News RSS Feed


Reaction to the Cllr Jenkins Standards Board decision

8:13pm Friday 20th January 2012 in News By Ian Craig

SENIOR Cotswold politicians have reacted to today’s conclusion of the Standards Board hearing into Councillor Esmond Jenkins’ alleged breaches of the councillors’ code of conduct.

Although the Standards Committee decided today that Cllr Jenkins had breached a number of the points of the code of conduct, only minimal sanctions were imposed upon him.

Cotswold Liberal Democrat chairman Mike Evemy welcomed the result and called on CDC chief executive David Neudegg, who gave evidence during the hearing, to resign.

“He has made huge misjudgements over this and other matters, such as the motivational magician, which have brought our authority into disrepute,” he added.

“His head of planning must go too – she launched this complaint based upon hearsay and trivia and leads a department which has completely failed to stand up to a holiday home developer that has been allowed to breach planning consent and make hundreds of thousands of pounds in the process.

“The Conservative administration has been happy to see this happen and it should hang its head in shame.”

“Elected members have to abide by the rules as they now exist – that is part of the democratic process,”

CDC leader Lynden Stowe

Cotswold Liberal Democrat leader Cllr Paul Hodgkinson said the fact that Cllr Jenkins was cleared of most of the charges called into question the process that led to the hearing.

“What concerns us in particular is that the investigation lasted many months, cost a fortune in taxpayers’ money and, at the end of the day, the standard of much of the evidence presented was far from satisfactory,” he said.

“It is also deeply disappointing that Esmond was forced to defend himself without any financial assistance from the council while the Standards Board employed an expensive barrister to present their case – it was hardly a fair process from that point of view.”

On hearing the committee’s decision, CDC cabinet leader Cllr Lynden Stowe said the hearing should never have taken place.

“Had Cllr Jenkins taken the advice offered to him on how to conduct himself and on the technical and legal issues in which he became embroiled he would have realised that his whole approach was misguided and wrong,” he said.

“We all acknowledge that Cllr Jenkins helped to uncover Dennis Grant’s fraud at the Cotswold Water Park Society for which he must be commended – what a pity that he has squandered this goodwill by his breaching the council’s code of conduct.”

He added that Cllr Jenkins and the Liberal Democrats should bear full responsibility for the cost of the process.

“Elected members have to abide by the rules as they now exist – that is part of the democratic process,” he added.

“We cannot understand why the Liberal Democrat Group have persisted in their support for Cllr Jenkins despite his conduct.

“We hope that the Liberal Democrats will now support this Council and its democratic procedures and respect decisions that are made as reasonable and well founded in law and policy.

Cllr Stowe added he hoped the end of the hearing brought an end to the issue.

“It is now essential that a line is drawn under this matter and that all councillors and officers work towards a more positive working relationship in the future,” he said.

Comments(45)

dopey1 says...
8:34pm Fri 20 Jan 12

The end of the matter Cllr Stowe? This is the end of the beginning!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

peterhampton says...
9:05pm Fri 20 Jan 12

cllr stowe

What came out was that you and Mr Neudegg oversee a disfunctionial planning deptartment.
This is not the end of a matter - it is the start of new phase.
Esmond Jenkins has now been authorised by public exmination to pursue matters of significance to water park residents and users in a very robust and when required blunt manner.
You may wish it essential that a line be drawn on this matter - it is not, and will not be untill full truths on all CDC / CWPS matters are in the public domain.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Crispin Mount says...
10:06pm Fri 20 Jan 12

Q1 : Will Neudegg ask for a refund from Shay McConnon the magician as clearly the managing conflict session in the CDC workplace failed?

Q2 : Will the cabal at the top now please reveal exactly how much £ they received from CWPS under Dennis Grant for printing contracts?

Q3 : Will the cabal at the top now please reveal exactly how much £ they received from friend and developer Watermark for printing contracts?

