I have recently been provided with a copy of your coverage of David Corker's report in to the Happy Mount Park fiasco were David Corker states:

the actions of members and officers was never wilful and;

officers were justifiably of the view that the principle of the side agreement about extraordinary losses had been agreed and that the only problems related to working.

I find it impossible to reconcile these two statements in light of the following irrefutable facts:

during the five months of negotiations prior to the agreement, the concept of Unique contributing to any losses was never raised until the very last minute.

council minutes demonstrate that within 24 hours, Unique had informed the council that this was not agreeable.

Despite this two attempts by the council were made in writing to persuade Unique and both attempts received an immediate response, again refusing to agree.

All of these exchanges took place over a week before the agreement was signed on March 22 and had Unique given any indication that the principle was agreeable, it no doubt would have been included, along with other changes, to the final version of the agreement, rather than being left to a side letter.

Accordingly, how could officers justifiably believe that the principle behind the side letter had been agreed (when Unique had made its position abundantly clear) unless someone had deliberately misled them? Furthermore, as certain key officers (including Mr Corker) have acknowledged that they were aware that the side letter had not been signed before the end of March, why did further reports to key council committees on April 12 specifically state that the side letter, which it now transpires was so fundamental to the council, existed? This was three weeks after Unique had told the council for the fourth time that we would not agree the side letter. The council's own reports and minutes demonstrate that councillors were told key facts, which had long been known to be false, by key officers. Of course it is laughable to suggest, as the council appears to do, that the matter of the side letter was still an issue in May, when it was never raised in the discussions in June for other variations to the agreement which resulted in the council substantially increasing its financial exposure by replacing the guaranteed payment to Unique each year of £40,000 with a guarantee of a minimum £300,000 each year.

You also report that Mr Corker said that the legal advice received prior to a decision to terminate the agreement with Unique was perhaps the most important aspect of the matter and yet also quotes him as saying there were no lessons to learn regarding the procedures followed with regard to legal advice. You may be unaware that there were strenuous efforts made by Unique in correspondence with the then town clerk between termination at the end of November '94 and the issuing of the writ three months later questioning the bizarre manner in which the legal aspects were being handled. It was abundantly clear to us at the time and pointed out openly to the council, that he handling of the legalities was peculiar in the extreme and caused us to conclude that the only reasons for handling them that way was because the council was hell-bent on litigating, presumably for political or personal reasons. That correspondence resulted in the then town clerk libelling Unique which, most may have forgotten, resulted in the council incurring costs of approximately £10,000 in the Summer of '95. It is therefore puzzling that the manner in which Lancaster Council sought legal advice in 1994 and 1995, which was immediately challenged by us as bizarre, and which had a catastrophic result for Morecambe, is not thought worthy of investigation in itself. No one should doubt that the costs to Morecambe would, in our opinion, have been very much less if legal advice had been sought in a more normal manner. In conclusion the report that is supposed to clear the air patently fails to address the true issues.

Paul Pascoe

Chief Executive

Unique Group

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.