What is it about Greenwich being linked with upsetting the clergy? It's been brought to our attention that last week at a Cabinet Commmittee meeting, the subject of a compulsory purchase was supposed on the agenda.
Apparently, the plan was for the Council to compulsory purchase the Prince Albert pub on Plumstead Common and the Vicarage next door. The reason for this proposal was that the Department of Education has apparently refused to give Plumstead Manor any money unless it expands, hence it is explanding sideways rather than on to the waste land behind it (go figure!).
However, the plans appear to have been scuppered after a letter from the Archdiocese of Southwark to the Council which essentially said, and we paraphrase our source, "why didn't anyone tell us about this plan to compulsory purchase our property?"
We're now left wondering if the Council has re-employed people from AEG
We've just heard that the Archdiocese actually used the word "maladministration" in its letter in reference to the actions of the Council. Who'd a thought it?Update 2:
This story has caused a little fluffy of emails it seems. One of our emailers tells us that present at the meeting was a Comprehensive Performance Assessment Inspector who will be assessing the Council during the coming week.
We've also been told that when the announcement was made regarding the Archdiocese, the leader of the Council, Chris Roberts, effectively told the Cabinet the CPO would be pulled and no one in the Cabinet uttered a word. What's the point of a Cabinet system if the Cabinet doesn't say anything?
Labels: Chris Roberts, clergy, compulsory purchase, education