Leader of Bournemouth Council denies ‘short-changing’ public over £360k sale of 40-bed care home

Bournemouth Echo: SOLD: Leybourne House SOLD: Leybourne House

THE leader of Bournemouth council has denied short-changing the public by deciding to sell a 40-bedroom former care home for £360,000.

Opposition councillors have queried council claims that the price represents the “full market value” of Leybourne House in Northbourne – pointing out that a nearby three-bedroom bungalow is on the market for £339,950.

Council leader Cllr John Beesley said the site – which is being bought by housing charity BCHA to build affordable flats – would normally have been sold by auction or tender.

“In this instance, however, the primary driver was not to secure the highest price for the land but to ensure that the site was re-developed for good quality affordable housing,” he told a meeting.

Cllr Beesley said BCHA had won £561,000 from the Housing Communities Agency towards building 24 flats. The money would be lost if it was not committed to a scheme by March 31.

Independent councillor Sue Levell queried the decision, prompting a special meeting of a council scrutiny panel.

She queried the official record of the decision which said the sum ‘represents the full market value’.

“The council have said a 40-bedroom detached property is only worth £360,000 – a property that has never been put on the open market or even advertised.

“Common sense tells you that can’t be right,” she said.

But Cllr Beesley insisted that no comparison can be made with the sale of residential properties nearby.

The existing building was in need of “very substantial investment”.

Officers stood by their use of the phrase “full market value” when asked by committee chairman Cllr Chris Wakefield whether they wanted to reconsider the wording.

Gary Platt, the council’s head of property, said mature trees on the site would drastically reduce the space available to a developer.

“The developable site is a much smaller part, really conforming with the existing footprint of the building,” he said.

“We’ve taken into account the value of the completed development less the cost of development and the developer’s profit to arrive at the site value.”

The scrutiny panel voted unanimously not to take any further action.

Comments (28)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:20pm Fri 21 Feb 14

wonderway says...

But Cllr Beesley insisted that no comparison can be made with the sale of residential properties nearby.

The existing building was in need of “very substantial investment”.

beasley has got to be the biggest idiot in the whole council

you sold the land to build on not mess around putting it back to its previous condition

thus you breached clause 1 to return the biggest net return to bournemouth tax payers

you do not know the real price of the land as it never went out to general public so dont say it was best offer you had

you are giving land to private charities at cut prices thus breaching you first priority time to go beasley and take wakefield the grovel with you
But Cllr Beesley insisted that no comparison can be made with the sale of residential properties nearby. The existing building was in need of “very substantial investment”. beasley has got to be the biggest idiot in the whole council you sold the land to build on not mess around putting it back to its previous condition thus you breached clause 1 to return the biggest net return to bournemouth tax payers you do not know the real price of the land as it never went out to general public so dont say it was best offer you had you are giving land to private charities at cut prices thus breaching you first priority time to go beasley and take wakefield the grovel with you wonderway
  • Score: 40

1:44pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Bournehammer68 says...

When did a few trees ever get in a developers way?
See Christchurch story of last week.
When did a few trees ever get in a developers way? See Christchurch story of last week. Bournehammer68
  • Score: -25

2:17pm Fri 21 Feb 14

BIGTONE says...

Ummmm. I smell a distinct whiff of waste from a bullock.......
Ummmm. I smell a distinct whiff of waste from a bullock....... BIGTONE
  • Score: 20

3:04pm Fri 21 Feb 14

GaryC67 says...

£360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate.
Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers
£360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate. Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers GaryC67
  • Score: 25

3:06pm Fri 21 Feb 14

BmthNewshound says...

Another Beesley whitewash by a committee made up almost entirely of Tory councillors with the exception of Roger West who has effectively been silenced by Beesley.
.
Beesley has regularly demonstrated that he doesn't put the interests of tax payers before third parties companies whether that is selling off leases for seafront restaurants on the cheap, always favouring "preferred partners" like S&D Leisure or handing over land assets to Morgan Sindall for redevelopment.
Another Beesley whitewash by a committee made up almost entirely of Tory councillors with the exception of Roger West who has effectively been silenced by Beesley. . Beesley has regularly demonstrated that he doesn't put the interests of tax payers before third parties companies whether that is selling off leases for seafront restaurants on the cheap, always favouring "preferred partners" like S&D Leisure or handing over land assets to Morgan Sindall for redevelopment. BmthNewshound
  • Score: 24

4:02pm Fri 21 Feb 14

TheDistrict says...

You have until May next year to choose who to vote for. I already know who I am NOT voting for. Beesley OUT.
You have until May next year to choose who to vote for. I already know who I am NOT voting for. Beesley OUT. TheDistrict
  • Score: 15

4:05pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Marty Caine UKIP says...

Looks like somebody needs to scrutinise the scrutiny committee in Bournemouth then. A full evaluation should have been done and then put out to auction.
Looks like somebody needs to scrutinise the scrutiny committee in Bournemouth then. A full evaluation should have been done and then put out to auction. Marty Caine UKIP
  • Score: 16

4:16pm Fri 21 Feb 14

jinglebell says...

When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council.
See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou
thecho.co.uk/news/11
011301.Proposed_care
_home_sale_called_in
to_question_after_cl
aims_Bournemouth_Cou
ncil_may_be____selli
ng_too_cheaply___/
When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council. See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/11 011301.Proposed_care _home_sale_called_in to_question_after_cl aims_Bournemouth_Cou ncil_may_be____selli ng_too_cheaply___/ jinglebell
  • Score: 8

4:46pm Fri 21 Feb 14

muscliffman says...

Surely this site should have been sold by public tender or auction, if BCHA wanted it they could simply have engaged in that process. This would have been fair to all, including the taxpayers who owned the place.

It seems patently clear that this land and property has now been sold for well under market value and in unusually uncompetitive circumstances.

Why?
Surely this site should have been sold by public tender or auction, if BCHA wanted it they could simply have engaged in that process. This would have been fair to all, including the taxpayers who owned the place. It seems patently clear that this land and property has now been sold for well under market value and in unusually uncompetitive circumstances. Why? muscliffman
  • Score: 13

4:46pm Fri 21 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

jinglebell wrote:
When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council.
See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/11

011301.Proposed_care

_home_sale_called_in

to_question_after_cl

aims_Bournemouth_Cou

ncil_may_be____selli

ng_too_cheaply___/
Please tell us who is the chairman.
[quote][p][bold]jinglebell[/bold] wrote: When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council. See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/11 011301.Proposed_care _home_sale_called_in to_question_after_cl aims_Bournemouth_Cou ncil_may_be____selli ng_too_cheaply___/[/p][/quote]Please tell us who is the chairman. pete woodley
  • Score: 3

5:02pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Jetwasher says...

Beesley, Your as bent as a nine bob note !
Beesley, Your as bent as a nine bob note ! Jetwasher
  • Score: 16

5:03pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Thriving Grey says...

BCHA are a fine organisation, doing a good job providing much needed housing in the Community at a Social rent.
BCHA are a fine organisation, doing a good job providing much needed housing in the Community at a Social rent. Thriving Grey
  • Score: -6

5:19pm Fri 21 Feb 14

skydriver says...

Over the last couple of months there has been so much bad press re many councillors from all over our area,. Which just goes to show what the voters In our region think of the people we put in place . Useless ,they alway appear to have a hidden agenda. It really is a time to have a complete change in ALL areas within our county. We should start with all the leaders being ousted, I doubt if many could lead a horse to the water trough let alone lead a council chamber.
Over the last couple of months there has been so much bad press re many councillors from all over our area,. Which just goes to show what the voters In our region think of the people we put in place . Useless ,they alway appear to have a hidden agenda. It really is a time to have a complete change in ALL areas within our county. We should start with all the leaders being ousted, I doubt if many could lead a horse to the water trough let alone lead a council chamber. skydriver
  • Score: 13

5:41pm Fri 21 Feb 14

pete woodley says...

As long as the public vote politically,they deserve what they get.
As long as the public vote politically,they deserve what they get. pete woodley
  • Score: 2

6:31pm Fri 21 Feb 14

old duffa says...

yep ,would have offered double the price,we have cash ,private funding
and would have done a deal to rent back to the council for 10 years if needed
so taxpayers would have been 320 to 500 k better off
with that 500 the council could have built 5 more family homes
but wait ,the council have legal and general to build houses
so that site would have got 10/12 on easy
so why sell it anyway
they seem to want to strip every asset down,why
yep ,would have offered double the price,we have cash ,private funding and would have done a deal to rent back to the council for 10 years if needed so taxpayers would have been 320 to 500 k better off with that 500 the council could have built 5 more family homes but wait ,the council have legal and general to build houses so that site would have got 10/12 on easy so why sell it anyway they seem to want to strip every asset down,why old duffa
  • Score: 11

6:37pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Noidear says...

No surprise this is the public service at its best.
No surprise this is the public service at its best. Noidear
  • Score: 4

7:03pm Fri 21 Feb 14

RM says...

Stories like this always remind me of why I would never vote for Poole Council to join Bournemouth. Bournemouth = Brown Envelope Land. Why do B'mouth people keep voting for this lot?
Stories like this always remind me of why I would never vote for Poole Council to join Bournemouth. Bournemouth = Brown Envelope Land. Why do B'mouth people keep voting for this lot? RM
  • Score: 7

8:13pm Fri 21 Feb 14

Freddie frog says...

No doubt the con planning board will vote the application through unanimously too ............. under strict orders of course! ironic that the report makes it sound like they already have planning permission!
No doubt the con planning board will vote the application through unanimously too ............. under strict orders of course! ironic that the report makes it sound like they already have planning permission! Freddie frog
  • Score: 5

8:22pm Fri 21 Feb 14

rozmister says...

GaryC67 wrote:
£360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate.
Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers
The whole point of affordable social housing is the rent is less than market rate so nothing will be leased back to the council at market rate. BCHA will lease the properties through Home Choice to people who can't afford private lets.

People like Dave Wells who offered to buy the site for more are part of the private let problem because they charge right up to the housing benefit limit regardless of property quality. I'd prefer less money in the councils coffers and actual affordable housing than it's sold to the highest bidder and continues to fuel a toxic housing market.
[quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: £360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate. Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers[/p][/quote]The whole point of affordable social housing is the rent is less than market rate so nothing will be leased back to the council at market rate. BCHA will lease the properties through Home Choice to people who can't afford private lets. People like Dave Wells who offered to buy the site for more are part of the private let problem because they charge right up to the housing benefit limit regardless of property quality. I'd prefer less money in the councils coffers and actual affordable housing than it's sold to the highest bidder and continues to fuel a toxic housing market. rozmister
  • Score: 3

9:39pm Fri 21 Feb 14

dylexic bobert says...

jinglebell wrote:
When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council.
See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou

thecho.co.uk/news/11

011301.Proposed_care

_home_sale_called_in

to_question_after_cl

aims_Bournemouth_Cou

ncil_may_be____selli

ng_too_cheaply___/
He should be investing in all the **** holes falling apart around Boscombe of which he oversees instead of more land grabbing.Ive seen the condition of some of the properties he already owns and he should be embarrassed to be part of an organisation that treats it's tenants so poorly.You don't think he'd live in one do you?
[quote][p][bold]jinglebell[/bold] wrote: When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council. See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/11 011301.Proposed_care _home_sale_called_in to_question_after_cl aims_Bournemouth_Cou ncil_may_be____selli ng_too_cheaply___/[/p][/quote]He should be investing in all the **** holes falling apart around Boscombe of which he oversees instead of more land grabbing.Ive seen the condition of some of the properties he already owns and he should be embarrassed to be part of an organisation that treats it's tenants so poorly.You don't think he'd live in one do you? dylexic bobert
  • Score: 5

9:57pm Fri 21 Feb 14

itsneverblackorwhite says...

Far better the site is used by a charitable housing organisation than sold to a developer there is a housing crisis and besides the council will only waste the money anyway on palm trees, or subsidising S&D leisure!
Far better the site is used by a charitable housing organisation than sold to a developer there is a housing crisis and besides the council will only waste the money anyway on palm trees, or subsidising S&D leisure! itsneverblackorwhite
  • Score: -2

11:37pm Fri 21 Feb 14

jinglebell says...

pete woodley wrote:
jinglebell wrote:
When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council.
See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou


thecho.co.uk/news/11


011301.Proposed_care


_home_sale_called_in


to_question_after_cl


aims_Bournemouth_Cou


ncil_may_be____selli


ng_too_cheaply___/
Please tell us who is the chairman.
Martin Hancock is the Chief Ex. of B'mth Churches Housing Assoc. not the Chair.
[quote][p][bold]pete woodley[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]jinglebell[/bold] wrote: When the story broke a week ago, Steve Wells of Dave Wells Properties said he would pay double that amount. So clearly this is not as it should be. The Chair of Bournemouth Churches Housing Association is also on the Board of B'mth 2026 (the Council's charity) and is the West Howe Regeneration Partnership and the Boscombe Regeneration Partnership...so a close connection to the Council. See last weeks story: http://www.bournemou thecho.co.uk/news/11 011301.Proposed_care _home_sale_called_in to_question_after_cl aims_Bournemouth_Cou ncil_may_be____selli ng_too_cheaply___/[/p][/quote]Please tell us who is the chairman.[/p][/quote]Martin Hancock is the Chief Ex. of B'mth Churches Housing Assoc. not the Chair. jinglebell
  • Score: 1

12:15am Sat 22 Feb 14

jinglebell says...

rozmister wrote:
GaryC67 wrote:
£360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate.
Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers
The whole point of affordable social housing is the rent is less than market rate so nothing will be leased back to the council at market rate. BCHA will lease the properties through Home Choice to people who can't afford private lets.

People like Dave Wells who offered to buy the site for more are part of the private let problem because they charge right up to the housing benefit limit regardless of property quality. I'd prefer less money in the councils coffers and actual affordable housing than it's sold to the highest bidder and continues to fuel a toxic housing market.
What doesn't make any sense is that the Council own the land and because buying land is the major cost of providing homes, they could have done the build themselves; they are able to get ample central government funding for this now. It’s especially odd as Cllr. Beesley keeps saying he is committed to providing more cheap homes to rent.
Cllr. Beesley had an alternative option, which is that, the Council's charity - B’mth 2026 – which also has a Community Land Trust supposedly set up to provide cheap houses. With a Community Land Trust, the idea is the land remains in the ownership of the Council, but leases on the properties are sold, which makes them affordable. Only those who fit strict requirements (such as a connection to the area, on the housing waiting list etc.,) are allowed to buy the lease on the property, therefore property developers cannot buy and benefit. This means the Council are able to retain the housing stock, unlike any Council houses they build.
Why did the Council not build the homes, then give them to B'mth 2026 so they could manage the leases, which is what they say they wish to do if the opportunity arises? If you look at the B'mth 2026 website and then click on Community Land Trust, you can see what they say they intend to do. Well, here was a perfect opportunity to do so, but instead the Council intend to basically give land away to BCHA.....why?
BCHA do provide flats for ex drug addicts and others struggling with various mental health issues, however, I have never thought its a good idea for so many people with problems to be living together in these tiny flats. Surely, they would do far better if they were integrated into the community, rather than living en mass in blocks of tiny flats.
Which of Cllr. Beesleys' promises are we meant to believe?
[quote][p][bold]rozmister[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]GaryC67[/bold] wrote: £360k for a site big enough for 24 flats is extremely cheap. Add to that the fact that the charity will get £561K to help with the development, they effectively get the site for free plus £201k towards the build & can then rent the flats back to Bournemouth council at market rate. Someone is going to do very nicely out of this deal, unfortunately not Bournemouth rate payers[/p][/quote]The whole point of affordable social housing is the rent is less than market rate so nothing will be leased back to the council at market rate. BCHA will lease the properties through Home Choice to people who can't afford private lets. People like Dave Wells who offered to buy the site for more are part of the private let problem because they charge right up to the housing benefit limit regardless of property quality. I'd prefer less money in the councils coffers and actual affordable housing than it's sold to the highest bidder and continues to fuel a toxic housing market.[/p][/quote]What doesn't make any sense is that the Council own the land and because buying land is the major cost of providing homes, they could have done the build themselves; they are able to get ample central government funding for this now. It’s especially odd as Cllr. Beesley keeps saying he is committed to providing more cheap homes to rent. Cllr. Beesley had an alternative option, which is that, the Council's charity - B’mth 2026 – which also has a Community Land Trust supposedly set up to provide cheap houses. With a Community Land Trust, the idea is the land remains in the ownership of the Council, but leases on the properties are sold, which makes them affordable. Only those who fit strict requirements (such as a connection to the area, on the housing waiting list etc.,) are allowed to buy the lease on the property, therefore property developers cannot buy and benefit. This means the Council are able to retain the housing stock, unlike any Council houses they build. Why did the Council not build the homes, then give them to B'mth 2026 so they could manage the leases, which is what they say they wish to do if the opportunity arises? If you look at the B'mth 2026 website and then click on Community Land Trust, you can see what they say they intend to do. Well, here was a perfect opportunity to do so, but instead the Council intend to basically give land away to BCHA.....why? BCHA do provide flats for ex drug addicts and others struggling with various mental health issues, however, I have never thought its a good idea for so many people with problems to be living together in these tiny flats. Surely, they would do far better if they were integrated into the community, rather than living en mass in blocks of tiny flats. Which of Cllr. Beesleys' promises are we meant to believe? jinglebell
  • Score: 6

1:25am Sat 22 Feb 14

wonderway says...

the land is owned by tax payers

build council houses on it

a flat costs 60 to 70 k to build 24 flats plus access plus other bits 1.8 million cost rent returned £80 per week equals 4 grand a year 20 years paid for including repairs plus offset against tax

becomes asset to local people

beasley attitude buy Imax knock it down loose rent asset plus costs 10 million pounds for hole in ground
Buy land owned by another person to build bus station 10 million just to buy land plus building costs when we own winter gardens build bus station there ....................
......free land

and this pratt is in charge of council and hold post for financial expenditure and resources which he would not give up when he wormed his way in as council leader.
come on voters lots of space just down the road from beasleys ward its called ST ANNES , if you back him you need few weeks in here
the land is owned by tax payers build council houses on it a flat costs 60 to 70 k to build 24 flats plus access plus other bits 1.8 million cost rent returned £80 per week equals 4 grand a year 20 years paid for including repairs plus offset against tax becomes asset to local people beasley attitude buy Imax knock it down loose rent asset plus costs 10 million pounds for hole in ground Buy land owned by another person to build bus station 10 million just to buy land plus building costs when we own winter gardens build bus station there .................... ......free land and this pratt is in charge of council and hold post for financial expenditure and resources which he would not give up when he wormed his way in as council leader. come on voters lots of space just down the road from beasleys ward its called ST ANNES , if you back him you need few weeks in here wonderway
  • Score: 5

8:44am Sat 22 Feb 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

i can find the money....can i have one?
i can find the money....can i have one? thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: 2

12:42pm Sat 22 Feb 14

Azphreal says...

Hmmmm they have all this money to do the 'loans' and a large piece of land,i wonder if 'just out of the blue' they could have built some bloody properties themselves and rented them out to ease the housing crisis. A large section of money goes on housing benefit due to landlords asking the maximum and the only way that will change is if there is a cheaper option for people so landlords have to match those rents.
Hmmmm they have all this money to do the 'loans' and a large piece of land,i wonder if 'just out of the blue' they could have built some bloody properties themselves and rented them out to ease the housing crisis. A large section of money goes on housing benefit due to landlords asking the maximum and the only way that will change is if there is a cheaper option for people so landlords have to match those rents. Azphreal
  • Score: 1

2:58pm Sat 22 Feb 14

dribydal says...

At first when I looked at this I thought typical Daily Echo typo.. they mean 4 bed house for £360K when a 3 bed is going for £339,950, that's OK, what's the fuss about.
But £360K for a FORTY BEDROOM HOUSE, that would be worth way way much more.
I'm no property expert but just looked at Rightmove at houses with many bedrooms and there's a 13 bedder in Westbourne for £500K, and there's a 15 bed former nursing home, admittedly in Talbot Woods but that's on for £895K.
Time someone looked deep into the pockets of some of these councillors as they think they can do what they want and are above the law. I know a couple of things that have gone on which I won't divulge here but it just proves how crooked they are.
An investigation is needed and heads should roll.
At first when I looked at this I thought typical Daily Echo typo.. they mean 4 bed house for £360K when a 3 bed is going for £339,950, that's OK, what's the fuss about. But £360K for a FORTY BEDROOM HOUSE, that would be worth way way much more. I'm no property expert but just looked at Rightmove at houses with many bedrooms and there's a 13 bedder in Westbourne for £500K, and there's a 15 bed former nursing home, admittedly in Talbot Woods but that's on for £895K. Time someone looked deep into the pockets of some of these councillors as they think they can do what they want and are above the law. I know a couple of things that have gone on which I won't divulge here but it just proves how crooked they are. An investigation is needed and heads should roll. dribydal
  • Score: 5

11:32am Sun 23 Feb 14

thevoiceofreason1 says...

THEY ARE ALL RELATIONS OF DICK TURPIN
THEY ARE ALL RELATIONS OF DICK TURPIN thevoiceofreason1
  • Score: -5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree