Skip to content

Its a fudge up, official :PROW ignore enquiry findings

June 17, 2011

Lansdown gets his candy.

Council house fudge

fudgemongery central

  1. June 17, 2011 9:42 am

    The animals in the council chamber didn’t help.

  2. BobS permalink
    June 17, 2011 9:45 am

    Interesting one this.

    Sainsburys – 4 councillors are sujbected to death threats and are removed from the committee because of the serious nature of those threats.

    TVG – Councillor Abrahams accused of threatening to sue an applicant, of predecision exposed in the BEP. Other councillors exposed for not having read documents. Officers exposed for misleading statements of fact. And the TVG lot accused of misbehaviour in raising these issues.

  3. June 17, 2011 9:53 am

    So you think the conduct was conducive to an orderly meeting? All it did was cause the councillors to see the pro-TVG group for what they are. Animals.

  4. BobS permalink
    June 17, 2011 10:48 am

    anon4cec – don’t be a dick. The more you wind them up the more they are likely to JR the decision.

    Anyway, the whole decision was predecided. Everyone knew the meeting was going to be a farce as soon as Abrahams was made chair. Ordely or disorderly, the decision was always going to be the same.

    Its just a shame that McNamara, Ormondroyd, Godfrey and Abrahams made so many statements which open the Council up for Judicial Review. But that was their decision.

  5. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    June 17, 2011 11:00 am

    What’s good but also sad, is that these webcasts show how council really works, and I don’t just mean in this sorry episode. Some of the questions asked were laughable. Were people really listening? Is it because of the pressure? Is it because of the webcast? It seems that evidence provided from any side makes no difference. It seems a case of how can we get out of here with the least aggravation. Sadly, if you do cause any aggravation you will quickly be removed from the ctte, so I doubt anything will ever change!

  6. Eric permalink
    June 17, 2011 5:22 pm

    I wonder what phrase anon4cec would use to describe the hundreds of city fans at the Sainsburys meeting?

  7. June 17, 2011 7:43 pm

    I’d describe it as a presence but not one that attempted to derail the processes. If you have complains, make them through the official avenues rather than shouting, screaming and behaving like spoilt children.

  8. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 17, 2011 8:40 pm

  9. June 17, 2011 10:02 pm

    I would say the brainwashed cheerleader fan is being a tad too hasty in their celebration.
    A judicial review of the whole episode will expose the emperors new clothes.
    There is no new evidence.

  10. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 17, 2011 10:18 pm

    Was actually trying to post my fudge pic:
    Bristol Fudge

  11. June 18, 2011 7:46 am


    You know, people were pretty tired after this two year battle. Not sure if there was the energy to go on.

    Thanks for providing me with the personal motivation to keep this fight going. Its the abuse and lies of people like you who have fuelled the whole stadium opposition.

    Can you please carry on spreading your bile on other sites so others can be similarly motivated.

    Lets go.

  12. floraswift permalink
    June 18, 2011 8:56 am

    The decision was taken on the basis of 3 paragraphs written by an accountant without having seen witnesses. The Inspector heard 10 days of evidence and produced a 250 page report. She is a expert in this law. The report would not have been acceptable to a planning committee – this is what Cllr Woodman said. It is a clean JR win, with a protected costs order. Will a resident still have the energy to bring an action, is their barrister up for a fight. This should also be reported to external audit and the ombudsman – this is maladministration and a misuse of taxpayers money – I would love to see the legal advice they got! It is corrupt and I just want it exposed

  13. Deano permalink
    June 18, 2011 9:34 am

    You know, I had got to the point where I was beginning to think that we should give up because it had become increasingly obvious that the politicians were determined to ignore the evidence and find any excuse to not make this land Town Green.

    But after reading the comments of people like Anon4cec, there is no way I am giving up.

    Bring it on…let’s get this in front of a court of law.

  14. BobS permalink
    June 18, 2011 12:49 pm

    If I was the fans and the club, I would start being nice to the applicants. Start trying to make peace and apologising for some of their worse behaviour and agrression.

    But it is apparent from the pages of the BEP and OTIB that the insults, the lies, the defamation all continue even now. The AV gang will have to bring a judicial review to prove they were telling the truth. They will have to bring a Judicial Review to stop these abusive people becomming their new neighbours.

  15. Still Waters permalink
    June 18, 2011 3:34 pm

    (Grounds for Judicial Review) This fits the bill nicely:

    “Unfairness. This deals with the process for reaching a decision and includes the right to a fair hearing
    (which includes the rule against bias). Also the courts have recently extended the idea of fairness
    to prevent abuses of power where public bodies have sought to go back, without sufficient
    justification, on promises made (called ‘legitimate expectations’).”

    Now, wasn’t it minuted that BCC would accept the Inspector’s decision?

  16. June 18, 2011 4:02 pm

    I believe BCC did say they would accept the decision of the expensive enquiry. Conveniently forgot that when the ‘wrong’ result came through. The profligate ‘mediation’ then ensued to pander to the exiled landowner for some odd reason who clearly had no intention of budging. You can be sure the same mediation wouldn’t have gone to the applicants had the recommendation gone the other way
    Osmondroyd then wrongly informs the committee that there were four options on the table instead of two.
    The straight two options -yes or no, not a fudged-up cobbled up new evidence gerrymandered concoction of a non-decision. Anyone would think BCC were politicians trying to justify their expense bill. Why they let the Guernsey blusterer and his mob foul the process up is anyone’s guess.
    At least there were two honest councillors who saw through the stitch-up.

  17. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 18, 2011 4:23 pm

    Now, wasn’t it minuted that BCC would accept the Inspector’s decision?

    It was actually contained in an email to the applicant’s from “Postboy” McNamara and is actually the source of his new postboy epithet:

    It is highly likely that further submissions will be referred to the Inspector – but this will depend upon their content

    1) the Registration Authority is not placing the media above the parties
    2) there is no requirement in law that further submissions be referred to the Inspector. Imagine if a party submitted irrelevant and fundamentally irrational submissions then these would not be submitted. In this case, however, it is highly likely that the submissions will be sent to the Inspector (given the expertise of the advisors) . But I, as advisor to the PROWG committee, will not merely act as postboy and forward submissions without consideration.
    3) there is no attempt to improperly exclude the Inspector at all.


    Can we club together to buy McBananas a Postman Pat outfit?

    Postman Mac

  18. Still Waters permalink
    June 19, 2011 4:27 pm

    Found it: “The inspector could accept or reject the application or agree that a green be created on only part of the site. The PRW&G Committee would have to accept the inspector’s decision unless it considered it to be flawed”

    Top of Page 4:

  19. June 19, 2011 6:43 pm

    Ok Stillwaters that means the PRW&G committee should have been presented with the results of the inspectors inquiry. Which was to accept or reject the whole site as town green. Don’t recall part of the site being an option in the inquiry findings but stand to be corrected. Landsowns get-out-of jail card appears to be that they don’t have to accept the decision if they think it flawed. Haven’t flagged it up as flawed though. Just introduced new untested ‘evidence’. Does that render the inquiry flawed and therefore can be binned so enthusiastically?

  20. Still Waters permalink
    June 19, 2011 6:54 pm

    No mention of any flaws in the original report at the PROW meeting or in the Agenda for it., in fact minimal reference to the report at all.

    The only focus was on ‘new evidence’ submitted after the fact above (oh, and lots of stuff that members were asked to ‘bear in mind’ but then ‘not let it cloud their decisions’)

  21. Still Waters permalink
    June 19, 2011 8:18 pm

    From Cotswold Road TVG Application: “The PROWG Committee had no evidence that the Inspector’s judgment about the application was unsound, so should not overturn Officer’s recommendation.”

    “There are no compelling reasons for doing other than the inspector suggests”

  22. Floraswift permalink
    June 19, 2011 9:48 pm

    There is new evidence so that could call into question the view set out in the inspectors report . So, as Bristol blogger says this had to be referred back to the inspector. This is what postman McNamara should have done, instead of leaving it to an accountant to conveniently come up with something that had been prepared earlier. This is a sham — is there going to be a jr

  23. Paul Bemmy Down permalink
    June 20, 2011 11:30 am

    I’m becoming a very “sad” person because I keep thinking of situations where I don’t think I’ve really got the answer. The latest. If the situation stays as suggested by the PROW ctte. and the southern part of the area becomes a TG, how does the developer manage all his waste when he obviously won’t be able to dump it , even temporarily , where he originally intended, because this area is now officially a TG?

  24. June 20, 2011 7:26 pm

    Good point paul. The massive carbon waste of transporting the massive big hole they need to dig is massive. And Lansdown will most likely have a massive dump in someone else’s back yard.

  25. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 22, 2011 6:49 pm

    Lest we forget:

    McNamara says that the situation requires “a kind of hyper-diplomacy”, and that the council’s solicitors have to perfect a difficult balance between challenging their clients and simply issuing instructions.

    “It’s important that our councillors make their own decisions based on advice, rather than putting their name to decisions effectively made for them,” he explains.

    The Lawyer, 24 July 2006

  26. Richard Lane permalink
    June 22, 2011 8:26 pm

    Lest we also forget, taken from the same article: But frustrating as the process is, McNamara says the commitment of the organisation and the talent and dedication of good staff means that “when things finally get done, they get done properly”.

  27. Richard Lane permalink
    June 22, 2011 8:36 pm

    I don’t think for one minute the waste as you put it, was going to be dumped on the site of what might be a TVG. There were always going to be balancing ponds/wetlands and housing was originally planned for the southern end of the site.
    When the concrete and steel are brought in, the waste will be transported to new landfil sites at Bedminster Down, Southville and the UWE.
    Just for you Bob, that was a tongue in cheek comment.

  28. Richard Lane permalink
    June 22, 2011 8:48 pm

    You never know, some of the waste may well get sorted and re-used. After all, from what I’ve seen at the site, there’s plenty of concrete blocks and bricks, which are ideal for crushing and use as hardcore.
    But hey! Let’s have another massive dig at the planned dig anyway.

  29. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 22, 2011 10:45 pm

    But frustrating as the process is, McNamara says the commitment of the organisation and the talent and dedication of good staff means that “when things finally get done, they get done properly”.

    He’s hardly going to say, “when things get done it’s a load of half-arsed shit” is he?

    And let’s face it this is a man that celebrates dumping £500m worth of concrete on the docks as an achievement.

  30. Richard Lane permalink
    June 23, 2011 1:06 pm

    Bristol Blogger

    You take one of his comments to portray a stance that suits you, then pooh pooh another comment because it doesn’t. Your not likely to say he does a good job are you?

    Sad, bitter, twisted, vindictive, jealous, deluded. irrational, spiteful, rude, biassed.

  31. thebristolblogger permalink
    June 23, 2011 8:33 pm

    Sad, bitter, twisted, vindictive, jealous, deluded. irrational, spiteful, rude, biassed.

    I might use that as a strapline.

    BTW Dickie I think it might be time you had another lie down. Do try and not dream of men in wigs with fat wallets won’t you?

  32. Floraswift permalink
    June 23, 2011 10:02 pm

    Is someone going to take this to court for the sham it is. The lot of them should be exposed- ormondroyd, Godfrey, the postmen and the crooked councillors. Go to ashfords, they are local , environmentalist and unafraid. What has happened to the original people, have they been frightened off. I lived in Bristol for years, and it makes me sick to think of that lot making up rules to crush that community. Local people could get a protected costs order and take the lot of them down. Come on Bristol blogger, come on sacred spring bring them down for the rest of us

  33. June 24, 2011 12:14 am

    Floraswift there’s a good few genuine community minded people battling the corruption and cartels that drag the city into banana republic land. The internet exposes the dodgy deals.

Comments are closed.