Cotswold District Council fails to disclose Cllr Jenkins hearing cost (From Wilts and Gloucestershire Standard)
Get involved: send your pictures, video, news and views by texting WGS NEWS to 80360, or email
us
Cotswold District Council fails to disclose Cllr Jenkins hearing cost
10:23am Wednesday 22nd February 2012 in News By Ian Craig
CRITICISM has been levelled at Cotswold District Council for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request about use of taxpayer’s money within the required time period.
An FOI request was made to the council on January 21, asking them to detail how much last month’s Standards Board hearing into the behaviour of Cllr Esmond Jenkins had cost the council.
By law, CDC was required to respond to the request by February 17, but no information has yet been received.
Leader of the Liberal Democrat group on CDC Cllr Paul Hodgkinson (Lib Dem, Churn Valley) said he was aware of at least three requests that had been made to the council.
“This information is really important to get into the public domain because many people are really aghast at the amount of time that was spent on this farce,” he said.
“This is something I’ve seen a number of times before with CDC unfortunately.
“It doesn’t help with public transparency and it gives the impression that the council is not able to respond effectively to these kinds of requests.”
A spokesman from CDC apologised for the delay in responding to the request.
“It is more complicated than it appears because it entails working out officer time spent on all activities associated with the recent Standards Committee hearing and various other expenses, some of which have only recently been clarified,” he added.
“A response has now been prepared and should be with the requestor within the next day or so.”
A similar request to Standards for England, the organisation that ran the investigation into Cllr Jenkins, has revealed that the cost to the organisation was £63,362.45.
Comments(54)
Smythe
says...
10:39am Wed 22 Feb 12
The FOI Act has over the years revealed some things that would otherwise be hidden away but having previously worked for an organisation that was showered with FOI requests all it does is cost 'the customer' money because you've normally got someone on £35K a year doing the research and then another person (probably on the same amount) there to check it, the result? £70K a year that could be spent on provide better services.
The worst offenders are the media who must sit during their coffee breaks dreaming up strange requests in the hope that it will fill column inches.
resident cdc watcher
says...
10:48am Wed 22 Feb 12
JGH
says...
10:55am Wed 22 Feb 12
The learned Cllr berates the amount of time spent on 'the farce', without due process how do we the electorate know that people being paid to represent us are being held to account? Yes it may have cost an arm and a leg but what price do we place on justice? The man was found responsible for breaches of the code therefore justice has been served, if somebody does not accept guilt then there is no option but to proceed to tribunal if the evidence takes you there. Should we not be saying to the defendant, you've been found guilty, what have you got to say for costing the electorate this amount of money?
All too easy to blame the council, they were damned if they did and damned if they didn't.
Jagman
says...
11:10am Wed 22 Feb 12
resident cdc watcher wrote:The money spent is not a farce, wrongdoing was reported and investigated,the wrongdoing was then denied and a hearing held,somebody was found at fault, would it not have been easier (and far cheaper) for the person concerned to have accepted their mistakes in the first place, shaken hands and moved on? The blame is not with the council or their staff it lies firmly at the door of the person that was suspected of breaching the standards code, if there was no breach there would not have been the subsequent shenanigans would there?
@Smythe i for one want to know how much it cost, i want to know how much of my money was wasted on this farce
Do we take it that in your world that any future misdemeanours should be ignored regardless of the seriousness or is it based on who we particularly voted for?
Crispin Mount
says...
11:47am Wed 22 Feb 12
For anyone who studied this farce it centred around whether the phrase "open the bloody f****** gate" constitutes bad behaviour by a Councillor. Given the fact that Watermark were manning the particular gate at the time and denying a party of Council reps access you are invited to draw your own conclusions.
Certain people wanted Cllr Jenkins off the Council due to what he was uncovering. Now why would they do that?
Council Taxpayer
says...
1:11pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Those above who seek to justify the witch-hunt should look at the background of the Cotswold Water Park Scandal.
At the centre of that affair is jailed fraudster Dennis Grant who did business with Watermark, whose Chairman Max Thomas started the complaints process by writing to CDC demanding that Cllr Jenkins should be "reined in".
Both Grant and Watermark put advertising business through Cotswold Media which is run by CDC's leader, Lynden Stowe. More than a third of the council cabinet works for Cotswold Media.
At the time the complaints were brought against Cllr Jenkins, he just happened to have applied to the High Court for a Judicial Review against GCC's approval of plans by gravel extractors, Cullimore, to quarry in the village of Shorncote.
The joint applicant with Cullimore in that quarrying application was none other than Cotswold Water Park Society, run by conman Dennis Grant.
Secret agreements that recently came to light show that, once quarrying had ceased, Grant intended to pass the site on to holiday home developers Watermark.
Last week Cllr Jenkins won his Judicial Review on the grounds that GCC failed to properly advertise the quarry plan and consult local residents.
Cllr David Fowles, a cabinet member who is also a director of Cotswold Media, conveniently leaked details of the complaints against Cllr Jenkins in a letter published in this paper on the morning of the local council elections last May. That leak, falsely hinting that Cllr Jenkins was in some way implicated in the scandal, may well have adversely influenced the result of the vote in the Water Park ward.
I am no conspiracy theorist but the above adds up to something that looks very shady indeed.
Had Cllr Jenkins been totally discredited and thrown off the council as some people planned, his Judicial Review hearing only days later would have been seriously compromised.
The whole affair stinks and the people of the Water Park will not tolerate yet another police cover-up. We expect the City of London Police to do their duty.
One other thing - Standards for England, the body that went along with the trumped-up charges against Cllr Jenkins has now been abolished by the government - for encouraging vexatious, politically motivated, complaints against innocent councillors.
Olly Cromwell
says...
2:23pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Who in this tale are Freemasons and what other land deals was 'dear Dennis' associated with which took him into town?
Jagman
says...
3:02pm Wed 22 Feb 12
On a secondary note if Mr Jenkins hadn't done anything wrong he couldn't have been found guilty could he? Dignity and respect is now seen as a benchmark in behaviour in everyday life and one mans meat is another poison, perhaps we should consider that not everybody has the hide of the SAS to take abuse from their captors.
Esmond Jenkins
says...
6:39pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Can I suggest you pop in to my office and perhaps we can discuss our views face to face? I think we would both benefit from such an opportunity. I would appreciate the opportunity of explaining why I cannot agree with you.
Kind regards Esmond
Pentheus
says...
7:25pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Council Taxpayer
says...
8:05pm Wed 22 Feb 12
Is it bad form to refer to him on the same page as the Duchess of Cambridge?
For the sake of fairness we should also mention that other brands of luxury car are available......I gather that Dennis Grant favoured the Aston Martin Vantage.
Union Man
says...
1:37am Thu 23 Feb 12
What does it matter what sort of car anyone drives, (Unless its a particularly nasty one.)
Even the cheapest and nastiest car will get you from one end of our tiny Island to the other, not nescessarily on one tank of fuel like a Jag Diesel and you wont necessarily be able to walk for the next three days because it's wrecked your spine but hey lets all get envious and make the CEO drive a british made car made by a british owned company.
What's it to be Dave, A Morgan or a McLaren.
dopey1
says...
8:02am Thu 23 Feb 12
Jagman
says...
10:12am Fri 24 Feb 12
Moreton Cullimore
says...
5:14pm Fri 24 Feb 12
1. Cullimore had nothing to do with the hearing or evidence which led to Councillor Jenkins being cleared of some of the allegations and found in breach of some of the other codes of conduct. I don't believe Cullimore was even mentioned during the hearing. I wasn't there as we had no input or reason to be there.
2. There has been request for additional carparking on the Cullimore land at Shorncote long before Dennis Grants time, infact both his predecessors negotiated for the same: Tim Payne and Simon Pickering. Parking on that field has long been made available for such since Cullimore took ownership of the field. The Society required this availability to be there for the longterm... long before Watermark ever got involved with KCP.
3. Council Taxpayer would do well to realise that the now CWP Trust still supports the application on Cullimore land at Shorncote and has written letters (Matthew Millet) confirming this... therefore Council Taxpayers insinuation that this was one of Grants murky deals is completly unfounded. Had it been part of a dodgy deal the CWPT would have distanced itself from Cullimore long ago when Grants dealings came to light.
