Marjorie Simpson
Working Hard for Yarm
Investigations - Saltergill School
Stockton Borough Council have informed me that they were NOT found guilty of Maladminstration. It is correct that they were investigated after a complaint to the Local Ombudsman but the outcome was that a local settlement was reached. They were unable to send me a copy of the Ombudsman's decision as it was confidential. However, they were guilty of something as they found it necessary to resolve the complaint by making a payment of £250 compensation and to pay the complainants legal costs as is stated in a report to cabinet dated 30th September 2010. This report also says that the ombudsman expressed the view that there was a lack of clarity in the Council's dealings with the unsuccessful bidder and the terms on which the council were intending to dispose of the land. It was also the ombudman's view that the specific social, economic or environmental benefits that might reasonably be anticipated from the sale should have been spelled out with sufficient clarity in the report to Cabinet.
The land was advertised and sold as potential building land by Stockton Borough Council in March 2009 when it went through a Cabinet meeting. Thornaby Independents were contacted by a solicitor whose client had tendered for the school and its surrounding land. He requested that they ask questions of the council to extract the information which should be made public.
Questions have been asked although the council were at times reluctant to cooperate. It was established that a neighbouring landowner had paid £500,000 for the land and the council had paid for the demolition of the building. We have evidence that the second tender included the expense of demolition and facilities for disabled people with a £1,000,000 purchase price. In December 2010 it is alleged only £50,000 has been paid to the council and we wonder why or how it has a new owner.
Further questions are to be asked to establish what has happened here but we wonder why our councillors have yet again been so silent, not only on the ethics, of this appalling mess but also in the knowledge of even further development to an area that has recently been part of a consultation showing a proposal for a further 984 extra dwellings which they vehemently denied would ever happen but conveniently did not mention the consultation.
Further information on Saltergill School site can be found in the council minutes of September 2010 under Members Questiions.
A Cllr Eddy from Thornaby Independent Association asked further questions and comments of the council "Thank you Cllr Lupton will you please confirm that SBC has not been criticised by the local ombudsman for Maladminstration within the last three years? It seems strange to make a public apology to a Thornaby councillor following comments from the local ombudsman., It is strange that I have a letter from the local ombudsman dated 26th July of this year commenting on the maladminstration by SBC in its dealings with the disposal of public property and land. Specific criticism due to lack of a written policy or guide lines. SBC stated that this would be rectified. Has this been done? Do we now have a written policy and public clarity." This councillor makes a further point highlighting the fact that £700k has been spent on the security of the site.. It looks very much like we once again have a disgraceful waste of our money
[ Back to top ]
Investigations - Councillors
The information below is public information available from Stockton Borough Council.
A number of investigations have taken place concerning the dubious behaviour of two of our councillors.
Residents of Kirklevington brought various allegations to the attention of Marjorie Simpson when she canvassed in May 2005. The allegations were many and varied but concerned possible impropriety with regard to the Planning Committee and a certain Developer. Marjorie launched the investigation in November 2005 and it took until September 2006 to actually be heard. It was the first case to be investigated in Stockton Borough Council.
The investigating officer of Stockton Borough Council selectively interviewed the councillor herself, the developer and all the people who Marjorie said would deny any knowledge of the situation. However, the officer neither approached nor spoke to those people who would have been willing and able to give additional information that would have been relevant to the case.
The councillor and the developer agreed that they did meet on a regular basis socially and to discuss his plans where the councillor was supposed to pass on all the objections of the residents. (I am sure this will be questioned by residents who do not even feel they are given respect by the councillor).
They owned up to being “Acquaintances” but not “Friends”. On this basis and because the councillor had been in office for twenty five years the investigating officer decided that they were not friends. From an account in Stockton Council minutes of the meeting, which took place on the 12th September, extracts of the report were given to the committee who upheld the officer's findings that there had not been a need to declare a personal and prejudicial interest and leave the room.
The residents of Kirklevington have experienced and seen much in the past. Their perception is that there is a relationship between the two and if there is such a thing the acquaintance has lasted for twenty years.
A resident of Yarm reported our representative on the Planning Committee to the Standards Board for providing misleading information to the committee. He had taped evidence of all conversations and the item being discussed in the planning committee. He reported her for lying but the answer from the Standards Board said that councillors were allowed to lie in the cut and thrust of politics. After the result of the investigation it was thought that this could also apply to saving a councillor from public exposure.
Another resident of Yarm reported a Stockton Borough Councillor for Yarm who was also a Yarm Town Councillor for lying and denying fact in the press. The answer was the same as above.
Marjorie Simpson reported to the Monitoring Officer at Stockton that planning papers should not have contained “Cllr Sherris has no objection to this application” This was with regard to the extension of opening hours for The Hide. All residents now have to suffer noise and disruption to sleep because he informed the committee he did not mind this. Quite so, he does not live nearby.
Eventually I was passed information from the Monitoring Office that stated the Standards Board for England had issued information that should a councillor be required to declare a personal and prejudicial interest if attending a meeting, it was not permissible for that councillor to have included in the planning papers that he had no objection to the proposal.
As published in our leaflet, the Ombudsman found Stockton Borough Council guilty of injustice by maladministration. The name of one of our councillors is included in minutes taken from meetings where she is also recorded as being present.
Recently, Independent Councillors proposed to the full council that the matter be further investigated by the Scrutiny Committee. The said councillor spoke saying this was now history and the council should move on and she voted against taking it for further scrutiny which helped the Labour Party to win the vote for no further action.
[ Back to top ]