I remember this story, and the arguments over the legalities of whether the council had the power to have sold off public amenities at such a low cost in the first place.
Developers being the sort of creatures they are will seize on the oppurtunity to make a fast buck but in this case they should have been fined heavily for non maintanance as per agreement to sale. and the compulsory purchase should have been for th same amount as it was sold for as no improvement works had taken place.
Was any "conflict of interest" connection between council members and the developers brought to the attention of the media in this case?