MuckandBrass

The facts Jack, just the facts (if you have any)...........

2012-01-21T11:01:00.001Z

Back in November of 2011, the Western Gazette carried a piece about a complaint which had been lodged with South Somerset District Council (SSDC) against the current Chair of Somerton Town Council. The Somerton rumour mill didn't take long to telegraph the suggestion that I am somehow implicated in the complaint and, as a consequence, I made an enquiry of SSDC with regard to any and all references to myself. SSDC's response has been predictable in one regard and curious in another.

The complaint itself is summarised thus: That Cllr Fraser-Hopewell has brought his office and Somerton Town Council into disrepute by (i) providing information to a third party for reasons not connected to the functions of the Town Council, (ii) misleading other councillors in relation to an external investigation, (iii) incurring expenditure to further personal interests rather than for the purposes of the function of the town council (iv) pursuing a vendetta against the previous town councillors.

SSDC have now informed me that they will release to me such information that relates to myself in the following terms:

In terms of the detail of their complaint where you are mentioned, I will check with the investigator whether or not release of some of the detail of the complaint that relates to you would adversely impact upon his investigation.

However, as expected, SSDC will seek to redact the identity of the complainant(s) but it is the reason for this non-disclosure that I find most interesting and is as follows:

The council's position is that disclosure would be unfair as the information was obtained in relation to a specific FOI request and complaint under the code of conduct and not for wider public disclosure. These are sensitive matters due on-going issues relating to Somerton and the activities of past and present members and supporters of the Town Council. Due to the history of the troubles in Somerton we have concluded there would be a general expectation of privacy due to the sensitive nature of the information and the likelihood that disclosure would cause the members of public concerned distress and/or damage to their reputation or standing. There is also the likelihood that they would feature on and be subject to ridicule through your "muck and brass" blog . Disclosure under the Act means disclosure to the world at large and would put this information into the public domain; in the council's opinion this would be both unfair and an unwarranted intrusion of privacy.

What SSDC seem to be saying here is that public information is only safe in the hands of those who will not make it public and someone like myself, who might make public information public, must be denied access to such public information. It is also clear that, whilst serious allegations have been made, SSDC are seeking to proceed with what is, in effect, a secret investigation. This raises the question of the credibility of the allegations themselves: what test was applied to the allegations before the decision to investigate was taken?

It is also worth comparing this complaint(s) to my own objection to the accounts of Somerton Town Council for fiscal 2008/9. In lodging that objection I did so under my own name and I made public the fact of the objection. I also provided such documentary evidence as had not been denied to me (in breach of the FoI Act) by the actions of the then Somerton Town Council. I did not seek neither did I expect anonymity. But it would seem that, in the case of the complaint(s) against the current Chair of the Council, anyone can say anything and not make themselves subject to scrutiny.

In my own view, this complaint(s) is just a part of the ongoing vendetta being maintained by Somerton's Old Guard and their supporters against anyone who, in their eyes, criticised the Keenan/Canvin administration. It is reasonable to ask if the 'evidence' supporting the complaint(s) properly and fairly tested and, if it was not, have SSDC and its Assessment Committee not become agents of that vendetta?

Obviously, the public disclosure of the complaint(s) and the investigation, particularly the terms of the allegations, must itself be seen to be damaging to the reputations of the subject(s) of the investigation. SSDC has a duty of care, not only to treat complaints fairly but to extend that fairness to those complained about. In my own case, I would like to see the 'evidence' where the complaint(s) refer or relate to myself - in a democracy the accused has a right to see the 'evidence' and also to refute it.

Whatever the case, I hope that the complaint(s) are based upon substantive fact and that SSDC's Assessment Committee tested the 'evidence' before instigating the investigation. Any failure to so do will, quite reasonably, raise suggestions of bias and attract a charge of bringing their office and their Council into disrepute.

Till next complaint, I'm Niall Connolly

Excuse me, are you a lizard?

2012-01-15T23:58:00.002Z

The level of paranoia within the Somerton Old Guard seems to be reaching some sort of fever pitch with a Mr Paul Audemars joining in the fray. I don't know very much about Mr Audemars other than that he seems to be or have been involved in a business based on the Bancombe Trading Estate and he is also the registered owner of the somerton.co.uk domain name. But, however little I know about Mr Audemars, he certainly seems keen to know about my researches into the activities of the old Somerton Town Council. To help him on his way, and to add to Inspector Raybouldi's workload, I thought that it might be useful to make available some documents which, taken together, have always bothered me.

Images 1 and 2 were individual pages and pages 3, 4 and 5 were one document. If you double click on the thumbnails you can read them yourselves.

The first document is an invoice from A H Canvin to Edgar Builders for in excess of £10k for work undertaken on behalf of Edgar Builders by A H Canvin. At the date of invoice, 12th August 2008, the land at Etsome Terrace was still owned by Somerton Town Council.

The second document is a 'petition' signed by eight of Somerton's Town Councillors, requesting a public meeting to discuss the proposed purchase of what would become the Tin Dunny. This document is dated 15th August 2008, three days after the Canvin invoice. (The signatories are Neale, Rees, Bisgrove, Medley, Holland, Raybould, Smith M and Deering). It was reported that Cllr Canvin was not best pleased when informed of the petition and sought out Cllr Rees (the organiser of the petition) to let him know. Part of this exchange was reportedly witnessed by another of the signatories, Cllr Martyn Smith.

The third document, comprising three pages, is a report to Councillors, dated 19th August 2008, which would seem to be in response to the request for a public meeting. It is a remarkably biased document, produced, I understand, by the Town Clerk. It deals, almost entirely, with the supposedly catastrophic consequences of the asset swap not happening and, spookily, it prefigures the mass resignation. But it fails to mention the fact that the Mitchem Family had agreed to relax the covenant on the playing fields, allowing a community facility to be built there. It also fails to mention that West of England had tendered to build a community hall for a little more than half of what the Tin Dunny cost to buy (excluding the refurb).

These documents probably say different things to different people but I would ask a simple question, "Would the Canvin invoice have been settled had the asset swap not been agreed by the Town Council?". Presumably, the answer to that is that the invoice would not have been settled. Were that to be the implication then is it possible that there was a degree of pre-determination in the Council's consideration of the deal? I don't know and I hope that the External Auditor has looked at this aspect of the documentation.

Whatever the case, I'm sure that we can rest easy in our beds as we have Briggs, Audemars, Raybouldi and Medley (aka the BARMy Army) on the case. They'll get to the bottom of it and I'm sure that they'll establish, with absolute certainty, that I forged these documents and its all part of wicked conspiracy to undermine something or other. Maybe they are spending too much time on David Icke's website.

Till next conspiracy, I'm still Niall Connolly

Look out, look out, the mole's about

2012-01-12T22:02:00.001Z

Muck and Brass was unsurprised by the latest shock announcement that, wait for it, there's a mole somewhere in Somerton Town Council. Forgive me for saying but that Council has been a leaky ship since January 2010 when the new Council was elected. The SOGGIES (Somerton Old Guard) have remained very well informed about the internal workings of the Council and it has been clear that someone has divided loyalties. From the reporting of events, it would seem that the mole is very happy to hand out documents to their SOGGY mates in order to assist the ongoing vendetta against the current Chair and the leadership of the Council.

In response to the publicity surrounding the presence of the pesky little critter, M&B has decided to offer a prize for the best, most creative idea for the identity of the mole. The best suggestion received by M&B in the next couple of weeks will receive a bottle of very cheap sherry.

Entries to the usual email address.

Raybouldi investigation stalls.......

2012-01-12T01:19:00.004Z

News has reached M&B that the Raybouldi investigation into the Somerton Old Guard and the 'Crockery Scandal' has stalled. Insiders say that Inspector Raybouldi is spending all of his time watching reruns of the Tellytubbies and talking to members of the SOG in the hope that one of them will crack.

In an effort to help the hapless Inspector, Muck and Brass would like to offer Raybouldi unrestricted access to its extensive archive of files detailing the activities of the SOG. Of particular interest to the Inspector will be the documents (which the SOG sought to keep secret) describing in detail the way in which the crockery was laid out.

We are waiting by the phone............

Who polices them?

2012-01-09T13:54:00.003Z

When considering the accountability of our Town and Parish Councils with regard to their use (or abuse) of public funds, it is material to look at changes in legislation being considered by the current Government. Both the Audit Commission and the Standards Board are being abolished and some thought has been given to how 'smaller bodies' (eg Town or Parish Councils) will be regulated.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW) prepared a memorandum, dated January 2011, seeking to devise a new local audit regime. This document House of Commons - Communities and Local Government Committee - Written Evidence attempts to address the 'light touch audit regime' to which Town and Parish Councils are subject. Of note are points 51 and 52:

AUDIT OF SMALL BODIES

51. We are, however, not in favour of a regime whereby each small body will be required to appoint its own auditor. The smaller parish councils do not necessarily have the skills or expertise to appoint their own auditor and it would not be appropriate to place this additional burden on them, which would inevitably be at a cost.

52. For the smaller end of the scale, our view is that the precepting authority (to whom the parish is accountable) should take the responsibility for carrying out some checks of how the precept is spent. The precepting authority could use its own internal auditors or perhaps even its external auditors for this purpose (recognising that they were would be cost involved in using its external auditors).

The ICAEW's observations are interesting (item 51) where they recognise the possibility that Town or Parish Councils may not be sufficiently skilled to appoint their own auditors, something that is standard practice at present. Further, the ICAEW's suggestion (item 52) is that policing the accounts of Town and Parish Councils be taken over (to an undefined extent) by the precepting authority which, in Somerton's case, would be South Somerset District Council.

In order to assess if this suggestion is practical, it is worth considering that, the last time I looked, there were 121 Town or Parish Councils within SSDC's administrative area. They are all obligated to report accounts around the same time and, given the scale of the work, it is unlikely that SSDC will do little more than a box ticking exercise. So how will this process be any more effective than the current 'light touch audit' applied by the Audit Commission regime?

But underlying the discussion about the strength of external audit (and who should police it) is the thorny question of the accuracy of the information provided by the Town or Parish Council.

In Somerton's case, if the internal auditor preparing the accounts is not supplied with accurate information, how are they to know that something might be amiss. Exactly the same situation applies to the External Auditor. Is a Council likely to tell their auditor to look more closely at an item if there is something untoward about the expenditure? Clearly the answer is NO. Is the internal auditor or the external auditor for that matter, obliged to look at every item of expenditure and test it against the Council's Standing Orders or Financial Standing Orders? Such an effort would be prohibitively expensive and impractical.

So we are left to face the sad fact that, if a Town or Parish Council, decides to ignore the dominant legislation and their own Standing Orders, it is perfectly possible that the information that is provided to the Internal Auditor and to the External Auditor will be presented in such a fashion as to avoid raising concerns.

So what constraints could be applied to such delinquent Councils? At present, I am aware of none. When I lodged my own objection to Somerton Town Council's accounts, I believed that, in objecting to the accounts, there would be a robust examination of the facts and that there would be real consequences should wrong-doing be uncovered.

Today, almost 30 months after lodging my objection to Somerton's accounts, the only real outcome of the process (apart from the violence and abuse to which I have been subjected) is the ever escalating cost of the External Auditor's enquiry. I continue to believe that neither the Audit Commission nor the External Auditor would have embarked upon the enquiry if there had not been solid justification for so doing and I will be interested to see what the External Auditor delivers for £60,000. But, at the end of the day, whatever the External Auditor says in their Report, the sad fact is that the taxpayer will, as usual, be forced to pick up the tab. That in itself must be comforting to delinquent Councils and Councillors, to know that they will not be made to pay for cataloguing their errors.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

All the very best........

2012-01-01T00:29:00.004Z

........for 2012

Countdown........

2011-12-31T22:58:00.003Z

We are in the last hours of 2011 and Somerton's Old Guard have made it a year to forget. Lets hope that 2012 brings some clarity and closure. Maybe the Old Guard will find the courage to admit their mistakes and face up to the realities of their misdeeds. That would indeed be something to celebrate in the New Year.

Till 2012, I'm still Niall Connolly

2011-12-22T00:52:00.003Z

We're winding down for the traditional festivities so, until we return in 2012, Muck&Brass would like to wish everyone a happy Christmas and a safe New Year. May 2012 bring you everything you need and want.

And remember, don't you go where the huskies go................

Another investigation.............

2011-12-15T20:51:00.005Z

Members of Somerton's community were shocked to learn at this week's Council Meeting, that yet another investigation is to be launched into the activities of Somerton Town Council. Coming hard on the heels of the news that the current investigation could cost as much as €18,000,000 euros, the news of this new development stunned the audience.

Muck&Brass can announce that the investigation is to be undertaken by none other than mustachiod lothario and international trouble-shooter Inspector Gary Raybouldi. Inspector Raybouldi sprang to world attention when he solved the infamous 'Colonel Mustard and the lead pipe' murder case in the sleepy Cotswold village of Waddington.

Speaking in his softest Corsican burr, Inspector Raybouldi was quick to declare a personal and prejudicial interest in the investigation given the fact that he had been personally involved with Somerton Town Council at the time of what is known as the 'crockery scandal'. He went on to explain that he would leave no stone unturned in his efforts to unmask the gang, known locally as 'the old guard', who he believes were the masterminds behind the 'crockery scandal'.

Speaking privately to Muck&Brass, Inspector Raybouldi explained that his investigation would be entirely independent and unbiased, guaranteeing the people of Somerton something that he described as 'a whitewash'.

An un-named source in Inspector Raybouldi's office provided the diagram below which was claimed to explain Inspector Raybouldi's strategy.

Till next time, I'm not George Dixon.

How does your Council measure up...........

2011-12-02T00:44:00.001Z

Recently it was suggested to me that I look at the website for the Committee on Standards in Public Life and pay particular attention to their 'Seven Principles' which I reproduce below. When the Auditor's Report in the Public Interest is finally produced, I will send a copy of it to Sir Christopher Kelly and seek his view on the standards set by Somerton's Town Council in the Keenan/Canvin era.

The Seven Principles of Public Life

The Committee believes that 'Seven Principles of Public Life' should apply to all in the public service. These are:

Selflessness
Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. They should not do so in order to gain financial or other benefits for themselves, their family or their friends.

Integrity
Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might seek to influence them in the performance of their official duties.

Objectivity
In carrying out public business, including making public appointments, awarding contracts, or recommending individuals for rewards and benefits, holders of public office should make choices on merit.

Accountability
Holders of public office are accountable for their decisions and actions to the public and must submit themselves to whatever scrutiny is appropriate to their office.

Openness
Holders of public office should be as open as possible about all the decisions and actions that they take. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when the wider public interest clearly demands.

Honesty
Holders of public office have a duty to declare any private interests relating to their public duties and to take steps to resolve any conflicts arising in a way that protects the public interest.

Leadership
Holders of public office should promote and support these principles by leadership and example.

A vendetta.........

2011-11-27T19:24:00.001Z

The Guardian's coverage of the Levenson enquiry this weekend rang vague bells, and as I read it, I considered the parallels between my experience in Somerton, particularly the response of Somerton's 'old guard'.

When I look back to the events of 2009, in the months before the mass resignation, I realise that the old guard was already organising its troops and their strategy was not to deal with the serious questions raised about the behaviour of the then Town Council - their strategy was to denigrate and attack their critic.

In Somerton, the response of the old Town Council to criticism, was, firstly, to deny their single critic access to public records. Later, Ex-Chair Keenan suspended a Council meeting to enable the abuse of their single critic by Councillors, prominent amongst whom was soon to be Ex-Cllr Martyn Smith. Later, in September of 2009, three individuals (Macklin, Davis & Briggs) read out statements during a Council meeting and, of these, the most interesting is the contribution of 'Mr Briggs'.

The statement he read out (as recorded in STC's Minutes) indicates that he was researching my past, research that, in similar vein, later appeared: on the vindictive, malicious and anonymous website 'SomertonSanity'; in the Town Council's 'stasi file' (describing their efforts to deny access to public documents) and also in anonymous leaflets distributed around Somerton by none other than ex-Cllr Martyn Smith.

Whilst it is easy to see why members of the Keenan/Canvin administration might want to attack their critic, Mr Brigg's interest is slightly harder to understand, unless you consider that Mr Brigg's partner, Mrs Briggs, is the 'assistant to the Town Clerk'. The possibility of a future job as Town Clerk, with the not insignificant remuneration, might be a very good reason to attack any critic of the old Town Council or of the Somerton Community Association (Chair - Mrs Briggs) which funnelled significant funds into Council inspired projects.

Today, a little more than 2 years after the mass resignation Somerton's old guard have significantly failed to dispute any of the documentary evidence which I presented to the External Auditor yet there continues a co-ordinated effort to denigrate anyone who criticises the activities of the old Somerton Town Council or its membership.

The Auditor's Report cannot come soon enough and it will be interesting to see what is says about the events of 2008/9. Whatever it says, I suspect that its findings will be rejected by Somerton's old guard and their supporters. Whatever it says, I suspect that the vendetta against the old Somerton Town Council's critic(s) will continue and it will be interesting to see who else involves themselves in that vendetta.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

Do as I say............

2011-11-12T15:16:00.004Z

News has arrived with me that Mr A H Canvin, ex-Vice Chair of Somerton Town Council, has undergone something of an epiphany regarding access to public documents. Those residents of Somerton who have followed the various cavortings of the Keenan/Canvin administration (which self-imolated in October 2009) will remember that it was that administration's refusal to grant access to public documents which led to my lodging an objection to Somerton Town Council's accounts. Under the leadership of Keenan & Canvin, Somerton Town Council obstructed requests for access and refused to release Public Documents requested under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act.

Now it seems that the erstwhile Mr Canvin has himself started to to use the Freedom of Information Act to request information from Somerton Town Council. It also comes as no surprise to find that Mr Canvin would seem to be fishing for information about none other than Niall Connolly.

At present I am awaiting confirmation from Somerton's Town Clerk, Mr Rodger Calderwood, of any FoI requests made of Somerton Town Council which refer to myself, information which the Council is obliged to supply. As yet, that information is not forthcoming.

I can only say that it paints a strange picture when Mr Canvin, Vice-Chair of a Council which wilfully obstructed legitimate enquiries, now seeks to use exactly the same legislation himself and expects that he will be given the access that he and his Council denied.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

If the glove fits........

2011-10-31T17:34:00.001Z

I was noodling the interweb a couple of days ago and came across the cartoon which adorns the 'masthead' today. I'm sure that someone could suggest a more interesting caption for it.

Contributions, by email, to muckandbrass@gmail.com or muckandbrass@googlemail.com The best suggestion, in the view of the Editor, will be awarded anonymity.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

Our friends in the north.............

2011-10-27T12:35:00.001+01:00

For those readers who have followed the M&B saga, today is the 2nd anniversary of the mass resignation of the Keenan/Canvin administration from Somerton's Town Council. That mass resignation was triggered, in large part, by the opposition of a large number of Somerton's residents to Canvin's proposal to relocate the Household Waste Recycling Centre from his trading estate on Bancombe Road to his land at Badger's Cross, on the other side of Somerton.

That project subsequently ran into a variety of obstacles, not least the impact of financial restrictions at national level which meant that the project was effectively scrapped. However, it was always my own belief that the recycling centre was only the first stage in the 'Bancombisation' of Badger's Cross and, sadly, that would seem to be the case.

News has reached me that at yesterday's meeting of the South Somerset Area North Committee, Canvin's latest application for B2 use on his land at Badger's Cross was approved. From a cursory glance at the file on SSDC's planning portal, it would seem that the Officer's recommendation to refuse was ignored by the Committee who voted, almost unanimously, to approve it. I understand that only Ward Member David Norris voted against it. So what is to be made of this curious turn of events?

Back in July, I attended the Area North Committee meeting when, again against Officer's recommendation, the Committee approved the Edgar application for Etsome Terrace. Canvin was a pivotal figure in the deal that saw Edgar Homes buy the Etsome site and Canvin spoke at that meeting in support of that application, which the committee subsequently approved (with only 1 vote against). Now we have Canvin's own application being considered, with 137 letters of objection, an Officer's recommendation to refuse and a Highway's opinion against the application, yet the Area North Committee decided in favour of the applicant.

So, the question I would ask is, "Who does Area North represent, the wider community who they are elected to represent or the narrower community of their friends and ex-colleagues in the development community?". On current performance, I'd say the later.

What is more frightening is the prospect of Minister Pickles' 'Localism Bill' making it even easier for local interests to influence the planning process over the heads of the wider community of voters. So, it would seem that the 'Somerton Spring' may actually have been the 'Somerton Autumn'. Don't bet against the Keenan/Canvin axis taking back Somerton Town Council.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

A reason to resign.......

2011-10-15T02:07:00.002+01:00

So, Mr Fox has now resigned and in his letter to 'Dave' he said:

"As you know, I have always placed a great deal of importance on accountability and responsibility. As I said in the House of Commons on Monday, I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days. I am very sorry for this."

I wonder how many of our elected representatives across the country would follow suit if the spotlight fell on them. And, by the same token, I wonder how many will resign once they have used the freedoms of Mr Pickles' 'localism bill' to get their snouts ever deeper into the trough.

Till the next resignation, I'm still Niall Connolly

Hindsight is a wonderful thing

2011-10-10T23:13:00.003+01:00

In the light of the public debate regarding the involvement of the Defence Secretary, Mr Liam Fox, and his friend, Mr Werrity, in matters which might have touched on the Defence Secretary's governmental duties, Mr Fox made a statement in Parliament where he said: "As I said yesterday, I accept that it was a mistake to allow distinctions to be blurred between my professional responsibilities and my personal loyalties to a friend. And Mr Speaker, I am sorry for this, I have apologised to the Prime Minister, to the Public and, at the first available opportunity, to the House."

Later, and regarding a meeting with a potential commercial supplier, the Defence Secretary said: "I accept that I should not have had a meeting with a potential commercial supplier without an official being present. This was entirely my fault and I take full responsibility for it." and on the same issue he went on, "As I said yesterday, I accept, with the benefit of hindsight that I should have taken great care to ensure a more transparent separation of Government, party political and private business and that meetings were properly recorded to protect myself and Government from any suggestion of wrong-doing."

Its a pity that Somerton Town Council didn't take exactly the same precautions in 2008 with regard to property deals and councillors' involvement in them. Equally, the Town Clerk might have been expected to keep better records to ensure transparency. But 'a previous town council' tended to do things it own way which led directly to investigation into its affairs, an investigation which, it must be noted, is still underway and where the External Auditor has yet to report.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

What might have been.......

2011-08-28T02:17:00.002+01:00

News has been sent to me that crass projects like the Edgar 'community' Hall can be resisted if voters and taxpayers know what is going on. Read the story here.

Niall

A counsel of dunces

2011-08-19T13:36:00.001+01:00

The approval by SSDC's Area North Planning Committee, of the Edgar application for their Etsome Terrace site gave me quite a bit to think about, particularly the contributions made by the committee members. But before I go into that, it is useful to consider what was actually recommended for approval by SSDC's Planning Officers.

The application was a renewal of the original application made in 2008 and, at that time, supported by Somerton Town Council, who were selling the land in question to Edgar Homes. Three years has elapsed since that application and, as the applicant has not started the work, they were required to apply for a renewal of the consent.

In the intervening three years, SSDC policy has changed and the Planning Officers were therefore treating the application as a new application rather than a renewal. As such, the Planning Officers were seeking a S106 'planning gain' contribution of around £77,000 from the developer. This requirement had been discussed with the developer prior to the Planning Committee and the developer had refused to negotiate on any basis which resulted in the application being recommended for refusal.

At the Area North committee, the developer, in the person of Mark Edgar, made a short presentation which (and I summarise) said that the imposition of a £77,000 S106 obligation would make the development uneconomic. (Officers stated that, when invited to, the applicant had declined to open their books and prove that view).

Mr A H Canvin followed Mr Edgar in addressing the committee in support of the application. Mr Canvin, it will be remembered, was instrumental in organising the sale of the Etsome land. The point of Mr Canvin's contribution was hard to discern but he did state that, in introducing a 'school drop-off point' within the development, Somerton Town Council had given up two additional building plots. This is an interesting point given that the land sold off to Edgar homes constituted more than the 50% that Somerton Town Council were bound to by their agreement with Somerset County Council. If Mr Canvin's statement were true it would mean that Somerton Town Council considered selling 68% of the land - a rather larger breach of the agreement with County than exists at present.

Debating the application was then turned over to the committee members and our Ward Councillor, Pauline Clarke, led the way with a very curious and long winded (her words) summary of the Somerton situation. In essence, Cllr Clarke listed the excellent facilities enjoyed by Somerton (play, sports, amenity etc etc) and said, in effect, that as Somerton had such excellent facilities, this developer should not have to contribute. Cllr Clarke made no mention of the fact that the ratepayers and voters had paid for these facilities from which this developer and their development would benefit but not contribute towards. Once again an example of Cllr Clarke as the 'developer's friend'.

Cllr Sylvia Steele's contribution was, in comparison to Cllr Clarke's, short and to the point. Cllr Steele's view was that the developer should contribute as the Officer's recommendation proposed.

Cllr David Norris, the other Somerton Ward Member, made a rather vague comment about believing that the developer should contribute but maybe not to the suggested level.

Cllr Mounter then explained that he couldn't understand that the application had been passed before and this was just a renewal so he didn't understand why they were discussing it. In response, an Officer (possibly Mr David Norris said, "Yes, this is a renewal however we have to decide whether current policies and the answer to that is no, we say that a development of this nature should contribute towards infrastructure costs in line with current policy. Unfortunately the developer has declined to make those obligations and has not been willing to enter into 'open book' viability discussions and that is why we are in the unfortunate position of recommending refusal." Cllr Mounter seemed either unable to understand the officer's explanation or unwilling to accept it as he repeated his inability to understand why the application was being discussed.

Cllr Roundell-Greene then asked quite a searching question about the inclusion of the school drop-off point within the development and pointed out that, had this been replaced with two more housing plots (see Mr Canvin's earlier statement) then the development would have met the criteria for an 'affordable element'.

Cllr Yeomans then wound up the 'debate' by observing that the developer's mistake had been not to at least put the foundations in the ground three years ago, thereby securing the consent on the terms then agreed.

Cllr Mounter then proposed that the application be approved on the terms set out in 2008, a proposal which was immediately seconded (possibly by Cllr Pledger).

The Chair (Cllr Palmer) noted the proposal and its seconding and moved to a vote which, I believe, was carried by 10 votes for and 1 against. Cllr Steele is to be congratulated for displaying some sign of intelligence.

I should point out that I have contacted Cllrs Clarke, Mounter, Roundell-Green and Norris for their comments as well as Mr Mark Edgar. Cllr Clarke and Mr Edgar have failed to respond.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

La - la land

2011-08-17T03:00:00.004+01:00

Some time ago my attention was drawn to a letter sent to the Western Gazette by Mr Vic Medley of Somerton. Mr Medley is a fanatical supporter of the 'old' Somerton Town Council ie the Somerset Suiciders and his fanatical enthusiasm for them is evident from the outset in his letter where he writes (his in bold):

How lucky we are that previous Somerton Town Councils have significantly enriched our town with their own valuable time and financial skill.

Example one: A previous town council bought the doctor's surgery and invested in the redevelopment and consolidation of our central car parks and toilet block (Paddock House, Cox's Yard and the Unicorn) for a net burden to us (the people of Somerton) of only £100,000. This secured the doctor's surgery (land and buildings) and free car parking for a one-off £50 per rateable household or, say, £20 per head.

This is a curious version of events when the reality is that Somerton Town Council borrowed £350,000 from the Public Works Loan Board to buy what they described as "a site upon which to build a community hall." (The PWLB document can be seen in the M&B section titled 'A Somerton Chronology.) Curiously, Mr Medley's heros conspicuously failed to develop this 'site' as a community hall with the result that it is today what it was then - a rather tawdry and unsuitable building which struggles to function as Somerton's 'health centre'. And all for just £350,000 plus interest, paid for by you and me. Fabulous! But Mr Medley was clearly warming to his theme:

Example Two: A previous town council acquired the old Atkins site in Etsome Terrace at a heavily-discounted price. Subsequent to which a previous town council swapped half of the Etsome site for the Edgar builder's land and building at 8 Carey Court and converted it into the well-appointed modern 300-seat community hall that we now know as Edgar Hall.

A previous town council achieved all of this, the purchase of Etsome Terrace, the swap and the conversion of the Edgar building into a magnificent community hall, for just £350,000 plus interest of £137,000 spread over 20 years ie £487,000 in total. Further, we still have the land at Etsome Terrace valued at £500,000 (as residential land) which means if we sold it (which we should not, should we?) we would end up with Edgar Hall for nothing. What an incredible and exceptional deal.

Lets deal with Mr Medley's first error, that 'a previous Town Council' aka the Keenan/Canvin administration, acquired the Etsome Terrace land at a heavily discounted price. Not quite true. When the Etsome Terrace land was declared surplus by Somerset County Council, and after protracted negotiations, it was offered to Somerton Town Council for either £220,000 or for £176,000, the later figure being 'heavily discounted'. But there was a catch which was that the 'heavily discounted figure' ie £176,000, had strings attached which precluded the sell-off of any of the land to developers. Now clearly this wasn't what 'a previous Town Council' wanted so, rather than take the 'heavily discounted', they opted for the significantly higher price.

But here we are faced with yet another conundrum. Why did the Town Council buy Etsome Terrace? If you are to believe the statement made to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister by 'a previous Council', the Etsome land was bought to be used for the 'possible provision of a public park'. (The loan application documents are to be found in the M&B section titled 'A Somerton Chronology.) No mention here of flogging the land off for a quick buck.

It would also be a shame to let Mr Medley's comment about selling off the rest of the Etsome land for another cool £500k pass by without commenting about the covenant that Somerton Town Council entered into with Somerset County Council regarding sale of the land. When 'a previous Council' agreed to purchase the land for the not discounted price of £220,000, they were bound to only sell 50% of the land, the rest to be kept for the Town. Mr Medley suggests that somehow the remaining 50% could be sold off in the future but something rather more intractable than the restrictive covenant stands in the way of that ambition. There isn't any 50% remaining. In fact, of the original site, only 14% remains under the exclusive control of Somerton Town Council because 'a previous Council' sold 59% to Edgar Homes and then ceded control of another 27% made up of access roads, leaving only 14% for Somerton.

Mr Medley is to be congratulated for recognising that the Etsome Terrace/Tin Dunny deal was a swap and not the 'two entirely separate transactions' noted in 'a previous Town Council's' press release dated September 2008 but he quickly drifts again into la-la land when he suggests that the Tin Dunny has only cost £487,000 in total.

The reality is that the land at Etsome Terrace had appreciated between 2003 and 2007 (nothing to do with 'a previous Council' but all to do with land values) and the Town Council struck a deal to sell 50% of the land for £950,000 but that was where things became sticky. Firstly, the Town Council let the purchaser, Edgar Homes, run the 'negotiations' and agreed to discount the sale price by around £100,000, reducing the receipt to £850,000 or thereabouts. Then there was the little matter of the £30,000 that the developer was said to have given the town 'in kind'. This was used, by the Town Council, to support the proposal that the developer be excused any S106 contribution. So, by early 2008 the Town Council might have received £850,000 but the money never turned up. What turned up was the swap of the Etsome land for the Tin Dunny which meant that rather than a capital receipt of £850k, the Town Council received the Tin Dunny and a cheque for £129k. Then there was the refurbishment of the Dunny which was estimated to cost £155k (bang goes that £129k) and which went more than 100% over budget, costing some £320,000, the balance paid out of Somerton Town Council reserves. Finally, Mr Medley says:

We have already paid off £245,000 (under £117 per household spread over seven-and-a-half years) of the £487,000 and only have twelve-and-a-half years at less than £10 per household per year to clear the remainder of £242,000.

Councillors on previous town councils gave a lot of unselfish time and effort to make all the above happen, often at their own expense. How lucky we are and how thankful we should be.

The future: The Edgar Community Hall is now making an operating profit. With a little more ingenuity, energy and enthusiasm from the current and future Somerton Town Councils, we should see our local rates start to reduce – if we're lucky!

When I look at Mr Medley's explanations they sound more and more like the words of a spendthrift chancellor seeking to justify reckless monetary policies. We've all heard them saying, 'Its only 1p on taxation' as if 1p from each of us doesn't really matter, at least not to them. But the sad reality is that Mr Medley's heros, those who made up 'a previous Council', raised the Precept for Somerton by around 17% per annum across a period of 8 years, giving Somerton the dubious honour, in 2008/9, of being the highest taxed parish in SSDC.

I think that it would be quite reasonable were Mr Medley to enquire how things might have been managed differently and , once again, I'd point any interested party to that section of M&B titled 'A Somerton Chronology'. That explains the 'bids' made to build a Community Hall and the availability of the Sports Field for such a purpose. A genuine 50% of the Etsome Land could have been sold to GPI Ltd who would have built a new health centre on the site. All of this could have been achieved without touching capital reserves. A Community Hall and a Health Centre and reserves intact. Now that would have been something for 'a previous Council' to be proud of but, sadly, they are lumbered with the consequences of their fiscal recklessness. Lucky that they have such a committed advocate as Mr Medley to misrepresent the facts so well.

Till next time, I'm still Niall Connolly

A developers 'excuse me'.............

2011-08-01T16:26:00.001+01:00

This article appeared in the Western Gazette in February.

The planning application was heard at the Area North Planning Committee on 27th July. The Committee was addressed by Mark Edgar (for the applicant) and A H Canvin (supporting the application). After an extensive presentation by DCllr Pauline Clarke, who argued for developments in Somerton to be excused S106 contributions, the committee over-ruled the officers recommendation to refuse and passed the application, unchanged. I intend to write further on this subject.

Pity the whistleblower.....

2011-07-27T02:25:00.000+01:00

The 'Today' programme on Radio 4 yesterday morning carried an interesting piece on the plight of the 'whistleblower'. Its worth listening to and you can find it here at around 10 minutes and 57 seconds into the programme. I know how they feel.

2011-07-23T12:34:00.000+01:00

The future of agriculture....

2011-07-21T19:17:00.001+01:00

Driving along Reynalds Way today I took time out to have a look at a photovoltaic installation that has appeared at the junction with Sub Road. I don't have much experience of these installations but this one looked quite substantial and, after a little research, it turns out that this is just the beginning.

Two planning applications have been approved by Mendip, app numbers 2011/0781 and 2011/0688, and the details are pretty eye-watering: 2011/0781 is a 32 acre, 5 megawatt installation of 25,000 panels and 2011/0688 is a 26.4 acre site. Although the second application lacks many specifics, it is probably safe to assume that, taken together, these two installations will total approaching 50,000 panels with an output of around 10MegaWatts.

I'm a big fan of sustainability but the industrial scale of these two installations forces me to ask if the government are doing as much to encourage us to reduce consumption (and therefore energy) as they are in encouraging industrial installations like these. I'd say that government is doing damn all but we have to remember that any effort to reduce energy consumption will result in reduced economic activity. As government depends on tax revenue, any effort to reduce consumption will be resisted therefore government will encourage the carpeting of Britain with these industrial installations.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly
(photo montage for illustrative purposes only)

Praise freedom and pass the bung......

2011-07-20T14:09:00.002+01:00

The punch and judy show that is parliament shows just how rotten Britain's democracy and democratic processes have become. If someone has made a poor decision all they have to do is say that they 'didn't know' and they are absolved of any responsibility. There seems to be no need to take responsibility for actions as once might have been the case. Profumo showed poor judgement and he walked without being pushed but these days there is little or no transparency and little or no accountability.

The ex-chief of the Met accepts a 5 week freebie and doesn't think that there is anything wrong with that. When was the last time that you were given a 5 week freebie and wouldn't you wonder why it was coming your way? Obviously the ex-chief of the Met didn't think that there were any questions to be asked.

Now we have a story about Bernie Ecclestone ( the man who donated £1,000,000 to the Labour Party - later returned - which exempted F1 from the cigarette advertising ban ) and allegations in Germany that he bribed a bank staffer during the sale of CVC Capital Partners.

Anyone who thinks that money doesn't talk, here or anywhere else, is dreaming.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

2011-07-16T16:09:00.000+01:00

During the first Reith Lecture broadcast by the BBC, Aung San Suu Kyi was asked by Sir David Steel, "Is there too high a price to pay for dissent?". Aung San Suu Ky replied, "I don't think so........there are many others who have paid a much higher price for their beliefs.".

Listen to the entire broadcast here.

What good is law........

2011-07-11T12:41:00.002+01:00

Its strange how things change. Only a few weeks ago the people of Britain were reportedly consuming 2.9 million copies of the News of the World (copies reportedly read by something over 7 million of the population) and today, because of commercial and political expediency, the NotW is no longer. Stranger still, today we see our political class distancing itself from News International and questioning whether or not it was right for politicians and parties to have been so close to one particular media empire.

But what we haven't seen is those self-same politicians going head to head with News International and its representatives. That particularly difficult task has been left to people like Hugh Grant and Steve Coogan and from my viewpoint, they've done a damn sight better job of it than Cameron, Clegg or Milliband. Take the BBC's 'Question Time' last thursday.

Hugh Grant (included on the panel because he has been a target of the tabloid media) made the most telling point when he proposed that most politicians lived in fear of News International and the personal damage that could be done to them by News International if they moved against the interests of News International. Panelist Jon Gaunt, broadcaster and ex-Sun columnist, made Hugh's point by attacking Hugh during a discussion about 'press regulation'. Gaunt sought to denegrate Grant with comments about Grant's need to 'keep it in your trousers', a comment which simply underscored Gaunt's journalistic heritage.

But, to a certain extent, the discussion ignored the central issue which is that there is law and legislation which regulates the Press but that law and legislation is meaningless if it is not enforced. The Press Complaints Commission did nothing to constrain the activities of the Press and a seemingly substantial police investigation claimed to find only isolated instances of wrongdoing. But it now seems that abuses were widespread and endemic throughout the tabloid press and beyond, and it is only the widespread outrage generated by the 'hacking scandal' that has forced our politicians to consider action.

If I turn to Somerton, there is plenty of legilslation which is intended to regulate town and parish councils and these regulations, it is fair to assume, were introduced for good reason, possibly to avoid abuse or exploitation of public office. But what good are they if they are not enforced? Wapping and Somerton are not too far apart.

Till next time, I'm Niall Connolly

Corruption in the UK

2011-06-20T08:30:00.002+01:00

Just words

2011-06-17T00:28:00.002+01:00

Lavender

2011-06-13T18:35:00.003+01:00

Blue door

2011-05-30T12:43:00.003+01:00

Machinery

2011-05-29T02:05:00.001+01:00

1850

2011-05-24T14:27:00.005+01:00

Green Day

2011-05-23T13:15:00.001+01:00

No Parking

2011-05-10T08:36:00.001+01:00

2011-04-27T19:02:00.001+01:00