March 12, 2014
by Talk Blyth Valley
Grant Davey denies being under police investigation at the Area Committee held at the Welfare at Stakeford. Words were had between Councillor Elliott and the Leader of Northumberland County Council. Earlier he had attacked UKIP and Barry Elliott on the section 106 monies on his blog. Here is what he said.
Also, Mr Elliott has confirmed that Grant Davey and Susan Davey are being investigated, crime number to follow. One wonders has Mr Davey lost the plot?
“Maybe UKIP will call the database a ‘waste of money which could be spent in Blyth’ when it is launched. Other residents of Blyth are entitled to ask the question – why does a party represented by a property developer (who should know how section 106 works) have such an interest in a policy that, under their proposal, would see £9 out of every £10 of development cash spent out side out Blyth?
‘Message to UKIP Blyth – in the running for this blog’s most avid readers’
Section 106 – the logic and the UKIP argument
UKIP’s plan is to make life better for three wards in Blyth they say.
At the moment, development monies get pooled in one central pot – that means everyone gets a fair deal and equal amount.
UKIP’s plan would mean that Blyth would get development money from three wards rather than 67 it gets now.
The council’s own plan, the LDF (which UKIP have ignored) sets out planned development across Northumberland for the next 25 years.
Less than 10% of that development will be in Blyth.
So under UKIP’s plan – Blyth would miss out on 90% or more development cash.
So UKIP in Blyth, led by property developer Town Councillor Barry Elliott, wants to reduce the money fairly apportioned to Blyth over the next twenty five years by up to 90%.
That means £9 out of every £10 will be lost to Blyth under UKIP’s plan.
Under his plan every other ward would lose out too.
Maybe we should ask the question – Can you list your elected councillor on Blyth Town Council, the esteemed Councillor Elliott to list his registered prejudicial interests on this blog since you don’t list them on the Town Council website or anywhere else?
Since UKIP seem to be very keen to ‘quote the law’ yet the Localism Act 2011 states ‘every town or parish council should maintain a register of members interests that is open to public inspection’.
So can we see Councillor Elliott’s please?
That would be fair and transparent because all county councillors have listed theirs on the council’s website wouldn’t it?
Maybe he should tell us just how much section 106 money he’s contributed to his community in his developments in Blyth over the many years of property development?
He should also know, as a seasoned property developer, that section 106 agreements are part of a planning application so can be viewed at any time by members of the public should they want to.
They are available as documents submitted as part of the planning process and just for UKIP, the council is spending thousands of pounds (which could be spent on your community) to put a database of section 106 agreements online so ‘property developers can see, with ease’, what their competitors are agreeing as part of a fully transparent planning process.
Maybe UKIP will call the database a ‘waste of money which could be spent in Blyth’ when it is launched. Other residents of Blyth are entitled to ask the question – why does a party represented by a property developer (who should know how section 106 works) have such an interest in a policy that, under their proposal, would see £9 out of every £10 of development cash spent out side out Blyth?
That’s not ‘standing up for Blyth – that’s misleading the residents of Blyth.
Tut Tut UKIP Blyth, you really should be expected to know better.
Now we’ve answered your questions – what about answers to the above UKIP Blyth?