Kingswood Village Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Well done to those who have unearthed these blatant wrong doings and to those that have contacted interested parties with the information gathered. The stench of corruption is getting stronger by the minute - lets hope that those involved are brought back down to earth quickly and made to pay for their greed, deception and arrogance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 Well done Ole! PS, are you in england or portugal? I live on North Street. How about some of these decision makers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon uk Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I live on North Street. How about some of these decision makers? You can pop round for an afternoon coffee with George Ferguson then and talk it all over with him! You the man by the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You can pop round for an afternoon coffee with George Ferguson then and talk it all over with him! I think he's home in Hampshire this weekend ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cider head Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sainsburys need to appeal as they would win, takes another 6 months but it needs to be done to see for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jazz Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 This is interesting as they've not been in that office. Currently Fanatic Design use loft 3 and have for many years. Before that it was residential flat from when I started at Clik (nearly 7 years ago) How old was the data you searched? They also have an address at the paintworks factory which is another Mr Ferguson venture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Right, a National newspaper have been informed of the situation and have kindly offered to help with any further investigation work. I have their direct mobile number. Good work. Keep it up! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Fantastic info Ole, really appreciate you taking the trouble. This Forum takes a lot of stick sometimes but at times like this it's at it's bloody best. Everyone doing thier bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon uk Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 evening post just confirmed back to me they are looking into it..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
City fan 1982 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 great work by the op, its nice to see the forum so united ...............long may it continue!! every press outlet ep, talksport , isnt there a football supporters group who done some good work to help the stoke fans when they were wrongly turned away from old trafford?? just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bristoliain Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Ole, you sir are a goddamn ledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sparkyboy72 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Ol'e Great work mate. I wouldn't even know where to start to get that info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 can i be really stupid and annoying and ask what Ole has found out all means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hinsleburg Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 can i be really stupid and annoying and ask what Ole has found out all means? my intrepretation is we've been stitched up. i think that sums it up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ralphindevon Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Living a long way from Bristol I lose touch a bit with things but am I right in thinking George Ferguson writes pieces for the E.P. from time to time and doesn't his wife / partner write for the W.D.P.? If so they may not be that keen on running this story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
petehinton Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The Chair of the meeting who refused the supermarket proposal, possibly has a ulterior motive for doing so and works for companies linked to red trousers. ohh i understand! Thanks, ohhh god i hope this guy goes down Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tompo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 can i be really stupid and annoying and ask what Ole has found out all means? The Chair of the Planning Committee was not allowed a vote because he is is a City season ticket holder. Therefore a conflict of interest, which he rightly declared. His deputy on the other hand can vote despite the fact that the company he works for has close links with one of the main objectors. This, apparently, is not seen as being a conflict of interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The above reply from Fi makes me think as City fans perhaps the one thing we all did was take the application for granted and assumed it would fly through. Therefore our pro stadium/supermarket support on the night was weak. The opposition played a very clever game, they have on the whole (in comparison to Tesco) been very quietly going about mounting opposition and they turned up in big numbers on Wednesday night, were rowdy, passionate against the application and probably influenced/swayed the vote to a degree. If we do choose to fight an appeal we must pack the place to the rafters and not let them do this again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Us_and_Them Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The above reply from Fi makes me think as City fans perhaps the one thing we all did was take the application for granted and assumed it would fly through. Therefore our pro stadium/supermarket support on the night was weak. The opposition played a very clever game, they have on the whole (in comparison to Tesco) been very quietly going about mounting opposition and they turned up in big numbers on Wednesday night, were rowdy, passionate against the application and probably influenced/swayed the vote to a degree. If we do choose to fight an appeal we must pack the place to the rafters and not let them do this again. Completely agree, i took it for granted that it would go through but will make sure i am there if we can get an appeal to show my support...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superjack Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I think that if Ole's good work plays any part in getting this outrageous decision reversed, he should be given a free season ticket to Ashton Vale for life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedM Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The above reply from Fi makes me think as City fans perhaps the one thing we all did was take the application for granted and assumed it would fly through. Therefore our pro stadium/supermarket support on the night was weak. The opposition played a very clever game, they have on the whole (in comparison to Tesco) been very quietly going about mounting opposition and they turned up in big numbers on Wednesday night, were rowdy, passionate against the application and probably influenced/swayed the vote to a degree. If we do choose to fight an appeal we must pack the place to the rafters and not let them do this again. I can't explain it very well but I thought how we did it was right. We (fans) took a step back and the attention was rightly all on Sainsbury's, the jobs it would create etc. If a load of fans had been there we would have been accused of 'you only want it so you can get your stadium' and not looking at the bigger picture. I thought it was right to leave it to the people who had spent months looking at plans and figures (the planners) and thought the Councillors would be guided by the experts, not who shouted loudest on the night. If that was the case there would have been no contest. Oh and above all else I would have hoped that the people deciding had no ulterior motives for their decisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Maesknoll Red Posted July 23, 2010 Admin Share Posted July 23, 2010 Fair play to Rob for that research, I'm just confused as to how the application could be turned down, it is, when all is said and done, a business locating from one site to another a few hundred yards down the same road. But then, being Bristol City Council, I suppose nothing should surprise me - the masters of wasting money and inconveniencing people. Perhaps there is a corrupt core and the apparent bumbling and mismanagement is just a facade to cover it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Right, a National newspaper have been informed of the situation and have kindly offered to help with any further investigation work. I have their direct mobile number. Which one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Premiership or Bust Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Which one? I'm guessing The Sun as the editor is a big city fan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I'm guessing The Sun as the editor is a big city fan That would be good publicity, they love a scandal as well! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest surreyred Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 With all the talking about this information, has anyone actually pointed it out to the club yet ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 With all the talking about this information, has anyone actually pointed it out to the club yet ? Yes they are more than aware of this and other threads (hence the CS statement earlier) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WellRedPhil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I won't name names, but it fair to say they are supportive of the cause. But it does not merit National news coverage just YET. Yeah fair enough, hope to see it on the shelves soon So did you cotnact them personally? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CITYRED Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Ole is a god! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REDOXO Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Well done Ole. Good research and very brave of you to go ahead and post twice! This is now looking like something very sordid indeed as it is not a stretch to think others on the board listening to the application were aware of this almighty conflict of interests and as such were party to the supression of the information! The Mayor's office and the City council have a lot to think about right now and it would seem a lot to answer for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest optical bully Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I really hope this gets blown up big enough for the nationals to start.Talksport too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest surreyred Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Ole, A a city fan, I would like to thankyou for your time and effort in finding this information, and having the guts to post it. I hope it makes a difference to the future of our club, and if it does I for one feel you should never have to pay to enter Ashton Vale. It has to be said the noises coming from the club sound a lot more upbeat. The thing that does occur to me is that if Ole can find this information in an hour of internet research why were the lawyers and agents, who I am sure were ot giving of their time free of charge, repersenting Sainsburys not aware of it. It appears certain things were being taken for granted. Hopefully this will not happen again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Top work Ole can't thank you nenough for what you may have done for this club! And OUR City! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Fi Hance worked/s for a certain MP Stephen Williams, who seems to be very interested in architecture! http://www.bdonline....3133224.article "The revelation topped a bad month for the profession in January, with Allen Tod Architecture going into liquidation, and Aedas, SOM, Gensler and Ryder Architects all reporting new redundancies. Even the practice of former RIBA president George Ferguson, Acanthus Ferguson Mann, has made a third of its workforce redundant, while Dutch firm OMA — which has significant British projects — laid off 50 staff. The issue of architects losing their jobs even arose in the House of Commons on Tuesday when Bristol MP Stephen Williams complained of how the freezing of major college schemes by the Learning & Skills Council was affecting architects." Seems a little odd, George Ferguson and Lib Dem MP Stephen Williams mentioned in the same article! Edited July 23, 2010 by BCFChris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid in the Riot Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sorry if I've missed it but have people been contacting the Chief Executive of BCC in regard to this? That's who we need to get to to sort out this Rayner clown. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted July 23, 2010 Author Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Simon Rayner has responded with a mass-mailing to everyone who mailed him. Apparently he is the subject of a conspiracy theory on the internet.... In short his response implies that all the facts raised are coincidental and he even takes time to accept that Ferguson Mann has an interest in the Ashton Gate site and also that his employers have worked with them on a number of occasions, but the impression he seeks to give is that this is all water under the bridge and that it is enough for him to be "completely satisfied he had no conflict of interest". If only all scrutinisation was performed as self-assessment! The key rebuttals he makes are that his employer has no interest in the Ashton Gate site and that his employer on the number of occasions it has worked with George Ferguson's firm was never in connection with Ashton Gate. Both these points are ridiculous because an architect is commissioned by a developer first and this opportunity only arises when the developer has an interest in available real estate. So of course his employer has no interest in Ashton Gate, but it would be only too keen to see an alternative developer who fancied a bit of mixed-use and residential action with Sainsbury's out the way, giving them a bit of work. Secondly of course the collaborative work between George Ferguson's firm and Simon Rayner's employers was never in connection with Ashton Gate, because no work has yet happened there. The man is using the painfully obvious fact that "it hasn't happened yet" as some sort of defence against a commercial conflict of interest. Well Sean Beynon hasn't bought a season ticket at a stadium which hasn't been built yet but it didn't stop him standing down. Simon Rayner goes on to make a point about the fact he has never met George Ferguson, which is entirely spurious as the facts raised previously were not meant to draw actual personal connection between the two but an alignment of business interests with their indisputable shared view of the planning application. The remainder is a patronising wishy washy explanation for the planning process. To be honest it could have been written by anyone, and in comparison to his hesitant ill thought out justification on Point's West last night, probably was. Anyway, here it is... Thank you for your e-mail. I have had a number of e-mails regarding the same conspiracy theory, and am aware it is also circulating on the internet. I am completely satisfied that I had no conflict of interest in determining the application for the proposed Sainsbury's at Ashton Gate. I am an architect employed by a local practice. This does not in itself prevent me from sitting on a planning committee. It has the potential to create a prejudicial interest, in which instance I would declare it and not take part in considering the related matter. As declared on the Council website, my employer is Alec French Architects, who have no interest in the Ashton Gate site. George Ferguson has been vocal in his opposition to the Sainsbury's application. George Ferguson's firm, Ferguson Mann does in fact have an interest in the Ashton Gate site, as he mentioned in his statement to the committee. Alec French Architects have previously worked with Ferguson Mann on a number of occasions, but none of this work has any connection to the site in question. Alec French have not worked with Ferguson Mann during the time I have been employed there, and I have never met George Ferguson. They are not currently involved in working together, and the partnership between the two firms has now ceased. Unsurprisingly, both Bristol-based firms sometimes work for the same clients, on separate projects. This fact is obviously not relevant to the application in question. The particular developer mentioned by conspiracy theorists has also employed, among others, Buro Happold, who are currently working on the BCFC stadium project! I made my decision in good faith, and am completely confident that I have acted lawfully in chairing this committee. I understand that people feel strongly about the outcome of the meeting, but attempts to drag my employers into the issue simply feel like a malicious attempt to damage my livelihood. The decision the planning committee were asked to make in relation to the Sainsbury's application for Ashton Gate was a difficult one. There were strongly held views on both sides, and the only certainty was that the no decision would please everyone. I have had many e-mails condemning the outcome, and many in support of it. The job of a planning committee is to consider the relevant planning matters, and come to a view on whether the application is acceptable. The committee is legally obliged to decide the application on its own merits – the viability of the stadium is a separate matter and was not a major consideration to the application. The Committee carefully considered the report from Council Officers on the application, and received representations both in favour of and opposing the application. It was clear that many people felt the application presented a risk to their community and local services. I, and other members, felt that the Planning Officer's report understated the likely impact on the vitality and vibrancy of nearby local centres, as well as the effects on CO2 emissions, traffic levels and air pollution, all of which are relevant planning policy matters. After considering and debating these issues, the Committee voted to turn down the application. I have no interest in scuppering Bristol City's stadium proposals. I actually voted for the stadium proposals when they came before the planning committee for a second time (after my concerns at the first meeting were addressed). The club obviously has a financial interest in loudly supporting the Sainsbury's application, but the decision on Wednesday does not have to mean that their hopes for a new stadium are dashed. I sincerely hope that BCFC can find a way of funding its new stadium, but without the risk of the negative impacts on the community that the Sainsbury's application presented. Hopefully the club will soon start to focus on doing so, rather than trying to stir up hatred against Councillors for doing their job. Edited July 23, 2010 by Olé Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Is the EP getting stuck into this ole? Headlines tomorrow?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 http://www.simonrayn...ncillor.org.uk/ Hopefully the club will soon start to focus on doing so, rather than trying to stir up hatred against Councillors for doing their job That wound me up !!! Absolutely. What have the club done to "stir up hatred"?? Plenty of people on here have, but the club has been very careful and very considered in its statements and to say that they've been stirring up hatred is an outrageous thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Vote Tory in the next election then! I have had a nother reply :- Thank you for your email. There are a number of points that I would make. Firstly, the planning committee made the decision and it is therefore those who voted against the proposal who have supported missed the huge opportunity. Councillors are appointed to planning committee to act independently and objectively and there should be no political guidance given as to how members vote. The Conservative Group gave no guidance to our 2 members on the Committee but, if you examine the voting record, you will note that they examined the facts and reached an objective conclusion to support the Sainsbury's application. I share all the concerns you raise, most particularly the fact that the Council employs professional planning officers who spend a great deal of their time reviewing applications and giving advice. It is utter madness to have ignored their advice on a case as significant as this. Although the planning committee is meant to be apolitical, it is more than a little surprising to find that the proposal was defeated by 4 Lib Dem Councillors from the north of Bristol and it is therefore them and their Party Leader that you should be writing to expressing your views. Thank you for taking the trouble to write to me. Geoff Gollop Leader of the Conservative Group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tropicalsurfer Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) I posted this in another thread but seeing as everyone is reading this one. Mailed my local councillor this morning. Had a reply. I just copied and pasted the stuff that surfaced on the forum this morning by ole. ---- I don't normally reply to emails that don't identify the sender, but the contents of your email are disturbing and I have referred your email to the Chief Legal Officer of the Council. Please let me know who you are and I will gladly discuss this further. Regards Geoff Gollop Dear sir or madam I would just like to take this opportunity to bring to your attention information with regard to the planning decision made this week. A decision seems even more bizarre when you consider the current economic state of the country and the commercial benefits that would have been presented to our City, the City you are charged with serving. I am even more alarmed with the following information posted on a forum when it appears all the information is all in the public domain and should have been known before any vote. I had understood that members of the council should declare any interest and only make judgements for the benefit of the people. On the face of this information it would seem important that an inquiry is carried out to make sure the decision has been made in a fair way and the council and its officers are above reproach. Quote The following are the facts: • The CHAIR of the South Bristol planning committee is Sean Beynon, who lives in and represents the local ward of Southville. He had to stand down from the planning decision meeting as he is a Bristol City Football Club season ticket holder and therefore he was considered to have a conflict of interests. • The VICE CHAIR of the South Bristol planning committee is Simon Rayner, who represents Kingsweston in the north of the City but lives in Clifton. Neither of which, not that you need reminding, are in South Bristol. • Simon Rayner not only chaired the Sainsbury's application meeting but had a vote, which he used against the plans. • Simon Rayner was also in the minority of 2 out of 9 who voted against the successful application for the stadium itself. • Simon Rayner commented at the time in the media that he did not like football. • Simon Rayner works for Alec French Architects a business who, like George Ferguson, has a commercial interest in alternative opportunities to develop the land • Here's the best bit "Alec French Partnership" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" are well established partners under the name of "Concept Planning Group" who tender for urban planning projects in Bristol • Simon Rayner's employers "Alec French Architects" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" partnered to win and execute the £90 million taxpayer funded tender to develop @Bristol • Simon Rayner's employers "Alec French Architects" and George Ferguson's "Acanthus Ferguson Mann" are preferred partners of Westmark Developments, a privately-owned developer in Bristol specialising in, wait for it, residential and mixed use schemes, precisely what George Ferguson advocates and Simon Rayner voted for A Bristol City Season Ticket holder who represents the local neighbourhood declares a conflict of interest on participating in this decision, but his deputy, who chairs and votes on the decision and does not represent any BS3 neighbourhood, does not declare that he works for a firm that has a very well established partnership with the firm owned by the proposal's most outspoken critic George Ferguson, and who collectively have an interest in alternative uses of the site, apparently with no conflict of interest. Just to be absolutely clear on the level of conflict of interest here, George Ferguson attended the meeting and spoke against the plans as a highly visible member of those against the plans. Across the room from him, the chairman of the meeting and a key decision maker with a vote on the application, works directly in partnership with George Ferguson since his employers are commercially aligned with George Ferguson in seeking opportunities to work on mixed-use development in the greater Bristol area. End quote Your comments welcome. Edited July 23, 2010 by tropicalsurfer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcshorey Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 just stuck this on twitter.... it's exactly the 140 character limit plz RT - PROTEST BCC'S NO TO SUPERSTORE AT AG. 2PM AFTER OPEN DAY THIS SUN. #bristolcity @BristolCityST@Bristolnews @bbcbristol @Bristoluni Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
italian dave Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I've e mailed the following to our friend following the response to Ole "Dear Mr Rayner, I have just read your standard response, e mailed to all those who have contacted you regarding the Sainsburys planning application. I haven't contacted you about that; although I think it was a shocking decision, I am not a resident of Bristol so think it inappropriate to take you to task as a local councillor. (Although I think I probably live closer to Ashton Gate than you do!) However, I am a supporter of Bristol City, and I think that the closing sentence in your e mail, that the club is "trying to stir up hatred against councillors" is a quite outrageous slur on the club and has no foundation whatsoever. I have read the statements that the club have issued, and they are nothing but careful and considered. Indeed, the formal statement issued by the clubs chief executive today goes out of its way to urge fans to step back and take a considered view of the situation. On the basis of what I have heard and read from the club, your allegation borders on the libellous You may have heard or read a statement that I haven't. I would ask you to let me know on what basis you make your allegation that the club is trying to stir up hatred. Please reply and tell me how you justify that statement. " Hopefully he's getting more than his usual 500 e mails!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Simon Rayner has responded with a mass-mailing to everyone who mailed him. Apparently he is the subject of a conspiracy theory on the internet.... In short his response implies that all the facts raised are coincidental and he even takes time to accept that Ferguson Mann has an interest in the Ashton Gate site and also that his employers have worked with them on a number of occasions, but the impression he seeks to give is that this is all water under the bridge and that it is enough for him to be "completely satisfied he had no conflict of interest". If only all scrutinisation was performed as self-assessment! The key rebuttals he makes are that his employer has no interest in the Ashton Gate site and that his employer on the number of occasions it has worked with George Ferguson's firm was never in connection with Ashton Gate. Both these points are ridiculous because an architect is commissioned by a developer first and this opportunity only arises when the developer has an interest in available real estate. So of course his employer has no interest in Ashton Gate, but it would be only too keen to see an alternative developer who fancied a bit of mixed-use and residential action with Sainsbury's out the way, giving them a bit of work. Secondly of course the collaborative work between George Ferguson's firm and Simon Rayner's employers was never in connection with Ashton Gate, because no work has yet happened there. The man is using the painfully obvious fact that "it hasn't happened yet" as some sort of defence against a commercial conflict of interest. Well Sean Beynon hasn't bought a season ticket at a stadium which hasn't been built yet but it didn't stop him standing down. Simon Rayner goes on to make a point about the fact he has never met George Ferguson, which is entirely spurious as the facts raised previously were not meant to draw actual personal connection between the two but an alignment of business interests with their indisputable shared view of the planning application. The remainder is a patronising wishy washy explanation for the planning process. To be honest it could have been written by anyone, and in comparison to his hesitant ill thought out justification on Point's West last night, probably was. Anyway, here it is... Rob you make these points very clearly. Rayner's defence is what is called a logical fallacy. This is where even if his individual arguments are true, they do not support the conclusion he arrives at. "I can't have had a conflict of interest because I haven't benefited from it yet" just doesn't cut any ice. When you join up Rayner's handling of the meeting itself, with his vote, his potential to benefit from alternative developments, and this latest attempt to mislead people with his unfathomable logic, the only picture you can be left with is a thoroughly corrupt man with no integrity or morals happy to scupper a development that benefits the whole city purely for personal gain. What a thoroughly horrible little man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Clegg and Cameron will be at each others throats if this goes national!! Well done Ole. If all proven correct there may very well be a legal case to force a new planning meeting and not wait for 6 months. Seems it could also open a whole can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StapleHillPhil Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
class_not_gas Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 me thinks the soon to be ex cllr rayner will be shitting bricks right now about ole"s great work Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bcfcas1 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 ======================================== Message Received: Jul 22 2010, 09:45 AM From: "Fi Hance" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Sainsburys planning application Dear Sir, I'm sorry that you are disappointed in the Committee's decision to refuse the application for Sainsburys. Such decisions are complex and rarely black and white but in answer to yoru questions: There were two seperate applications examined last night with wholly different impacts on the local community. The first was,in our view, acceptable, the second less so. 1) I'm aware that investment is needed in the area. However, this is not an argument for any investment at any price. Moreover, a supermarket is not the only form of investment possible. 2) It was established early on that the link between the supermarket and the stadium (ie the supermarket as an enabling development, like the proposed housing surrounding the future stadium site) was very weak. We therefore considered the merits of building a supermarket in this location in isolation. 3) There were several reasons. Primarily we felt it failed to adhere to the Local Plan (it's on the council website if you're interested but does run to over 200 pages) with regard to the development of an out of town shopping centre. Questions were asked about the reiliability of the retail survey in particular which we did not feel were satisfactorily answered - we were told several times that theconsultant simply "didn't know". This left us in doubt over the accuracy of the projected impact on local shopping areas. There were also significant concerns about transport links, air quality and increases in traffic. I realise that I am unlikely to convince you on this one. However, I would like to assure you that I did indeed go into the meeting with an open mind (starting off actually leaning towards approval) but that on the evidenced presented did not feel that I could approve the application. Best wishes Fi --- Fi Hance Liberal Democrat Councillor for Redland Tel: 0117 353 4720 I think making these people 'change their mind' is key. We need to find a precedent, surely there has been similar planning permission given that we can use to support our case? Any ideas? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Vote Tory in the next election then! Sorry, i would rather chop me bollards off than do that!! Great work Ole, and i thought we had the most corrupt councillers in Bridgwater!!!! Lets hope we can bring the baxxards down big time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCFChris Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 ....and a gander at Simon Rayner's Facebook page reveals he is friends with none other than Stephen Williams MP. Of course there is still no link whatsoever between Mr Ferguson and his business interests and Simon Rayner, nope, not one. More interested in architecture than he is in making chocolate apparently! http://www.paulsmith4bristolwest.org.uk/working_hard_for_you?PageId=de523e0c-3e49-fd14-b56b-60406b8cf3bc I wonder what this big old site will now be used for, low cost housing, eco housing? Anyone know who might be interested in this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Rollason Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 [q --- Fi Hance Liberal Democrat Councillor for Redland Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 (edited) Hance is my councillor as a Redland resident and after witnessing her diabolical performance in the first stadium meeting (all 4.5hrs) I wrote and complained, had much the same reply however. I certainly won't be voting for her next time! Edited July 23, 2010 by Rocky Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bringbacktherobin Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Has anyone sent this to the football supporters fed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markyou Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Found this little snippet on another site:- Looking deeper into this, there may have been some dodgy dealings with the Chair of the Planning Committee over this. The normal Chair for the South East Bristol Planning Committee had to step down for this case because he's got a season ticket for Bristol City so couldn't claim to be independent. However, the new chair works for an architect practice. That practice does a lot of joint work with another practice (such as the @Bristol stuff). The other practice is run by George Ferguson - who has spoken out a lot against the Sainsburys proposal because he's heavily involved in the gentrification of North Street - which the locals who have been living in the area all their lives are now complaining about because it's basically pricing them out of the area and the shops that are opening up are not what they want but more upmarket ones. So, with all that in mind, was the chair really independent in that meeting? Or was there a thought in the back of his mind 'I can't vote against what George Ferguson wants because it might affect the work my employer gets and they may sack me?' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Message Received: Jul 22 2010, 09:45 AM From: "Fi Hance" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Sainsburys planning application 3) There were several reasons. Primarily we felt it failed to adhere to the Local Plan (it's on the council website if you're interested but does run to over 200 pages) with regard to the development of an out of town shopping centre. Questions were asked about the reiliability of the retail survey in particular which we did not feel were satisfactorily answered - . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrizzleRed Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 ======================================== Message Received: Jul 22 2010, 09:45 AM From: "Fi Hance" To: Cc: Subject: Re: Sainsburys planning application Dear Sir, I'm sorry that you are disappointed in the Committee's decision to refuse the application for Sainsburys. Such decisions are complex and rarely black and white but in answer to yoru questions: There were two seperate applications examined last night with wholly different impacts on the local community. The first was,in our view, acceptable, the second less so. 1) I'm aware that investment is needed in the area. However, this is not an argument for any investment at any price. Moreover, a supermarket is not the only form of investment possible. 2) It was established early on that the link between the supermarket and the stadium (ie the supermarket as an enabling development, like the proposed housing surrounding the future stadium site) was very weak. We therefore considered the merits of building a supermarket in this location in isolation. 3) There were several reasons. Primarily we felt it failed to adhere to the Local Plan (it's on the council website if you're interested but does run to over 200 pages) with regard to the development of an out of town shopping centre. Questions were asked about the reiliability of the retail survey in particular which we did not feel were satisfactorily answered - we were told several times that theconsultant simply "didn't know". This left us in doubt over the accuracy of the projected impact on local shopping areas. There were also significant concerns about transport links, air quality and increases in traffic. I realise that I am unlikely to convince you on this one. However, I would like to assure you that I did indeed go into the meeting with an open mind (starting off actually leaning towards approval) but that on the evidenced presented did not feel that I could approve the application. Best wishes Fi --- Fi Hance Liberal Democrat Councillor for Redland Tel: 0117 353 4720 I think making these people 'change their mind' is key. We need to find a precedent, surely there has been similar planning permission given that we can use to support our case? Any ideas? How the hell can she be using "out of town shopping" criteria for Ashton? In my book, out of town shopping is somewhere like Cribbs Causeway. When I last looked, Ashton was very much within the City boundaries. Unbelievable!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nibor Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The answers that eventually appear on this might be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Clare Rayer is ruffled big time and has provided the respose of a prize c*ck. The facts are that if there is any conflivct, or suggestion of, you should declare it. He's more wet behind the ears than I believed possible. And that fringe is just awful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartolona Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 http://www.simonrayn...ncillor.org.uk/ Hopefully the club will soon start to focus on doing so, rather than trying to stir up hatred against Councillors for doing their job That wound me up !!! Can no longer see this quote in the statement! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted July 24, 2010 Author Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) Day 2. Next up... Simon Rayner's Facebook page as linked by the great and good on OTIB. http://www.facebook....100000771092871 He has just 39 friends but among them are Pete Levy and Fi Hance? I mean they're only just two of his fellow voters against Sainsbury's plans. Are you ****ing kidding me? A city of up to 600,000 people and we've 3 best friends in the 8 who vote on a £20 million commercial transaction? This is ridiculous. Of 4 no votes 3 had already added each other as friends on Facebook. A £20 million vote swung by three facebook friends? Social networking gone mad. How are Bristol's interests served by having such a serious decisions taken by 3 people so closely connected? And who was the fourth who wasn't even mates with the rest of the Liberal bloc no vote? Cheryl Ann (Lib Dem, Horfield). You'd like to think perhaps she wasn't enough of an activist for them, but err, no, actually she was probably too much of one, as the ONLY councillor to vote against the final 8-1 vote in favour of the stadium. Voting against everyone. What a democrat. But as it happens Cheryl and Fi are Facebook friends. Phew, that's a relief! All four are established friends. Lovely stuff. Okay so I know they're on the same party and have the same roles and will have met each other before, but does Bristol City Council really seriously feel it's is any way appropriate to have 4 very close friends overruling a planning inspectorate report? Doesn't look too good, does it. Of course what I wouldn't suggest for a minute is that 4 Liberal Democrat friends would have any reason to vote collectively, I'm sure they judged George Ferguson's impassioned plea on merit. George Ferguson [the former local Liberal councillor and Liberal election candidate] can be an eloquent speaker and I'm sure that's what won it. Wasn't it? Incidentally, here's an example of his eloquent speaking: http://www.thisisbri...il/article.html That's his column during the election, which, to paraphrase, derides politics as broken because everyone in a party just votes the same way so every decision is unavoidably political. Wow! Where have we seen that recently? Worked out alright this time though didn't it George! While we're at it, Fi Hance lives at xx [self-censured for privacy] Hurlingham Road BS7 which was valued at £320,000 in 2006. Simon Rayner lives in a flat at xx [self-censured for privacy] Richmond Dale BS8 which was sold for £455,000 in 2005. Posted only because they're obviously so concerned to have their say in other big property transactions. As they say, it's not all about the money, it's about ensuring the right uses.... Edited July 24, 2010 by Olé Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dollymarie Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Ole can I advise you to get screen prints of this in case the evidence should somehow disappear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Thinking the same thing about get proof of who his friends are/were/might be. Is he any relation to Loise Rayner former ITV West news reader and now at BBC Zummerzet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webzcas Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 Can no longer see this quote in the statement! Google cache is such a wonderful thing Unfortunately on my netbook so can't grab the whole page. But will do so on my wife's laptop shortly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webzcas Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 to have 4 very close friends overruling a planning inspectorate report? Doesn't look too good, does it. This arguement holds no water I am afraid. I use Facebook and a lot of my 'friends' on there are individuals with whom my company works with, or individuals working for companies that my company works with. People use it ( Facebook ) for work like Linked In and other networking sites. I wouldn't call many of my Facebook friends as 'close friends'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted July 24, 2010 Author Share Posted July 24, 2010 This arguement holds no water I am afraid. I use Facebook and a lot of my 'friends' on there are individuals with whom my company works with, or individuals working for companies that my company works with. People use it ( Facebook ) for work like Linked In and other networking sites. I wouldn't call many of my Facebook friends as 'close friends'. Except that when scrutinising a private £20 million commercial transaction the council might at least make a bit of effort and diligence to ensure that decision makers cannot themselves be accused of not upholding their responsibility to judge and vote based on their own personal assessment of the merits of the case. Whether or not they're loosely coupled acquaintances who use Facebook as a matter of inter-party convenience, their ability to judge impartially and act alone is seriously questionable in the circumstances. So in short, I'm well aware that the council committees are staffed according to the complexion of the dominant political party but at best we have a Liberal Democrat bloc vote against the application, at worst we have 4 friends deciding such a significant multi-million pound planning decision. Either way it doesn't say a lot for Bristol's decision makers this morning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webzcas Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I agree with what you are saying, don't get me wrong. I just don't think that particular angle will bear much fruit as it were. The fact that Rayner has already edited his blog, shows if proof be needed, that it was written in a very defensive manner. He knows he is under the spotlight and so he should be. I am also sure the club are extremely annoyed about what he originally wrote on there and has subsequently removed and reworded. This decision could actually be a blessing in disguise. Because if Sainsburys appeal and there is a public enquiry, as a direct result of the information you have uncovered, some councillors could find themselves in a very sticky situation. Colin Sextone's latest statement last night was IMO released directly as a result of what Rayner wrote on his blog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Olé Posted July 24, 2010 Author Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) The Evening Post story this morning is a bit tame. It's a post-event story so it leads with Simon Rayner's dismissal of what is constantly referred to as an internet protest or message board posting (rather than simply some overdue due diligence on the members of the committee, which as the author, is what it was). It also quotes council lawyers clearing him of any conflict. It doesn't go into much detail and provides more space to quote his rebuttal. I know there was probably a legal responsibility to tone it down but it concentrates on the link between Rayner and Ferguson's businesses without much conviction given that there were simple un-libellous facts (Concept Planning Group, @Bristol) that would have put some meat on the bones. What disappoints me is I provided a series of facts for people to draw conclusions from. Whilst they were deliberately ordered to build up an increasingly concerning picture that would have warranted diligence before participating in the decision, establishing a link between employers and leading opponent of the scheme wasn't meant to dilute the very basic initial concerns: If you're an architect and your firm has a clear track record of participating in development projects across Bristol including South Bristol, surely you have a conflict of interest in voting out another development, especially when that development is for an established retail giant that does not offer the commercial opportunities which other local development projects would do. I said it last night and I'll say it again, it's simply not good enough for Simon Rayner (as he also does in the Evening Post) to say there is no interest from his company in the Ashton Gate site. Of course there isn't, I wouldn't expect there to be. But there is an unavoidable knowledge that Sainsbury's does not offer the POTENTIAL of opportunities other developments might. It took me less than 5 minutes to find details of a tender for development in South Bristol worth over £1 million which Alec French Partnership previously won. If you, like Simon, are one of the dozen odd rank and file employees at such a firm (20 people including 4 directors), it must be in your mind that you and your company has opportunity if other development arises at AG. But the Evening Post story doesn't even challenge that basic conflict of interest. In this respect I'm sorry that my posting lead them on to the link to Ferguson's firm, I would have hoped that it was used as a rider for anyone wavering over an already highly debatable position. Instead it is THE story for them, and one they've allowed Rayner and the council to dismiss quite easily. Nonetheless, that link, which Rayner tells the EP is "an attempt to connect me to George Ferguson" should be revisited. In quotes, he and Ferguson both play it as if they would have to have slept together for their to be any merit in the concern. Their personal association was never in question. But to describe it as simply "past links" between two businesses is a little under cooked. The two businesses collaborated under one name (Concept Planning Group) on one of the biggest urban regeneration projects Bristol has seen (harbourside including @Bristol). Don't you think that a firm like Alec French would have enough lasting reminders around about such a prestigious development of that kind for Simon Rayner, even if it was all before him, to know who his friends are? A quick search finds details of Alec French directors and George Ferguson sitting on speaking panels together at Bristol University or jointly authoring papers and articles for architecture journals. None of which is unsurprising given they went on to collaborate on a £90 development project, but enough for Simon Rayner to have seen evidence of who it's worth being loyal to. In short, I've seen nothing so far in the emailed response or the quotes in this morning's Evening Post story which adequately explains how he could have had no conflict of interest. Edited July 24, 2010 by Olé Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icamanicity Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 I reckon, their minds were made up, well before the meeting last weds, i wonder where Charles Bolton fits in with this lot?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bcfcas1 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 (edited) Google cache is such a wonderful thing Unfortunately on my netbook so can't grab the whole page. But will do so on my wife's laptop shortly Guilty as charged, what a fool. Has anyone sent any of this infomation to Nick Clegg? I'm sure he would like to see statements like this made on Lib Dem websites.... Edited July 24, 2010 by bcfcas1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bcfcas1 Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 How the hell can she be using "out of town shopping" criteria for Ashton? In my book, out of town shopping is somewhere like Cribbs Causeway. When I last looked, Ashton was very much within the City boundaries. Unbelievable!!! It's a supermarket not a shopping centre! And not 'out of town'. Christ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peanut Posted July 24, 2010 Share Posted July 24, 2010 It's a supermarket not a shopping centre! And not 'out of town'. Christ Out-of-town - an out-of-centre development on a green-field site or on land not clearly within the current urban boundary. Clearly does not apply to the sainsburys application Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.