Wednesday, August 30, 2006
Is there a dirty deal?
Link to Appendix 1B - Ecology Section
Geo -Environmental Appraisal
Link to Geo-environmental appraisal
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Meeting Coatham Bowl August 29th 2006 7.15pm
Friday, August 18, 2006
Another email from a worried council employee.
Hi Chris, the Council's position on Coatham is that they have spent too much to let it go, and so will fight tooth and nail to see it built, whatever the cost. They are looking to start construction works on the site by March next year. So the objections had better start flying in! Apparently Colin Moore has sent an instruction out to "spend money in Redcar" (presumably to sweeten us all up) but not said what he wants doing or how, so the planners are scrambling around to find things to do in the town with no money to finance it. Hence the support for Rachel's flower pots. If anything turns up I'll let you know Good Luck
Friday, August 11, 2006
an email sent to private eye
Dear Mr Minogue,
I live in Redcar, on the Northeast coast. formerly part of cleveland and now a unitary ( and rotten) borough.
What makes me think things are rotten? (please be patient its a long story)
if time is short please have a peep at the blog at
http://www.coathamprotest.blogspot.com/ and read councilor Findleys letter, the letters about council chiefs threats, the letters which show the environment agency highest flood category, being the site our council wants to build a housing estate! also evidence can be found to show that this area chosen for development, though protected by covenants is suspected of containing uncleared ordinance from WW2
(mines and uxb’s)
a number of years ago (9) our council closed the towns swimming baths, we didn’t want them to, but they didn’t ask us... just did it. successive council regimes had been kicking around the possibility of redeveloping the area around the baths, a 35 acre leisure area known as Coatham enclosure, the plans first identified in the early 1990's explored various options and submitted a structure showing a modest redevelopment of existing facilities and possibility of a dozen or so properties in a linked housing development.
new council new regime, a split coalition cabinet led lib dem/ con/ independent affair..... most councilors now in power never holding the reins before, following years in labours shadow.( council liberal leader Mr Chris Abbot formerly the biggest opponent to coatham scheme suddenly biggest fan... the rot begins).
Suddenly a plan is announced, the way is paved by moving a golf course, in doing so a site of special scientific interest is bulldozed to make way for 2 new holes and greens. deals are done with caravan site operator (who now realises he has been cheated and is taking council to the high court) another partner is granted a 20 year lease on a massive site for a rent of £6000 per year ( so cheap that our “someones taking a bung meter” goes off the scale) the council are in a lock in deal with persimmon homes .. the only way for a baths is a linked housing development, they tell us..... and this 35 acre site is identified as a housing led site, 275 homes to built incuding 5 story sea view apartments ... taking away the sea views of all existing homeowners, taking away one of the last public green spaces in the town, taking away a beach side car park... vital for visitors. (Redcar we thought needed no new homes we have had over 400 acres of green space built upon in recent years, council slated by CPRE) after consultation we found out the revised figures ( we expected a compromise) now 357 homes. no compromises at all, no concern over traffic or environmental safety. Logic was failing at this point. We started to dig. (carefully remember the land mines!!)
The council has no money for the leisure element of the plans. if any grants are( unlikely says English partnerships who are " under-whelmed with project") received they will be at least 13 million pounds short. the beach side caravan site will be taken away.( despite initial assurances it wasn’t to be touched) as will all of the towns leisure facilities while we wait for funding (in past promises have never been kept....) Persimmon homes have contract to inherit the land if funding doesn’t materialize.. oops more houses. dodgy perhaps but not totally rotten! Now we come together as a protest group fronted by comedian, Chris McGlade. Chris takes a 10, 000 name petition to council, they ignore it so he walks to London and after 300 miles hands it in at no 10 downing street.( Chris got fired up because when he first heard of plans he put a letter to all local residents, before he had delivered his 400 letters the councils chief exec sent a hand delivered "stop it or I will send you To Jail" threat!.... the first of many over the next 2 years)
Councilors brief colleagues that we are subversives and members of BNP.
chief executive informs Mp, Vera Baird QC that he will answer her questions (she was starting to smell a rat)if she formally denounces the protestors (friends of Coatham common) as violent and abusive etc, etc. she would not... he eventually gave some unsatisfactory answers about 1 year later.
councilors sympathetic to our cause are sent poison pen and death threat letters
Mr McgGade has windows smashed car tyres slashed and a host of threats.
Council wont allow any representatives into public meetings, 75 year old ex squadron leader MBE is physically thrown out of meeting by hired heavies because he wasn’t wearing the right badge. Security staff now on all council meetings... opposition think its outrageous.
police scrambled to alleged incidents... police sergeants response...." wtf they told us its a riot and we arrive to see a dozen children and pensioners following due process and using their democratic rights”.... shameful stuff.
We dig deeper, the chief executive seems to be personally involved, it seems he is granted the right to veto all decisions, councilors vote as they are told, they are briefed and never read documents.... in fact a major document, the barristers opinion paid for and commissioned with public cash to examine the legality of building on the covenant protected common, commissioned to settle the arguments, though promised to be made public was withheld from all councilors, even the cabinet who accepted chief execs ruling.( ombudsman and standards board not very helpful, it seems dodgy deals and lies are part of the game!)
This chief exec was having a field day...... doubling his salary, one year a 50k rise (it is alleged) while workers were having assessments to cut wages by up to 25%, staff canteens closed while officers spend between 50k and 100K PA at local stately home/hotel on corporate entertainment. Council shamed in numerous unfair dismissal charges millions spent in defence (assume of chief executive, described by tribunal as deliberately disingenuous) meanwhile we dig into backgrounds of cabinet members, find two independents one claiming party leaders allowance over his colleague, the other (education chief) using council office for sex romps with secretary... she was sacked, same man behind a scheme to adopt 5 tracks as public roads around his home... millions spent no interests declared. Meanwhile the Coatham enclosure rambles on...... village green status sought, council objects, 150 K spent on enquiry, council promises to pay millions to persimmon homes to keep them sweet as legal and consultancy fees rise.
former cabinet member comes out and joins protestors... he has motor neurone disease, receives internal mail from within council building wishing him speedy death.... same wishes sent to other councilors standing with protestors.
i am sorry for going on so, but this is just the tip of the iceberg...... can we be said to be the rottenest of rotten boroughs?
hope this can be of some use
send replies to
Thursday, August 10, 2006
Friends of Coatham Common -15th Letter
CHRIS McGLADE AND THE FRIENDS OF COATHAM COMMONS - 15TH LETTER
“Our aim is to have the coatham enclosure developed entirely for leisure Without having the housing”
COUNCILLOR STANDS AGAINSTCOUNCIL’S PLANS FOR COATHAM
Full public meeting: Coatham Bowl,
Doors open 6.30pm Starting
MIKE FINDLEY CALLS FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
Councillor Mike Findley, has broken away from the council he was elected to serve, because they aren’t telling the truth about the lack of funding for the leisure facilities in the Coatham Enclosure.
Councillor Findley has recently distributed a newsletter in his ward of Marske and New Marske, stating that even if the council received all the funding they have applied for, they would still be nearly 13 MILLION POUNDS SHORT of delivering the leisure facilities in Coatham. He also states that we should have a baths in
Because the FIGURES DON’T ADD UP, he is now calling for a FULL PUBLIC INQUIRY into the whole fiasco, before our town gets SOLD DOWN THE RIVER, AGAIN!
Our town was sold down the river with the ‘Regents Walk’ Development. Before it was built, we were led to believe by the council that it would be a top class shopping destination with boulevards and trees, all under a dome roof with major retail shops. In reality what have we got? A cut through to ‘Morrisons’, that’s filled with cheap shops and shops pulled in off the High Street. This has left businesses at the top and bottom ends of our High Street struggling and seen the biggest fast food chain in the world, ‘McDonalds’, close its High Street outlet.
The council has now admitted, after it has wrecked our high Street, that the ‘Regents Walk’ has been a disappointment, and has also admitted that they can’t make top shops come to
Our town was sold down the river with the ‘
The Coatham Enclosure will have the same result as these two developments. The council are promising us everything, but they can’t deliver, because they don’t have the funding. Don’t let our town be sold down the river again as it was with the ‘Regents Walk’ and ‘
DO IT FOR YOURSELVES. DO IT FOR OUR TOWN. BUT MOST OF ALL, DO IT FOR YOUR CHILDREN WHO WILL ONE DAY INHERIT THIS TOWN. THIS TOWN BELONGS TO US.
See all the truth of how this council have been behaving, all the facts, and all the council employees who have come forward to speak out against the council on:
If you would like to object to the planning application, send your letters of objection before 31st August to:
The Planning Department, Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council,
Guisborough TS14 7FD
God Bless, Chris McGlade
Monday, August 07, 2006
Risk rating of project elements
Click to enlarge:
Capital costs of the overall Community Leisure Provision
This ties in with the information that Cllr Mike Findley brought out into the public domain in his 'voice' newsletter after a meeting he attended last August where Ian Hopley told him the same, and a cabinet meeting where over 30 members ofthe public witnessed Dr Joan Rees present the same figures. However, according to CllrVera Moody and Colin Moore, this figure for the cost of the leisure side is wrong. Difficult to believe when the project manager and the director of development, presumably working on the instruction of the all powerful chief exec, have presented the true figures to the cabinet, councillors and public. When did the cost of a development of this size ever decrease?
Click to enlarge:
Affidavit from Printers of the informer
Alongside is an image of the affidavit of the course of events that took place during the printing of the first edition of the informer: click on image to enlarge.
The text reads:
On the morning Chris McGlade was due to collect his latest newsletter, we had a strange phone call from a woman asking if ‘The Informer’ newsletter had been distributed, she gave no name and ‘The Informer’ didn’t register with me at first. I thought she must have meant ‘The Advertiser’ so I said we don’t print that.
Anyway I thought, just another funny inquiry. Then about half an hour later, the phone goes again with the same woman on the line. This time saying that she had been told we were the printer of ‘The Informer’ and wondered if she could get a copy. This time I recognised the name of the newsletter and thought it must be one of Chris’s helper’s, because as far as I knew, nobody else even knew it was being printed. So I told her that we weren’t printing it and that I didn’t have a copy. This was true, we had to farm the job out to a local printers as we were too busy to print it ourselves, and we were awaiting delivery.
I now thought that this was really strange, we’ve never had anybody ring about a job before it’s been printed. It wasn’t long before the phone rang again, this time, a man on the phone saying he understood we were the printers of ‘The Infbrmer’. Well, I was now very suspicious and that this wasn’t just a normal inquiry. On instinct I just said that we weren’t printing it. He apologised for ringing and that was that.
I started work again but was distracted by these phone calls and it wasn’t long before the phone went again. This time the same woman on the phone as before, but this time giving her name and that she worked for the council and in an aggresive tone said that she had been on the phone to the firm who did the printing for us and that she knew we took the job on. I immediately confirmed that we did indeed design the job for Chris McGlade but didn’t print the job. She then forcefully went on to explain that there were defamatory remarks and untruths in the newsletter and that certain councillors were considering legal action against us for printing it. I was quite taken aback at the aggressive attitude and explained that we had no connection with The friends of Coatham Common apart from the fact that there are just one of our customers. That wasn’t enough for her, and went on, saying we must have known that there were defamatory remarks in the newsletter and we knowingly printed this and that made us responsible for them. I must say, I was now getting very upset with this call. I told her, that all we can do with anything we print is ask the customer if everything is above board, which we do with everybody, includ ing Chris McGlade, (we can only go on the trust of our customers). Once again this was just went on deaf ears. After more of the same conversation she finished with, that they wouldn’t be sueing Chris McGlade because he didn’t have any money and that they’d only be going after the ‘big boys’ meaning us (a two man concern) and we would shortly be receiving a phone call from the local MP.
Since then I have had a word with the firm that printing ‘The Informer’ for us and discovered that they too had a very similar phone call.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
More info from a concerned council employee
email from a concerned resident
Hi Chris I was told this by a local self employed builder who has worked on various building sites over the years. He has good contacts in the business and knows of all future building plans ie as you approach Saltburn on the right hand side ..massive new estate to go up there also past the Wacky ware house as you approach Marske before the bridge on the right hand side another massive housing estate to be built there. Sorry I cant say any more. But this Coatham scheme has been suspect right from the start. Any intelligent person can see the council has flogged the land to make money to balance the books and said to Persimmons 'to keep the punters happy build a swimming pool' As for Steve Kay,I wrote to him 3 years ago about the Warden situation in East Cleveland....Im still waiting for his reply... As for Redcar and Cleveland council....Im afraid they must be the worst in the UK Keep up the good work
Another message from another council employee
Hi Chris,There has been a restructuring in one of the departments during which the senior managers were all interviewed to retain their own jobs. They were unopposed in the interviews because the jobs weren't advertised externally, and were given whopping rises at the end. Surprisingly, they were all reappointed! All this at a time when the staff nearer the the bottom of the pile are having their terms and conditions cut, and aren't even sure that they will have a job in the near future. Keep up the good work Chris! There's something rotten at the core of this council, and it seems to be spreading!
Friday, August 04, 2006
Mr Moore backtracks on release of information
Coatham Common Covenant Information
L 933 a parcel of land purchased by a conveyance carried out on
L 933 Was purchased by a conveyance carried out on 3 1 march 1960 between (1) ORTEM ESTATES and (2) the MAYOR of
As stated on the deed witnessed:
(So far as the vendors are able to do so to do) The covenants restrictive or otherwise contained in second schedule as are binding hereto on the purchasers as owners of the land thereby conveyed or affected so far as such covenants are now subsisting and capable of taking effect.
The covenants which apply to L933 are the covenants contained in the deeds of lands L839 & L853, these covenants are referred to in deeds of L933 as:- refer to schedules 1 and 2 of conveyances carried out on dates:
14 Feb 1924 (L839) between (1) Gleadhowe Heur Turner Newcornen, Cecil Du Pre Penton Powley. George William Rowe and (2) the purchasers.
CONDITIONS AND COVENANTS WHICH APPLY TO“ COATHAM COMMON” L933
L839 Section 3 of the indentures states that:
AND the purchasers for themselves their successors and assigns as owner or owners of the hereditaments hereby conveyed to the intent that the covenant shall run with the same hereditament and be binding on the successive owners thereof for the time being hereby covenant with the vendor his heirs successors in title and assigns that they will at all times observe perform and keep the stipulations set out in the second schedule hereto
L853 Section E of the deed witnesseth states that:
And the council for themselves their successors and assigns as owner or owners of the property hereby conveyed, to the intent that this covenant shall run with the land and be binding on the successive owners thereof for the time being hereby covenant the vendor that they will at all times observe perform and keep the stipulations contained in the first schedule hereto.
Covenants applying to L933 from L853 & L839
L853 first schedule:- (1) The land hereby conveyed shall only be used as a stray and open space, and no buildings or structures of any kind shall be erected thereon with the exception of a shelter, the site and character of which shall be approved by the committee of the €:le Golf Club before any building operations commence. (2)No steam organ or similar noisy instrument shall at any time be allowed on the land conveyed.
(3) The council shall erect and for ever afterwards keep in repair an unclimbable fence on the northern boundary of the Cleveland Golf Club’s links from the road crossing the links near it’s junction with the council’s western promenade to the convalescent home.
Location of information
Parcel Volume Page
L933 1452 15
L853 537 237
L839 — details available from a personal copy of the deeds.
All Land parcels are now registered with the land registry office at
L862 This parcel of land is the present day caravan site, it is understood that R&CBC propose to take back this site at the end of the present lease to LIDO LEISURE Co then as part of the COATHAM ENCLOSURE DEVELOPMENT” will develop it as part car park and also create a seaside park. This parcel of land has restrictive covenants attached to its deeds.
L862 was purchased by a conveyance carried out on 25 July 1938 between (I) Kathleen Teresa Turner Le Roy Lewis, George William Rowe, Philip Beaumont Frere and tile Guardian Assurance Company Ltd and (2) The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses of the borough of Redcar for the Sum of 2400.
Now this deed withesseth:
Section 3 states - The purchasers for themselves their successors and assigns as owner or owners of the property hereby conveyed to the intent that this covenant shall run with the land and be binding on the successive owners thereof for the time being hereby covenant with tile vendor that they will at all times observe perform and keep the conditions and stipulations contained in the second schedule hereto.
The Vendor varied restrictions on the covenants contained in the conveyance of 06 Oct 1930 for the Council to purchase a small portion of the land for the erection of chalets of one storey in height and also a car park, (this I believe is a portion of land adjacent to L853, purchased to add to L853 for the stated development).
THE COVENANTS CONTAINED IN THE DEEDS OF L862
In the second schedule referred to:
(1) Not to use the land hereby conveyed so as to interfere with the playing of golf on the adjoining Golf Course so long as it remains a Golf Course and not during the existence of the Golf Course to use the land for the purpose of an amusement or car park.
(2) Not to erect during the existence of the said Golf Club any buildings on the land of more than one storey high.
(3) Not to claim or at any time hereafter exercise a right ofway over the roadway over the Golf Course adjoining Majuba Hill at the point marked “A” leading to Coatharn High Street as shown by the dotted line on the said plan provided that nothing herein contained shall prejudice or affect any rights claimed by the general public.
(4) The purchasers shall erect and for ever afterwards maintain a four strand wire fence on the southern boundary line of the land hereby conveyed from the point marked “A” to the point marked “B” on the said plan.
L862 details are available from a personal copy of the deeds.
The next is frrom the cabinet minutes of 21 December 2004 which clearly calls for the Barrister's opinoin to be relayed to the public;
ITEM/REPORT: 87. Coatham Enclosure Scrutiny Commission: Final Scrutiny Report
REPORTING SOURCE: Chief Executive
RECORD OF DECISION: RESOLVED that the following recommendations by the Commission be agreed.
1. A Steering Committee comprising of key stakeholders, including the two Coatham Ward Councillors, one Member of each Redcar Ward, the Lead Member for Development and Cabinet representatives be established with the key objective to drive the project forward.
2. The Steering Committee to be consulted about all publicity material prior to publication.
3. The consultation process recognises when wider public attention is likely and respond appropriately. This may include consultation of a wider area and the distribution of information related to the development being more widely circulated than for less contentious developments. There should also be full disclosure of all elements of the proposal from the beginning and thereafter throughout the consultation period to avoid questioning of the exercise’s transparency.
4. That a brochure is produced for the Coatham Enclosure development outlining the proposal and clearly outlining the argument that it is not financially possible to provide the leisure facilities without the residential aspect.
5. That consideration is given to the preparation of a virtual reality model is prepared and used to enhance the portrayal of the final proposal to the public subject to negotiations with the developer for funding.
6. Ownership of the land and associated Covenants:
That Barrister’s Opinion is requested and relayed to the public.
To finish this posting are two images of letters from Mr Moore, one prevaricating and the other backtracking on a cabinet decision in not publishing the report. Click to enlarge.
To finish this posting are two images of letters from Mr Moore, one prevaricating and the other backtracking on a cabinet decision in not publishing the report. Click to enlarge.
Flood risk status of Coatham links
Two images here, one is a lettter from the enviroment agency suggesting that the council should advise against development due to the flood risk. The other is a map of the area showing predicted flooding. Again, click to enlarge.
the text reads:
FLOOD RISK STATUS OF LAND AT COATHAM LINKS,
I refer to your letter which was received by the Environment Agency on
For your information, the larger of the three sites, marked on the location map provided as [ is in Flood Zone I which is defined as low risk. Any future developer will be required to submit an assessment of surface water drainage due to the size of the site.
Flood Zone 3 is the high risk zone and refers to land where the indicative annual probability of flooding is 1 in 100 years or less from river sources (i.e. it has a 1% or greater chance of flooding in any given year) 1 in 200 years or less from tidal/coastal sources (i.e. a 0.5 or greater chance in any given year). The smaller areas marked L839 and L853 lie within an area at risk of tidal flooding and are identified as being within Flood Zone 3. In accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Note 2 (PPG25) Local Authorities are advised to use their planning powers to guide development away from such areas and, where an application for development is made, require a full and detailed Flood Risk Assessment to be submitted.
Planning Liaison Officer
Direct Dial: 01904 822607
Environment Agency -
Letter of support from Alan Titmarsh
Thank you for your letter. I support the protest in
I think your idea to have this area turned into a coastal park or a coastal nature reserve in memory of Mo Mowlern and named after her is a fantastic idea. It is something that should be embraced not only by your local authority, but by the local people in the area that Mo knew and worked for and loved. What better way to remember Mo than by having a living, breathing, green open area turned into something that would attract so many of the constituents she worked so hard for?
I send all good wishes to you and all those campaigning for this wonderful stretch of open space and coastline to be saved.
Thursday, August 03, 2006
No money for a baths without 357 Persimmon homes?
Lets look at the money the council spends on the things that they want.
£6,000,000 on private road adoption.Welcomed by those who it directly affects,like Cabinet member for Sex Education Steve Kay.You all remember him.He was having an affair with his secretary in council buildings on council time.She got the push he stayed in his job.Nout like equality in the work place eh? Well Mr Kay has had FIVE of these dirt tracks adopted in the tiny village of Moorsholm where he lives.All five are within a hundred yards of his house.Wonder how much its value has risen? Shame he forgot to declare his interests over this issue in 2003 when it was passed,then suddenly remembered to in 2006 AFTER we featured it in the Informer.
The normal residents of this borough have a right to their roads being adopted,but when the people in Redcar are told theres no money for a baths when six million pounds is being spent on something that benefits the few then thats not right or fair.Which is more important.How many people will benefit from a pool?
£42,000,000 YES FORTY TWO MILLION POUNDS being spent on a PFI to upgrade street lighting in the borough.
£1,000,000+ for fighting tribunals (not including the appeals) due to the ineptitude of certain senior council officers (usual suspects).Cant tell you the exact amount.The Council wont tell anyone.
Hundreds of thousands of pounds on half the consultancy fees and ALL the legal fees (undisclosed amount) for one of the biggest and richest builders in the country.Could be well over a million pounds.
Thousands on corporate hospitality at Gisborough and Rushpool hall.
Thousands on massive pay increases for senior council officers.Cant tell you how much Moore is on.The council wont tell anyone.
All this money being spent on the things that they want,yet we cant have a baths because there's no money? They're having a laugh arent they? We aren't fighting a lack of money.We're fighting a political will that refuses to give the people whatthey want,because a baths being built is their carrot to dangle to get everyone to go along with having the houses.And its the houses they want most not a baths for our children.
Labour's unreported press release.
Just one word on this subject.It was interesting to note that the coalition's spokesman on this subject Dave Fitzpatrick,was quick to blame the whole fiasco on the previous administration and claim that all the officers concerned had left the authority.However,what he didnt say was that Our LYING chief executive Colin Moore and the less than credible (you cant call him anything else after reading the scanlon tribunal decision) Ray Richardson are still in the council as are a host of others who would find it difficult to distance themselves from this fiasco.
Not only that Moore the liar was in charge all the way through the ombudsmans investigation,the investigation that the council were blasted for, for being deliberately obstructive and discourteous to the ombudsman.
The Labour Groups Press Release.
Labour Group Press Release Embargoed until Thursday 27 July 2006 until 1p.m.
Councillor George Dunning Leader of the Labour Primary Opposition GroupLeader on Redcar & Cleveland Council,said " I would like to thank the Ombudsman for an in depth report which hascome to a conclusion having been with this Coalition Council for over 3 years she highlighted several serious points, avoidable delay, wastedmoney and other administrative failures by the Coalition council, what isof some concern is in the Ombudsman's letter to Colin Moore dated June 2006in which it states that complaints against this Coalition Council for 2005/2006 have increased by over 40 %.Cllr. Dave Fitzpatrick's comments attacking the Ombudsman and a localcouncillor for doing their jobs is indicative of a Coalition Council thathave lost the plot, and thankfully the May 2007 local elections will kickthem all out through the front door."Councillor George Dunning Leader of the Labour Primary Opposition GroupLeader on Redcar & Cleveland CouncilEmbargoed until Thursday 27 July 2006
Support from The Voice - Mike findlay
Below is the front page and a piece from the Voice - a Marske/New Marske independent newsletter. As usual you need to click on the image to enlarge. Thanks to Mike Findlay.