Saturday, September 19, 2009
The trial begins and it doesn't look too good for Persimmon...
Here is a link to a story that I have been following for some months now
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?page=8
It involves a group of people who bought apartments from Persimmon homes in Thamesmead for a knock down price only to then sell them at an inflated price. As the headline from this article shows, it looks as though Persimmon may have been 'instrumental' in this massive mortgage fraud? This case went to court on Thursday afternoon I believe, so lets see how things develop.
But it makes you ask a few questions doesn't it? If Persimmon are as instrumental in this mortgage fraud as is made out in this headline, then is this the only time that they have done something like this ? Afterall, as I posted on this blog a while ago, it looks like they have been involved in something very similar in other parts of the country, but more than this, why is our council so keen to jump into bed with and bend over backwards for, a developer who are featuring in such sordid court cases?
Even worse, could what be coming to light in this case shine any light on why Redcar council want to sell 35 acres of prime coastland in Coatham with planning permission to build 359 homes on it for just £5, 600,000 to Persimmon, when Middlesbrough council wanted to sell approximately just seven acres of land to Yuill to build just 70 odd houses on it for £8,500,000? How can seven or so acres of land in Middlesbrough be worth three million pounds more than an area of coastline in Coatham that is five times its size and which has actual planning permission for five times the number of houses?
Not only that, why is there no 106 agreement in place between the council and Persimmon which ties Persimmon to providing any leisure facilities in a leisure development? Why has the council paid for Persimmons legal and consultancy costs when we had a £12,000,000 hole in our budget and they were the biggest builder in the country? And why is the council now responsible financially for a sea defence in Coatham that is Persimmons' sole responsibility and which only has to be built if the houses are built on that floodplain?
Or even more inexplicable, why were Persimmon Homes and this council using the same solicitors and consultants who were doing surveys and reports about the state of the contaminated land in Coatham and the Gross HOUSING requirements of Coatham a YEAR BEFORE the Coatham LEISURE scheme was even advertised? Why should the countries biggest housing developer be awarded the contract for a Leisure scheme when they aren't responsible financially, for providing any leisure as part of the scheme?
None of it makes sense does it? Any of it...
http://www.courtnewsuk.co.uk/newsgallery/?page=8
It involves a group of people who bought apartments from Persimmon homes in Thamesmead for a knock down price only to then sell them at an inflated price. As the headline from this article shows, it looks as though Persimmon may have been 'instrumental' in this massive mortgage fraud? This case went to court on Thursday afternoon I believe, so lets see how things develop.
But it makes you ask a few questions doesn't it? If Persimmon are as instrumental in this mortgage fraud as is made out in this headline, then is this the only time that they have done something like this ? Afterall, as I posted on this blog a while ago, it looks like they have been involved in something very similar in other parts of the country, but more than this, why is our council so keen to jump into bed with and bend over backwards for, a developer who are featuring in such sordid court cases?
Even worse, could what be coming to light in this case shine any light on why Redcar council want to sell 35 acres of prime coastland in Coatham with planning permission to build 359 homes on it for just £5, 600,000 to Persimmon, when Middlesbrough council wanted to sell approximately just seven acres of land to Yuill to build just 70 odd houses on it for £8,500,000? How can seven or so acres of land in Middlesbrough be worth three million pounds more than an area of coastline in Coatham that is five times its size and which has actual planning permission for five times the number of houses?
Not only that, why is there no 106 agreement in place between the council and Persimmon which ties Persimmon to providing any leisure facilities in a leisure development? Why has the council paid for Persimmons legal and consultancy costs when we had a £12,000,000 hole in our budget and they were the biggest builder in the country? And why is the council now responsible financially for a sea defence in Coatham that is Persimmons' sole responsibility and which only has to be built if the houses are built on that floodplain?
Or even more inexplicable, why were Persimmon Homes and this council using the same solicitors and consultants who were doing surveys and reports about the state of the contaminated land in Coatham and the Gross HOUSING requirements of Coatham a YEAR BEFORE the Coatham LEISURE scheme was even advertised? Why should the countries biggest housing developer be awarded the contract for a Leisure scheme when they aren't responsible financially, for providing any leisure as part of the scheme?
None of it makes sense does it? Any of it...
// posted by Chris McGlade @ 7:09 AM 
