Urgent Please Read Re: Sainsbury's Decision

[Blagdon red]

Some people just don't get it, do they. Once published online, always published online ... filthy language included:

PS: My asterisks to obscure the bad language and save your blushes.

Is this what you expect of somebody who seeks public office?

[Olé]

Ironic that after all these posts causing friction simply through sharing facts the first truly libellous comment is Mr. Sudworth claiming on his twitter that home addresses of people have been published. No addresses were ever published and I resent that accusation of OTIB, the council on the other hand HAVE already published all the exact addresses of these people due to their appetite to make submissions to the planning decision!

And for him to say "bit dim" after his performance the past 24 hours!

[Webzcas]

Meanwhile Mr Basics has joined my forum and entered the debate. I have of course rebutted every single point he makes.

[Geoff65]

So Joel Sudworth is SacredSpring?

http://sacredspring.wordpress.com/

[Blagdon red]

So Joel Sudworth is SacredSpring?

http://sacredspring.wordpress.com/

I note that the author of that blog has an interest in graffiti.

[Guest Orj]

I note that the author of that blog has an interest in graffiti.

And is also an advocate, nay a willing abetter, of tax evasion.

Click here

Isn't that illegal?

[Chappers]

Have I missed something? Does Joel Sudworth not want his address on this Forum? Does he think that we can't waste two minutes of our lives in Google? Are all Lib Dems a bunch of useless wuckfits?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29902883/Local-Statement-of-Persons-Nominated-All-Wards

[Blagdon red]

Have I missed something? Does Joel Sudworth not want his address on this Forum? Does he think that we can't waste two minutes of our lives in Google? Are all Lib Dems a bunch of useless wuckfits?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/29902883/Local-Statement-of-Persons-Nominated-All-Wards

So let me see, by going into Clik's offices and evidently putting Geoff under such pressure that he felt obliged to remove a post that showed the very rough location (via pins on a map, not actual addresses) of where people involved with the Sainsbury's planning application (for and against) lived (demonstrating that those in the immediate vicinity of AG were mainly in favour of the application) Mr Sudworth (whose residential whereabouts weren't even roughly marked by a pin) has encouraged the appearance of a link to a public domain document showing his full postal address and the highlighting of his use of expletives on a public communications platform.

Maybe with hindsight he wishes he hadn't acted the way he did.

[Guest Orj]

Have I missed something? Does Joel Sudworth not want his address on this Forum? Does he think that we can't waste two minutes of our lives in Google? Are all Lib Dems a bunch of useless wuckfits?

http://www.scribd.co...nated-All-Wards

Ahhhh, I see, that's where he lives. I do hope he is careful with his car around there (assuming he owns one) as it seems to be the norm to break the law and park your car on the pavement on that road if Google Streetview is anything to go by. According to the Highway Code rule #244, "You MUST NOT park partially or wholly on the pavement in London, and should not do so elsewhere unless signs permit it. Parking on the pavement can obstruct and seriously inconvenience pedestrians, people in wheelchairs or with visual impairments and people with prams or pushchairs."

[Guest Orj]

Personally I have a bit of a problem with those google maps actually showing street pictures of a specific adress.

What colour is that actually? Pink??

May I suggest you don't stand for public office, then?

[Chappers]

Will the Sudworth Stasi burst in on me at work, after my painstaking detailed investigation that took one Google search, and about one minute, to find a list of Council candidates, a record that is in the public domain? The results are good, the self-important t0sser came a distant third, and his Green chummies were some way behind the BNP.

BTW, to avoid any confusion, I did this to show the sheer stupidity of his tantrum, any illegal actions towards these numpties will not help the cause of Bristol City in any way.

Now, if they want SL to put even more money into the Stadium, how about not selling it, demolishing the old stadium, clearing the rubble, and leaving an open gate. I am sure that a travelling eco-group could set up a sustainable encampment there, exactly what the residents want (Allegedly).

[sh1t_ref_again]

Joel Sudworth does seem to have done a good job of demonstrating why he did not get elected - what a sado

[SC_Red]

And is also an advocate, nay a willing abetter, of tax evasion.

Click here

Isn't that illegal?

yep. I'm sure HMRC would be very intrested to see he offers cash in hand work.

Edited July 30, 2010 by SC_Red

[SC_Red]

Personally I have a bit of a problem with those google maps actually showing street pictures of a specific adress.

What colour is that actually? Pink??

and to think he was suggesting on twitter that someone might deface his house. looks like hes' already done that himself with a tin of pink paint.

he paid £172k for that house on 03/06/2005. just more information thats publically available.

[Chappers]

I actually hate Russians.

Have I told you about slaget vid Baggenstäket on the 13th of August 1719?

I can assure you that no coward Lib Dem were there..

I'll rest my case.

I hope it was a sustainable, eco-friendly battle with adequate provision for cyclists.

[Portland Bill]

We can report people and businesses who pay people cash in hand cant we ?. Imagine if you worked behind a bar and the owner of that Bar wasnt paying his taxes properly.

Or, is this acceptable nowdays?

[Barrs Court Red]

So we now know Mr Sadwank is the producer of a very rude and immature blog, where he lives and where he works.

I suppose if a picture or heaven forbed a phone number appeard tyhat would make a complete set?

Personally i hope people from the club refered to in his blog go through and take the **** tou court.................It's not like it's hard to find where to serve leagal papers.

[SC_Red]

We can report people and businesses who pay people cash in hand cant we ?. Imagine if you worked behind a bar and the owner of that Bar wasnt paying his taxes properly.

Or, is this acceptable nowdays?

sounds like cynic is going to do that on Monday.

[Barrs Court Red]

What's that coming over the hill, is it the taxman.......

[Olé]

Yesterday started with highlighting Joel Sudworth as the Liberal Democrat councillor elect who was petitioning his fellow Lib Dem chums for a NO vote as if a common member of the public, and ended with the fall out from his ill-advised harassment and censorship of this forum - a sheer case of hypocrisy from one so happy to deal in other peoples business, and exacerbated by the presence on the web of material from him which in places was offensive, in others was dubiously legal: the offer of cash in hand work at the Tobacco Factory being one such case.

Today however, we let Joel have the weekend off. And in turn, hopefully the forum management team, free from any potential hissy fits. But with the Tobacco Factory very much in mind, I can turn my attention to another of the good upstanding impartial citizens of the region who made submissions to the Sainbury's planning meeting against the development. Step forward Alastair Sawday, the self-styled Green expert who made a clear statement against the proposals, based on Bristol's role in becoming a Green capital city, of which here are some extracts:

"Community Cohesion/ Climate Change awareness/Co2 reduction/Smart GreenCity/a strong sense of place/stronger communities. A supermarket works against each and every one of these priorities."

"So, Bristol is finally united around the ambition to be a Green City. Every major proposal must now be judged against this ambition."

"To yield to the blandishments of a supermarket is to secure the economic future of ...its shareholders."

How dare a company have shareholders! Every business and a majority of land uses are supposed to produce economic gain for someone, the fact shareholders - members of the public - can gain, should be neither here nor there in a development application, but it is the stock sensationalism of your average green activist in Bristol, of which this issue has had many.

Here are 10 facts about Mr. Sawday:

1. He stood as a Green Party candidate in 1992 (confirming the spread of the single-issue green agenda through so many of the proponents of the NO campaign)

2. He created Alastair Sawday Publishing Ltd, not a PLC, but a business through which Mr. Sawday himself profits (not to be confused with evil public supermarket shareholders)

3. He sells books and holidays based around travelling to all corners of the UK, across Western Europe, to Morocco and India.

4. Though he recommends green travel, his holidays are not inclusive of any carbon offsetting.

5. Reading one of his books or buying one of his holidays and flying to and from France would produce as much CO2 as 6 different people in averaged size cars doing a 2 mile round trip to Sainsbury's every week for a year. Travelling to/from Morocco would be the same as 10 different cars doing that trip weekly for a year. An India trip would be 30 cars for 52 weeks.

6. He founded the local Friends of the Earth, of which Alice Ferguson, another who made statements to the meeting against the plans, is a member. Of course, for anyone who hasn't read this thread recently, she also happens to be the daughter of the best known prospective alternative developer of the site.

7. In March this year he was on a select "West of England Initiative" panel with none other than George Ferguson, alternative developer of Ashton Gate, at an event and dinner to discuss Bristol 2050: Developing a Business Vision for the Future of the Bristol City Region. Presumably a vision which, with their collective influence, didn't include the 250m injection from a World Cup stadium. Just for good measure, also on the small panel of 6 people deciding the vision of our futures with both Alastair and George was, err... Barbara Janke, Lib Dem council leader. Small world!

8. George Ferguson, stated alternative developer of Ashton Gate, co-founded the pre-cursor of Sustrans with Alastair Sawday.

9. A year ago this month, Mr. Sawday was invited by Hugh Nettlefield, director of Quattro Design Architects, to chair his firm's event to commemorate the 25th anniversary of Quattro Design.

..........^^ .....................^^ ........................................^^

Alastair Sawday .......Hugh Nettlefield ..........Quattro Design

10. Quattro Design Architects are George Ferguson's named partners and err... leaders of the proposed alternative development plans for Ashton Gate.

Now, of course, NONE of this prevents Mr. Sawday from speaking against the plans, as is his absolute right, but why is he YET ANOTHER single-issue Green activist who has such close links with people who stand to gain from the alternative uses of Ashton Gate? And why is he YET ANOTHER who does so apparently without reference to his links to such opportunity?

Time and again we get people patronising us with Green politics yet staying close to those who profit and succeed from failure of big business to secure the site. And this time by someone who profits from the Green agenda and who, for all the commendable attempts to recommend otherwise, encourages travel that produces air pollution which dwarfs local supermarket use.

The incestuous links of those who have spoken out against this development as independent commentators yet have spent years hand in hand with those who seek to develop Ashton Gate, is staggering. Wake the **** up Bristol and stop getting dictated to by a well organised vocal minority with closely interlinked single issue interests.

Edited July 31, 2010 by Olé

[Ian M]

I meant that now it's in the open, the HMRC will get some calls on monday - not necessarily from me.

For anyone that is interested if an employer is paying their staff without operating a PAYE (Pay As You Earn) system it is, by definition, Tax Fraud.

If any upstanding member of the community wishes to report an instance of Tax Fraud they can do so online, or by calling the Tax Evasion Hotline on 0800 788 887, open Monday to Friday from 8.00 am to 8.00 pm, Saturday and Sunday 8.00 am to 4.00 pm. This is a confidential service and you don't have to give your name.

Remember people, each time an individual commits Tax Fraud they are robbing money from the NHS, our schools, pensions & even efforts to combat rising CO2 emissions. Not only that but the rest of us decent, honest tax payers end up footing their bill!

[BCAGFC]

More good work, we seem to building up quite a good case although they will say it is all circumstantial.

Think we have uncovered some Japanese Knotweed, it spreads like wildfire but is mainly underground.

BCAGFC

Edited July 31, 2010 by BCAGFC

[Guest Orj]

They look like a bunch of perverts.

This is my view and does not represent BCFC or OTIB.

Pervert: One who has been perverted; one who has turned to error; one who has turned to a twisted sense of values or morals;

Hard to argue that the disingenuity of Mr Sawday failing to state how he stood to benefit financially from the denial of the Sainsbury's application, instead arguing the virtuous agenda, isn't a twisted sense of morals.

[chinapig]

Good letter in today's Observer on Lib Dems in general. Dirty fighters indeed.

http://www.guardian....e-justice-works (scroll down the page)

Lib Dems are dirty fighters

How pleasing to read that the Lib Dem support had dropped 13% ("Nick Clegg goes on summer tour to boost Liberal Democrat support," News, last week). I remember a time when Liberals only had six MPs. When I have opposed them in local elections I have found them dirty fighters.

My brother stopped supporting them in 1983 after refusing to deliver a leaflet supporting Simon Hughes against Peter Tatchell headed: "A Straight Choice".

I was once tempted to vote Liberal when their party conference came out against the building of the Trident nuclear deterrent until I discovered that the Liberals in Rosyth and Plymouth were both campaigning to have the submarines stationed in their ports. So having two faces is nothing new for them.

[bobby]

7. In March this year he was on a select "West of England Initiative" panel with none other than George Ferguson, alternative developer of Ashton Gate, at an event and dinner to discuss Bristol 2050: Developing a Business Vision for the Future of the Bristol City Region. Presumably a vision which, with their collective influence, didn't include the 250m injection from a World Cup stadium. Just for good measure, also on the small panel of 6 people deciding the vision of our futures with both Alastair and George was, err... Barbara Janke, Lib Dem council leader. Small world!

This event was run by the organisation I work for and I can assure you that as a "business" vision for Bristol it certainly does include the stadium as a major aspiration for the business community. Also our organisation has consistently supported BCFC in all their development proposals. Alastair and George were on the panel to encourage debate, to provide an alternative view to the one many of the business community have. Barbara was of course there representing the council. A good mix of speakers that actually generated an interesting debate, with different views, challenges and ideas! The audience for the event were 150 or so business members, most of whom also support the stadium proposal and the redevelopment of AG.

[WhistleHappy]

Good letter in today's Observer on Lib Dems in general. Dirty fighters indeed.

http://www.guardian....e-justice-works (scroll down the page)

My brother stopped supporting them in 1983 after refusing to deliver a leaflet supporting Simon Hughes against Peter Tatchell headed: "A Straight Choice".

Naughty - but quite clever to be honest (not bad for a 'liberal' party in fact.). - (1980's the last of the non 'Politically Correct' days I guess - I kinda miss 'em)

[havanatopia]

Good letter in today's Observer on Lib Dems in general. Dirty fighters indeed.

http://www.guardian....e-justice-works (scroll down the page)

Lib Dems are dirty fighters

How pleasing to read that the Lib Dem support had dropped 13% ("Nick Clegg goes on summer tour to boost Liberal Democrat support," News, last week). I remember a time when Liberals only had six MPs. When I have opposed them in local elections I have found them dirty fighters.

My brother stopped supporting them in 1983 after refusing to deliver a leaflet supporting Simon Hughes against Peter Tatchell headed: "A Straight Choice".

I thought they were both of the alternative persuasion.

[Ron]

I take it I'm the only one who thinks this is turning into little more than a slur campaign now?

[chinapig]

I take it I'm the only one who thinks this is turning into little more than a slur campaign now?

There are some posts I would disagree with perhaps but overall the thread is entirely relevant and factual. In case you are referring to my latest contribution, it merely illustrates what anybody who has taken an interest in politics for long enough already knows. That is that while painting themselves nationally as the "nice party" alternative to the big two, at local level the Lib Dems have a reputation for adopting whatever policies and tactics will get them power and meet their ends. We now know of course that the national party is happy to ally with a Tory party now proudly declaring it is more Thatcherite than Thatcher, having spent a long time claiming the opposite. Anything for a Ministerial salary it seems.

Given some of the factual information in this thread I would have thought all that was entirely relevant context. If the local Lib Dems can refute (not just reject) that evidence they should do so. They haven't yet.

[Olé]

I'm sorry for the disappearing act, firstly there were a few comments accusing me of scraping the barrel and to be honest I'm not here to do anything City fans feel is not an appropriately measured response on a common view of this injustice, secondly I've been contacted by a number of people who want me to address this through other media channels - prompting me to be a bit more introspective about the impact of what has been posted, and finally, my business caught up with me and I've been a bit too busy.

I was hoping to have generated enough interest that others here would want to keep on getting informed about, and challenging, the decision making process, but inevitably signing David James and preparing for the first day of a new season rather changed everyone's focus! Either way, this is probably an opportune moment to step aside, and at least allow the club and Sainsbury's to do their thing, I hope in some way there's been something here they can use as part of a comprehensive set of objections in appeal.

If I have encouraged any of you to pay closer attention to what is going on and how you can influence it, then that is a good thing, since for all the concerns I have raised, my overriding feeling is the majority were silent on this proposal and a well orchestrated, closely interlinked green minority turned up and forced the issue. It seems unfair now to think of a few usual suspects in Southville dictating South Bristol's future, but the reality is every public record pre- and post- meeting shows they were the only ones to try.

However, as the Evening Post have rightly reported this week, while I've been away, there has been a chance for the council to issue minutes of the planning meeting, and it at least affords some nice opportunities to quickly revisit the strange injustice which took place and recap so that everyone understands, in simple terms, what went down:

1. A prepared summary of the planning experts findings on all key issues was presented to the council committee at the meeting, to justify their recommendation for approval.

2. The committee challenged many of these issues anyway, and received clear, direct explanations on the night from the experts to answer each in re-stating their advice.

3. The Lib Dem majority on the committee decided - what the hell - they still disagreed with the experts findings and decided to refuse the application anyway.

Now, to your average person, calling on and then ignoring all advice from the experts seems like a pretty cavalier and autocratic way to go about council decision making, particularly from a number of inexperienced councillors who have neither been in civic office nor on the committee very long. In such matters the public must put their trust in the recommendations of experts who have to carry out independent assessment - under public scrutiny. Where is that trust if a handful of councillors can just dismiss it all?

A funny thing happened on the way to 3 above. Let's be absolutely clear about the sequence of events at the meeting at that late stage:

a) Derek Pickup, in a minority on the committee in that he actually represents a South Bristol ward and lives in Bedminster, proposed that the decision be postponed to allow time to review whether the issues around impact on North Street could be better resolved. With hindsight given the fact that the Lib Dem councillors kept labouring the point and re-iterating that they were "not persuaded" by the experts view of the impact, that would seem like a reasonable compromise and yet the Lib Dem's did not support it!

b) No, of course they didn't, because they were already set on rejecting the answers the experts had given them, and immediately Simon Rayner, the chairman, declared that a large part of South Bristol would be impacted (the findings of Simon Rayner's head and not based on the extensive research of experts) and he went on to imply that the experts were wrong on their retail, pollution and transport assessments (all subjects which Rayner is not an expert on). No matter that the challenges to the experts on these very assessments in the meeting were all dealt with under cross examination. Rayner could apparently see something which no one (except his Lib Dem chums) could see.

c) In response his Facebook friend and Lib Dem colleague Pete Levy moved to refuse the application and their mutual Facebook friend and Lib Dem colleague Fi Hance seconded it. They must have been in a hurry to back up Rayner's wild dismissal of the experts view, since as they tried to get this voted through by the Lib Dem majority on the committee, they had to be reminded by civil servants that they should probably have a few reasons for doing so in case of a challenge (and probably because it's quite a good idea to have some justification if you're going to listen to experts, put questions to experts and hear the answers, and then ignore it all anyway).

Now, on any view, this seems like an abject failure for democracy.

As taxpayers we're paying for experts to spend months researching and presenting advice. We then have 4 councillors from the same party who not only ignore the experts' research and advice, but then ignore the experts' direct responses on the night to the criticisms they're using to justify ignoring it (i.e. I don't agree with your advice, and even when you explain to me why I'm wrong to be disagreeing with it, I'm still going to ignore you anyway).

They then even reject a suggestion to take some time out to look into whose research is right and possible compromises (i.e. I don't agree with your advice, and even when you explain to me why I'm wrong to be disagreeing with it, I'm still going to ignore you anyway, oh and can we get this over with quickly, I don't want to have to actually prove why I disagree with your advice). We then have them needing reminding of the need to have reasons before they vote (err.. I said.. can we get this over with quickly).

That this all went down entirely on the say-so of Liberal Democrats (and not the 2 Conservatives who voted in favour of the plans, or the Labour councillor who was the one to suggest the postponement to review the concern) makes it all the more astonishing, prompting the Liberal Democrat leader of the council, Barbara Janke, to protest loudly via the papers that this decision really wasn't political and everyone made their own mind up. So much so that she had to come out and say it. Nice one Babs!

Hopefully over the past few weeks I've given you enough information on different themes to make your own mind up about why this happened the way it did.

I would encourage EVERYONE to read pages 9-14 of the following: http://www.bristol.g...3/0721_mins.pdf which contains minutes of the summary given at the meeting on all key findings from the experts, then pages 14-16 which contains minutes of the responses from the experts to concerns raised by the committee, then the last 2 paragraphs of page 16 and first 2 paragraphs of page 17 which contains the short, sharp, summary dismissal of the experts advice and rejection at the hands of Lib Dem councillors Rayner, Levy and Hance.

Look out for the experts assessment via an entirely independent retail consultant that North Street would see retail growth of 5.5% by 2015 even with the new Sainsbury's. Look out for Sainsbury's contribution of £217,500 at £72,500 per annum (nice work if you can get it) for someone to manage North Street. Look out for the declaration that two thirds of the larger store will be clothes and white goods, things you can't buy on North Street. And look out for over £200,000 on bus projects and £50,000 on cycle projects.

Then look out for the set of explanations from experts to deal with the committees concerns in page 14-16, and finally the Lib Dem ignorance of this all in a paragraph or two from the bottom of page 16. It was the depressing point when ONE political party decided to undermine £20m of funding towards a £90m private investment in South Bristol (a substantial chunk, even if Ms. Janke feels it's professional to always refer to Steve Lansdown's wealth) and with it, a potential £250m World Cup windfall for the region.

And with that, I'm off - anyone got any recently enhanced potential residential and mixed-use development projects in BS3 that they might need an architect for?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Olé

[Geoff65]

Dear Mr. Rayner,

In your discussion of the Sainsburys planning application you said:

We have had the risk raised by the er um a large number of objectors and of what the impact would be on existing traders and the character of east street and high streets and their survival, to me this is one of the most fundamental aspects that we need to look at, as I asked in my question I am perplexed as to why two supermarkets and the two reports have come out so differently and because of that I actually went back and looked over the retail impact assessment for the Tesco application and this application, and I am concerned that officers have been quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those, I'll give an example, the estimated trade draw from north street in the tesco report is estimated at 10% and their would be a decline in the usage of north street closures and in the sainsburys report it says that the trade draw would be similar to the tescos report on page 22 and yet the conclusion reached is completely different. Clearly I have a view on that and would be interested on what others would have to say.

I have not heard your views on a couple of things regarding your comments.

A) In your last sentence you said that "I have a view on that" - what exactly is your view on the previous few sentences that you said?

B) In addition could you explain the comments about the officers being quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those (reports).

Were they deliberately being selective and for what purpose?

or do you think that perhaps they were being biased?

or maybe not being thorough enough in their duties as Officers?

C) Could you also confirm that the Tesco retail impact reports (both the independent one and the officer's report) were provided to you by the officers as part of the evidence in dealing with this application or was it done on your own initiative.

I would be pleased to receive your answers to all questions and I would be grateful if you do not provide a generic reply as you have been quite specific in your comments and I have been quite specific in my questions.

Yours sincerely

Geoff

His reply:

Geoff

Thank you for your e-mail. As I'm sure you will appreciate I have received a large number of queries from members of the public and the media regarding this subject. The application we were involved in was a controversial one, and understandably many people have asked questions about the reasons for the decision. As a City Councillor I am not provided with any resources to assist me in dealing with these queries. I also have other duties and responsibilities to my constituents which demand my time. For these reasons I regret I am not able to provide you with individual answers to the specific questions you have raised.

Everything which I wish to say on this issue to date is already in the public domain. There is a statement on my blog at: www.simonrayner.org. This may be updated with further information in due course.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I am sorry that I am not able to provide the information you have requested.

Kind regards

Simon Rayner

For Prosperity

[Guest City Chuds]

His reply:

Geoff

Thank you for your e-mail. As I'm sure you will appreciate I have received a large number of queries from members of the public and the media regarding this subject. The application we were involved in was a controversial one, and understandably many people have asked questions about the reasons for the decision. As a City Councillor I am not provided with any resources to assist me in dealing with these queries. I also have other duties and responsibilities to my constituents which demand my time. For these reasons I regret I am not able to provide you with individual answers to the specific questions you have raised.

Everything which I wish to say on this issue to date is already in the public domain. There is a statement on my blog at: www.simonrayner.org. This may be updated with further information in due course.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I am sorry that I am not able to provide the information you have requested.

Kind regards

Simon Rayner

For Prosperity

This could be shortened to

Geoff

Im too busy to answer your questions and I dont know the answers. Run along and read my website that will keep you busy enough to stop hassling me

Simon

[Riaz]

he's NOT too busy - because he had time to write the email...

My guess is he does not know the answer to the questions!

[downendcity]

[chinapig]

[Chivs]

Dear Mr. Rayner,

In your discussion of the Sainsburys planning application you said:

We have had the risk raised by the er um a large number of objectors and of what the impact would be on existing traders and the character of east street and high streets and their survival, to me this is one of the most fundamental aspects that we need to look at, as I asked in my question I am perplexed as to why two supermarkets and the two reports have come out so differently and because of that I actually went back and looked over the retail impact assessment for the Tesco application and this application, and I am concerned that officers have been quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those, I'll give an example, the estimated trade draw from north street in the tesco report is estimated at 10% and their would be a decline in the usage of north street closures and in the sainsburys report it says that the trade draw would be similar to the tescos report on page 22 and yet the conclusion reached is completely different. Clearly I have a view on that and would be interested on what others would have to say.

I have not heard your views on a couple of things regarding your comments.

A) In your last sentence you said that "I have a view on that" - what exactly is your view on the previous few sentences that you said?

B) In addition could you explain the comments about the officers being quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those (reports).

Were they deliberately being selective and for what purpose?

or do you think that perhaps they were being biased?

or maybe not being thorough enough in their duties as Officers?

C) Could you also confirm that the Tesco retail impact reports (both the independent one and the officer's report) were provided to you by the officers as part of the evidence in dealing with this application or was it done on your own initiative.

I would be pleased to receive your answers to all questions and I would be grateful if you do not provide a generic reply as you have been quite specific in your comments and I have been quite specific in my questions.

Yours sincerely

Geoff

His reply:

Geoff

Thank you for your e-mail. As I'm sure you will appreciate I have received a large number of queries from members of the public and the media regarding this subject. The application we were involved in was a controversial one, and understandably many people have asked questions about the reasons for the decision. As a City Councillor I am not provided with any resources to assist me in dealing with these queries. I also have other duties and responsibilities to my constituents which demand my time. For these reasons I regret I am not able to provide you with individual answers to the specific questions you have raised.

Everything which I wish to say on this issue to date is already in the public domain. There is a statement on my blog at: www.simonrayner.org. This may be updated with further information in due course.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I am sorry that I am not able to provide the information you have requested.

Kind regards

Simon Rayner

For Prosperity

When he says " I am sorry that I am not able to provide the information you have requested" he really means " I am sorry that I am not willing to provide the information you have requested".

You should point out the difference to him and indicate that "not willing" is not an option for a public servant.

[Guest Red Wardy]

Ole, you are a Leg-End.

Hopefully, the fall out from your fantastic research should - mercifully - help to cut Simon Rayner's Political ambitions short.

I still find it incredible that the Lib Dems thought they could get away with it. A 29 year-old Architect, with conflicting interests, chairing a Major Planning Decision. That fact alone is all we need to know. Even without subsequent bombshell after bombshell launched by Ole.

The public money these self-serving lunatics have squandered on this project leaves me incredulous.

Where is the fallout and when will it happen? The Council have been too quiet for too long. That in itself tells the whole sordid Story.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Red Wardy

[BCAGFC]

Just quickly read the minutes and it does look like they didn't want to defer the decision because they knew it would take longer if they completely refused the application.

It was a stitch up and sooner or later the councillors involved will have to answer for themsleves as I don't think the councils experts will back them at appeal.

I bet the 4 no voters will suddenly be ill on the day of appeal.

BCAGFC

[downendcity]

Ole, you are a Leg-End.

Hopefully, the fall out from your fantastic research should - mercifully - help to cut Simon Rayner's Political ambitions short.

I still find it incredible that the Lib Dems thought they could get away with it. A 29 year-old Architect, with conflicting interests, chairing a Major Planning Decision. That fact alone is all we need to know. Incredible.

The public money these self-serving lunatics have squandered on this project leaves me incredulous.

Advert in the Job Centre

Are you un-qualified and inexperienced to handle the task at hand?

Are you open to influence from third parties even if those third parties are acting for their own best interests and not those of the community you serve?

Are you happy to fly in the face of expert professional advice and not give a proper reason for doing so?

Are you happy to work in the knowledge that poor decisions will have no cost to you financially, as you will only be wasting other people's hard earned tax payments?

A BMW 7 series estae car is provided with this appointment as it has is big enough to accomodate the bicycle you will use to demonstrate your green credentials.

If you can answer yes to all the above then there is a job for you in the LibDem group on Bristol City Council.

Bristol LibDems is an equel opportunity employer and as such you should note the following:-

Applications are welcome from Bristolians and non-Bristolians, although you should eb awatre that there is a positive discrimination policy in order that we can achieve our quota target of 100% non Bristolian representation in the LibDem group.

A knowledge of the areas of Bristol affected by your decisions is not a requirement. In fact a compklete lack of local knowledge is a requiremnt if you wish to sit on the plannning committee.

Support of a local football team is not allowed not because of conflict of interest, but seriously one doesn't - does one? I mean to say,not only do you have to endure coarse language, but they don't have skinny decaf latte or canapes and you have to stand inline for drinks out of a paper cup and meat pies for goodness sake!

An understanding or appreciation of the impact the local football team has on the local and wider community is also not allowed under LibDem code of conduct.

[Guest Orj]

Dear Mr. Rayner,

In your discussion of the Sainsburys planning application you said:

We have had the risk raised by the er um a large number of objectors and of what the impact would be on existing traders and the character of east street and high streets and their survival, to me this is one of the most fundamental aspects that we need to look at, as I asked in my question I am perplexed as to why two supermarkets and the two reports have come out so differently and because of that I actually went back and looked over the retail impact assessment for the Tesco application and this application, and I am concerned that officers have been quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those, I'll give an example, the estimated trade draw from north street in the tesco report is estimated at 10% and their would be a decline in the usage of north street closures and in the sainsburys report it says that the trade draw would be similar to the tescos report on page 22 and yet the conclusion reached is completely different. Clearly I have a view on that and would be interested on what others would have to say.

I have not heard your views on a couple of things regarding your comments.

A) In your last sentence you said that "I have a view on that" - what exactly is your view on the previous few sentences that you said?

B) In addition could you explain the comments about the officers being quite selective in which conclusions they have chosen to take from those (reports).

Were they deliberately being selective and for what purpose?

or do you think that perhaps they were being biased?

or maybe not being thorough enough in their duties as Officers?

C) Could you also confirm that the Tesco retail impact reports (both the independent one and the officer's report) were provided to you by the officers as part of the evidence in dealing with this application or was it done on your own initiative.

I would be pleased to receive your answers to all questions and I would be grateful if you do not provide a generic reply as you have been quite specific in your comments and I have been quite specific in my questions.

Yours sincerely

Geoff

His reply:

Geoff

Thank you for your e-mail. As I'm sure you will appreciate I have received a large number of queries from members of the public and the media regarding this subject. The application we were involved in was a controversial one, and understandably many people have asked questions about the reasons for the decision. As a City Councillor I am not provided with any resources to assist me in dealing with these queries. I also have other duties and responsibilities to my constituents which demand my time. For these reasons I regret I am not able to provide you with individual answers to the specific questions you have raised.

Everything which I wish to say on this issue to date is already in the public domain. There is a statement on my blog at: www.simonrayner.org. This may be updated with further information in due course.

Thank you for your interest in this matter. I am sorry that I am not able to provide the information you have requested.

Kind regards

Simon Rayner

For Prosperity

I find it almost unbelievable that this letter and response hasn't generate more discussion on this forum. Rayner's dismissal of your questions, in the supposed democracy in which we live, is nothing short of scandalous. On his own website, he says:

As a local Councillor I aim to be accessible to all local people. As well as advice surgeries in local libraries, I am happy to be contacted at any other time, or to make individual appointments to discuss an issue. I keep in touch by producing at least 4 'Focus' newsletters a year, keeping every resident up to date with achievements and campaigns.

I'm proud to be representing Kingsweston, and hope to play a productive and useful role in the community. If there are any issues which you would like to see resolved, large or small, then please do not hesitate to contact me.

I really can't see how he can square his refusal to answer your questions with his statement on his website. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how you look at it), I don't live in his ward so, if I try to make an individual appointment to discuss this issue, he will probably dismiss me on the grounds that he's not my councillor.

Surely there must be someone on this website with a reasonable degree of intelligence and articulation who can take him up on his offer of an individual appointment so that he can be pressed on this. Can someone from the Kingsweston Ward not volunteer a few hours of their time to get some answers oou of this man? Here's a map of the Kingsweston Ward, in case you aren't sure if your address is within his catchment.

I dare say that if someone puts themselves forward for this, the rest of the forum will rally to help you prepare for your session so that you go in well informed and armed with a concise, considered set of questions which will ensure that we get some decent output from the meeting.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Orj

[Dollymarie]

And another thing, how the bloody hell does someone who lives in Kingsweston get to have a say in something that happens on the other side of town to that, as in why does he get to have a say on an area that isn't anywhere near the area he was elected to speak on behalf of.

[Guest Zyder9]

It's a joke, he has no business with south Bristol (other than with GF of course) hmmmmm

Producing 4 newsletters a year must be grueling work to not answer the damn questions!

Edited August 6, 2010 by Zyder9