4. There is no evidence, none, that names Cullimore land being passed to Watermark at any point. I have not had any discussion or agreements even relating to that with anyone Watermark and Grant included. The documents that Council Taxpayer refers to actually refer to other lands the other side of KCP. Think about it for a second... why would a company like mine allow someone like Dennis Grant to negotiate something like that...? When IF we were that way motivated (to sell our land) we/I could talk to Watermark/Max Thomas directly myself?! Ridiculous comment there Council Taxpayer.
Cullimore's only intention is therefore to extract from this site and restore as in our submitted application which is still going through the Judicial Review process. To provide Carparking for the park to remove cars away from people enjoying the park and get cars off our grass verges and entrances to keep the roads as clear as possible. To also provide educational ponds for nature and the community.
5. Council Taxpayer you are completly incorrect that whatever the finding of the Standards Board would have any effect on the Judicial Review the following week as any 'evidence' or result of that hearing would not have been allowed to be submitted to the JR at that stage. It would have had no bearing. In any case your theory would imply that Cullimore had some sort of influence or power in the scheduling of the Standards Board hearing.... far fetched to say the least! I'd possibly check yourself for accuracies before offering conspiracies and trying to tarnish the name of a company that has been in and employed people in the area for 50 or so years please.
Lets just get this straight once and for all. Cullimore has not been approached for any further developement at its field in Shorncote for anything else other then what is in Cullimores planning submission. Cullimore had no dodgy dealing with the disgraced previous Chief Exec and finds any insinuation as such deeply offensive and considers it defamatory. So please lets just stick to trying to move things forward then silly unfounded remarks.
Esmond Jenkins
says...
5:20pm Fri 24 Feb 12
I am thinking this is such incredible value unless....... they got their sums wrong ? But then these people showed themselves to pretty incompetent throughout my dealings with them, so maybe their accounts are no more reliable than the rest of their submissions.
But then Jennifer Roger might argue that I might be a little biased? I will stick with my £500k estimate and that does not factor in the redundancy costs or outplacement consultancy for the Ms Rogers and her crack team.
Esmond Jenkins
says...
5:24pm Fri 24 Feb 12
I am thinking this is such incredible value unless....... they got their sums wrong ? But then these people showed themselves to pretty incompetent throughout my dealings with them, so maybe their accounts are no more reliable than the rest of their submissions.
But then Jennifer Roger might argue that I might be a little biased? I will stick with my £500k estimate and that does not factor in the redundancy costs or outplacement consultancy for Ms Rogers and her crack teamn decamped to the job-centre.
Council Taxpayer
says...
7:29pm Fri 24 Feb 12
There is no insinuation that his company is corrupt and it is unlucky for him that the man he was doing business with in this planning application was a corrupt crook who is now in jail. Nobody has suggested that Cullimore were aware they were in partnership with a conman in this enterprise but it would be very much against the public interest for all reference to Dennis Grant to be expunged from local discussion of such an important issue simply to avoid embarrassment.
The people of the Water Park have to go on the evidence before us and we are helped by previously secret agreements between the Society and Watermark recently published on the www.cotswoldlakes.or
g.uk website.
The land to be quarried at Shorncote is known locally as the "Freeth Land" and clause 18 of a Lease Assignment document for Keynes Country Park dated 20 December 2007 makes clear reference to Watermark's expectation that it would acquire a lease on that land with the assistance of the Society.
Local understanding is that the planning application provided for the land to be leased to the Society after mineral extraction had ceased to provide a car park for KCP. The secret agreements indicate that, whether the owners of land adjoining KCP were aware of it or not, Grant intended to pass on land acquired by the Society for holiday home development.
Residents in the Water Park are distressed by Mr Cullimore's revelation that Matthew Millett of the new Water Park Trust is continuing to support a quarrying application which the majority of local people feel is very much against their interests and that of the wider Water Park.
Mr Millett should now explain if this really is the case and, if Mr Cullimore is correct, why the Trust is taking this regrettable stance under his leadership
Crispin Mount
says...
7:45pm Fri 24 Feb 12
1. Is your lawyer the firm in Dollar Street run by the Tory Deputy Leader of Cotswold District Council?
2. Did not the Cotswold MP at the infamous public meeting in March 2010 acknowledge being a close friend of your family?
3. Were your lorries busy delivering soil to Lake 31 last summer?
Thanks
Moreton Cullimore
says...
8:22pm Fri 24 Feb 12
This is amusing and shows the evident problems and misunderstandings by some people and hence part of the problem.
1. My lawyer is Mr Cox of Willans, Imperial Square. Cheltenham. Councillor Jenkins can confirm this I'm sure. I'm sure I can arrange for you to hear from my solicitor if you'd like to.
2. No I don't believe they did at all. I think you are referring to Councillor Foules who is a friend of Max Thomas. We have no family friends in CDC close or otherwise. Perhaps you should name who you are referring to?
3. My company were not even considered by Adrian Davey of Watermark to tender for the inert waste work at KCP. Never the less we would not have considered the work had we the opportunity without seeing the correct permits first at a site like this. Furthermore Keyway the company that did do the deliveries would never have let my company near the site anyway... We do not share the same 'philosophies' on business.
Like to apologise for attempting to discredit me?
Moreton Cullimore
says...
8:45pm Fri 24 Feb 12
I may well be sensitive but if your business or your family name is mentioned in the same breath as a convicted criminal and words such as secret deals and corruption would you not defend yourself?!?
My company, my name has been associated with a lot of rubbish by people who only intend to cause discredit without consideration. I am as disgusted as anyone by the fraud and secrecy but it doesn't mean all of us are involved in it and a few people need to remember that.
I'm afraid the CWPT are still in favour of our submission and this has been in the public domain for months. While I can understand why locals are not in favour of more extraction there is a much longer term benefit to the park which as it is my understanding the CWPT are trying their best to get back into their hands.
dopey1
says...
9:12pm Fri 24 Feb 12
I'm sure that you have the commercial exploitation of your assets as a prime consideration, quite rightly but please Mr. Cullimore, let's leave a green barrier between Shorncote and Keynes Country Park without the misery of dust and noise during extraction and the possibility of excarbating the flood risk to Shorncote and Somerford Keynes. Go in peace...and make new friends!
Council Taxpayer
says...
12:20am Sat 25 Feb 12
And isn't it as shame that the County Council failed in its public duty to advertise this quarrying application and consult properly with the local community who, instead, were kept in the dark, much as they were over the transfer of Keynes Country Park to Watermark in 2007?
The shameful failure by GCC to consult the community over the quarrying application is the reason why Cllr Jenkins won his recent Judicial Review, which we all hope will now lead to the planning consent being quashed when the case is further considered.
However, that important ruling, handed down in the High Court last week, is something that most residents of the Water Park are unaware of because the local media has, so far, completely ignored the story.
The people of the Water Park trust that the WGS will promptly rectify that glaring omission in its normally excellent coverge of local affairs.
Moreton Cullimore
says...
10:37am Sat 25 Feb 12
Secondly, I cannot comment to much on a JR case that has not concluded but need to correct Council Taxpayers comment on GCCs failure to consult properly because that's a bit of a sweeping statement. They have only been pulled up on failing to give enough time to consult on one piece of information in the submission. A report, which was not even required by law to be in the submission IF my understanding is correct. Consultation on the rest of the submission was therefore in line with current policy. The JR has not found in favour of any of the other grounds brought to it.
I am as disappointed as anyone that the correct procedure was not followed by GCC it has cost my company time and money.
I have to say though if Cullimore permission is quashed, then we will have to resubmit an application again for the site as it now owes money so we can't just walk away. Sorry but that's the reality of the matter.
So maybe the way forward for all is constructive working together rather then trying to discredit my company and alienating it.
Cotswoldlakes.org.uk
says...
11:10am Sat 25 Feb 12
Mr Cullimore, you are indeed a welcome addition to this arena of public debate. The silence from Shire Hall, and parts of Trinity Road, is deafening.
Philip Nicholas
Susie Clark
says...
12:55pm Sat 25 Feb 12
Moreton Cullimore
says...
3:16pm Sat 25 Feb 12
Thank you for at least being welcoming.
However I should point out that Mr Jenkins received communication from my solicitor last Tuesday explaining our position; that it is our belief that at least 3 of the statements he makes in that press release are defamatory of my company. Mr Jenkins has of course defended his position this week in reply as he is entitled to. However I believe there is intent of defamation at the very least and Mr Jenkins will be receiving our reply to him sometime this week.
I therefore advise anyone publicising his full statement in an official capacity to exercise their own caution with these defamatory remarks. Of course it is entirely your freedom of choice to publish what you wish.
I will not have unfounded malicious remarks, allegations or associations made about my business where there is no evidence.
Council Taxpayer
says...
10:36pm Sat 25 Feb 12
I believe Mr Jenkins is a district councillor and Mr Nicholas is a parish councillor at South Cerney so we can assume that they are doing their best on behalf of the local community.
Where development and substantial profit are involved, there will inevitably be a conflict of interest between large companies or corporations and individuals who are simply trying to protect their homes, their families and the local environment.
I assume Mr Jenkins feels his statements are the truth and that any opinion expressed is honestly held by him which, of course, would be a defence against a libel claim.
However, can Mr Cullimore produce evidence to justify the very serious accusations he makes against Mr Jenkins in the final sentence of his post above. If he cannot, I wonder whether Mr Jenkins might himself have a potential claim for defamation. It seems to to me that Mr Cullimore has just called him a liar on a public website.
Not Postman Pat
says...
11:59pm Sat 25 Feb 12
I think the word I'm looking for is touché......
Union Man
says...
12:32am Sun 26 Feb 12
said: “Although the gravel extractors knew that the Judicial Review was about to be heard,
they started stripping the topsoil off the site before Christmas and I am now facing a monstrous bank of earth on the edge of my property.
Council Taxpayer
says...
9:37am Sun 26 Feb 12
Is he really suggesting that Mr Cullimore can justify the very serious personal slur that Mr Jenkins was motivated by malice and that he made untrue statements not supported by evidence? In my books that is calling somebody a malicious liar and would be a very tall order to defend in court.
Union Man does make a very important contribution though. If the applicants had exercised some patience and good grace ahead of the scheduled Judicial Review, Mr Cullimore would not be in the position he states above: "The site now owes money so we can't just walk away."
Had the applicants waited for the Judge to decide, rather than exercising the planning consent with the legal challenge pending, the site would still be a nature reserve that could have been used for car parking without any gravel extraction.
Anyone who doubts the impact on the residents of Shorncote should take a drive out there this afternoon to witness the huge bank of earth Union Man refers to.
The Water Park Trust has a lot to answer for as supposed guardians of the Water Park's ecology. Why did they, at least, not exercise restraint as joint applicants and how do they now propose to ensure that the site is returned to its former state - if that is even possible?
When does the Trust intend to hold a public meeting where we can hold them to account?
Moreton Cullimore
says...
10:18am Sun 26 Feb 12
For the record Council Taxpayer my "last paragraph" was a new paragraph and a final conclusion and generalised comment that I will not stand for directed slanderous comments. Merely re-iterating what i had stated in a much earlier post. I made no mention at all of any individual... You made it your own assumption that I was attacking Mr Jenkins which I was not.
Assumptions and misinterpretations are the perennial problem of these discussions.... And why some people keep well away from contributing.
I have tried to be fair with my remarks and have said clearly I understand the other side of the coin... All I have asked is that people make founded comments or be reasonable.
Moreton Cullimore
says...
10:30am Sun 26 Feb 12
Soil stripping for archaeology from memory occurred in September at that point the JR was not scheduled until late March and it seemed that may also be pushed back. So JR was not around the corner. During archaeological works both parties then agreed to attempt to bring the JR forward so that it could be concluded. I don't see the problem with that.
Crispin Mount
says...
11:11am Sun 26 Feb 12
Council Taxpayer
says...
12:24pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Given the amount of soil dumped some metres high at the edge of the site. I assume they must have been searching for the lost city of Atlantis. So that’s alright then.
Harry W
says...
1:06pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Council Taxpayer
says...
1:33pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Moreton Cullimore
says...
2:11pm Sun 26 Feb 12
The site was inspected by the enforcement team and also the police at the request of locals and to date we have been found of no wrong doing.
Perhaps Council Taxpayer instead going through this in a laboured way here you write me a letter detailing all your concerns and we can discuss it like adults...this thread has gone way off subject.
I'd also ask how you have a copy of the Judges judgement? It's not a public document yet (to my knowledge, apologies if I'm incorrect) as the matter has not been concluded...
Moreton Cullimore
says...
2:37pm Sun 26 Feb 12
I'm sorry you feel you have lost 'a view' due to works. If the permission is allowed to stand I will do my upmost to make sure the site is extracted and restored as quickly as possible so the view comes back. Appreciate there will be a car park but it is at the furthest point from the village. Hopefully that car park will control the other 'eyesores' of people parking on grass verges and blocking entrances and therefore some good comes out of it all.
Olly Cromwell
says...
4:25pm Sun 26 Feb 12
This is a guide produced, designed and published by Cotswold Media Ltd. and printed by Vale Press.
These companies are owned by Cllr Stowe, current Conservative Leader of Cotswold District Council & Glos County Councillor.
Moreton Cullimore
says...
5:10pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Because at the time it was in partnership with the CWPS before the obvious scandal. That Tourist Guide is now very out of date and is currently being renewed as we speak. I have already declined to advertise in the new issue when i was approached 4 weeks ago. The now CWPT is going to produce their own publication at some point and separately to the Cotswold Media version I may be asked to advertise in that...and if it's ok with you, I'd like to try and support local not for profit organisations... But if all I get are silly insinuations then I might as well take a total backstep from all my community supports...but then the people that lose out are the people that need support and have done nothing wrong.
However are you saying I cannot advertise my commercial wares if any politician has a job involved...? Would you be saying the same if the publication was produced by any other minded politician? Should in your view then all councillors leave their professions when elected? Maybe you should remember that CDC actually voted against my application so if your insinuation is to be correct..fat lot of good my 'advert' did me hey?!??!
Should I remove my adverts from local press, radio, festivals too? Perhaps the concrete and gravels I've donated to local schools and shops for free is corrupt to... Please do let me know! Ridiculous!
Maybe you should meet me...you'll soon conclude I have no political allegence. My priorities are my family, my company and my staff.
These Conspiracy theories can be just as harmful as the scandal and wrongdoings....
Moreton Cullimore
says...
6:02pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Watching time team on channel 4...? There's a 15 ton JCB excavating soils right there... Maybe Tony Robinson is looking for the lost city of Atlantis too!
Come on at least give me this one!
Harry W
says...
7:54pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Just a point to consider, leave the bank of earth and within a few months it will be covered in greenery, it is what a lot of people have in Gloucs and which many are prepared to pay for, in their case it is called The Cotswolds.
Esmond Jenkins
says...
8:27pm Sun 26 Feb 12
I am unable to respond to Mr Cullimore, beyond these simple observations:
1. The planning consent that was taken to the High Court- Judicial Review concerned a mineral planning application between , Shorncote and Keynes Park. The application in question was speculative i.e. it was one which was not/is not in accord with the CDC or GCC Local Development Framework.
- The Law requires Local Authorities to determine planning applications in accordance with the statutory Development Plan, unless "material considerations" indicate otherwise. That was our start point.
2. Thereafter public employees at GCC had to weigh all the material considerations and to ensure they take full account of the not inconsiderable environmental impacts posed by a quarry so close to established communities.
3. Needless to say the High Court has decided that GCC did not determine this permission lawfully.
4. What our community has reasonably demanded is that public employees observe the law and do their jobs properly. This according to the Judge did not happen.
4. Beyond that simple analysis, I see there are broadly two schools of thought - a, those that believe that Grant lent his support to this controversial scheme because he saw real public benefit in the overall scheme and those that b, believe Grant was a fraudster who cared little about anybody or anything beyond his own selfish financial enrichment.
What I can say is that the public benefit argument put forward by the CWPS/Grant as joint applicants with Mr Cullimore is now discredited and unsustainable given the documents released by the Mr Millett in to the public domain.
With regard allegations of defamation and slander,and I agree people do need to be rather careful here. However my observation is this: any enterprise that volunteers to be associated with a fraudster is always likely to inflict reputational damage on itself. Reputations can take a long time to build and little effort to be demolished. I understand Mr Cullimore's concerns. However they the firm made the business decision to persist with the joint application even after Grant was arrested. Somebody at some point made the calculated decision that enlisting the CWPS, a body at the time with apparently excellent green credentials would help tip the balance in favour of this highly controversial "out of plan" mineral application. Clearly Cullimores could have abandoned the CWPS/ Grant link after April 2010 when the arrests were made, but they chose not to.
