Wednesday, May 09, 2007


LABOUR Leader Joe Anderson has called for a full-scale investigation into Flo Clucas trying to waltz off with the former Irish Centre on Mount Pleasant. (see Liverpool subCulture, ed)
Anderson has written to the Standards Board protesting that Clucas's actions breach the national Code of Conduct for councillors.
The Standards Board can fine or suspend Clucas from office if they find her guilty (some chance of that, ed)
Anderson tells how Clucas 'intervened strongly' at a meeting with planning officials on 19 December to promote Dance Liverpool's crackpot scheme to takeover the Centre, which is a Grade 2* listed building.
He says Clucas also offered/promoted:

  • Objective 1 European funding for the Centre

  • city council support for the scheme and/or

  • to slap a CPO on the Centre.
Anderson says Clucas failed to declare an interest - she is a Director of Dance Liverpool, according to Companies House records.
The Labour Leader poses six separate questions about Clucas's conduct, including:
  • Has Cllr Flo Clucas used her position as an Executive Member to promote a scheme in respect of which she has interest? (of course, ed)

  • Was the City Council’s recommendation to reject the (owner's) Planning Application in 2006 as a result of pressure to support the “Dance Liverpool” proposal from Cllr Flo Clucas? (very probably, ed)

  • Was there any reasonable evidence to suggest that the alternative “Dance Liverpool” proposal had any realistic prospect of delivery (the report... clearly identifies a lack of funding...for the scheme) (none at all, ed)

Anderson also asks if it was appropriate for Clucas to "promise/promote that Liverpool City Council would bear the costs of any CPO enquiry (as you will be aware developers normally bear such costs)?" (highly irregular, ed)


"Promising/promoting that acquisition costs would be funded by ERDS (Objective 1 European Funding) before any application or approval for such funding has been obtained?"(well, she is Chair of the Committee which doles out the Euro dosh, so presumably she should know whether she was going to give herself the money? ed)

Anderson adds: "You will note from the handwritten notes from a meeting, that Cllr Flo Clucas had explored ways in which pressure could be put on the existing owner (which would have the result of encouraging him to surrender the leasehold interest) and in particular, investigating the condition of the fire safety system and demanding that Liverpool City Council serve a schedule of dilapidations on the leasehold owner."

(This one will run and run, ed)


Anonymous said...

OOOOOOOH Councillor Anderson you are a one arent you - i didnt know the Labour Party had it in them!

Tori Blare said...

Has the ECHO and Daily Post been told of this???
Have they ignored the truth again????

This is an absolute disgrace and this woman should be suspended immediately!!!!

Anonymous said...

Our readers are not interested in boring Town Hall stuff - they want WAGS, devil dogs, gun and drug crime and celebrities misbehaving. And anything that Culture tries to put its brand on.

Anonymous said...

Will Colin Cover Up, Cover up this one?

Anonymous said...

You betcha

Anonymous said...

Not another one for the Standards Board .........what a bloody corrupt lot this Party is. Standrds who needs Standards? Not the Liberal Debs it seems. Ugh!

Anonymous said...

Waste of time taking anything to the standards board, the Lib Dems have majority power so they all stick together in their lack of morality, as Gossip mongers shows if you speak up and show any concern you either shut up or get deselected!

Anonymous said...

As a former Objective One worker I'd like to state that her position on the Programme Monitoring Committee or any other committee gives her no right to promise Objective One funds.

Whilst it has been common for City Councillors and Management to treat Ob 1 as their own piggy bank to access for which ever project they currently favour, there is a system in place designed to ensure that projects funded can be delivered, meet the needs they claim to address and actually have an economic or social benefit.

These kind of actions by Councillors and Council management only serves to create anger and resentment about the programme and demoralise and intimidate the Objective one officers trying to evaluate these bids, which obviously is the goal of these 3rd rate councillors and dodgy managers.