Council Accidently Leaks Its Secret Regeneration Agreement With Lend Lease

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3
Monday 4 February 2013 11.04am
Monday 4 February 2013 11.56am
The document is very revealing - just 50m for a site which has an estimated gross sales value of 990m according to the council's own estimates: http://affordable.heroku.com/images/CILviabilitysite11.pdf

Also more details available here:
http://betterelephant.org/blog/2013/02/04/council-accidentally-publishes-confidential-regeneration-agreement/
Monday 4 February 2013 1.31pm
i was laughing at the thought of them posting this-then i read how much the council had sold "our" land for and how little in social housing will be coming back-now i feel like crying
Monday 4 February 2013 2.16pm
I'm sure I've alluded to SC's planning and regeneration departments being corrupt in the past on several threads....and been reprimanded by James for the suggestion....but again I really need to ask if they are acting as public servants in the general good of the populace they mean to serve? They are not transparent at all, don't seem to listen to local views and opinions, when they do they limit them so much as to make them invisible, and now we see what this lack of transparency is really covering up. Much more open dealings need to be had in future and maybe a good look into this agreement to see if it represents value for money for the local population, and if not we need to see what can be done about it and the people who signed up to it.
Monday 4 February 2013 2.52pm
I'm not a lawyer, but are there grounds for a judicial review here?

It seems to me that the council has sold off public assets for well below market value and granted planning permission for a scheme that does not meet council policies.

Just wondering, but does anyone know?
Monday 4 February 2013 3.03pm
Maybe throw in some of the nice meals and days out Peter John had recently with Lend Lease too as part of the review if possible...I know a few investment bankers who were salivating and the entertainment he was reported as receiving!
Monday 4 February 2013 3.10pm
@urbanite - the 1,600 ticket lend lease bought for the opening of the olympics for peter john was to a business meeting. the ticket for the opening of the olympics for peter john's partner was totally different.
Monday 4 February 2013 3.13pm
and they could not find a saving of 10% to help the worst off on housing benefit yet have lost millions of our money by under selling the land
Monday 4 February 2013 3.36pm
@dee dee - the amount of money the council has to 'make up' for the council tax benefits is less than the 15M they gave to lend lease for the demolition of the heygate
Monday 4 February 2013 3.54pm
pros wrote:
@urbanite - the 1,600 ticket lend lease bought for the opening of the olympics for peter john was to a business meeting. the ticket for the opening of the olympics for peter john's partner was totally different.

Of course it was for a busuiness meeting....that could have been held at a different location and without the distraction of Mrs John being there...only person I know who takes the wife to business meetings lol...and giving gifts to partners of notifiable individuals I think also could, if deemed to be so, be possible malpractice or even possible corrupt behaviour. What is and isn't good practice these days is much more stingently monitored....I think Mr John should be explaining why he had to go to the Olympics opening to discuss business matters?
Pages:  1 2 3 Next
Current: 1 of 3

To post a message, please log in or register..

Keep up with SE1 news

We have three email newsletters for you to choose from:

Proud to belong to

Independent Community News Network