Let us not forget that Grants activities have bled his employer to a point perilously close to insolvency, he fabricated the financial case to dispose of KCP and the Gateway Centre. His case was extensively based on misreprentations and falsehoods.
Grant manipulated the position of CWPS from objecting to a number of high value and controversial planning applications to one where they gave CWPS support. Again in ligth of the conviction, it is not unreasonable that his motivations are now subject to rigorous scrutiny.........thi
s should have done by the CWPS board at the time.
Outside of the courts, people need to look at the facts and make their own judgements.
As a community we have absolutely nothing to thank Grant or those that allowed him licence to operate, for.
Esmond Jenkins
Pentheus
says...
10:16pm Sun 26 Feb 12
Moreton Cullimore
says...
10:31pm Sun 26 Feb 12
I'm not going to debate your above because we have covered a lot of this in court... And some of what you say I agree with in terms of what GCC should have done in some respects.
I also agree that Dennis Grants actions were awful..and the real cost of his behaviour is far more then the money he stole. Many of us are still suffering the consequences.
So I can only really answer your point about taking the decision to carry on with the co-applicant after the wrong doings were unveiled. Once the allegations had appeared true and the CWPS had made up their mind who was going to lead etc I discussed with Matt Millet what the CWPS's position was then and if it still supported the application.
Mr Millet and the board discussed this and agreed that providing the restoration was agreed and car parking was made available to KCP then they would continue to be a co-applicant and support my submission as it still was for the long term public good of KCP as a park.... And... as they were going to get the park back from Watermark. At least this is as I understand it. Let's remember it's was only Dennis Grant that was disgraced not the whole of the society.
Dennis Grant had gone and I had confidence in Mr Millet and his team sorting the mess so took the decision to remain as co-applicant, particularly as, at that time pulling the application would have only increased uncertainty for everyone of what was going to happen and would fuel further conspiracy theory anyway. Either way I could not really win in your context above.
Proof in the pudding is that the CWPT still support the application and have made no inference otherwise. GCCs failure to follow the correct policy/procedure is not the fault of my company or the CWPT.
Council Taxpayer
says...
10:10am Mon 27 Feb 12
Could I respectfully ask him to clear up some other points:
1) If gravel extraction proceeds, will the site still become part of KCP which, despite the assurances he had from Mr Millett, has been retained by Watermark?
2) Can he enlighten us on the contractual agreements set up by Grant that appear to leave the Trust with no alternative but to assist Watermark in acquiring the site.
3) If, as expected, the Judge now quashes the planning consent, has he considered the impact on the Water Park community and on his firm's image of a protracted and public battle that may well drag on for years?
4) My Atlantis comment was tongue-in-cheek but will he accept that, with the topsoil and flora now removed, his firm has a considerable advantage in pressing ahead with a fresh application for a site that has also been stripped of any ecological value?
5) I take his point that he is has a business to run and the site now owes money but, would he consider the wider picture and, maybe, take a leaf from Rupert Murdoch's book when he finally realised that the News of the World was so tainted that the only sensible course was to shut it down? Has he considered that his company could instantly erase any damage to its reputation, caused by its unwitting involvement in the dealings of a fraudster, by simply walking away from this project and taking a financial hit? The cost may well be outweighed by the boost to Cullimore's stock in the eyes of the Water Park community.
Moreton Cullimore
says...
1:18pm Mon 27 Feb 12
1. My site has never been designated or even discussed as becoming part of KCP. To date ownership of my field has only ever been declared as staying in ownership of my company. I have not been approached otherwise and/or in light of anything else. As it stands my field will still be my field after extraction and restoration should it happen. Once I have fulfilled any obligations of this field restoration and management wise I would therefore have to take a decision on what to do with it next, at the moment this is undiscussed and undecided.
2. There is no agreement made on my site what so ever...certainly not with my consent. I am not privy to all the details and was not even present at any discussions between Watermark and Mr Grant...and I am probably even more in the dark then you on what the position is with KCP...it to a great extent has nothing to do with me. My agreement to provide parking is with the now CWPT. Watermark on 2 or 3 occasions have borrowed a section of the field for temporary parking on Sunday's for triathlons etc last year... That is as far as any relationship with them has gone...and was in agreement and run passed the CWPT to ensure they were happy. To be clear I have no agreements or discussions concerning my field at Shorncote with Watermark other then when they require additional parking at peak events I get a phone call about parking 50 cars in the field. I have not agreed/discussed to hand over this site to anyone!
3. The Judge has found one technical mistake made by GCC on part of the consultation, not all of it. There is no guarantee permission will be quashed, that will be decided when we are next in court. I will accept the judges decision on this. However whether permission is quashed or not it means that all issues have been dealt with as all the other topics brought to the JR have not been found and therefore concluded upon...meaning there is less and less to be 'battled about' for years and years. If permission is quashed then I will simply reapply for consent and GCC will have to act as directed by the Judge.
I have considered this for a long time, we will not be walking away from site...jobs depend on it! You can only dig gravel where it sits and one day whether it is my company or another it will have to be dug as its a finite resource that is required for houses, schools, roads and hospitals. Think about it...if I walk away from this site who is likely to buy it from me? Quite possibly another extractor (a clear presidence has been set I that extraction can be achieved) or whoever is in KCP at the time and requires more space... The fact of the matter is I don't wish to sell and take a loss...that sort of loss would cost jobs off the back of this financial climate. I have a duty to my staff to do all I can to secure their jobs. Who would you rather own the site, a local family company or a multinational aggregate company?
4. The site is no further ahead really. We have removed two large strips of topsoils. There was only grass present... And essentially is no different from ploughing that field for agriculture ecology wise....has given me no advantage what so ever other then learn about the archaeology within the site. It was done because archaeology takes time and should there have been any major finds then further research may have been required.
The problem with tongue in cheek comments in text is that the reader frequently can't see the humour intended... But Id still like you to concede that using excavators to strip soil for archaeology is entirely normal... Tony Robinsons team had 3 on the go in Sundays episode!
5. I have answered most of this I think above...but I do not agree there are any parrellels to draw to murdoch and the news of the world. Staff of the news of the world have been found doing wrong..that is not the case with my company, we have acted lawfully. The people that wish to see my company in a negative light will see my company in a negative light regardless what I do because it suits them I think...no one has ever shown me any respect or even tried to discuss this rationally what evidence is there that 'my stock' as you call it will improve? I am sorry my involvement in this land is not popular with some, unfortunately it is the nature of the industry I am in. I do not wish to cause anyone grief or displeasure it is not why I do things...(i'd like to underline that last sentance if i could). However if people work with me and discuss things in a reasonable way, frequently we find common ground and a greater good...unfortunately in this case some people have preferred to theorise and discredit.
My field at Shorncote is a short dig...and I have always said I would do my best to help ease the community as possible... But some of these conspiracy theories and rumours about what we're doing have got out of hand and got people so worked up they can't see the actual reality.
Moreton Cullimore
says...
1:22pm Mon 27 Feb 12
Susie Clark
says...
5:53pm Tue 28 Feb 12
Olly Cromwell
says...
9:46am Wed 29 Feb 12
This thread has been most informative for which Mr Cullimore is thanked.
As a parting observation I suggest he changes the wording on his Group's website which describes him as "always having had a political profile..."
Smythe
says...
10:39am Wed 29 Feb 12
With my pedantic head on you are assuming that Council Taxpayer is a man....
Moreton Cullimore
says...
2:55pm Thu 1 Mar 12
Thanks, but just to correct you...you quote my website. 2 things I'm afraid.
1. You will clearly see that is the blog of my Father Roger. I as the name suggests am Moreton Cullimore. Unfortunately our website is 10 years old and needs work which is under way. You'll see on the same page it's talks about our 75th anniversary.. We are actually about to celebrate our 85th.... So it's quite out of date.
2. You have the context of my Fathers statement, "a political profile," does not mean allegence to political governance in parliament, in this context it is actually talking about our 'political' trade associations which my Father has been long involved in and campaigned for. Totally different politics I'm afraid.
Just goes to show how people will try and interpret anything to try and make a point.
Pentheus says...
10:38am Wed 22 Feb 12
I am sure they will all understand ....