THE borough council has been blasted for a cloak and dagger attitude during the investigation into the Eaton Street development.

The eight-strong Eaton Street Panel has been holding regular private meetings to try and find out what went wrong with the deal.

However, despite the meetings having finished, chair of the panel, Cllr Dave Crum, was unable to reveal the key findings.

"There are specific reasons why the contractors pulled out but that information, I am told, is confidential to the developers and I am not able to give that out," he said.

"The panel thought the specific reasons were appropriate and we will definitely learn from them. These are things that realistically we had very little, if no control over."

The development has been dogged by controversy since it was revealed that developers Parkridge knocked the borough's price tag down from £4 million to £2 million in March last year.

The site was earmarked for a prestigious £9 million leisure complex, but after much delay developers Parkridge pulled out at the last minute leaving the council high and dry.

The panel did publish six recommendations which were put before Full Council last week and approved, and these included a policy saying that in future all acquisitions or disposals over £500,000 should be decided by Full Council.

A warning was also given to councillors of the importance of hitting a balance between whipping and individual opinions when voting on vital issues.

The findings have been labelled a total whitewash by councillor Brian Silvester, who said: "Key questions have not been answered. A lot of the outcomes of the report need to be made public, there is no reason why they should not.

Cllr Silvester is now threatening to bring in the District Auditors.

"When the contract was passed to Parkridge the proper rules were not followed. We should have gone to tender again or standing orders should have been waived.

Cllr Bill McGinnis is a member of the Corporate Services Committee which is meeting tomorrow, Friday, May 4, to choose a new developer for the site, a decision which will have to be approved at Full Council.

Cllr McGinnis maintained issues such as why the council accepted the 50 per cent reduction in price needed to be addressed. He also wants the council to make the recommendations public: "I think these are matters of great concern, we are talking about public money," he said.

Labour leader, Cllr Peter Kent, said he was happy with the recommendations of the panel: "The fact that this independent panel does not agree with the suggestions made by Cllrs Silvester and McGinnis speaks for itself.

"I would have accepted whatever the panel said and I do, and the recommendations that the panel made are public.

"If Cllr Silvester wants to call the District Auditors and waste tax payers' money that is his choice."

In response to the accusations of secrecy Cllr Crum said: "I think it is very hard to have any investigation of this nature in a more public form.

"It was generally seen as a good practice exercise for the forthcoming scrutiny committee in the new structure and they will be open to the public.

However, Cllr Silvester disagreed saying: "It does not bode well for the future of the scrutiny committees, unless scrutiny is going to get down to the nitty gritty and make hard recommendations."

By Pete Henshaw