Councillor remains under fire over funds ‘debacle’

David May, the under fire Montrose Councillor at the Centre of the Brechin £900,000 Town Centre Regeneration debacle, has been accused of “passing the buck and the blame” by the former vice-chairman of Brechin Community Council.

Mr May was contacted by David Adam in relation to remarks he made in the “Brechin Advertiser” on the matter.

Responding to Mr Adam’s request for a public enquiry and a public meeting on the subject Mr May said he had forwarded the e-mail to the council leader.

“He has indicated to me that he will respond to the issues raised, given his involvement with the project.”

Mr May had previously said that both he and Angus Council officials “had done everything they could” to ensure the allocation of a project to spend the money on was a successful one.”

He also previously informed the “Brechiner” he had no plans to tender his resignation.

In his correspondence with Councillor May, Mr Adam said: “It is sad to see the funds being used to purchase abandoned commercial premises with complicated legal implications for residential properties that have been neglected by their owners for years, when there are few business incentives to start up in Brechin being broadcast by this Angus Council administration.”

He concluded: “Admittedly there was a time-scale stitched into the TCRF, but Angus Council have dealt Brechin a massive blow by painting themselves into a corner with their dogmatic approach to the interpretation of the government deadlines and simply not seeing the wood for the trees.

“At no time did Brechin’s office-bearing councillors or their council officers ask the people of Brechin what they thought was the best way to regenerate the city centre. How sad and conceited is that?”

Members of the SNP opposition group on Angus Council have also expressed concerns that Mr May has failed to carry out his duties effectively in his role as convenor of the infrastructure services committee.

In a statement the group said: “Councillor May’s comment that Councillor Myles was better suited to respond to Mr Adam’s questions as he was involved shows once again that the convener failed to carry out his expected duties his significantly publicly funded salary requires.

“The questions by Mr Adams were put directly to Councillor May in his capacity as convener.

“The Prime Minister at Prime Minister’s questions doesn’t get someone else to answer for him in the Commons, so why did Councillor May refuse to respond in his capacity as convener. It is his department that dealt with the issue not Councillor Myles.

“The £900,000 was withdrawn on Councillor May’s watch, not that of Councillor Myles.

“If he wishes to save his integrity Councillor May must back residents and politicians’ calls and hold a public investigation. After all he was supportive of public meetings when he and his administration buddies were spending £10million on a sports centre extension in Montrose.”