THE city council has responded to the District' s Auditor's provisional findings into the £2 million Crinkley Bottom fiasco and conceded that decisions made by the local authority were both ' unlawful' and 'irrational.'

At the time of issuing his 'Note of Provisional Views' in March the District Auditor made it clear that it did not, at this stage, constitute any decision or finding adverse to the council or to any individual.

But the Unique Response Committee has spent the past eight weeks giving detailed consideration to the auditor's findings and on the whole they have agreed that certain decisions were 'unlawful, irrational, mistaken and imprudent.'

Committee chairman, Cllr Pat Quinton said: "Over the past eight weeks we have spent many hours examining more than 2,000 pages of documentation.

We have also spent more than 20 hours in Committee and have worked hard to look at all the evidence, supplied to us by the District Auditor, in order to reach our conclusions."

The District Auditor will now consider the representations before making his final views known.

He will then decide whether to make an application to the High Court, under Section 17 of the Audit Commission Act 1998 and give further consideration, under Section 18 of the 1998 Act, to the allegations of wilful misconduct made against council members and officers.

The District Auditor has said whatever his final findings, he is minded to make a report in the public interest.

The Unique response Committee's findings are as follows:

District Auditor Provisional View 'A': the Council's decision (March 1994) to enter into Heads of Terms with the Unique Group to provide a Crinkley Bottom Theme Park in Happy Mount Park was imprudent but not unlawful.

Committee Response: The majority of Committee members agree with the District Auditor's Provisional View but the minority view of one member is to question the Provisional View regarding the lawfulness of the decision

District Auditor Provisional View 'B': the Council's decision (June 1994) to enter into Supplemental Heads of Terms with the Unique Group (varying the original Heads of Terms) was irrational and unlawful.

Committee Response: The Committee accepts, on balance, the District Auditor's Provisional View, whilst at the same time not accepting in full, and questioning, some of the arguments that led up to this.

District Auditor Provisional View 'C': the Council's decision (November 1994) to terminate the agreement with Unique Group on grounds of fundamental breach by the latter and to institute legal proceedings against the Unique Group was a lawful, but mistaken, decision.

Committee Response: whilst it accepts that the decision was mistaken, the Committee does not feel able to judge the lawfulness of that decision on the basis of the information available.

District Auditor Provisional View 'D': The Council' s decision (April 1995) to grant early retirement to the Town Clerk with immediate payment of an enhanced pension was unlawful.

As a provisional view, however, the District Auditor rejects the submission by the Objector that the Council should have initiated a disciplinary investigation into the Town Clerk's conduct in relation to the "Crinkley Bottom project" at that stage." Committee Response: The Committee accepts on balance the District Auditor's Provisional View that the Council decision was unlawful.

However, the Committee has pointed out to the District Auditor where it does not accept a number of his arguments in relation to this issue.