The post you are reporting:
I've a strange feeling that we have not heard the end of this saga yet but I thought some might be interested in what I have gleaned subject to a Freedom of Information request to DDC. This subject was also raised at the full council meeting on January 31st. Assuming that he was present, perhaps our fishy friend might deign to update us on what was discussed. The facts are, however, as follows.
The total cost to the taxpayer as it currently stands is £249,000. Additionally, over 500 hours of "legal officer" time has been spent within the council offices on the case. Even at a ludicrously conservative estimate of £50 per hour, this adds a further £25,000 or so to the total bill. This council has apparently "recovered" £88,000 of these costs from the landowner/developer - China Gateway International.
I have no personal axe to grind here against anyone involved but will admit that I'm a Maxton resident and was against the project from the outset. However, that doesn't prevent me from asking perfectly legitimate questions which (I hope) will concern many other local taxpayers.
1. Why has DDC pursued such a costly legal case in favour of a remote developer and against the initial recommendations of their own professional officers? I have done some extensive research on CGI which I've referred to in other posts. I won't repeat it here but their altruistic credentials for the people of Dover strike me as very questionable. Will DDC be happy with the current recovery of less than one third of the money funded from our taxes?
2. My FOI request also contained a question regarding estimates of further costs to DDC and hence the local taxpayer. The answer to this was that the Council holds no further information on future estimated costs. This response begs many possible questions as to whether CGI will re-apply for permission (as many will suspect) and how DDC might react in such a case.
3. Anyone who takes the trouble to read both the judgments in favour of CPRE will understand that, behind the legal phrasing, there is a more than a doubt raised about how councillors arrived at their original conclusion to vote against the decision of their own officers and possibly even their suitability to the job they were elected for. I've read various comments on this subject, not the least of which implied that the judgment was a result of a failure in minute taking! I think people should be aware of this and bear it in mind for future elections.
There is a great deal more which could be added on this subject but I am trying to concentrate on facts. make of them as you will but I don't think fiasco is a misused term in this instance.