They'll be an FOI so let's just get on with it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
3:51am Sat 21 Jan 12

A memorable meeting indeed, and I sat through the whole thing, all four days. What was achieved? probably nothing, Esmond was Censured, what is a Censure you ask? Actually with the impending demise of the Standards for England a Censure will be the maximum sanction a Standards Comittee can take, along with extra Training and the requirement for an apology all of which Esmond has been required to do. The question I ask myself is what has Esmond achieved through the events which gave rise to the complaints?, well an enviable amount of free publicity on the one hand, but we still don't have any measurements of the fill at lake 31, or CDC eforcement action or EA action, no evidence seems to have emerged to confirm Esmond's allegation regarding Watermark and the planning officers have robustly resisted pressure to change their recommendations regarding the quarrying near Shorncote.
I think the lesson from this is that persuing matters in a "Robust" manner doesn't actually get any better results than the courteous demeanour of the Waterpark's other councillors Juliet and Clive.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
9:18am Sat 21 Jan 12

Cllr David Broad said:

"..but we still don't have any measurements of the fill at lake 31."

Exactly David! I've heard lots of talk over the last 2 years but it seems it doesn't matter how often the loan of a surveyor's tape measure is offered, no one will take up the challenge.

But still, Mr Max Thomas said at the hearing that his company is going to in-fill the same amount of spoil again!

Perhaps someone could pop along then, count the lorries arriving and do a few simple measurements. If it not too inconvenient that is.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
11:04am Sat 21 Jan 12

Point of order Cllr Broad.
You are entirely wrong to state that the maximum sanction the hearing could have imposed was the light tap on the knuckles actually delivered.
Until July, when the provisions of the new Localism Bill come into operation, the maximum sanction is six months suspension from the council. (You really should know that).
Therefore, they let Cllr Jenkins off with little more than a caution for being a bit too robust in his pursuit of the truth. He was cleared of the serious charge of bulling and also malicious allegations that he abused his position for personal gain.
Anyone who was in the council chamber yesterday and witnessed the stunning impact of the statements made by ordinary members of the community giving their views on the total failure of the planning department can have no doubt that this was a key turning point in local affairs.
For many people, including members of the hearing panel, the penny finally dropped and that is why Cllr Jenkins walked out victorious to applause and cheers of "local hero."
A huge own goal for the property developer and the CDC officers who tried to silence him and a victory for common sense and natural justice.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
11:14am Sat 21 Jan 12

Correction:

For "bulling" in my comment above please read "bullying".
So many ridiculous allegations have been dredged up by planning officers in their campaign to blacken his name that I would hate to have readers scratching their heads over what "bulling" might actually be.
I therefore withdraw any implication that Cllr Jenkins is guilty of "bulling" and apologise unreservedly for any false impression that might have been created.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
11:55am Sat 21 Jan 12

Council Taxpayer, you didn't read what I wrote, a Censure WILL BE the Maximum, future tense, not IS present tense.
You are right Cllr Jenkins was viewed as being victorious and received a standing ovation for merely being censured, ordered to undertake training and being ordered to apologise to a named CDC officer.
But what apart from local hero status has Esmond achieved?
The lake 31 fill remains and Mr Thomas has suggested more will be required, if enforcement action was started tomorrow the first step would be to invite a retrospective planning application which Councillors would consider and that takes us right back to where we started, The EA monitors the Tallies of lorries, and they seem content that the Tallies are correct and don't seem to have any plans to change their Modus Operandi.
So I ask again, what has been achieved as regards lake 31 from all Esmonds efforts, and the resulting huge expenditure of CDC Officer rescources Standards process costs the cost of the Pegasus report et al.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
2:22pm Sat 21 Jan 12

Why don't you and your chums do something about lake 31 David? Cllr Jenkins has been trying to get something done for 2 years! Go on break the mould and take action!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

resident cdc watcher says...
3:25pm Sat 21 Jan 12

cllr broad i have met many life long Conservative's this week who have turned that back on the party as result of this sorry affair. I for one would disagree with dopey1, its not the end of the beginning but the beginning of the the end of the Conservative's at trinity road

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
6:51pm Sat 21 Jan 12

If Councillor Broad truly wishes to represent the interests of the electorate, maybe he should spend more time listening to the views of the public, take on board the statements at the end of the hearing, and read the views of people on this very forum, rather than pathetically trying to defend the complete failure of his own controlling party colleagues to tackle these issues, and a planning department that has been accused of having substantial failings. I don't usually post on these forums but the evidence I have read and heard (as Councillor Broad claims to have done) was farcical, contrived and seemed to have hindered the attempts of a councillor to do his job - and a very good one he has been doing at that. I say this without any political bias, and my comments are based on the evidence presented. Being a councillor or a council officer isn't about keeping certain sections of the community happy to the detriment of others, or making childish complaints about forceful (but I would submit, valid) comments, it's about representing the needs of the public without bias or political prejudice. I felt compelled to write as this whole issue, as well as Councillor Jenkins' wider evidence on the way the council has handled matters over certain issues, has left me feeling hugely concerned. It would certainly appear that this hearing has really just scratched the surface. If you want to do something useful Councillor Broad, maybe you should start asking some serious questions about what has actually been happening and stop posting lightly veiled political defence speeches. You can start the process by grilling members of your own party and asking them why they have been so inactive in tackling these matters! Better still, why not show a cross-party commitment to transparency by offering to assist and work with Councillor Jenkins in his campaign for open-ness.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Dave - Cirencester says...
11:37pm Sat 21 Jan 12

The murk about this seems to be concerning the relationships between Council Officials and the Developers and as to why the Council will not take action that they apparently are justified to take and failed to take when the fraud was going on.
I would expect that the Council would be dedicated irrespective of Political Concerns to providing information as to why action that they are justified to take was not taken.
All the Councillor did was get uptight when faced with people he felt should take action who did not.
Can the take now accept it's responsibilities.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

R Cotswold says...
7:40pm Sun 22 Jan 12

I would disagree with Cllr Broads rather selective view on the proceedings. From the outcome we learnt that serious errors of judgement were made by senior CDC offciers ; rather more questions to be answered concerning the inaction by CDC over the many issues surrounding the 'Water Park' saga and the 'culture of silence' from the Tory majority within CDC on'sensitive' issues. he will be aware of the interim report from Professor Garbutt on the CWPS enquiry which states that ".. a culture of accountability, transparency and openness on decisions of value should be readily apparent and that information should not be withheld. Perhaps Cllr Broad will take these serious observations to heart and be more proactive, as had been suggested earlier, and help CDC residents and fellow Councillors in their quest for information into the murky waters of the Cotswold Water Park saga. As has been stated during the Council elections "beware the unknown"; a phrase which the Tory cabal at CDC may regret if the they adhere to the transparency and honesty called for by the CWPS enquiry as this would take them into unkown territory!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
11:31am Mon 23 Jan 12

After 8 years as a CDC councillor I know something of the constraints under which CDC officers work.
Where officers failed to act it was not a serious error of judgement, it was that Edmond and the community's request was beyond their powers. Esmond doesn't accept this, which is why he has been ordered to do more training.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Esmond Jenkins says...
1:42pm Mon 23 Jan 12

Dear David
If you cannot take on board the overwhelming public sentiment at the end of the 4 day circus, you have mis judged our electorate.
Professional officers are there to support the decision makers, we are the decision makers. Professional advice is just that, it is advice, if I or you consider it wrong we can choose to disregard it.
We are not bound by the officers or any artificial contstraints imposed by anybody outside of the law. Our duty is to the taxpayer and to ensure we spend their hard earned money wisely.

You and your colleagues are straying into very dangerous territory when you blindly defend the conduct of officers, without daring to challenge whether they are doing a good job.
That is our function, do you not understand ?
Esmond

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
9:31pm Mon 23 Jan 12

Councillor Broad, as you are elected by the public to serve the public, let me remind you that it is your duty to listen to the community and represent their views accordingly. All I can see from you on here are weak attempts at defending a department that has been accused of substantial failings (and not just by Councillor Jenkins), as well as the apparent inactivity of your own party colleagues to look into matters of serious public concern. I can assure you that there were members of the public at that hearing last week with a wealth of professional knowledge of planning and legal matters (they do it for a living), and the evidence was overwhelming, so your comments in defence of process sound completely naive and in denial. Not once have I seen you (or your party colleagues) acknowledge the views of the public you are supposed to be serving or vow to look into the alleged failings of those around you. Councillor Jenkins was accused of serious matters, including bullying. However, he was cleared of that, and all but five minor offences (and I submit that even those would be considered pathetic and childish charges in any other cut and thrust working environment). I am not a party political person and I don't live in the Water Park (or am I directly affected by issues concerning it), so I make my comments without any cause for bias. I am, however, an extremely annoyed taxpayer. That said, I know that politically-minded people, across the party spectrum, have united in their disgust at the treatment of Councillor Jenkins, and their extreme concern at the wider issues. With that in mind, and in the face of overwhelming evidence, isn't it about time that you started to engage more with the people you're supposed to be serving and listening to their views, rather than toeing a party line. For you to sit through a four day hearing, listen to all the evidence you claim, and come out with the comments you are, is an absolute disgrace, in my opinion. As an elected public representative, your loyalty is supposed to be to the electorate, not party colleagues and people accused of letting the public down. Time to open your eyes and act in the public's interest Councillor Broad - and ensure your colleagues follow suit.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
2:22am Tue 24 Jan 12

My interest is in the Standards process not lake 31 but to answer Jontran I have looked at lake 31 myself, I looked at the plans and went on a site visit, where colleagues of all parties were allowed all the way around lake 31 where Esmond was refused access and really the place is a building site and there is more fill than allowed in places, but it wasn't finished, as the CDC Officers said. Even Somerford Keyes Parish suggest waiting until late February (2012) for it to settle and then measure it.
The plans don't show the lake bed apart from 3 cross sections of the bank so what benchmark is there to measure the lake bed fill against?
I voted against the 2008 application which was thrown out and then allowed by the DoE at appeal.
I don't blindly support officers, I think they recommended permit in 2008 which I went against, but PPG 18 lays down the enforcement proceedure which it seems to me that officers have followed to the letter.
There have been failings outside CDCs remit in the waterpark, Denis Grant etc, and lessons to be learned but last week Jack knight of the EA totally demolished Esmonds claims re the volume of fill and then when pressed Max Thomas suggested he might need even more fill for the fishing area.
Just a huge waste of Taxpayers money when a simple apology from Esmond would have sufficed.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
8:11am Tue 24 Jan 12

David, Who passed the plans that do not show sufficient detail to be verifiable or enforceable?

Yes, the same officers that now point out the shortcomings of the plans. Brilliant!

Can we believe that no one in the 7 levels of management of the Planning Department saw this coming but they all saw that it became unverifiable and thus unenforceable later?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
9:00am Tue 24 Jan 12

Fair comment Dopey1 except the (2009) plans were to show the lake edge profile which was to change not the lake bed which is where much of Esmonds fill must be. We, the CDC planning committee were concerned with visual ammenity at the planning meeting, Was there visual harm (When its finished) That was our only real refusal reason and we had our fingers burned in 2008 when we lost an appeal with much stronger refusal reaasons at the same lake.
Jack Knight's testimony re Lorry movements was more credible than Esmond's. Perhaps the Parishes could do their own traffic survey as we in Chedworth did in 1991/ 2 the "Save Chedworth" Campaign spearheaded by CDC Councillor Carol Smith in which I played a small part? That would add weight to Esmond's case if it showed more movements than the 'Tallies?
I make it 4 levels of management from CEO to planning officer CEO Head of service, Senior Planner , Planner or Enforcement. or 3 as senior planners dealt with the application

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
10:03am Tue 24 Jan 12

It's a bit late for residents to do a survey for the present in-fill but if those lorry movements start again I can guarantee that we will be counting them, photographing them and filming them.

Jack Knight said that the claimed in-fill was"unbelievable" or "incredible", as it would have required a delivery every 4 minutes. The lorries were arriving every 5 minutes for days on end, week after week. I saw them and so did many other locals. That's when we started ringing what we though were alarm bells. All it would have taken was for someone from CDC to take a look. It is plain to all of us that the tally system can be abused.

Believing that if the paper-work does not show a delivery was made, means that it did not happen, is foolish at best.

Driving by the site in the course of ones work, as Jack Knight said he does on many occasions and not seeing anything untoward, does not entail any form of monitoring.

Jack Knight also conceded that he told CDC that the in-fill was not excessive and that there was nothing out of order BEFORE he went to site and checked the, dubious, tally system.

As an aside, although I wasn't watching for this particularly, when the lorries arrived, neither the lorry drivers nor the bulldozer driver dismounted. Nor did anyone walk between the two drivers. So how did they pass the tallies that, according to Jack, were transferred between them as each lorry arrived and just when did the bulldozer driver "inspect each load"?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
10:19am Tue 24 Jan 12

Having sat through the hearing I now realise that it is a waste of time and effort ringing CDC enforcement department or the Environment Agency. They won't lift a finger.
When the lorries return - something the Watermark boss told the hearing might be necessary to finish the job - count them, film them, get the evidence and then ring this number: 0800 59 5000.
It is the Customs Hotline which investigates tax evasion - and that includes the criminal and widespread evasion of landfill tax.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
11:49am Tue 24 Jan 12

David Broad, one major thing that came out of last week's hearing was how farcical the Standards Board process is/was. That said, thankfully, and despite listening to the most farcical and pathetic evidence (accusations of bad language and bullying that never actually happened), at least the panel largely saw it for what it was and cleared Councillor Jenkins of all but very minor breaches. Sadly, you either still don't get it or are so blinkered in the face of overwhelming public opinion that you really should consider your own position and worth to the community you are supposed to be serving. This is far bigger than a squabble over access to a particular lake or landfill at that individual site. Everyone other than the most blinkered, partisan members/supporters of the CDC Tory group, or certain members of the planning department, feel that the accusations labelled at Councillor Jenkins were laughable and question the reasons why this whole waste of taxpayers money has occurred. I know people who work for the council and have heard from more than one person inside CDC about members of the controlling group (past and present) speaking to certain officers in an utterly disgraceful manner - usually when they appear not to have been getting their own way. Why have the offending parties in those cases never been hauled up in front of the Standards Board, yet one man who truly campaigns on behalf of the people (and who doesn't happen to be a part of the controlling group) finds himself subjected to a 'fishing trip' to gain the most flimsy evidence against him? And please don't come out with the pathetic line about there not being any record of complaints about offending parties within your group. More importantly, ask yourself why decent, hard-working staff at CDC are too afraid to stand up and make a complaint or, in the case of one being made, ask how such a process may have been handled. Instead of burying your head in the sand, ignoring the wider picture and using perception of planning regulations as an excuse not to look around you, you should be campaigning for transparency, better working practice and a change in attitude amongst your colleagues.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
12:06pm Tue 24 Jan 12

Sadly, Councillor Broad, if you and your colleagues still don't get it, none of you are fit for office, in my opinion.
Members of the public at last week's hearing quite rightly tried to de-politicise this whole saga, and people across the party spectrum joined together in their support for Councillor Jenkins and disgust at the wider issues. Don't you think it's time you did the same?
People are tired of party politics and want their public representatives to act in their best interests, without bias.
I hope this has finally sunk in, David Broad.
If not, then let's hope you and your colleagues at least manage to do something that will serve in the best interests of the public - resign!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
3:14pm Tue 24 Jan 12

Sadly Johntran public opinion is not a planning reason, but I'll endorse what Counciltax Payer says,When the lorries return - count them, film them, and if the number add up get the evidence and then ring 0800 59 5000. The Customs Hotline which investigates evasion of landfill tax.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
7:35pm Tue 24 Jan 12

It's like banging your head against a brick wall! Councillor Broad still doesn't get it and continues to use his own personal perception of the planning process as an excuse to shy away from his true duty to the public.
Rather than bury your head in the sands of denial and urge the electorate to count lorries and phone Customs, why don't you and your colleagues actually do your job, Councillor Broad, and really tackle this issue in the public's interest...that's what you're elected for!!!
I think my comments, and Councillor Broad's reluctance to accept reality, emphasise why members of the public are so angry frustrated.
I completely understand how Councillor Jenkins must have felt, having to deal with people like this.
It would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic!
I truly hope this whole issue has opened the floodgates for a wider investigation and that CDC and other authorities are forced to answer serious questions and adopt a culture of greater transparency.
Let's also hope that when people come to the ballot box in future, they look at the facts, shun party politics and strive to elect people who are truly worthy of their votes - not those who see the role as an opportunity for personal gain, or individuals who are prepared to sit around and idly allow their colleagues to ride roughshod over the needs of the public. Time for a change!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

johntran says...
7:41pm Tue 24 Jan 12

It's like banging your head against a brick wall! Councillor Broad still doesn't get it and continues to use his own personal perception of the planning process as an excuse to shy away from his true duty to the public.
Rather than bury your head in the sands of denial and urge the electorate to count lorries and phone Customs, why don't you and your colleagues actually do your job, Councillor Broad, and really tackle this issue in the public's interest...that's what you're elected for!!!
I think my comments, and Councillor Broad's reluctance to accept reality, emphasise why members of the public are so angry frustrated.
I completely understand how Councillor Jenkins must have felt, having to deal with people like this.
It would be laughable, if it wasn't so tragic!
I truly hope this whole issue has opened the floodgates for a wider investigation and that CDC and other authorities are forced to answer serious questions and adopt a culture of greater transparency.
Let's also hope that when people come to the ballot box in future, they look at the facts, shun party politics and strive to elect people who are truly worthy of their votes - not those who see the role as an opportunity for personal gain, or individuals who are prepared to sit around and idly allow their colleagues to ride roughshod over the needs of the public. Time for a change!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
12:04am Wed 25 Jan 12

johntran makes an excellent point - if we took the party politics out of local government completely, we would all be winners.
Let's face it - Esmond Jenkins would probably be a Conservative councillor if he wasn't so disgusted with the local Tory setup - he was once asked to be Clive Bennett's electoral running mate in the Water Park ward but thought better of it.
The truth is that many natural Conservatives are migrating to the Lib Dems in Cotswolds because they share his distrust of a few characters who sit on the Tory benches at Trinity Road.
Why not totally ban party political banners from councils and force all candidates to submit themselves for election as independents, purely on the strength of their CVs and a personal statement of how they can best serve their local community?
Then, at least, we would actually have some idea of who we are voting for rather than blindly selecting the candidate of the right political hue.
Deciding who should run your local council on the same basis as selecting a national government doesn't make much sense when you really think about it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

R Cotswold says...
1:13pm Wed 25 Jan 12

CT and Johntran – I would agree that ideally if ‘Party Politics’ were to be taken out of the equation we may achieve better local governance; sadly that will never happen. However potential Councillors publish a “C.V.” within their election ‘bumf ’with some of their aspirations, thoughts and ‘would do’s’ if elected. It is up to the electorate to ask themselves whether that person will respect their wishes in the long term or ignore promises/pledges with some thinly veiled excuse later when it becomes obvious that nothing is likely to change. Regretfully sticking to the party line becomes the norm rather than the wishes of the residents in their wards. I also suspect very few residents really think through who they vote for and for what reasons.
The electorate needs to see what actions their Councillor actually does for them; local Parish meetings attended; response times to requests, letters, advice or help; involvement in planning decisions ; liaison with local Neighbourhood Co-ordination Meetings etc. Also how do Councillors lease with their ward residents; an A4 side on local issues every so often perhaps? CDC produce a printed broadsheet of their “successes” every so often which is rather selective on its articles (who has the contract to print this and did it go to open tender?). I bet the next issue doesn’t include an unbiased account for the recent Standards Hearing and justifying the cost! This was a huge waste of public money, better used elsewhere

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
3:21pm Wed 25 Jan 12

This at the HMRC website about land fill

http://customs.hmrc.
gov.uk/channelsPorta
lWebApp/channelsPort
alWebApp.portal?_nfp
b=true&_pageLabel=pa
geExcise_ShowContent
&id=HMCE_CL_000509&p
ropertyType=document
#P52_3981

"4.5.3 'Old quarries'
Where a quarry was in existence before 1 October 1999 and quarrying operations ceased before then and there is not a planning consent in place either on or before 1 October 1999 to fill the quarry, it will not qualify for the exemption."

It seems that HMRC, like the Environment Agency, rely on Waste Transfer Notes (Tallies) to decide how much has been tipped and how much tax is due. Hum, a fool-proof system then!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Pentheus says...
5:22pm Wed 25 Jan 12

So after all this verbage anybody fired ? er no ! anybody prosecuted ? er no !
anybody assisting Police with their enquiries ? ......er no !

Phew that was a close one we nearly had some held accountable for their actions !

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
10:35pm Wed 25 Jan 12

Good info dopey1 but I understand that HMRC never got a look-in on this one.
Why? Because the huge amount of waste dumped into Lake 31 was described as "building material".
In fact, CDC's head of planning Philippa Lowe, compared it to a pile of house bricks when she gave evidence to last week's hearing.
Its amazing what you can do with a flight of fancy and the wave of a magic wand. But then CDC does have a member of the Magic Circle on the payroll.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
11:59pm Wed 25 Jan 12

Thankyou Council Taxpayer. Mr Neudegg I give you 5 calendar days to report this waste dumping to HMRC before I do. Starting from......now!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
12:38am Thu 26 Jan 12

Just report it dopey1.
It's not a CDC matter, not CDC CEO's responsibility, so just go for it.
I'm surprised Esmond hasn't done so already, he has supported the view that there is excess fill so it would have been logical to approach HMRC. I would have if it had been my ward. It's one of those things which aren't our responsibility but where we can use our position as Councillors to give some leadership and direct residents concerns to the relevant authorities.
Just report it.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
12:51am Thu 26 Jan 12

While you are at it dopey1, perhaps you could ask the nice people at the HMRC to explain the other little tax avoidance trick in the Water Park whereby buyers of homes costing more than a million manage to escape paying any stamp duty at all on the purchase - a tax the rest of us mere mortals are compelled to cough up.
I still can't get my head around this one but the accountants working for a major developer appear to have organised a very neat way of saving a fortune for the London bankers and hedge fund managers who can afford these plush holiday pads.
Or maybe you should just write to George Osborne who is short of a bob or two to ask if he could look at that particular loophole which favours the already seriously wealthy.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
1:08am Thu 26 Jan 12

Sorry to disappoint you David but, like all other dodges organised for the rich and influential, HMRC can do nothing about this particular avoidance of tax for the simple reason that the landfill dumped into Lake 31 is, as I have already said, classed as "building material" and not waste.
Therefore, there is no landfill tax to pay and Esmond would be wasting his breath reporting it.
I know it sounds incredible but only fools like us on a modest incomes pay tax. For the rich and powerful, who can afford expensive accountants and lawyers, tax is generally a voluntary affair
.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
8:29am Thu 26 Jan 12

A good point Council Taxpayer. I shall make the point that when the "material" left Kingsmeadow it was not "building material", it was unwanted soil that required removal so that a housing estate could be build. i.e. it was "waste".

At no time during the transportation of this "waste" was any physical process carried out to transform that material into anything else other than "waste". Therefore when the "waste" arrived at lake 31 it was still "waste".

The fact that house bricks and concrete blocks are still sticking up out of the surface of this in-fill, does not, in my humble opinion, make it "building material".

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
8:37am Thu 26 Jan 12

Thank you David but I shall still give Mr Neudegg 5 days to report this.

I don't want to hear any more, "This isn't my job" stuff from CDC. If they can't do anything or won't do anything about so many things, then stop taking my shilling!

None of this is my job either but we all can't ignore what's going on for any longer!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
10:51am Thu 26 Jan 12

We get this all the time Dopey1, in my ward its "You should do something about the Low Flying aircraft" CAA or RAF responsibility, not CDC but you have a go. I still think you should report the matter yourself, ok you may fear reprisals in which case Esmond ought to step up to the plate as your spokesman. But the lake edge fill I saw had water pipes in it and looked like part of a demolished building, not surplus new materials so I'm not sure about the Kingshill connection.
Maybe Clive or Juliet could take it up with HMRC if you have the evidence but need to stay incognito?
Have we set a record for the longest thread yet?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

David Broad says...
10:51am Thu 26 Jan 12

We get this all the time Dopey1, in my ward its "You should do something about the Low Flying aircraft" CAA or RAF responsibility, not CDC but you have a go. I still think you should report the matter yourself, ok you may fear reprisals in which case Esmond ought to step up to the plate as your spokesman. But the lake edge fill I saw had water pipes in it and looked like part of a demolished building, not surplus new materials so I'm not sure about the Kingshill connection.
Maybe Clive or Juliet could take it up with HMRC if you have the evidence but need to stay incognito?
Have we set a record for the longest thread yet?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
12:06pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Don't worry David, I am going to report it. By Tuesday morning I'll have all the ammunition that I'll need I think.

I will even mention the "Waste Transfer Notice" (tally) system that is believed to be so infallible by the Environment Agency and HMRC.

It's all rather like the Immigration Service who believe that if a person does not have a passport then he cannot be an immigrant. But I'll save that for another day.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Council Taxpayer says...
3:55pm Thu 26 Jan 12

They wanted Esmond to have a "record"
Now it looks as if he might actually set one with the longest comment thread ever on the WGS website.
The credit, surely, must go to Bob McNally of the CDC press office for turning a local councillor into a celebrity with the dubious press briefings.
How much do we taxpayers pay you Bob?
It can't be enough.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Olly Cromwell says...
4:37pm Thu 26 Jan 12

The real record for this blog is that UnionMan one of Cllr Jenkins' online critics has failed to utter a single word. Or has he morphed into someone else?

Pray tell us what you mean Mr Broad when you write "you may fear reprisals" for blowing the whistle?

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

dopey1 says...
7:44pm Thu 26 Jan 12

Am I in fear of reprisals?

I shall now throw of my cloak of anonymity and reveal that I am really, “The Raspberry Blower of Old Keynes Park” working undercover.

I fear no one and will blow disrespectful Raspberries in the general direction of anyone who tries to interfere with my work bringing about the downfall of Fagin and his gang.

We Raspberry Blowers do not come under the Council’s Code of Conduct as far as I am aware, so it will not just be the fact that CDC officer’s ballet shoes are tied together by their laces, that will stop them making moves against me.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Pentheus says...
12:23pm Fri 27 Jan 12

Zzzzzzzzzzzz !!!!

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

Union Man says...
1:30pm Fri 27 Jan 12

I assumed he would be suspended.

Report this post »    Register/Log In »

click2find

Most popular






About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree