Exclusive: Places for People Silent Over Otterpool Park Contract Dispute

Exclusive

Places for People pulled out of plans to become an Otterpool Park joint venture partner in autumn 2024. Now, after being asked whether it is taking or preparing legal action against Otterpool Park LLP and-or Folkestone & Hythe District Council, it has refused to comment. The dispute remains unexplained. So does the potential cost to the public.

Places for People pulled out of plans to become a joint venture partner in Otterpool Park in autumn 2024. Now the company has refused to answer questions about what appears to be a contractual dispute involving Otterpool Park LLP, the council-owned vehicle behind the development, and possibly Folkestone & Hythe District Council itself.

That should concern residents for one simple reason. Otterpool Park LLP is owned by FHDC. If it is facing a serious claim, settlement or payout, the obvious question is who ends up carrying the risk.

On 10 April, questions were sent to Places for People chief executive Greg Reed (pictured) asking whether the company was taking, or preparing to take, legal action against Otterpool Park LLP and-or the council. The questions also asked, in broad terms, what the issue was about, when it arose, how it came about, and how much money might be at stake.

On 13 April, the response came back from Places for People’s Group General Counsel. His response was:

“It is not possible or appropriate for us to provide any comment in response to the questions that have been raised.”

That is not an answer. It is not a denial either. It is a wall.

And it comes against an important backdrop. Places for People had previously been lined up to take a major role in the Otterpool Park scheme. But that proposed partnership fell apart in autumn 2024, when the company pulled out of becoming a joint venture partner.

That history matters. This is not some passing commercial name on the edge of the project. Places for People was meant to be part of it. It then walked away. Now, months later, its senior legal team is refusing to say anything when asked about an apparent contractual dispute involving the council-owned LLP behind the scheme.

The exact nature of that dispute is not known. The amount potentially at stake is not known. Nor is it yet clear whether any formal legal proceedings have begun or whether the matter remains short of that stage. But a dispute there is.

There is now enough to say something has gone badly wrong between parties once expected to work together on one of the biggest developments this district has ever seen.

That is a public-interest issue, not a private footnote.

Otterpool Park has been presented for years as a flagship project: big promises, big numbers, big ambitions. But big projects have a nasty habit of becoming expensive projects when relationships sour, deals collapse and hard questions arrive later than they should have done. If Otterpool Park LLP is now caught up in a serious contractual dispute, residents are entitled to know the broad shape of it and the scale of any possible exposure.

Our Public Face spoke to deputy council leader Cllr Tim Prater about the matter this morning. He said he knew nothing about it.

That, in itself, would not be unusual. Council leaders do not always know every operational or legal detail as soon as it arises, especially where arms-length companies and commercially sensitive matters are involved. But it is not exactly reassuring either. If there is a serious contractual issue hanging over the wholly council-owned LLP at the heart of Otterpool Park, residents might reasonably expect somebody near the top of the system to know what is going on.

And if they do know, they should start saying more.

Because this is not just about one apparent dispute. It is about a political culture that too often seems unable to admit error, weakness or failure until it has absolutely no choice. Problems are not confronted early. They are managed, softened, delayed and wrapped in silence for as long as possible.

Think of our 18-month investigation into East Kent Housing, which helped bring down both the organisation and its former chief executive. Think of our reporting on the Premier Roofing contract, whose cost had spiralled from £500,000 to £2.5 million before it was dragged into public view. Think of the wider pattern. The names change and the files change, but the instinct looks much the same: say as little as possible for as long as possible, and hope the problem either blows over or becomes too tangled for residents to follow.

That culture has to end.

All The Shepway Vox Team will say is this: it really is time for personal accountability and for the people responsible to accept responsibility for this dispute wherever and whoever they are.

Just say there is a contractual dispute. Just say public money may be exposed, and potentially how much. If mistakes have been made, own them. And if poor decisions helped bring Otterpool Park LLP to this point, the people responsible should not be allowed to slip quietly into the background with a payoff and an NDA; while residents are left to worry about the bill.

Otterpool Park was sold as a grand vision. It should not now become another cautionary tale in which risk is quietly socialised, accountability disappears and the public is told the bare minimum for the maximum possible time.

For now, the key facts are stark enough. Places for People pulled out of the proposed joint venture in autumn 2024. Questions were then put to the company about possible legal action and the nature of the issue. Its senior lawyer refused to comment. The apparent dispute remains unexplained. The potential cost remains unknown.

And that is why this story is getting bigger, not smaller.

The Shepway Vox Team

Discernibly Different Dissent