31 March 2011

Do unto others

The Western Gazette carried an interesting piece today (Thursday) with the announcement that the Police investigation into the Etsome Terrace/Tin Dunny transaction was at an end and that no charges would be brought against those arrested as part of that investigation. (If you haven't seen it, the article is reproduced in the 'Press' pages of Muck&Brass.) The Western's piece confirmed the identities of those having been arrested as being Mr H E Keenan, Mr A H Canvin, Mr C Edgar and Mr R Calderwood and carries the Police statement that the investigation "did not find any evidence that criminal offences had been committed".

Canvin, Keenan and Edgar are reported as considering legal action against those who made allegations against them and I for one will watch that development with interest especially when we find out exactly what these 'allegations' were. The article quotes Mr Keenan as saying, "We've requested under the Freedom of Information Act, all correspondence between the Council, individual councillors, the police and the auditors.". Knowing the agencies involved, I'm sure that they will get all the information to which they are entitled and when they receive it I hope they remember the manner in which they (Canvin & Keenan) responded when I made enquiries including Freedom of Information enquiries of the old Somerton Town Council in 2008 & 2009. 

In August of 2008 I wrote to the Council (Chair Keenan & Vice Chair Canvin) prior to the decision to swap the Etsome land for the Tin Dunny. That letter contained 16 questions and the Town Council failed to reply. In April of 2009 the Town Council denied me access to public documents which caused me to make three successive Freedom of Information requests which, as a result of the obstruction of the Town Council, led to three complaints against the Town Council. Up till 27th October 2009 (the date of the mass resignation) the old Somerton Town Council continued to obstruct the Freedom of Information Act and the Information Commissioner found against the old Town Council in all three instances. 

When the new Town Council was elected in January of 2010, they were keen to satisfy the Information Commissioner that all enquiries had been answered and I was given access to the Council's records. I was amazed to find that the old Town Council's response to the '16 questions' letter of August 2008 had been to take a legal opinion as to how they might avoid answering the specific questions. Furthermore, both Calderwood (the Town Clerk) and Canvin (the Vice Chair) had sought further legal opinions, through 2009, examining ways of obstructing the Freedom of Information Act with regard to my enquiries. Calderwood had also made enquiries of the District Solicitor who was unable to support the old Town Council's obstructive position.

Regarding the Police investigation, Keenan is quoted in the Western as saying that "This has resulted in a waste of tax-payers' money, police resources and time.". Later in the article Canvin is quoted as saying, "We've had absolutely nothing to hide and every penny has been accounted for."

If you see the police investigation as a consequence of my objection to the accounts of the old Town Council, and if you accept the position as laid out by Keenan and Canvin, then why did they obstruct my enquiries into the activities of the Town Council back in 2008 and 2009? If there was nothing to hide then why didn't they open the books at that time and explain it. They had plenty of documented opportunities yet, instead of answering the questions they spent a lot of time and public money obstructing legitimate enquiries.

If everything is exactly as Keenan and Canvin say then maybe they'd like to repay the cost of the External Auditor's enquiry because it was their obstruction that caused the problem in the first place. By the same token, if they had answered the questions and enquiries back in 2008 and 2009, would there have been an External Auditor's investigation or a Police investigation?

The sad fact is that this situation was authored by Keenan and Canvin. It was their determination not to answer my letter of August 2008 that led to my Freedom of Information enquiries. They took legal advice and not one opinion supported their obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act yet they went ahead and obstructed the law. They complain about wasting public money and police resources. Maybe they should have thought of that in August of 2008.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly.

PS This also in the Western Gazette, p16.


27 March 2011

The myth of 'democracy'................

In 2003 I was one of the millions of citizens who sought to make their views known to the then Government about the proposed Iraq War. I didn't agree with the war then and I have the same reservations about our Libyan adventure today. But my experience of 2003 was that the then Government had already made the decision to join Dubya in his 'Boys Own' adventure and it didn't really make any difference that millions took to the streets to voice their opposition.

As a direct consequence, I now experience a significant degree of frustration when faced with major government decisions with which I disagree and about which I believe that I will be able to do nothing. Clearly, many others experience the same frustrations and this raises the question as to how, in our democracy, can we disagree with our government?

The old Somerton Town Council was a perfect illustration of the lack of accountability in our local governmetal process. Just how accountable are our elected representatives? Not very if the conduct of the old Town Council is anything to go by. But how does the ordinary citizen hold their 'elected representatives' to account? The proponents of our 'democratic process' would have us believe that having an election once every 4 or 5 years makes our elected representatives 'accountable' and that is true, for the couple of weeks before the election. But what happens in the years after an election and before the next one? Are our elected representatives accountable in that period and, going by my own experience, the answer is 'no', unless, that is, the electorate can bestir themselves to voice their views.

That happened in Somerton in October of 2009 with the issue of Badgers Cross and the widespread opposition to Cllr Canvin's plans caused the mass resignation. But the problem is that 'the electorate' need to appreciate that their responsibility for making their elected representatives accountable is an ongoing responsibility. The more that the electorate are involved, the more will their elected representatives reflect the views of the electorate rather than the interests of specialist lobby groups. The less the electorate are involved, the more the actions of our elected representatives will reflect the interests of lobby groups and special interest groups. The work of such groups or individuals is on-going and relentless and, at local level, is best seen in the development community with regard to influencing planning policy and planning applications.

The electorate are at a huge disadvantage in this process in that lobby groups and special interest groups are driven by potential benefit, usually financial, and this pays for the lobbying effort. The electorate, on the other hand, already have a day job and their efforts must be self-funding.

Which is exactly why elected representatives need to be free of any interests which might influence their decision making, particularly in planning matters. At a local level, anyone with an involvement in construction or contracting or any profession with links to those activities, should be precluded from standing for elected office. Extreme? Yes, quite probably. But would it give the electorate more confidence in their local representatives? Yes, quite probably.

23 March 2011

Land & Property, Tuesday 22nd March 2011


The Certificate of Lawfulness application for Badger's Cross was discussed at this evening's committee meeting and it certainly gave the L&P Committee something serious to chew on. The Certificate of Lawfulness application is the latest effort by current District Councillor A H Canvin to unlock the development of his 11 acre site at Badger's Cross. 'Certificates of Lawfulness', whilst legitimate in planning terms, seek to legitimise the use of land (or property) on the basis of some historic use, in this case a use claimed to have been implemented at Badger's Cross in the mid-1960s.
The deliberation of the L&P Committee was preceded by a very informative presentation about the current application and made by a member of the Badgers Cross community, Terry Bastyan. Terry's presentation, complete with Powerpoint illustrations, showed the various maneuvers that District Cllr Canvin has tried in order to obtain a B2 designation on the site. None of District Councillor Canvin's applications share anything but the general location and the boundaries of the various applications move with the wind.
After the presentation, the committee discussed the narrow scope of the application itself and what became very clear was that the committee was being asked to express a view upon a position defined by the applicant themselves and where the test of the accuracy of the applicants claims can only really be undertaken by the District Council. As a consequence the L&P Committee decided not to comment and to place the onus on testing the veracity of the application upon the Planning Authority. At the same time the L&P Committee made very clear their concerns about the manner in which the applicant modified or changed the boundaries of the area which they claimed enjoyed B2 use. The L&P Committee therefore requested that, apart from testing the veracity of the claim, the District Council should seek a definitive boundary from the applicant and tie that to any decision that the District Council might be minded to make.
A sensible and thoughtful outcome in my own view and one that serves all parties well. It with now be up to the District Council and its Planning Department to do a thorough job in order to ensure that the claims made in the applicants documentation are based in fact and not within the applicant's fantasy.
And as a coda to the meeting the Committee discussed the fact that the disabled lift at the Tin Dunny ( cost - £40,000 ) is disabled. The Clerk read out a catalogue of failures and it would seem that the Council feels, with some justification, that the lift was not correctly installed. However the installers believe that everything is fine and, as a result, have instructed debt collectors. The Council is preparing to defend its position. Watch this space.
Till next time, I’m still Niall Connolly





19 March 2011

Lets's do a swap.........

Swapping things seems to be the way that its done in Somerton (look at the Tin Dunny and Etsome Terrace) and another fine example came to my attention yesterday when I was looking through the SSDC files relating to the Unicorn car park. Back in 2000 SSDC were trying to co-ordinate the development of the Brunel/Cox's Yard/Unicorn car park and it seems that 'key' to the development was a garage that stood to the south of the Doctor's Surgery and owned by Mr H E Keenan. Why this garage should have been quite so 'key' is lost on me but it was seen that way and, as a result, SSDC swapped a barn (part of the Unicorn title) at the back of West St for Mr Keenan's garage.

The swap was 'blessed' by the District Valuer (part of the Valuation Office and an executive arm of HM Customs & Revenue) who proposed that the garage and the barn were of equivalent value and, as such, could simply be exchanged, one for the other. Thankfully I have never had to use the DV's services and, based on that example, I'd avoid them at all costs.

Some of the documents relating to the exchange are reproduced below and they make interesting reading, especially the bit where Mr Keenan is threatening to sell his garage to someone else. Obviously the threat was enough to get SSDC quaking in their boots.

Till next exchange, I'm still Niall Connolly





11 March 2011

How times have changed....

Although I don't go to so many Town Council meetings these days I did take myself up to the Tin Dunny on Tuesday past because two planning applications were due to be considered, the Edgar renewal for Etsome Terrace and the Certificate of Lawfulness for Badgers Cross. Sadly, I was to be disappointed on both counts. The Chair, Cllr Michael Fraser-Hopewell, explained that, as the Town Council was a part owner of the Etsome site, the Town Council was entirely precluded from comment. It was also stated that the Badger's Cross application was deferred to the Land & Property meeting on 22nd March. But with regard to the Etsome site, there were a number of comments from a member of the public about the application and two of those comments gave me pause for thought.

If you go back to an earlier M&B, 4th March to be precise, you'll see a drawing of the Etsome site which is my own effort to fully understand the carve-up undertaken by the oSTC. What I hadn't fully appreciated, and a point that was made on Tuesday evening, was that Somerton Town Council is part owner of the site that is effected by the application. Importantly, Somerton Town Council's ownership is the access road to the development and I am moved to wonder if Somerton Town Council is obliged to deliver that access road. I'm sure that the justification for the access road was hung on the provision of a school drop-off point within the development but I have to wonder who came up with that bizarre idea. How do you make a school drop-off point work inside what is a gated development? Talk about idiotic.

Then there is the issue of the Section 106 contribution which should have been imposed on the development but, because of 'special pleading' by the oSTC, a contribution that the development should have made was excused. To clarify that issue, the oSTC claimed that the developer had made substantial contributions to the Town which already equalled the value of a S106 (planning gain) agreement. But if you look at the records of Somerton Town Council, you will find that Mr & Mrs Edgar donated scrap play equipment (which came from Clarks Village) to the town in 2005 with no mention of any relationship to a planning application.

The way that the oSTC, that is the Keenan/Canvin administration, squandered the opportunity of Etsome Terrace still amazes me. I cannot imagine a worse use of such a fantastic opportunity, especially when you look at one particular drawing presented by Somerset County Council to Somerton Town Council in 2002. This drawing was the 'Option 1' version of a series of proposals for the development of Etsome Terrace by Paul Dadson. This offered a template to the then Town Council as to how the site might be developed for the benefit of the community (click on the image to see it larger size).



What clearly happened was that this template also indicated how the local development community could make a quick buck at the taxpayers expense. It showed that the site could easily accommodate housing as well as a community hall and a playground. What is curious is the kack-handed manner in which the Edgar scheme included so much access roadway which, because of the crass inclusion of a 'school drop off point', would end up being maintained by the wider community when its primary function was to serve a gated development. Very clever.

As I've said before, the Dadson scheme stands as a silent witness to the stupidity of the Keenan/Canvin administration. When handed a perfect opportunity to deliver something worthwhile for the community, Keenan and Canvin, ably assisted by the rest of the then Town Council, balls it up to a fabulous extent.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

8 March 2011

Easy money........


Did you ever wonder exactly where the money came from that enabled the old Somerton Town Council to buy the land at Etsome Terrace? Well, the simple answer is that the money came from you and me, the good old taxpayer but that isn't the whole story. Whilst the taxpayers of Somerton are repaying the money, the funds themselves came to the oSTC in the form of a loan from a little known organisation called the Public Works Loan Board or PWLB. The PWLB are a government funded lender and they lend to local authorities to fund 'public works'. So, how does a body like the oSTC get its hands on the PWLB (taxpayer's) dosh?


Firstly, the oSTC had to complete a set of forms which it sent to the National Association of Local Councils. In this case the oSTC sent the documentation to NALC's local office for Somerset which is in Taunton and headed up by Peter Lacey. The documents include the amount to be borrowed, the purpose of the loan and other financial information about, in this case, the Town Council. NALC don't do and are not required to do any 'due diligence' to check the facts of the application. NALC simply confirm that the applicant body, in this case Somerton Town Council, is known to them and they forward the information to the next stop on the bureaucratic chain which was, in 2003, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the ODPM.

On the basis of the NALC confirmation that the documentation is genuine, the ODPM then decided whether or not to approve the loan. The ODPM didn't do any due diligence because the NALC had confirmed the legitimacy of the application and the ODPM simply decides if, on the basis of the information provided (which they assume is correct) if the purpose of the loan application satisfies their criteria. In the case of the Etsome Terrace loan, the ODPM approved the application and that approval was forwarded to the PWLB, allowing the PWLB to make the funds available.


So thats it. Easy peasy. What you might notice is the complete lack of oversight on the documentation front. No-one checks whether or not the 'facts' as represented are accurate. Everyone assumes that someone else has done the due diligence when, in fact, no-one has and it is really down to the author of the documentation to make sure that there is no misrepresentation.

So, for your amusement, I have reproduced three documents authored by our revered Town Clerk on behalf of the oSTC as it was constituted in 2003. These extracts are in support of loan applications but to what do each of these documents relate? The Rodger Calderwood Award for Creative Writing and a cheque for £25.00 will go to the first person to answer correctly. (Members of the oSTC, employees of STC, local property developers, family and friends are excluded from participation even if they don't know the answers.) I apologise in advance for the redactions (the ugly black lines) but I wouldn't want to make it too easy. As ever, click on an image to see it in a larger version.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

4 March 2011

The Etsome Terrorists..........

I've often heard it suggested that the Etsome Terrace deal was just a bit dodgy, not because it was so obviously lashed up by our revered ex-Vice Chairperson, Mr Tony Canvin, but because it didn't represent the best deal for Somerton and Somerton's ratepayers. Well, just out of interest I decided to see what I could find out from a closer examination of the various drawings of the site that are in the public domain.
I'm lucky enough to have a few title documents and those, along with various planning applications, have allowed me to assemble the diagram which appears below. As ever, double click on the image and it should open as a larger version.



The Etsome Terrace site is made up out of two elements, the land which was given to the Town by Cow & Gate in memory of those killed by the stray wartime bomb (the area edged blue) and the larger part bought from County in 2003 (edged yellow).
In 2007, after pissing about for 4 years, the Town Council suddenly aborted the time-wasting exercise which was the negotiations with the health centre providers, GPI, and sold two large chunks of the site to Edgar Homes. These elements are shown in solid red. However, there was a slight problem because the Town Council, out of stupidity or generosity (I don't know which) gave the roadway to the Edgar Homes for the cost of building it. This mechanism allowed Edgar Homes to maximise the use of the two plots but generated the need for an access road which the Council kindly enabled by taking a chunk (tinted grey) out of the 'gifted land' and adding a chunk from the land bought for 'community purposes (tinted green). In this way, the community paid for Edgar's access. Nice one Tony!
So far, so good but the real interest comes when you start to assess the area of land bought by Edgar Homes. I've just found a really neat little piece of software called ImageJ (which you can download free here in Windows, Linux and Mac formats) and this allows you to calculate relative areas from a drawing or photograph. (If you're smart you can get it to scale.) If you calculate the size of the two plots sold to Edgar Homes you find, rather surprisingly, that the area sold totals about 60% of the land purchased from County. Now I don't want to be picky but didn't County set a limit on the amount of land that could be sold and wasn't that limit 50%? Did County know about the 60%? I very much doubt it given the number and variations of drawings floating about. Then you can go on and calculate the area of roadway on the site and ImageJ tells me that almost 30% of the entire site (both the gifted land and the land bought from County) will be covered in tarmac. What a fantastic public amenity.
Oh yes, talking about 'public amenities, I stumbled upon some documentation at the Parish Rooms from the Public Works Loan Board and it made interesting reading. in 2003, the Town Council took out £600,000 of loans from the PWLB (being paid off for years from the Precept ie by you and me) and £250,000 was used to buy the Etsome Terrace land. The 'purpose' of the loan, as described in Mr Calderwood's documentation, is to buy land to create play areas and a public park. The strange thing about Etsome is that the Town already owned the memorial garden which was already a play area and today, instead of a 'public park' we have a derelict building site. What would the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister make of that, if that Office still existed? Surely the Town Council didn't instruct the Town Clerk to mislead the lenders?
Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly