28 September 2012

Ridicule delayed

After some months, SSDC was kind enough to send me a 'redacted' copy of the investigation report into the raft of complaints lodged by Messers Canvin, Mountain, Medley, Briggs, Richardson, Smith and Edgar(s) against Cllr Michael Fraser-Hopewell and its 107 pages make interesting reading - more of which later.  It has, however, taken SSDC more than 3 months to provide me with this 'redacted' version and I am moved to wonder just why its taken them so long.

I co-operated with the investigator and, apart from our face-to-face discussion, all my correspondence was in electronic form and, I assume, the investigator corresponded with SSDC in the same way. (I doubt there was any use of carrier pigeons or quill pens.) So why did it take more than 3 months to provide an electronic copy of the redacted document? The excuse already made by SSDC (in the person of Mr Ian Clarke) is that 'redacting' such a long document took a lot of time. Hmmmmmm

To test this proposal, I undertook some lab experiments using a sophisticated tool which is obviously unavailable or unknown to Mr Clarke and his colleagues. Most modern word processors have a facility called 'find and replace' which allows you to search a document finding specific terms and replacing them with terms of your choice. In the redacted document the term ***** appears 1473 times indicating that 1473 terms (names, in this case) have been removed. That part of the process, finding *****, took my 5 year old desktop something less than 2 seconds.

The next part of the experiment was to find ***** and replace it with some of the terms I know to have been redacted (Fraser-Hopewell, Canvin, Mountain, Medley, Briggs, Richardson, Smith, Edgar). In each case, the 'find and replace' action took something less than 2 seconds.

Finally, just to test the extremes of the 'find and replace' facility, I used it to insert some more sophisticated terms into the document and I tried 'mindless bureaucrat' and 'obstructive jobsworth'. Once again, the 'find and replace' feature undertook the action in something less than 2 seconds.

So, what does this experiment tell me? It tells me that SSDC could very easily have provided this document, dated 19th June, some time ago. Maybe not 16 seconds after its arrival at SSDC but certainly not three months later. A case of 'ridicule delayed'?

PS If anyone wants a copy of the document (including the redacted names) please get in touch with M&B

21 September 2012

Somerton, September 2012


'Muck & Brass' found its genesis (November 2006) in response to the disinterest of the then Town Council in Somerton in the southwest of England. That Town Council had, for many years, ignored the community in issues which were of direct significance, consequence and cost to the community. M&B sparked a debate about the Town Council's activities, particularly with regard to the Council's swapping, in 2008, of public land for an industrial shed to be refurbished, at public expense and without oversight, and used as a community hall.

The response to M&B was incendiary leading to 27th October 2009 when 12 members of the then Town Council, having learned of an Audit Commission investigation into their activities, staged a mass resignation.

Today, almost three years later and seven months after the publication of the Audit Commission's damning Report into Somerton Town Council (2008/9), a report describing 'unlawful expenditure', 'abuse of public funds' and 'acting without authority', none of those involved have faced any formal sanction.

M&B is, therefore, a cautionary tale. For regulations to have any credibility, they must be enforced and the failure of the authorities to impose any sanctions has turned the Audit Commission's Report into a template for delinquency. Any self-interested councillor only needs to read through the Report to find out that they can break almost all the rules without any fear of consequences.

For the individual who seeks to shed light on such actions, M&B is another type of cautionary tale - throwing light on wrongdoing is not without risk.

Niall Connolly
21st September 2012

17 September 2012

The Cambridge Crisis


Try Googling the words 'topless' and 'sunbathing' and you get something in the order of 30,000,000 hits. If you search Google's images with the same words you get almost 40,000,000 hits. From this most basic bit of research you can establish that there are, in the public domain, a lot of references to, and images of, people, the majority being women, involved in topless sunbathing. Although there is no research to support this proposition, a percentage of those individuals, mostly ordinary and anonymous people, must have been recorded or photographed without their permission.

So what is so different about Kate Middleton and why should photographs of her, sunbathing topless, be of such national significance that the 'story' would push the Hillsborough Report onto the back pages? If anyone can answer that question, I'd very much like to hear from them.

'The Sun' has been publishing photographs of young women without their tops since 1970 and 'The Sun', along with most of the UK's tabloid press, must therefore shoulder much of the responsibility for creating an environment where photos of female celebrities in various stages of undress are seen as being of worth. And there is no doubt that Kate Middleton is a celebrity. Had she left St Andrew's University without William's hand on her shoulder, these photographs would join the 40,000,000 other similar photographs out there on the web which exploit the subject but, in the main, attract no comment.

But Kate Middleton left St Andrew's University and married William, guaranteeing her 'celebrity' status so maybe someone should be asking if it was wise for her to sunbathe topless in the first place. Rather than throwing their hands up in horror, maybe the Palace should be firing the advisor who stood by and allowed Kate to take her top off. More importantly, maybe the Palace should be firing the advisor who allowed William's bald patch to feature so prominently. Either way, this was a royal own goal and I'd like to get back to the serious business of establishing who approved the cover-up of the Hillsborough tragedy. Set against that, topless photos of some celebrity are insignificant.

14 September 2012

Why did it take so long........


Since the publication of the independent report into the Hillsborough disaster there has been a mass chest-beating in all parts of the political and media spectrum. As I write this, another group of worthies discuss Hillsborough on Radio 4's 'Any Questions'. The question on everyone lips seems to be, 'Why did it take so long for the truth to come out?'.

On Thursday 14th, immediately after the publication of the report I listened to Lords Falconer (ex-Lord Chancellor and Minister of Justice) and McDonald (ex-Director of Public Prosecutions) discussing the contents of the report on Radio 4's 'Today'. (You can download a podcast of the piece here - or email M&B if you miss it.) The conversation looked at the 'how long it took' issue and set that in the context of what was described as 'Britain's suffocating culture of secrecy'. Falconer & MacDonald discussed the inertia within bureaucracies, how that inertia slows any process down and how slowing any process down can be in the interests of interested parties. They also discussed the cultural problems within bureaucracies with regard to the Freedom of Information Act, legislation which was described by its author, ex-Prime Minister Tony Blair, as a "blunder".

All of this debate and discussion is interesting, as are the demands for the prosecution of those involved with doctoring or editing statements to deflect responsibility from the Police. And there is an inference that, somehow, we are beyond all of that now, in 2012. The perceived wisdom being that such events could not happen today because we are more informed and more able to get at the truth through legislation like the Freedom of Information Act. But is this true? I think not.

You only have to look at my own efforts to gain access to documents held by South Somerset District Council (documents which actually refer to myself) to understand that, if public servants don't want you to see information, for whatever reason, they have many and varied ways of making sure that you don't or delaying your enquiry till the interest in your enquiries has died away.

I started the process of requesting information (about complaints against Cllr Fraser-Hopewell) from SSDC back in April and today, 5 months later, still nothing. SSDC, in the person of Mr Ian Clarke, the District Solicitor, have refused access at every stage citing fears of ridicule, potential prejudice and the Data Protection Act. Strangely, back in July, almost 2 months ago, SSDC, in the person of one of Mr Clarke's colleagues, Ms Amy Cater, proposed that they provide me with a redacted version of the investigation report (an investigation which I assisted voluntarily and where the complaints named and implicated myself) and today, still nothing.

Now I could go to the Local Government Ombudsman but I suspect that would play into the hands of SSDC's bureaucrats by tying my request up in even more red-tape so I'm waiting, not as long as the Hillsborough relatives and for something nothing like as serious as their enquiries, but I'm still waiting.

So, when people ask, 'why did it take so long?' I'd suggest that they point the question at people like Mr Ian Clarke because, from where I sit, he, and public servants like him, represent 'Britain's suffocating culture of secrecy'. Until those public servants accept that their own narrow and parochial interests stand beneath the public interest, we will continue to ask the question, 'Why did it take so long?'.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly



11 September 2012

Where does it hurt?


Last week's Western Gazette (Somerton & Langport Edition) carried a few stories which caught my eye. P7 had the Leader of SSDC, Ric Pallister, bemoaning the latest 'kickstart the economy' idea from David Cameron who is, allegedly, the Prime Minister. Dave's idea is that he's going to make it easier for developers to get planning consents and, in this way, he's going to help get the construction industry going again. Dear Ric is worried that this proposal will wreak havoc in our green and pleasant land but obviously Ric hasn't been looking at what the Area North Committee within SSDC have been up to in the past. Area North beat Dave to the punch and instigated their very own 'bend over for developers' policy when they approved Tony Canvin's application for Badger's Cross against serious opposition from the local community. Ric should be looking a little closer to home when he worries about "open season" for developers.

Then there was the story on Page 2 about the by-election in Langport where the turn-out was 15%, something that was described by SSDC as being, "particularly low for a town/parish council by-election". Maybe the problem is that the electors of Langport aren't used to being given the chance to vote for their representatives. Chris Osborne, Chair of the Town Council, described the by-election as a "waste of money", a statement that had peculiar echoes of the Keenan/Canvin regime's view of local democracy. Reading from the Keenan/Canvin playbook, Chris went on to suggest that the electoral disinterest was proof that everything was quite perfect with Langport Town Council. Hmmmmm.

But the saddest story of all was on the front page where uncertainty was reported over the future of Somerton's long-awaited health centre. Those readers with long enough memories will remember that Somerton Town Council, under the esteemed leadership of Messers Keenan & Canvin, had a deal on the table to sell part of the Etsome Terrace site to GPI who were going to use the land to build a health centre. From my own understanding, that deal was all but done when Tony Canvin called GPI and told them that the price  of the Etsome site had risen from £400,000 to £1,000,000. GPI could not afford Canvin's demand and, as a consequence, GPI pulled out.

Today, the Doctor's Surgery in Somerton is, by all accounts only marginally fit for purpose and a very poor relation when compared to the excellent facilities in Langport. The economic climate has changed radically since 2007, when Canvin pulled the plug on GPI building at Etsome, and that may have something to do with the current difficulties that John Bailey is experiencing.

However you look at it, the Keenan/Canvin administration's decision to put a sweetheart deal together with Edgar Homes over Etsome Terrace gave Somerton a very dodgy community hall and a pretty shabby surgery. That is their real legacy.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

4 September 2012

The end game at Home Farm.......


I could have titled this one, 'Cowboy Country' but that would have been giving cowboys a bad name. Maybe 'blood from a stone' would have been a better choice but, instead, this M&B tells something of the story currently unfolding at the property known as Home Farm in West End, Somerton.

Home Farm has been the home of the Chant family since it was purchased by them in the late 1920s. At that time, Home Farm was a working farm in open country, but time moves on and Somerton has expanded significantly over the decades. In 1951, the buildings which front West End were listed (grade 2) and in 1984 Home Farm is recorded as being one of the last farms operating within Somerton. By the early 1990s, the gentrification of West End meant that Home Farm's continued operation was in conflict with the essentially residential nature of that street and seen by at least one resident as a blight on local property values. Thus the stage was set for the battle between SSDC and the Chants.

In March of 2010, I visited South Somerset District Council to have a look at what they told me was the entire Home Farm file. The paperwork arrived on a trolley and ran to thousands of pages (I photographed 1200 pages which were by no means the whole of the file), the earliest of which seemed to be from 1994. The file indicated that, for unexplained reasons, SSDC's Conservation Officers had started to take an interest in Home Farm, ostensibly because of the poor condition of the listed farmhouse and barn which front onto West End. It is unclear whether or not local residents or councillors played a part in the initiation of this interest but they are recorded as being directly involved as the process unfolded.

By 1999, SSDC had started to formulate a plan to deal with both the agricultural use of the farmyard and the condition of the listed buildings. The strategy was enunciated in this Committee Report:
  
24/11/1999 p15 & p16
Committee Report 24/11/1999 p17 & p18

If you read this report you will see that SSDC's intention was to a) to CPO the farmhouse and b) to CPO the farmyard for use as 'social housing' (hilarious laughter). SSDC had decided to designate the farmyard for residential development and their intention was to add land from the farmyard to the listed farmhouse to make it a more attractive sale, once SSDC had skewered the Chants.

In 2001 the plan had taken a slightly different shape as described in these Minutes:
Minutes of Meeting 25/05/2001

Here, SSDC is changing tack a little and planning seeking a Discontinuation Order which would force the Chants to stop all agricultural/commercial work on the site, effectively denying them a livelihood. The planning aspect of the approach is addressed, as well as reference to 'compensation' and, possibly unsurprisingly, Canvin's name pops up although, at this time, his access to the process was limited, his not yet being a District Councillor. SSDC went forward with this plan and successfully achieved the Discontinuation Order which applied to the area on the plan below:
Discontinuation Order plan

The matter is again discussed at SSDC in 2004 in the following document:
Meeting Notes 25/06/2004


Apart from the notes themselves, the attendees to this meeting make interesting reading with Beale and Canvin involved in their roles as District Councillors. (In March of 2010, SSDC took some pains to assure me that they had advised Canvin to stay out of the Home Farm issue, an assurance in which I have put little faith.) Again, back in 2001, 'Matt Frost' was involved as an 'enforcement planner' for SSDC. That is, most probably, the same 'Matt Frost' who went on to work for Canvin's chosen planning advisors, Boon Brown and was involved in misleading Somerton Town Council over the planning status of Canvin's site at Badger's Cross. In these Meeting Notes, one SSDC officer questions the sense of SSDC pursuing the issues with the listed building but it is clear that SSDC are committed to a course of action which would, ultimately, result in the Chants losing their use of Home Farm, both as a place to live and a place to work.

The Chants made an unsuccessful appeal against the Discontinuation Order and then sought to obtain planning consent for an alternative 'homestead' at Somertonfield. Recently I read through some of the related documentation and it may have been a co-incidence but, both of the objectors to that application had links to Canvin. That notwithstanding, SSDC refused the Chant's application on a range of grounds which closed that particular avenue.
Since that time, SSDC has been involved in a war of attrition waged against the Chants and whilst it is fair to say that the Chants have been, in many ways, the authors of many aspects of their present situation, it is also fair to say that this has not been an equal struggle or anything like it.

When I first became aware of the Chant's trials, in early 2010, I started to look at the location and size of the Home Farm site and it enjoys a very central and attractive position at the heart of what is now Somerton. That makes it a very juicy proposition for Somerton's development community and Home Farm was mentioned by at least one developer in their communications with the Primary Care Trust in relation to a possible health centre location. But, of greater significance is the relationship between Home Farm and the adjacent, now demolished, Somerton Service Garage, as illustrated in the image below:
Home Farm and Somerton Service Garage
The farmyard of Home Farm is shown outlined (very approximately) in red and the primary access to the site is shown by the red arrows onto West End. The listed farmhouse is shown at the top left, outlined in orange. I am quite certain that County Highways would have a view were the Home Farm farmyard to be developed (14 units as proposed by SSDC planners) with a single access onto West End at that point.

But look to the right, within the green circle, where the farmyard shares a common boundary with the Somerton Service Garage site, outlined in yellow. That site has two excellent accesses onto the Langport Rd and the Sutton Rd, making it a no-brainer to view the two sites as one development opportunity which is just shy of 2 acres. The Home Farm site encompasses the larger part of the land and the Somerton Service Garage site offers much improved access. All in all, a very nice earner and certainly a very good reason for SSDC to consider CPOing the Home Farm site and the listed building and rejigging the ownership to maximise their benefit.

Today, the farmyard is in the hands of H&S Developments and contractors working on the site last weekend triggered off a ruck when they reportedly attempted to demolish a wall on the site which was also a supporting wall for an adjacent building. The Police were called to restore order but I think that we are now witnessing SSDC's plans (the committee report at the top of this article) coming to fruition, albeit with a private developer as the executioner. It will be interesting to see how SSDC seek to justify their intention to grab part of the farmyard when they proceed to CPO the farmhouse and, in so doing, throw the Chant family out on the street.

(A legal view of the Chant's situation, with regard to the 'Human Rights Act' can be found here.)

From what I know of the players, the Chants have long been something of an anachronism both in their occupation of Home Farm and their use of it. They had, through an accident of chance, become the owners of a land-locked agricultural site, a site which, over time, had become marooned in the middle of Somerton. Back in 1951, the Listing of the Farmhouse and barn probably seemed quite inconsequential but, by the early 1990s, reflecting the growing British obsession with 'property', the decaying fabric of the farmhouse must have grated on other residents keen to improve their property values by imposing their 'grand designs' mentality on their neighbours.

That the Chants consumed the fabric of the farmhouse through their lack of maintenance might, in some eyes, be seen as deplorable, but is not an uncommon approach. I witnessed exactly the same thing in Bermondsey in the 1980s where antiques warehouses stood decaying and unloved until the mid 1990s when a new generation of owners either demolished them or polished them. Speaking entirely personally, I couldn't care less about yet another thatched farmhouse and I certainly don't care enough about it to support hosing public money at an 18-year-long prosecution of the owners. 

And on the subject of public money, I enquired of SSDC as to the cost, thus far, of prosecuting their various actions against the Chant family and you won't be surprised to learn that, after 18 years, thousands of pages of paperwork, a Discontinuation Order and a Public Enquiry, barristers, counsel, consultants and probably thousands of hours of officers time, SSDC are clueless as to how much this horror-show has cost the public. SSDC have suggested, tongue-in-cheek I assume, that the cost might be more than £7,000 but how much more, they are unable to say. If that it true then SSDC is a clownshow run by incompetents. If its not true then maybe we should be told exactly how much it has cost the taxpayer to deliver Home Farm into the hands of the development community. And what benefit, if any, accrues to the taxpayer, apart, that is, from the future possibility of some city wide boy being able to buy a twee thatched house.

Maybe SSDC should organise a rodeo at Brympton Way, they certainly have enough cowboys.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly