• – an “In My View” article offering some background to this the third Vote of No Confidence in Leader Steve SIDDONS [Lab.].

~~~~~

On Tuesday 14th December 2021, readers may recall, the Enquirer published an article of mine entitled “SIDDONS: No Confidence Vote (No. 3)”.

Eight days later, on Thursday 23rd December 2021, Greatest Hits Radio published an article entitled “No confidence motion put against Scarborough Borough Council Leader”.

A week later, on Thursday 30th December 2021, the Scarborough News published an article entitled “Scarborough Council leader Steve Siddons set to face third vote of no confidence as councillor says she ‘wants to feel safe'”.

On Wednesday 5th January 2022, the Council’s Group Leaders were casually informed that an Extraordinary Meeting will be held via Zoom on the Council’s YouTube Channel on Monday 17th January at 2:00pm, to consider the following Motion:

Motion

On account of the present lack of transparency, inclusivity and respect evinced amongst members, change is urgently needed to restore public faith and confidence, a sound administration and a return to balanced debate. It is our contention that this can only be achieved by a change of leadership. We move that the current leader relieves himself of the leadership.

This report would be incomplete were I to neglect to mention that the Monitoring Officer may have found herself in trouble had she attempted to refuse this Motion, since there exists a legal precedent; an almost indistinguishable form of words was utilised (successfully) to oust an unworthy despot at a Council in the south of England, less than a year ago.

Enter: The CEO

However, despite the disclosure to Group Leaders that the Extraordinary Meeting was now scheduled for Monday 17th January 2022, come the morning of Thursday 6th January 2022, neither the Proposer, the Seconder, nor any of the other three signatories to the Motion had been informed officially of the decision. One can only surmise that Legal & Democratic Services department must have stayed out after midnight and, in consequence, been transformed into a pumpkin.

Consequently, CEO Mike GREENE, having returned from his seasonal vacation, invoked ‘delegated powers’ and made it known to the signatories that either the Extraordinary Meeting would be held ‘virtually’ (i.e. via Zoom), or else it would be deferred until the end of the month (i.e. AFTER the all-important meeting of Full Council at which the present administration’s Budget must be ratified), or later, dependent on the state of the nation in terms of the pandemic. I was under the impression that the legislative authority enacted by the government permitting ‘virtual’ Council meetings had long since expired but if Mike sees fit to play the tail and wag the dog . . .

Understandably, the signatories (the ‘Famous Five’) will not be satisfied with this decision. Town and Parish Councils are taking place ‘physically’ all over the Borough and SBC Councillors are free to meet, eat drink and be merry whenever and wherever they wish. Why not in the Council Chamber?

Well, one difference is that, in a ‘physical meeting’, the Monitoring Officer cannot sit with her index finger poised over a ‘mute button’ with which to censor any remarks from members that do not sit with her agenda – which is, of course, to protect the incumbent administration from lawful challenge. (I will return to this point presently).

Like me, readers may wonder why it is that the scheduling of an Extraordinary Meeting called on 14th December 2021 has taken 23 days when the Council’s Constitution specifies that an Extraordinary Meeting must be called within 7 days.

Given the form of words of the original Motion (see my earlier article), it surprised me not one bit that the reason for the delay turns out to be that Monitoring Officer, Mrs Lisa DIXON, has been strenuously resising calling the meeting on the following grounds:

“Although the part of the motion relating to openness and transparency would appear to be a valid point for discussion at full Council and we would be able to accept the motion if limited to this point, the link to ongoing safeguarding concerns is problematic.”

“You will appreciate that we are not able to put the Council in a position where it may act unlawfully and we would also not want to expose individual Members to that personal risk. Consequently, we are not able to accept the motion as currently drafted.”

[My emphasis in bold type]

The original Motion read:

Motion

Does this Council have CONFIDENCE in the present Leader to Safeguard members of the Council, Paid Service and the public; and to uphold the Principles upon which he was elected?

Nevertheless, when the Monitoring Officer declined to respond to a straightforward request to provide the precise legislation prohibiting members from addressing Safeguarding issues in Full Council, the five signatories – Deputy Mayor Councillor Roxanne MURPHY [Y.C.I.A] (Proposer), Councillor Bill CHATT [C.I.M] (Seconder), Councillor Neil HERITAGE [Y.C.I.A], Councillor Alf ABBOTT [Con.] and Councillor Sam CROSS [Y.C.I.A] – took pity and reluctantly submitted a revised form of words:

On account of the present lack of transparency, inclusivity and respect evinced amongst members, change is urgently needed to restore public faith and confidence, a sound administration and a return to balanced debate. It is our contention that this can only be achieved by a change of leadership. We move that the current leader relieves himself of the leadership.

The ”Safeguarding issues” that the Monitoring Officer has been so determined to avoid are well-known to regular readers of the Enquirer – and even the SN. As has previously been reported, several Councillors and members of the public have been on the receiving end of verbal abuse, threats and even physical acts of violence. In my view, had these incidents been properly investigated and brought before the Council’s Standards Committee (which they never have), Councillor SIDDONS’ Leadership may have come to an end much sooner.

But censuring the guilty parties always risked SIDDONS foregoing the indispensible support of the Independent Group – who may now feel somewhat less inclined to prop him up in the forthcoming Vote of No Confidence, since it is clear that three of them – the three who hold Portfolios in the SIDDONS Cabinet – will be viewed as simply voting to retain their own positions (and concomitant double Allowances).

If SIDDONS falls, remember, so does his Cabinet, and those three Independent Group Members (Councillor Janet JEFFERSON [Group Leader], Councillor Michelle DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF and Councillor Jim GRIEVE) will all find themselves back on Basic Allowances of £4,320.24 per annum, instead of their present Cabinet Member Allowances of £8,640.48 per annum.

So if the three Independent Group Portfolio Holders DO support SIDDONS, they will be remembered as “Major Major Major’s Money-grubbing Mercenaries”.

If they DO NOT support him, they will be £4,320.24 per annum worse off financially, but will present a more principled and honourable appearance to the electorate.

Councillors JEFFERSON and DONOHUE-MONCRIEFF (if not GRIEVE) will surely be mindful that there will be elections to the new North Yorkshire Unitary Authority in May 2022, four short months away. They may even figure out that this is no time to look like money-grubbers.

In any case, it seems obvious to me that the three Independent Group Cabinet Portfolio Holders have a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (DPI) in the outcome of the Vote of No Confidence – to the tune of £4.32K per annum. No doubt Mrs DIXON will provide ‘special dispensations’, as she has done in the past – based, of course, on the claim to have sought ‘external legal advice’ (last time, this advice turned out to have been obtained through a casual and unrecorded telephone conversation).

“You MUST NOT participate in any discussion; you MUST NOT vote; you MUST withdraw from the meeting“.

Long-term readers will recall that when Enquirer editor TIM THORNE exposed then-Councillor Tom LAWN’s failure to disclose interests in the Sirius Minerals potash development, Mrs DIXON referred the matter to the North Yorkshire Police and then-Councillor LAWN did the honourable thing – he resigned from the Council.

I wonder whether or not readers are aware that Mrs DIXON’s duties are set out in Article 5.4 A.2 of the Monitoring Officer’s Protocol, which specifies her duty to:

“safeguard, so far as is possible, Members and Officers, whilst acting in their official capacities, from legal difficulties and/or criminal sanctions”.

Can you believe that? It is her job to attempt to get wrong-doers off the hook? Who the hell authorised that affront to the fundamental principle of “All equal under the law”? Sadly, it was our elected members.

Turning to the “openness and transparency” aspect of the Motion, Councillor SIDDONS’ inauguration assurances of “a new era of openness and transparency” have been shown up as cheap and worthless rhetoric more times than I can be troubled to rehearse here.

Most recently, of course, we had the Leader’s Urgent Decision to acquire Pavilion House and Comet Corner for the ‘substantial premium’ price of £3.5 million – with no member involvement. (Group Leaders – but only Group Leaders – were apparently ‘briefed’ on 5th October 2021; no prices were disclosed).

Then there was the acquisition of 1 St. Helen’s Square from a fellow former-Councillor [Lab.] – again with no acquaintance disclosed – and again with no purchase prices disclosed to Councillors or members of the public.

This was even more secretive than the ARGOS deal, for which members saw the documentation for the first time on the Friday evening and were called upon to vote in favour of it on the Monday afternoon – with many never having found time to read the documentation until it appeared on the Enquirer.

But Councillor SIDDONS must have very little confidence in his Leader’s Urgent Decisions – why else would he keep the details out of sight? If he were confident that they were good decisions, surely he would be setting out his stall centre-stage, in the spotlights and with a fanfare befitting the occasion? But that is not his way.

From time to time, documents have been passed to me that shed light on Councillor SIDDONS’ acumen, competence and attitude to transparency. Often, but by no means always, such documents may be verified by reference to other sources.

On 22nd December 2021, I emailed the Leader, asking him to confirm the authenticity of one such document, which I attached for his perusal.

He has neither acknowledged nor responded to my email. Those familiar with the legal tenet “Qui facet cosentir videtur” (“He who is silent is taken to agree”) may assume, as may I, that the Leader has tacitly acknowledged the authenticity of the document but, for whatever reason, does not intend to confirm it publicly. So much for transparency.

https://democracy.scarborough.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=235&MId=14163

Can a majority of elected members really have confidence in a Leader who so obviously lacks confidence in himself?

At the second Vote of No Confidence in the Leader, just one year ago, Councillor SIDDONS prevailed by 25 to 20. That is tighter than meets the eye. Had just three members voted the other way, the No Confidence Motion would have carried 23 to 22 and SIDDONS would have been clearing his desk. It becomes clear that ‘smuggling’ those three Independent Group Cabinet Portfolio Holders into the meeting via ‘special dispensations’ is crucial to SIDDONS’ cause.

But now that the May 2019 ‘newbie’ Councillors have seen for themselves the disgraceful snow-job over the threats, intimidation and abuse (and the toxic climate that has caused), the failure at Planning of the SIDDONS’ flagship ARGOS and, most recently, the inexcusable secrecy over the purchase price of the various properties, we can only hope that our elected representatives will seize upon this opportunity to ensure that Scarborough Borough Council is led gracefully out to pasture in the hands of a wiser, kindlier and more candid Leader who will have the moral courage to dock ‘the tail that wags the dog’ and put the brakes on this round of rash and irresponsible spending/borrowing.

A line form Stephen SONDHEIM comes to mind: “Send in the Clowns”.

To my mind, a more appropriate instruction would be the exact opposite.

Enquirer stalwart NORMAN MURPHY offers his ‘take’ on the Leader’s Urgent Decision to secretively acquire Pavilion House and Comet Corner for £3½ million.

~~~~~

I bet, when Steve “It’s a Dog’s Breakfast” Siddons, the fool who thinks he leads Scarborough Council, had his £30 million ratepayer-funded ARGOS scam unceremoniously dumped by the Planning Committee, many of you thought it might, at last, be safe to come out from behind the settee.

Indeed, I suspect that some of you might even have thought that, now the ARGOS scam was dead in the water, the money-grabbing thieves who inhabit the darker recesses of the Town Hall would not, after all, get their grubby little mitts on your hard-earned Council Tax.

However, your relief, fellow ratepayers, I am sad to say, appears to be a little premature and, as might be expected from a leader who seems to be obsessed by a desire to wring every last penny out of ratepayers before his rule is over, the thieves are back, bigger and more determined than ever.

Indeed, with hardly enough time for the corpse of the ARGOS scam to go cold, Steve “It’s a Dog’s Breakfast” Siddons was back with his latest scam, a scheme he disarmingly describes as the Station Gateway project.

Now for those of you who are not, as yet, familiar with this scam, I think it might be informative to run the outline of what Siddons has in mind past you “the little people” – as it is rumoured Siddons likes to call us.

So what is the Station Gateway project? Well, perhaps the first thing to get straight is that although Siddons likes to refer to his latest scam as the Station Gateway project, what he is really referring to is the Council’s purchase and proposed redevelopment of two properties in Scarborough; Pavilion House and the old Comet building.

These two properties have now been bought by the Council, at a cost of £3.5 million, which, of course, has been borrowed, although who the money was borrowed from is, of course, “Top Secret”. But from wherever the money came, we “the little people” will be paying it back.

So what is our financial genius Steve “It’s a Dog’s Breakfast” Siddons going to do with these properties now that we have bought them for him, I hear you ask?

Well – and I don’t think you should laugh; it is after all your money he is playing with – what the glorious leader is proposing to create this time is not BEDSITS that nobody either wants or will use, but OFFICE SPACE that nobody wants or will use.

What Siddons and his cronies are going to squander your money on this time is creating OFFICES.

In a town that is currently overflowing with empty office space, your Council is going to spend, wait for it, circa £36 million quid, which it intends to borrow and which, of course, we will be required to pay back, to remodel the empty and unlettable offices in Pavilion House and completely demolish the old Comet building and build even more new offices.

At a time when firms no longer want or require employees to attend the office, Siddons wants to spend £36 million of your money building offices.

In the new post-Covid world, where working-from-home will be the new normal, and the traditional office environment will cease to exist, Siddons wants to spend £36 million of your money building offices.

While local authorities up and down the country are despairing of what to do with their hundreds of thousands of redundant office spaces, Siddons wants to spend £36 million of your money building offices.

So what is the justification Siddons is using to build his offices? Well, Siddons tells us very confidently that at least four local employers will utilise the office space.

These are our old ARGOS friends, Coventry University and the York NHS Trust.

Plus two newcomers to the ratepayer-funded feast.

Beyond Housing and the North Yorkshire Police.

Why exactly any of these organisations should require new offices Siddons does not explain. They, like every other employer who traditionally had work-stations established in offices, have had to move over to distance-working with employees working from home.

Nonetheless, Siddons says they need additional office space, so who are we to argue? Having said that, of course, we might be entitled to ask “Well, how much are these organisations going to contribute to ensure that they get the office space Siddons says they so desperately need?”

Well, let’s take a look.

• Coventry University is going to contribute NOTHING.
• The York NHS Trustis going to contribute NOTHING.
• Beyond Housing is going to contribute NOTHING.
• The North Yorkshire Police is going to contribute NOTHING.

The whole £36 million cost of the Pavilion/Comet scam is, in fact, being paid for by you, my fellow ratepayers.

None of the organisations listed above, nor anyone else as far as we know, are putting a penny into this scam.

Moreover, although Siddons says they will be queuing up to get offices in the new development, not one of them, as far as is known, nor any other organisation for that matter, has signed a contract guaranteeing that they will take office space.

The whole Pavilion/Comet project is, as far as I can see, nothing but another ARGOS-style scam. Only this time, Siddons is not going to let the pesky “little people” get in his way. This project will never get to a Council Committee where concerned elected members might, on behalf of their bewildered residents, question the wisdom of the Council borrowing £36 million to build offices.

No. This time, Siddons will not make the mistake of allowing this project to get anywhere near the democratic process. This scheme will be forced through by Leader’s Urgent Decision, the privilege that the leader of a local authority can use to side step objections from pesky elected members.

My guess is that Siddons will block any attempt to have the Pavilion/Comet scam put before members at Full Council. It will just be nodded through by his Cabinet chums in a private meeting with the press and public very firmly excluded.

The whole Pavilion/Comet scam will, in the end, I suspect, be just another Council-backed ratepayer-funded failure. Another pair of White Elephants to add to Siddons growing herd.

Indeed, as it was said to me only the other day, Siddons would be far better off investing our money in Villas in TUSCANY rather than offices in Scarborough – but I don’t suppose he has thought of that.

Arrivederci suckers! 

• – 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.

Guest Author NORMAN MURPHY offers his views on the death throes of Scarborough Borough Council and the financial prospects going forward.

~~~~~

As we begin the third year of the Steve (“It’s a dog’s breakfast”) Siddons’ dictatorial rule over the “little people”, the question which repeatedly keeps being asked is how is this totally incompetent, money-grabbing joke of a leader still in power?

How, it is asked, can a leader who obviously has no leadership skills whatsoever, who has betrayed the electorate over and over again and consistently shows residents nothing but contempt, been allowed to remain in office?

Indeed, how, many contemplate, can arguably the worst leader that Scarborough Council has ever had, with only twelve Labour members to support him, been able to inflict on residents schemes such as the ARGOS scam which, if Siddons has his way, will see the Council borrow £30 million to build Coventry University a block of bedsits, lasted as long as he has?

Well, the answer, I am embarrassed to say, is because Siddons has the support of Janet Jefferson and her six-member weak INDEPENDENT GROUP

Councillor Janet Jefferson

Jefferson’s six votes and his own twelve Labour members gives Siddons jbarely enough support to remain in power.

Siddons and his cronies have been allowed to run the Council, essentially for their own benefit, because the INDEPENDENT GROUP has allowed them basically to do as they please.

However, the question must be asked, as we come to the inevitable end of the Siddons’ tyranny, will the slavish dedication shown by Jefferson and her INDEPENDENT GROUP members be suitably rewarded by Siddons?

Sadly, my guess is that the answer to this question will be a most definite NO.

In May 2022, just a few short months away, elections will be held for the new Unitary Authority and once the new Council is in place, Siddons’ power evaporates.

However, I very much suspect that the loss of power will not in any way bother our Italian-loving champagne socialist Labour leader Siddons.

Steve (“It’s a dog’s breakfast”) Siddons will, I anticipate by May, be many miles away from Scarborough, leaving Jefferson and her INDEPENDENT GROUP the mugs to face the electorate’s verdict on the disastrous administration they have been propping up.

Jefferson and her INDEPENDENT GROUP members have, I would contend, been taken for the proverbial ride. They have collectively been used and manipulated by Siddons and will ultimately, as soon as their services are no longer required, be dumped like the plague.

While Siddons steps smartly to one side, probably on the first flight to Tuscany in May, Jefferson and the other INDEPENDENT GROUP chumps will be left to carry the can.

Readers are left to place the protagonists in the context of news articles.

Enjoy!

[Satire] ]]> http://nyenquirer.uk/secret-purchase-revealed/ Tue, 27 Jul 2021 14:50:23 +0000 http://nyenquirer.uk/?p=27966 SBC: ‘Secret’ Property Purchase Revealed

• – an “In My View” article by NIGEL WARD, shedding light on another ‘blown’ secret at Scarborough Borough Council.

~~~~~

On Friday 16th July 2021, SBC Leader Councillor Steve “Major, Major, Major’ SIDDONS [Lab.] passed a secret Leader’s Urgent Decision, signed off by the Chair of the ‘Places & Futures’ Overview & Scrutiny Committee, Councillor Guy COULSON [Con.] (thus preventing a ‘call-in’ by potentially dissenting Councillors) – a ‘Town Centre Property Acquisition’ to purchase “a property close to the town centre” for an undisclosed sum:

Following this latest in a long line of secret and autocratic Decisions taken by our ‘Open & Transparent’ Leader, Opposition Councillors were forced to insist on disclosure of the identity of the property in question. This was at first strenuously resisted. Finally, however, on Monday 26th July 2021, members were provided with the ‘secret’ Appendix to the Leader’s Decision (see above) – in the customary paranoid manner.

In a futile attempt to prevent a ‘leak’ of the information to the North Yorks Enquirer, each Councillor’s copy was imprinted with a ‘watermark’ identifying the recipient Councillor’s name, so that should a copy of the document show up on the Enquirer, it would be clear which Councillor had committed this serious breach of ‘confidentiality’.

Unfortunately, with the usual display of utter incompetence that has become the hallmark of Legal & Democratic Services, a monumental cock-up ensued.

I can confirm that at least four Councillors (and I will surely hear of more) received documents bearing a ‘watermark’ of a Councillor other than the intended recipient. Duh! Can these nincompoops do nothing right?

This means that – as was the case with the infamous ‘leak’ of the July 2019 ARGOS papers – every Councillor must now stand under suspicion until such time as the Monitoring Officer successfully investigates who it was who ‘leaked’ the information. Clearly, this will be impossible. Prepare to hear more empty rhetoric about how the guilty party risks a life sentence for Misconduct in Public Office. And bear in mind that on the last occasion, North Yorkshire Police confirmed to me that no criminal offence had taken place and the matter could be dealt with only by the Council’s Standards Committee. Needless to say, no Standards hearing has ever taken place. This is unsurprising because the Leader could never permit the culprit to be formally identified as one of his ‘hand-picked’ Cabinet Portfolio Holders.

I can also confirm that the property in question is The Shakespeare public house (vacant for some two-and-a-half years), opposite the entrance to the Market Hall. The property backs onto the former ARGOS building.

The Shakespeare

Councillors are placing two wildly differing interpretations on this ‘secret’ purchase.

One school of thought – the optimistic school – is that the Council has finally abandoned the monstrous cell-block for 210 students/nurses – what used to be know as “SIDDONS’ FOLLY” (by now, there have been so many follies that the sobriquet no longer serves any purpose) – and has opted for the much sought-after large-scale Town Square.

But do not count on it.

The other suspicion is that the ARGOS ‘regeneration’ is still on the cards and the vacant lot left by the demolition of the toilet block, the newsagents, The Shakespeare and the Eastern Paradise (Indian restaurant) will become a diminutive version of a Town Square, squashed betwwn the Market Hall and the students/nurses cell-block.

However, with Pavilon House and the old Comet building still on the market, as well as the former Tech College adjacent to Scarborough Hospital, there remains a slim chance that commonsense may prevail.

But don’t count on it.