Friday, June 25, 2010

Sandown Lands interest charges - Sheena Baker speaks out

This in from Sheena who has been keeping a close eye on Sandown matters for some time:

'Did I not ask at a Nairnshire Partnership meeting a several months back several searching questions relating to the Nairn Common Good Land and whether interest was being charged, if so at what rate etc. I said when I asked the list of questions that I was not expecting answers there and then but it was agreed that Wm Gilfillan would take the questions away and research and answer them at the next meeting. This he did and we were assured at the next meeting that interest was not being charged but that it might change in the future. Nothing, I repeat nothing was said about there being any likelihood of it being charged retrospectively.

I was 100% + right to ask the questions and to get the answers. This was noted by yourself on the gurn and also by the Nairnshire Telegraph. It may have been as far back as last August, I do not have the relevant file to hand to check back copies of the minutes of the Partnership meeting.

The question arises once more about the Trustees who make decisions re Common Good Assets and as I said at that time we need people as trustees other than Councilors who are 100% independent and who would challenge such decisions!

I have no problem with interest being charged now that the sale of the Sandown land is out of the question but it should be from yesterday at 1% and not retrospectively.

Comments re the mal administration of the land used by the farmer are more or less correct and again I think it is a “cheek” for the Councilors to conveniently forget that aspect or “sweep it under the carpet”.

The two major players who will have clear memories of the farmers land saga are Bill Young and Frank Allen. Frank was, at the time, the area ward manager and Bill Young took a major interest in the various legal aspects of the case on behalf of himself and the “concerned community”.
Memories fade but this needs revisiting and, in my humble view, the retrospective interest charge needs challenging.

Sheena Baker'

No comments: