A/O Stuart Davey, Dear Stuart, May I thank you for your response regarding the Pier Field sale by ELDC, I believe I have removed the relevant points that relate to planning and would like answer to the following points. I put forward the motion that ELDC should still have a public meeting over this issue at last night’s Skegness Area Meeting and this was unanimously supported. This should include you, ELDC’s Exec and Leader, ELDC Councillors, ELDC Officers, local businesses and the people of Skegness who wish to attend. Whitbread/Premeier Inn does not need to be at this meeting, and their non attendance should not be a reason for the meeting to not go ahead. The meeting is for ELDC councillors and officers to address public concerns and questions over the selloff of the Pier Fields. This site was intended to be a public community area. 1) Please can you confirm that you will facilitate this meeting in Skegness a.s.a.p? I have grave concerns that the client that is in negotiations for this parcel of land with ELDC, was already at an advanced stage of purchasing a piece of land, for the same usage, from the private sector. In fact I believe that a full flood risk assessment had been carried out on the David Scotts land by the EA at a considerable expense, so this puts the intervention of ELDC into question. He had also had extensive negotiations with your planning department, where issues were raised over the colour of bricks etc and your department referred the plans to the architects forum, who criticised ELDC as they deemed this to be unnecessary. I personally believe that a council should only have only intervened if the private sector was failing, and it is obvious in this case it was not. The depriving of one of the towns local business of the opportunity of this sale is totally wrong, especially as his plot was far more suitable for this particular development. I have also seen plans showing the Premier Inn and a Brewers Fayre restaurant at another site beyond B&Q, plus a copy of the head of terms document relating to this sale. The documents show quite clearly the name of Whitbread Group PLC as the party concerned. 2) This means that the statements that have been issued stating that the Premier Inn would only go to the Pier Field site are not only wrong, but a blatant lie, comments please? Plans are already in situ for a hotel to be built on the new Skegness Country Business Park on the outskirts of the town. It would help the development of the proposed outer relief road between the A52 and the A158 if this hotel was situated there. In this position it would not conflict with the interest of Skegness businesses or residents. 3) Can you please confirm your views over this statement? Cllr Kevin Smith stated in an Parish Council Meeting ELDC policy regarding this site. He stated That the Pier Field site would be sold off to raise monies to balance ELDCs books because of government cut backs to your councils funding. It did not matter what the local people or businesses thought as it was going to be sold off to the highest bidder. When I questioned the effect on the local businesses and the tourist trade, he stated that it was only a few hotels that were bothered about their profit and it would be a boost to the economy I stated that was not true, which was validated at the open meeting at the Skegness Town Hall where there was a good cross section of the Skegness community. It was also revealed that ELDC had poached the Premier Inn from a local businessman who had a more appropriate site for the hotel . Cllr Smith stated that the council would rather sell their land to the Premier Inn as they would get the money. I think this clarifies ELDC actions and intentions throughout this issue and also means that certain councillors had pre determined their stance on this issue for reasons of balancing the books, rather than in the interests of Skegness. The public are stating that ELDC are using the resort as a cash cow. As I stated earlier the Premier Inn could have gone to two better sites for the interests of the resort, where it was more appropriate. Due to this revelation, I believe it questions the whole process of scrutiny over this issue at ELDC. In fact I understand why the council did not want the second open public meeting where this would have been discussed and the views of the public clarified. The whole point of consultation is to gather the accurate view of the public and I do not feel that this has been addressed by ELDC at all. In fact this means that ELDCs actions over this issue are not representing the local community. It has been noted that a Secret Shopper interview took place regarding Premier Inns,this is not the correct way to judge the views of the local people. (A Secret shopper depends on how the questions were put to the people.) 4) Cllr Smith stated that the sell off was to balance the books because of cuts in government funding. We, as Skegness people, wish to know what crown jewels of Skegness will you be selling off next and will it be going to balance yours books or develop Skegness? Can you confirm what you will be doing with this money? Cllr Steve O Dare, ELDC Portfolio Holder, stated at the Skegness Area meeting that he would be supporting the Premier Inn if it was a case of it coming or not coming to Skegness. After the evidence that I have viewed, it is obvious that it would have been coming to Skegness regardless of the councils actions. In fact it appears that the council has just jumped at an opportunity to fill its coffers at the expense of local businesses and the tourist trade. 5) If he maintains this stance after viewing all of the evidence relating to the previous purchase negotiations with David Scott and Roy Sanderson by the Premier Inn, Will he exclude himself from the exec meeting as he will have shown that he has already pre decided wrongly his course of action? This does not take into consideration the loss in parking revenue at an estimated £85,000 + per year from the Pier Field site and the proposed extra cost of laying Tarmac on the old kiddies play and crazy golf area. I dispute that the Pier Fields is the right location for the Premier Inn, but even if the council was going to let a Premier Inn to be built here, surely, anyone with the slightest amount of business acumen would realise that the council should keep the parking area under their control. Not only would it retain the £85,000 plus parking revenue, it would actually gain the extra revenue from the residents of the hotel paying £12 plus for 24 hours parking. This shows a great lack of fore thought by ELDC Councillors and officers concerned. How can anyone concerned with the development of the resort endorse this proposal? 6) I would like ELDC to disclose its intentions for the rest of the foreshore, i.e. are any other bits about to be or planned to be disposed of? The original restrictive covenants imposed on the Land during the 1920’s by the Earl of Scarborough, were lifted on 6th December 2006, the Deed of release was not registered at the Land Registry until 25th June this 2014, some 8 years later. I do not consider this to be open practice that I consider councillors and their officers should be undertaking, it has left a minimal opportunity for objections from the public. One would think that the council knowing the vast public outcry over these actions was the purpose of this restrictive window of opportunity or am I being cynical? 7) It has been alleged by Cllr Cooper that ELDC had removed these covenants with the intention of selling off this land. If this was true, why was the public not consulted earlier? This piece of land is under utilised as an area for attractions / displays / shows etc by the council. There can be no justification for this proposed sale by the council. I have identified two alternative sites in this letter that are far more suitable places for the Premier Inn. In fact if you look around the country, virtually all Premiers Inns are on the edge of resorts and not near the front and never on the foreshore. So I feel that the council have let down the residents and all of the hotels / guest houses on the sea front. These places depend on the tourist trade and the council has been proved to be derelict in its duties by its actions. The area of land known as the the Pier Field has been used as a public park, an open spaced area leading on to Skegnesss great beach, for nearly 100 years! This was the original concept of the Earl of Scarborough, for an un cramped frontage without buildings over a certain height being permitted. This use of the Land has been completely in tune with the covenants which the Earl of Scarborough imposed since the 1920’s and 1930’s. The public and local businesses have no issue with the Premier Inn coming to Skegness, but there is no way that the Pier Field site should be developed as a hotel. It should only be developed as commercial attraction that would pull extra tourists and holiday makers into the resort. The most worrying factor is that the council are offering the Premier Inn prime frontage which will considerably affect other local hotels. The location of a hotel, because of its position on the foreshore, will blight the view of tourists and hotel residents. This is at a time when hotels are struggling along the coast and this could be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back, as many will not be able to compete. The situation of the Premier Inn on or off the foreshore will still create the same amount of new jobs. Putting this hotel on the foreshore will cause closures of local hotels resulting in jobs being lost. It is quite obvious with the afore mentioned points that ELDC, it’s councillors and officers, have not worked openly and transparently for the benefit of Skegness as a resort and tourist attraction. In fact in light of some of the revelations regarding this issue, I feel I need to question the intentions of their actions. The Local Government Act 1972 states in section 123 paragraph 2: “Except with the consent of the Secretary of State, a council shall not dispose of land under this section, otherwise than by way of a short tenancy, for a consideration less than the best that can reasonably be obtained.” In a letter dated 24 December 2014, a local group known as Save the Foreshore, through their solicitors Ferdinand Kelly, submitted an offer for the Pier Field “for a sum in excess of other current available offer or offers”. 8) Why did this offer not appear in the report of your Officer/s to the Executive Board meeting on the 13th January? This was where this issue was to be decided and therefore, the Board was effectively being prevented from obtaining the best consideration that can reasonable be obtained. Advertisement of intention to dispose; The above Act states in section 123 paragraph 2A: “A principal council may not dispose under subsection (1) above of any land consisting or forming part of an open space unless before disposing of the land they cause notice of their intention to do so, specifying the land in question, to be advertised in two consecutive weeks in a newspaper circulating in the area in which the land is situated, and consider any objections to the proposed disposal which may be made to them.” 9) Why was the public notice which appeared in the local press misleading? It stated “land at North Parade, Skegness.” The Council owns more than one piece of land on North Parade, Skegness. This notice does not seem sufficient for the purpose of specifying that the land in question was the Pier Field. On 8 December a member of the public was informed by an elected Member of the Council that the developer had withdrawn its offer for the Pier Field, due to local opposition. If this misinformation had been given to the general public, the public would not have been aware that the notice referring to the “Land on North Parade” in your advertisement referred to the Pier Field. Publication of ELDC press release. I have become aware that the Council published, immediately after the meeting of its Executive Board, a press release stating that the decision had been made to sell the Pier Field. This is extremely concerning. 10) Had your team already prepared this press release before the meeting took place? If so, does this mean that the Members of the Executive Board intended to rubber stamp the decision, rather than debate the merits of the sale? Given these concerns, if the ELDC are going to decide on the sale in the future of this land, this needs to be called in for a decision by the Full Council when it is raised again. It is my belief that this is the only way we can be sure of achieving a robust and meaningful debate. The panel of 7 councillors, only 1 of whom represents Skegness, is too small a group for an issue of such considerable concern and public interest, to decide on. I would like an answer from yourself and the exec to the above points, so that the issues can be properly addressed. I feel that this sale was being pushed through regardless of the interests of the local community. Regards, Cllr Chris Pain
Posted on: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 22:14:59 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015