The Croydon Guardian reports that Croydon Council have incurred legal costs of £180K:
"After an eight-week inquiry into the Gateway scheme Croydon Council has been left with a bill of around £180,000.
This is just the costs the council has to cover, which pays for its legal advice."
Looks like we're going to need a few payday loans!
Why is it then that Phillip Goodwin, Croydon Council's Director of Planning and Transportation, wrote to Andrew Pelling on 30 January 2007 and told him:
"Almost all of the Gateway CPO costs will be 'direct' and therefore the responsibility of Arrowcroft...
The only costs the Council has to meet are ongoing internal staffing costs..."
How very curious!
Why would he say that then?
I have emailed Councillor Tim Pollard, cabinet member for finance, asking him to explain why Croydon council said that there would be no costs of this nature.
Copy of Goodwin's letter:
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
2 comments:
And that is £180,000 that Croydon taxpayers will have to assume is not in the Council's coffers for the very services that the funds were intended for....who on EARTH allowed these people to start off on this monstrous venture? And who is going to make up the short fall? Isn't it about time the Council was called to account by the people who elected them - and who can easily deselect them at the next election?
Its all in the actual words...
They said 'CPO' and of course the CPO will be fully funded by Arrowcroft. As per their secret agreements...
BUT not the planning application... You must have a QC and legal team for that! and er I think you will find that this is the reason why they can truthfully say 'the council has not spent a penny on the CPO'
It all comes down to what question you actually ask!
Post a Comment