Thursday, 7 March 2013

Goldhawk Road accuse Council of lies

Mod vespa parade in defence of Goldhawk Road
H&F Council stand accused by Goldhawk Road traders of misrepresenting the truth in their account of why they have served the shops with a compulsory purchase order.

In response to the version given to me by the Council in this article, here's a version I have received in response from Audrey Boughton, of Cooke's Pie & Mash shop. I reproduce it in full, just as I did the version the Council sent me.
"We have never received in writing full proposals from the developers or the Council. If they continue to say they have we challenge them to produce it to you.
Our lawyers have never received offers or proposals despite the Council and Orion being told to correspond via our legal team. Orion have categorically stated we will not get like for like. Additionally at a meeting they informed our lawyers they are unable to accommodate us as this would impinge on their space designated for residential housing – none of which is social housing – just pure profit to be made.
In the autumn of last year I was approached by Adam Chamberlain of the H & F Chronicle who had been informed by the Council Communications Officer that they were in negotiation with a trader. They would not name this trader and clearly nothing has come from this as we are still proceeding to a further Judicial Review and we have now collectively instructed a CPO Specialist. This will hopefully result in a public enquiry into this questionable development. I would also point out that they have stated on several occasions, which are a matter of public record, that they were going to “Protect” the traders. Could I respectfully suggest they stop using this term.

If you can obtain the precise terms and conditions of what they propose in writing please produce them for us. This is a challenge that has been issued before not least to Councillor Harry Phibbs.  All we get are their misleading statements.   And when I say precise I mean precise, not nebulous comments of assistance etc – quantify it exactly. A lot of words are used but nothing is really said.

On page 18 of their Statement of Reasons they cite as a reason that there are antisocial behaviour problems at the rear of our premises. Semantics are great,  it makes it sound like the shopkeepers at the rear of  shops indulge in beating seven shades out of each other. FACT – the antisocial behaviour issue came into being when the Council spent MILLIONS of tax payers money building the drug and alcohol centre to the rear of us which they now propose to demolish.

To summarise could the Council stop spreading their particular brand of poison and for a novelty try playing it honestly".
Now that would be something.If even a fraction of this statement is true, and I have no reason to doubt anything in it, then our Council have been telling lies. 

So, dear Council, a few questions:
  • The traders say that they have never received full proposals from you or Orion. You say that they have. Where is your evidence? 
  • You say they will get like for like. The traders say that Orion have told them categorically that they will not. Where is your evidence that they will?
  • You say that a trader was negotiating with Orion. None of the traders think that was the case. Do you still maintain that to be the case or was it a ruse to put pressure on people? 
  • The traders say they have never received precise terms and conditions of their proposed move. What are they?
We all look forward to your answers, which if you would prefer me to publish I am more than happy to do.

No comments:

Post a comment