last words were erroneous. Farewell.

Addendum: In fact, I  am belatedly reminded that when the Ward boundary changes took place before the 2019 local elections, the number of Wards in the Borough was reduced  from 25 to 20. Among those being lost or renamed were Hertford and Central Wards, which were merged and renamed Hunmanby Ward. My apologies to Councillor RILEY on that one point.

~~~~~

To the Editor.

I am standing as an Independent candidate in Hunmanby Ward, which serves Hunmanby and the surrounding villages, in the election to Scarborough Borough Council to be held on 2^nd May 2019. I want to share some of my thoughts on the current state of play in Scarborough Borough.

I am chairman of Reighton & Speeton Parish Council and am involved in many local community groups. Sadly, I have seen at first hand how many small villages like mine on the edge of the Borough have been neglected by this Conservative-led council. I have also seen how too many of our Borough Councillors put party politics above the people who elect them.

This has to stop. In Hunmanby Ward, the only way to do so is to elect two good local independent councillors who will stand up for our villages. That is why I am standing in this election.  As there are two seats in the Ward, I will be supporting the re-election of Michelle Donohue-Moncrieff, who is also standing as an Independent.

I worked with Michelle and others to protect the White Swan in Hunmanby from conversion into housing units. Scarborough Council was set to wave the scheme through despite the opposition of the local community who knew how damaging its loss would be to village life. We succeeded in having the scheme rejected and supported the community through the subsequent appeal. The pub is now under new ownership with a secure future after some long overdue investment.

As Secretary of the Scarborough Civic Society, I have been concerned by the neglect of our conservation areas by our Conservative-controlled council. One of the attractions of Scarborough is its wealth of great architectural assets. Heritage is key to attracting the visitors which are so important to the local economy. Nearly ten years ago, work began on the appraisal of the central conservation area, necessary to assess which buildings have particular merit and should be afforded special attention. This work stopped in 2013, after the then Conservation Officer left and his work was never resumed. Our Conservative Councillors even voted to destroy the fine old building in Huntriss Row which had been their own headquarters; at least the façade has been saved thanks to the last minute intervention of the Victorian Society to list it.

The Lord Roseberry, which would be protected by listing under a local council which took its heritage seriously, was recently targeted by its owner to have most of its tiled roof removed; thankfully this was refused after many objections.

I share the concerns of former Conservation Officers, Chris Hall and Gordon Somerville, about the mediocre scheme for the re-development of the site of the former Futurist Theatre. If elected, I will campaign for this site to be remarketed. A Flamingo Land fun fair enclosed in a glass box might be welcomed as a solution to the mess left in the North Bay, but we need something much better for the unique setting of the South shore.

I hope to be elected on May 2^nd alongside a few other Independents. It is not healthy to have key decisions affecting our main towns and rural villages taken by a small self-selecting clique when there are good people in other parties and without political affiliation who have much to contribute.

Paul Riley

Independent Candidate for the Hunmanby Ward of Scarborough Borough Council

12th April 2019.