COUNCILLORS voting for the ill-fated Crinkley Bottom Theme Park may not have been in possession of the full facts, the Citizen can reveal. Council members have said that, had they known that Noel Edmond's Unique Group had expressed no intention to underwrite any losses should the theme park prove a flop, they would have voted differently. Several councillors have said that back in 1994, they received the impression that an agreement was in place which would lessen the financial risk to the council.

And a confidential document acquired by the Citizen which purports to have been presented to councillors the day before the deal was signed appears to reveal that senior officers did go on record to claim a 'side agreement' was in place. This agreement would "allow for further negotiations on the financial arrangements should a minimum attendance not be achieved."

Unique boss Paul Pascoe is adamant that this was not the case. He claims his company would never consider such an agreement and he has threatened legal action against anyone who suggests otherwise.

Reacting to the revelations, Cllr Carol Broad said: "It was an issue that was rushed through at the time and members were under the assumption that Unique would share some of the losses. If that wasn't the case then I'm very angry. I voted for Crinkley Bottom and if I had been given the full facts - that there was a much bigger financial risk to the council than was implied - I would have voted differently. I know that many other councillors feel the same. How can we make decisions which effect the people of the district without full knowledge of all the facts. The Crinkley Bottom fiasco ended up costing us close on £2 million."

The confidential document is to be given to the District Auditor, who is studying public complaints about the council's handling of the Crinkley Bottom affair.

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