Secrets and Lies

Before I take matters further, I thought I would ask Carmarthenshire Council's Freedom of Information office once more for an explanation over the 'contradiction' over legal costs regarding the constitution and to elaborate on their strangely personal reasons for not releasing the details. The email is below; I decided to be a little more straightforward to simplify matters, it should be self explanatory.

Dear Sir,
This is not a Freedom of Information request but a request for you to clarify recent correspondence concerning information about amendments to the county constitution regarding defamation (libel);

1. When I sent my initial request earlier in the year, I asked about documents held and costs incurred relating to the constitutional amendments regarding defamation. You replied that no costs were incurred and no documents held.
I then requested an internal appeal which produced the same answer.

Recent correspondence with the Wales Audit Office confirms that the Council have in fact lied and legal costs were incurred. Please explain in full.

2. The Wales Audit Office also confirmed that the Council were reluctant to release information due to our 'ongoing relationship' with the council.

I am sure you are aware that it does not matter who is requesting information, that information should be released if possible. The Audit Office stated that the Council 'do not wish' to release the information; this is not a reason for refusal.

3. As I have said, I would like to know who gave the Council the expert legal advice regarding defamation and how much it cost.
I believe these matters to be in the public interest. I am not asking for information that was passed between the Council and the commissioned Counsel, my request is much more straightforward and I cannot understand what the problem is.
Again, please explain fully.

4. The Audit Office have already confirmed that this advice was being sought whilst the private case (between the Head of Planning and ourselves) was ongoing. However, I have not been asking about that; I have been asking about the constitution.
Please explain why the council persists in repeating denials of involvement when that was not the focus of my concerns.

Please acknowledge this email. If you need further clarification please contact me by email or, to expedite matters, liaise with your legal department.
I now expect a full explanation and the release of the information requested within one week as it is now clear that I have been lied to. If no explanation is forthcoming and you do not release the information I have requested, I shall have no choice other than to conclude that my own findings are factually correct.

So far, the week has passed and I have had this response;

This matter has been passed to our Legal Department and I am informed that they will be replying to you in due course.
Yours sincerely
FOI Dept

Any further response will be posted here.

Money To Burn

Unbelievably, Carmarthenshire County Council have now been granted leave to appeal the magistrates' decision that Mr Humphreys had not breached listed building regulations at his home. The magistrates had deliberated for five hours to ensure their decision was legally sound.

This planning department and Council must have money to burn, despite apparently being strapped for cash, they are determined to sail off to the High Court and incur all the legal expenses that such action entails.
The next Regeneration & Leisure Scrutiny Committee includes this statement; "...The economic downturn is affecting both planning and building regulation fees by some £581,000....The monitoring report to the Executive Board recommended that the department review their planned expenditure for the rest of the year as a matter of urgency and discuss the potential for corrective action with the Director of Resources".
(By the way, the council have decided to withdraw all funding for the eight paddling pools in the county so I guess this can now be trousered by their barristers! - pity for the toddlers though)

I notice that they didn't bother to pursue their much publicised Judicial Review challenge against Post Office closures earlier in the year, despite overwhelming public anger at the closures. I guess it boils down to a case of 'know thy enemy'; the Post Office are obviously wealthier than they.

Appealing against this decision is not in any way a public interest action, it is disproportionate and unnecessary and as I have said before, a very selective action.

What is very clear is that certain senior executives do not like to be beaten, they are prepared to squander public money on High Court nonsense to try to protect reputations and to try to make an expensive point.

The sooner the Wales Audit Office steps in to question the actions and motives of this department the better.
Shameful behaviour indeed.

Carmarthenshire TV - What's going On?

An update on the forthcoming propaganda project, Carmarthenshire TV;
Last month Assembly member Nerys Evans asked the following question of the Minister for Finance,

"Will the Minister detail (a) the amount of money the Welsh Assembly Government gave to Carmarthenshire Local Service Board as a 'development grant', (b) the rules regarding the spending of this grant, and (c) any assessment he has made of the grant being used to fund a television channel on the internet. (WAQ55031)"

The answer was issued on 17 November 2009

"I can confirm that Carmarthenshire Local Service Board (LSB) has received £50,000 of LSB development grant in the 2009/10 financial year. This funding is available to all twenty two LSBs in Wales and is to be spent on initiatives to improve public service delivery through collaboration and innovation.
None of this funding has been spent or is intended to be spent on Carmarthenshire TV."

If that is the case why has the Carmarthenshire Local Sevice Board earmarked £10,000+ towards the venture?

The following are extracts from the Carmarthenshire LSB minutes
(CB is Chris Burns, Assistant Chief Executive, Carmarthenshire County Council)

April 2009;
"Funding Support from Partners for Telesgop Project - CB informed the Board that set
up costs for this project were £30,000. Following the last meeting £2,000 had been
committed from Carmarthenshire LHB as well as the £10,000 from WAG Development
Grant . MH confirmed a contribution from Trinity University College. Further contributions
to be confirmed."

July 2009;
"Funding Support from Partners for Telesgop Project - CB - project proposal would be
presented to executive board. Project to be supported through WAG Development Grant,
Health Authority and Trinity College. Launch material is being gathered and any
suggestions for news items to be forwarded to CB"

This again confirms that Cwmni Telesgop seem to have already been awarded the contract and that funds have been made available, which, according to the Minister, shouldn't have been.
All this before the proposal went to the Executive Board.
What is going on?

Will Someone take the chequebook off the Council?

I have just learned that Carmarthenshire County Council are now going to ask the High Court for leave to appeal the court decision concerning Mr Humphreys and the mill in Llandybie. I do not know, and cannot imagine the point(s) of law upon which any appeal to the High Court might be based.

The Head of Planning recently held a meeting with line managers, including Chief Executive, Mark James, to discuss financial problems caused by cutbacks, the drop in planning applications, the recession etc - clearly sailing off expensively to the High Court didn't come into the equation!
Mr Humphreys planning consultant has requested a meeting with the Head of Planning to try and negotiate a way forward and avoid the five planning appeals that are planned for this property. This would seem common sense and financially sensible; however, the Head of Planning has refused any mediation/negotiation as the Council are appealing over the court decision. Should they get leave to appeal, the matter may well go back to the magistrates, who may well pass it on to the crown court. All this will be enormously expensive of course.
I learn that Adam Price MP has written to the Council questioning their actions and excessive expenditure of public money.
Nick Bourne AM has also complained to the Ombudsman that the council has failed in it's statutory duty to protect a listed building; insamuch as for 8 years, long before Mr Humphreys bought the mill, the roof had caved in. At no time did the council serve any notice on the then owners to rectify the situation. In court the council 'couldn't remember' anything about that!

I would again urge the Councillors to question the actions of certain senior officers who are so self-obsessed and egocentric that they are now questioning the decisions of the court at the taxpayers expense. Shameful.

A Question of Priorities

I am growing increasingly concerned about the amount that this council is spending on external barristers. The ill-conceived action against Mr Humphreys has left them with a bill of over £35,000. I would question as to who the legal department is working for; is it to protect the residents of Carmarthenshire from fly tippers, etc or is the main objective to protect officers from any accountability due to poor decision making and to cover up the results of their 'mistakes'? The Council has various rights to instigate legal proceedings where necessary and where expedient to the public purse and public interest. I have observed that in many cases, particularly in planning, that legal action is only considered where the 'defendant' is in no position financially to fight back. This is the action of a bully; those with more robust finances (or the backing of an influential individual) are rarely prosecuted.

These ill-advised attempts to 'make an example of' someone can backfire; as in Mr Humphreys case and as, perhaps, in ours.

With this in mind I would ask any one of the 74 councillors to question some of the motives and actions of the council legal department; is there not a better use for public money than to try and save face for a handful of senior officers, who can neither admit when they are wrong nor tell the truth.

If not one councillor questions the issues we have raised in this blog then I feel sorry for the county of Carmarthenshire as it means the rot will be here to stay.


As an update to our recent correspondence with the Wales Audit Office in Carmarthen and the Council (as recorded on this site) I have contacted the area office in Cardiff (Mr Ceri Stradling) to express my astonishment over the way the council appears to be able to manipulate the audit office and the Freedom of Information department (although from Mr Thomas' reply today, I suspect that Mr Thomas (Head of Legal) has already had a quiet word with Mr Stradling) I suggested the utmost urgency is necessary to look into not only this but the circumstances surrounding the defamation changes in our county's constitution and, with further evidence, the council's involvement with the 'private' libel case.
I pointed out that after waiting four months for the last response I was not prepared to wait more than four days for this one.

Planning Department Prefers it's Own 'Methods'

You would have thought that the consultation on the new draft TAN 6(Welsh Assembly guidance on developments in the countryside) would be a very important matter in a largely rural and heavily forested county, where developments in the countryside, particularly residential, are controversial, but vital issues for young families and traditional rural workers, and incorporate elements of local need and affordable housing. The Welsh Assembly consultation started on the 15th July, I wrote about it on the 30th July.

Carmarthenshire Council planning department obviously thought it was so important that it didn't even appear before the committee until the 8th October, one week before the consultation closed. The committee seemed to wake up to this fact and wanted an urgent meeting to formulate a response with the Head of Planning. The matter was clearly so urgent that by the next meeting on the 5th November, three weeks after the closing date, although a hurried draft response had been written, no further progress had been made.

I have serious doubts about how much the findings of any government consultation exercise are actually considered, perhaps the council planning department does too. Perhaps the lack of urgency has something to do with the fact that the council has it's own way of dealing with these applications which has nothing to do with planning policy.

Perhaps it would be more beneficial for the Welsh Assembly in amending countryside planning policy to listen to the views of some of those trying to live and work in rural Carmarthenshire battling against an uncompromising and basically flawed (I'm being careful here and not using the 'c' word, unlike the general consensus of opinion in the county) planning system. A quick read of some of the comments on the petition give a good cross section of opinion.

St Catherine's Walk - Freedom of Information Request

As there hasn't been any reassurance from the Chief Executive, Mark James as to whether the tendering process for St Catherine's Walk, Carmarthen was all above board after the developers, Lincoln based Simons Group Ltd were fined for bid rigging elsewhere in the UK, I thought I'd make a few enquiries of my own. To start with I have made the following public interest requests under the Freedom of Information Act;

"Could you please send the following information with regards to the 'partnership' between Carmarthenshire County Council (the 'council') and Simons Group Ltd (and associated subsidiaries) concerning the development of St Catherine's Walk and the new market hall, Carmarthen.

1. Financial contributions made by the council towards the planning applications submitted by Simons Group Ltd; including consultations, reports, legal costs, planning fees, and any other associated costs.

2. Financial contributions made by the council towards legal costs incurred by Simons Group Ltd, and the council concerning the legal issues surrounding the closure of St Catherine's Street in 2005/2006.

3. Any other financial commitments made by the council in the form of land purchase, concessions, infrastructure costs and marketing etc to Simons Group Ltd.

I would like a detailed breakdown of all these costs as paid directly or, indirectly as above to Simons Group Ltd.
If there is a problem with my request, please advise promptly so
that I can re-focus"

Can also be seen on the 'whatdotheyknow' site. Any reply will be posted on this blog.

Ysgol Pantycelyn

I notice from the Assembly website that Rhodri Glyn Thomas asked the Minister for Education, Jane Hutt, whether funds were available for a new school to replace Ysgol Pantycelyn and Tregib, here is the transcript;

".... I would like to ask a specific question on education expenditure in Carmarthenshire. There has been a great deal of talk that a new school will be established in the Tywi valley and that the Government has funding to do just that. The school is to be located between Llandeilo and Llandovery and will combine pupils who are currently taught in Ysgol Gyfun Tre-gib and Ysgol Gyfun Pantycelyn. Can you confirm, Minister, whether this funding is available? Is the establishment of this school a real possibility, or will the parents of pupils in the area have to consider other options?

Jane Hutt: "Diolch yn fawr, Rhodri Glyn. I can confirm what money has been spent. I cannot confirm any proposals for funding that have not yet come before me. Between 2002 and 2010, Carmarthenshire County Council was allocated a total of £27,876,298 through school building improvement grants. It has been successful in obtaining funding for three projects in the first tranche of the SPIG transition to twenty-first century schools capital. As you will know, these projects include substantial refurbishment and the provision of special educational needs and foundation phase facilities at Ysgol y Dderwen, and extensive refurbishment at the Morfa schools and Ysgol y Felin. So, a considerable amount of investment has been made, and we await other proposals "

In other words, no.

So it will seem to parents, children etc that the die has been cast, decisions have been made, a headmaster resigned etc with no concrete source of funding for the new school. It is rather like committing to buy a property with no idea whether a mortgage is available. According to the governors there is apparently £1.2m available to make 'further arrangements', ie to pay private consultants.
As the whole consultation exercise was a complete shambles, I would suggest to any interested parties that they immediately contact the Council to determine their actual plan of action in this situation before the education of our children suffers even more.

Ongoing Relationship?

I have been thinking more about the statement made by the audit officer that his investigations into the details of Counsel and costs to amend the constitution so that council officers can sue for libel were hampered by our 'ongoing relationship' with the Council. I cannot imagine a legal situation where access to information, clearly in the public interest, should be denied or delayed for this spurious reason. The other matters which I shall deal with shortly are; the utter contempt with which the Council treat the Freedom of Information Act and the strange circumstances and timing of their defamation advice.

In the meantime I have emailed Mr Thomas today to ask about our 'relationship'; as I am probably unlikely to get any sort of response, I have copied it here

Head of Administration & Law
Carmarthenshire County Council
Dear Mr Thomas

We recently received a letter from the Wales Audit Office. It was a reply to a letter sent to them, and copied to you on the 2nd July. I am sure you are aware of the correspondence and your response through Mr *** [audit officer, Carmarthen]. We will be taking further action on this shortly.
Amongst other matters, we are very concerned by a comment made by the Audit Officer in a recent email, he states that the delay in responding was partly due to "your ongoing relationship with the Council has meant obtaining information has been somewhat difficult".

Please could you explain exactly what is meant by "ongoing relationship" and why should this prevent timely disclosure of information/documents to the Auditor and ourselves? If you are not aware of any "ongoing relationship" please advise as to why Mr***should make this statement, we have already asked Mr *** who has failed to elaborate. If there is no response we will take this matter further.

We would appreciate a very prompt reply and an acknowledgement of this email.

any response will be posted here

Update; Response received 16th November via email;

"I refer to your e-mail to me dated 11th November 2009, in which you ask me to explain the contents of an e-mail that you have received from the Wales Audit Office.

If the author of the e-mail does not wish to reply, I am not able to assist you.
I am not able to explain statements which have not been made by me.

As to whether you have an on-going relationship with the Council, your e mail appears to demonstrate that there is such a relationship."

Mr D L Thomas
Head of Administration & Law


One word reaction for now - Crafty.

Concerned Residents

Following on from my last post, I read in the South Wales Guardian today ('Victorious mill man turns on planners') that Mr Humphreys' legal costs (£28,000) after his court victory against the council are to be paid by 'central funds' rather than the council. Quite what these funds are I am not sure, perhaps someone could enlighten me. Are they court funds? government funds? insurance? or maybe it's a contingency fund for incompetent, litigious planning officers? Whatever it is I suppose it will still be public money.

I hope that the Audit office are beginning to investigate Carmarthenshire planning department;
I am being contacted on almost a daily basis by people who have either been appallingly treated by the department or have observed examples of inconsistency and favouritism. They are not aggreived applicants who have been turned down; they are concerned residents of the county who have had enough of a system which is unjust, prejudiced and incapable of planning the future landscape of Carmarthenshire.

Arrogance

I thought this little article in last week's Carmarthen Journal said much about the arrogant attitude of the Leader of the Council, Meryl Gravell;

"A war of words has broken out about which ward Wales' newest racecourse sits in.
Ffos Las falls in between Trimsaran and Carway, but during a tourism awards evening last week Meryl Gravell, County Councillor for Trimsaran, and leader of Carmarthenshire County Council stood up and said it belonged well and truly in her ward. during her speech Councillor Gravell said host for the evening, Nigel Owen was incorrect when he said Ffos Las lay in between both villages.
Chair of the Community Council Ian Evans hit back and said the site was just inside the village of Carway. He added 'when the site was an open cast coal mine it was always said that it was in Carway, but now it's become a racecourse it has moved to Trimsaran" !!!

Planning Department Investigated

I was delighted but not surprised to hear of another court victory against the council which casts doubt on the competence and integrity of Carmarthenshire County Council Planning department. Mr Nigel Humphreys has been trying to make safe and sympathetically convert an old mill in Llandybie, near Ammanford. All planning has been refused and is now subject to Appeal, to be heard in January. The mill is listed but has been the subject of serious decay and deterioration for over thirty years and has no roof. In 1999 the Listing was amended to state that the machinery was rotten. Mr Humphreys removed part of the machinery in the urgent interests of Health and Safety to save the main fabric of the building. He then fell foul of listed building regulations, and the council's peculiar selective application thereof.

The magistrates decided that he had done nothing wrong whatsoever, they even made a site visit to the mill to see for themselves. The Council now have to pay not only their own legal costs which will be substantial but Mr Humphreys' too, amounting to some £28,000. This is yet another case where the incompetence of Carmarthenshire planning department has cost the taxpayer money, early last year Iori Jones from Llandovery was found not guilty of causing criminal damage to the roof of the council offices due to having a lawful excuse.

I am also very pleased to hear that following correspondence from Adam Price MP and Nick Bourne AM, it seems that the Audit Commission are now investigating the whole planning department. I hope this is the case and that the Council co-operate with the Auditor. About time too, I hope this inquiry is thorough, investigates any potential fraudulent behaviour or mismanagement and is made public. Under the methodology of Corporate Governance Inspection it should include investigations into the following;

Counter fraud and corruption arrangements
Governance reporting and schemes of delegation.
The role and responsibilities of members and officers
The working relationships between members and officers
The council's ethical framework
The training and development of members

I will be watching all this with interest to see whether any long serving, senior planning officers suddenly take early retirement on a fat pension before anything unpleasant hits the fan.

Carmarthenshire Council - A Law Unto Themselves

I have always suspected that certain senior executive officers of Carmarthenshire County Council were able and willing to manipulate the Freedom of Information department. Now it seem that this possibly extends to the Wales Audit Office too, who have been trying unsuccessfully for four months to get a straight answer from them. It is very worrying that there does not appear to be an independent body with enough clout to keep tabs on this council and question their very questionable actions. Obviously a law unto themselves.

Basically it now seems that the council have lied through the Freedom of Information and withheld information from the Audit office.

I will put our recent correspondence in simple terms;

1. We asked the council through the Freedom of Information Act to detail legal costs that were incurred and any documents held, relating to the libel amendments to the county's Constitution; they replied that they did not incur any costs therefore no documents were held. An internal appeal drew the same answer.

2. As I felt that this was highly unlikely, I wrote to the Audit Office, and much to my surprise the council admitted that er...they did indeed incur legal costs!
So much for the High Court Judge's opinion that senior council officers wouldn't lie! perhaps he should think again.

3. I had also asked for the name of advising barrister and the amount of money spent on this legal advice. This is the council's response through the Audit office;

"On your behalf we have asked the Council to provide details of the Counsel which provided the advice and the cost. The Council does not wish to disclose this information."

Why on earth not? Have they something to hide? Public money was used and the amendments pose a threat not only to the public purse but also the local newspapers and the public themselves in Carmarthenshire.
This advice was sought during the libel case brought by the Head of Planning, so there could be one very good reason for them not wanting to say who it was and how much it cost; perhaps this is because the same legal chambers as the Head of Planning were used? and the legal costs that were paid (taxpayers money remember) masked the possible unlawful funding of his claim?

Quite clearly, to reveal the information could, along with the evidence of the unexplained stamped document, prove to be very damaging for certain senior executives of Carmarthenshire County Council.
We will now take this matter further and that will include writing to the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner.

Earlier post on this is here.

Carmarthenshire Council - Pay Freeze Spin

With £6m public service cuts threatened, charitable food aid being extended to a thousand families in Llanelli, pensioners transport cut and local businesses squeezed out by multinational corporations (welcomed with open arms and pots of cash by the council), the Council's answer is to announce a two year pay freeze for senior officers, of course this is after they have all had their yearly increase anyway (the freeze was apparently suggested by Mark James, Chief Executive, who's pay is now safely on a par with the Prime Minister - nicely spun Mr James).

The Leader, Councillor Meryl Gravell, tries to justify the already over inflated executive salaries by plugging the service 'awards' the council has won; on closer inspection these are all either internal, or privately sponsored PR media exercises put forward by the Welsh Assembly.
All this is nothing but spin, Cllr Gravell claims that cutbacks over the past seven years have resulted in "..20% fewer directors, 30% fewer heads of service and 25% fewer third tier managers...resulted in savings of well over £1m in management costs."

This is nonsense; while in one breath the undemocratic Executive Board announce the 'pay freeze' (public excluded from meeting), in the next they continue to give vast amounts of our money to an array of private 'consultants'; the most recent being £350,000 to Means Renewals Ltd to develop an office block in West End in Llanelli, part of Mark James' prestigous 'gateway' developments. In 2002 the council spent £190,000 on external consultants (council figures - treat with caution), I cannot imagine the total cost per year nowadays; perhaps I will ask. Once again it seems there is a basic problem with priorities; apparently the council does have a 'poverty strategy' - would this consist of more money for consultants to develop prestigous new 'out of town' workhouses?!

We'll have a county full of 'gateways' with nothing left of the unique distinctive qualities of our towns. I would still like to know how much was given to Simons Group for the St Catherine's Walk development. The council are not forthcoming with the information.I also note, thanks to Ray Jones, excellent letter writer to the Llanelli Star, that Carmarthenshire Council is the second worst council in Wales (Cardiff is first) at handling complaints. No surprise there.

Incidentally, in their never ending quest for transparency and accountability (!) the Executive Board meetings are preceded by an hour's special 'briefing' in the ironically named 'Democratic Services Committee room' ie the real meeting is prior to the 'public' one!

Power of Blogging

I must briefly mention a recent story that came to my attention. Nearly all the members of a town council in Somerton, Somerset have resigned, allegedly because of continued and seemingly valid criticism by a local blogger. It illustrates nicely the power of the internet in focussing public discontent and the growing difficulties for politicians/authorities at either local or national level, to avoid the ever increasing demands for accountability and openness.
Carmarthenshire take note.
Here are a few links;

BBC Newsnight - 'The Somerset Suiciders'

Guardian

Muck & Brass Blog

Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM v Councillor Madge - Round Three

I read in both local papers that Plaid's Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM and Carmarthenshire Council's Labour leader Councillor Kevin Madge, are arguing again. This time it is over Plaid's accusations that the Council's taxpayer-funded propaganda freesheet the 'Community News' is posing a threat to local papers by poaching both public and private advertisers and undermining democracy. Despite the spin from both sides, and I believe much of the bluster from Cllr Madge is merely political games (I wonder, as he keeps putting himself in the spotlight, if he's got the next general election in his sights!...oh dear), I personally think the 'Community News' is an alarming waste of money and, along with the up and coming 'Carmarthenshire TV' poses an unnecessary dent in the economic viability of unbiased local newspapers.

However it is the war of words that interest me. Cllr Madge has accused Plaid of lying about a statement made by Rhodri Morgan (expressing his general concerns about the threat to local papers, in answer to a question put by Rhodri Glyn Thomas) and thereby bringing the office of the First Minister into disrepute. He is calling for Rhodri Glyn Thomas to do the 'decent thing' and resign and is considering reporting him to the Ombudsman.

I was particularly struck though by the strength and choice of Cllr Madge's words (He's obviously peeved that Rhodri Glyn Thomas reported him to the Ombudsman earlier this year, see previous posts)). I seem to remember that we used similar words (although markedly less vitriolic) concerning the council planning department a couple of years ago but we ended up in the libel court and are still paying for it! Obviously a privilege that Carmarthenshire County Council reserves for financially disadvantaged critical members of the public!
Cllr Madge also said of Plaid "...if the county council sent out such blatant lies we would be, quite rightly, hammered by the press and public.” I can assure Cllr Madge that he's quite wrong, the county council does send out 'blatant lies', even through the Freedom of Information, and is expert at contriving legal veneers to cover their backs. As Cllr Madge says "they [Plaid] can't be allowed to get away with it" - but it's OK for the council Mr Madge?!

According to the council (and I would question their figures), it spends £150k a year on local media advertising, this will diminish rapidly with the addition of Council TV and the rumoured threat by Chief Executive Mark James of withdrawing all advertising from the Carmarthen Journal for printing stories he doesn't like.

On the subject of Carmarthenshire TV, I am waiting for the Minister for Finance and Public Sevice Delivery to answer Nerys Evans' written question;
Will the Minister detail (a) the amount of money the Welsh Assembly Government gave to Carmarthenshire Local Service Board as a 'development grant', (b) the rules regarding the spending of this grant, and (c) any assessment he has made of the grant being used to fund a television channel on the internet?

Anyway, I await 'round four' with interest.

Is the Planning Committee Revolting?

Reading the minutes of the last planning committee meeting I notice that the Planning Committee overturned the Head of Planning's (or the relevant planning officer's) recommendations for refusal in all three of the applications which were subject of site visits that day. All were basically 'open countryside' locations and subject to those policies.
This seems to becoming a habit and shows a certain amount of resilience, despite the Councillors being "wet, cold and hungry" and the threat that the applications may be called in by the Assemby.
It also suggests to me that the Planning Committee are losing confidence in the planning officer's ability to make correct decisions. It also confirms that many of these decisions, by officers or members, are prejudiced and manipulated. It all points to a failing system which needs thorough 'restructuring' and investigation.

St Catherine's Walk - Again

It seems strange that there has still been no comment from Mark James, Chief Executive, Carmarthenshire County Council concerning the developers of the new shopping centre, St Catherine's Walk in Carmarthen, Simons Group and the fact that they have been fined for over-pricing and bid-rigging (in York, Hull and Newark).
I read today, (thanks to Private Eye) that another Council, this time West Dorset Council also awarded a similar contract to this company. Significantly, they also paid £250,000 of council taxpayers money to help the company prepare it's planning application.

I would be interested to know how much of our money, if any, was used in this way to ease through the planning application for St Catherine's Walk.

All the more reason, in the interest of reassuring the county's taxpayers, for Mr James to double check that all was above board during the tendering process. He does seem oddly reticent on the subject though.

(Previous posts here and here.)

Investigation

Following on from an earlier blog post (When to Declare an Interest? July 15th) I can confirm that the Ombudsman has now decided that the Code of Conduct complaint against Councillor Tom Theophilus, Carmarthenshire County Council, will be investigated.

Another Sham Public Consultation

Sadly it seems that Llandovery will lose it's secondary school. Pantycelyn along with Tregib School in Llandeilo will both close, victims of the Council's and Welsh Assembly 'Modernising' education programme, despite the best efforts of the parents, children etc. This is further reinforced by the rather mysterious resignation of the Headmaster of Pantycelyn last week. A super-school, (site still under speculation and rumour) will be built somewhere near Llandeilo.
I have no real issue with a modern, well funded new school as long as it is properly funded and not subject to PFI styled secretive contracts which will further burden overstretched education budgets as well as public funds.
I do have issue with the way this programme was put out for 'public consultation'. Like all Council 'consultations' on major developments, it is a sham and will result in little more than placatory tweaking of the master plan eg,the positioning of the bus stop rather than the positioning of the school. The public consultation on the new Llandeilo developments will be the same. The Council have spent a fortune already, and the next fortune will be spent on professional consultants and reports; I will be amazed if there is enough in the pot left to educate the kids.

Wouldn't it have been better, and cheaper, to refurbish and renew each school? Llandovery will lose an important element of sustainability as well as youthful dynamism without it's secondary school. You can also guarantee that no matter what financial mess it got in; this would never be allowed to happen to the privately owned Llandovery College.

The current trend towards new, prestige-making 'super schools' has not been lost on Carmarthenshire Council. Both the sites of the old schools are on prime development land and I expect the developers are already lining up; houses are unlikely because there will be no school so I would guess it'll be a large, national supermarket chain and bye bye town shops!

IPC and Welsh Projects

Four out of the nine projects to be decided by the new £10m quango, the Infrastructure Planning Commission are in Wales, including the proposed wind farms in Brechfa and Llanllwni. The German owned RWE Innogy or it's subsidiaries (Airtricity and RES UK) is the company behind each project.
It will be interesting to see how the process works and how much public concern, and support, for that matter, will be taken into account. As the idea is to 'fast track' application I presume the most efficient way to do this will be to side-step the often opposing views of local residents.
The quango may be short lived as the Tories have vowed to abolish it should they come to power..I think that may have something to do with the traditional influence of the lobbying countryside alliance, etc.
The only benefit I can see is that the incompetent Carmarthenshire Planning Department will not be making the decision

Poor Priorities

The lower than average settlement from the Welsh Assembly will naturally mean a rise in Council Tax. Council Leader Meryl Gravell aims to make 'efficiency savings' rather than cuts to services. This will probably mean job cuts; though that will probably not include the high earning officer-end of the workforce.

A good example of how this Council makes savings and prioritises it's spending is nicely illustrated by a letter to the South Wales Guardian; weekly transport for pensioners from rural areas to a day centre in Glanamman is to be axed despite each OAP contributing 50p to the cost and the services of a voluntary driver. Contrast that to the Council run Garnant golf course nearby which enjoyed £119,000 funding last year. The Council runs four golf courses (or 'landfill sites') in the county.

I assume that the local member is an avid golf fan but not yet an OAP.

Advertising Boards and Double Standards

Carmarthenshire County Council are banning advertising 'A' Boards from Carmarthen shops as they may pose a risk to pedestrians and visually impaired. Struggling traders, who will struggle even more when the St Catherine's Walk development opens, have opposed the ban with a 600 name petition.
The Council were somewhat embarrassed then when it's own promotional advertising boards were photographed plonked in the middle of Guildhall Square.
The council's answer to the ban is that the adverts could be put on bins; so much for worrying about the visually impaired as they will then have to negotiate around 4 foot high wheelie bins.

Pickets and the Prince; Contrast in a Small Town

Driving through Llandovery this morning I was struck by a sharp contrast. Just past the supermarket was a huddle of cold postmen and women, picketing outside the sorting office, trying to preserve their jobs, get few more quid, have better working conditions and whatever else. I expect they would rather be inside working, or off in their vans fending off sheepdogs and wading through mud.
A few hundred yards further on I met a queue of traffic at the level crossing. Normally the wait is about 30 seconds as the single carriage train passes through. This time the wait was longer. Then I realised it was the 'Royal Train', eight or more carriages long (I couldn't tell exactly as it seemed to stretch the entire length of Llandovery).
How bizarre, why on earth is this enormous train needed to transport one man, Prince Charles. The massed police presence, complete with helicopter, enures a continuing royal carbon footprint roughly the size of Wales. It rather cancels out the noble efforts of the 'organic' mattress factory he went to visit. Not that Prince Charles really worries about all that or why would he be planning to concrete over several acres of Bath countryside to add to the Duchy property portfolio which pays his ever growing handsome wage?

Aside from green issues, the sight of this train was completely incongruous with the realities of life in a small welsh town in the 21st century, with it's picketing postmen and it's secondary school about to close. Oh, we do have a brand new police station though - I wonder why?!

My thought for the day?...get rid of the Royal family and all it's nonsense and give the postmen what they want. There are some 'traditions' we really don't need.

Mark James - What's the Problem?

Someone else who has been curiously quiet recently is Mark James, Chief Executive, Carmarthenshire County Council, this could be because (it is rumoured), he's been very busy filling in job application forms to find alternative employment. However, I am still waiting for the reassurance that the tendering process for the St Catherine's Walk development was all above board, after the Lincoln based developers, Simons Group, were fined for bid-rigging. I notice a story in the Carmarthen Journal which highlights the issue, but am disappointed that there is no comment from the Council.

It is also rumoured that Mr James is so annoyed with the article he is apparently withdrawing Council advertising from the paper. This must be incorrect; surely in the interest of reassuring the taxpayer he would welcome queries regarding this matter and at least offer to have a quick check of the tendering process...wouldn't he?


If Mark James is planning on deserting the sinking ship, perhaps the Auditor should be asked to look into this and other Council funded projects...and a few other matters too...eh Mr James?

Added; Mark James endorsing Simons Group brochure a few years ago; here, page 6

Adam Price MP - Keeping Very Quiet...

I am curious to know why Adam Price MP has been so quiet over the expenses row. Even when the story first broke in June there was not one word of reassurance to us, his constituents, that all was well. Silence again this week with the Sir Thomas Legg letters. Other MP's have been busy either proclaiming their innocence, criticising the order to pay back the money or otherwise explaining the exposure of their fiddles as a much needed step towards accountability and democracy.
Not so Mr Price; so do we assume the worst or do we assume that, as he has clearly been planning his move to America for some time and has known he will not be standing at the next election, he doesn't really give a stuff about what his taxpaying constituents think?
Perhaps it's time for a statement.


One more thing, as Mr Price is a member of the Commons culture, Media and Sports Select Committee, I hope he will bear in mind the underhanded actions taken to enable libel funding with taxpayer's money by his own local authority, Carmarthenshire Council, when the Committee publishes the results of it's own inquiry into libel, privacy and press standards.

Planning Appeals - Motives and Costs

A recent FOI request, (which I hope was answered with a little more honesty than my last one regarding legal costs), confirmed my suspicions that, in the last three years, Carmarthenshire County Council have not applied for full costs for another planning appeal for a single dwelling apart from ours, although unsuccessful, it seemed a particularly vindictive action against a local family for an affordable dwelling. I am not sure of their motive, but I think it backfired.

A recent planning committee meeting considered a report for planning appeals for the past nine months. Out of 49 appeals submitted, the planning inspector disagreed with the council's decision 11 times. Understandably then the issue of costs arose and the Head of Planning, Mr Eifion Bowen said that cost details might be included in future reports 'where appropriate' - transparency out of the window again! He also 'declared a financial interest' in this item as our appeal was amongst those listed - again I must question the impartiality of our appeal.

For the Committee's information, our appeal, although dismissed, saw the council's unnecessary use of an external barrister and the subsequent failed costs application cost the taxpayer £1500 in barrister's fees alone.

It should be remembered though that the libel lawyers the Chief Executive's and Legal Departments are so fond of consulting charge that amount per hour.

Coedbach Prison?

Carmarthenshire County Council and Meryl Gravell's efforts to keep the developer Clive Hughes and his proposed Biomass plant away from the vicinity of Ffos Las Racecourse and the horsey set may have been in vain. (Believe me, the sudden refusal after two recommendations for approval had nothing to do with resident's worries or some fanciful Assembly energy 'route map')

I was amused (but I expect Councillor Gravell wasn't) to see that he has now said he will offer the site to the Welsh Assembly for a new prison - and may also build a biomass plant as there will then be 'somewhere for the heat to go'. I am 'on the fence' when it comes to alternative energy as I am with the siting of such a plant, but what I am not on the fence about is our distinctly dodgy planning system.

Another site I could suggest would be the Council's very own County Hall on Jail Hill (pictured) as it was originally built as a prison and of course some of it's future inmates are already in situ!

Carmarthenshire Council TV (Again)

The row over the up and coming Carmarthenshire TV rumbles on. The council claims that 'nothing has been decided' especialy regarding tenders for this expensive propaganda exercise. If that is so why was the media company Cwmni Telesgop asked to give the presentation at the Local Service Board meeting in April?
With the low budget settlement from the Welsh Assembly and cuts on the way for the 'most vulnerable' in society, surely this daft idea will go by the wayside. I very much doubt it though as deals will have already been done.

If nothing has been decided isn't it a bit odd then that Twitter has a new member - Carmarthen TV!

Planning - Carmarthenshire Council Taking Itself to Court? and other News

It seems our dysfunctional Council has got itself into another legal planning tangle.
This time over the application for the new Queen Elizabeth High School in Johnstown Carmarthen (W/20936). As a school, this is of course an application in which Carmarthenshire County Council has "an interest either as applicant/agent, or in terms of land or property ownership." The original planning Conditions were not followed, so a retrospective application was submitted to incorporate the fact that the new playing field is 1.4m high and overlooking peoples homes as well as being built on rubble from the old school as well as Japanese Knotweed. The new fence, at 4m high also breaches planning conditions. A link to the full report is here. There were 19 objections, including statements that there was a distinct lack of either consideration or consultation with residents. This is of course commonplace with council schemes.

The interesting thing is, despite the Head of Planning recommending it for approval (of course), The planning committee refused it. (Minutes of decision here)I should imagine that the planning solicitor went into overdrive trying to subdue the rebellious committee.
What a predicament!
The council could now try and reach a compromise with itself to avoid embarrassment (ie tell the committee to go away and come back with a better decision!) or perhaps issue enforcement action on itself, appeal against the decision by it's own committee or maybe even take themselves to court! One thing is sure, there will be plenty of overtime available in that ever busy Legal department!

There is an interesting article about this at Timesonline Law central site, Weird Cases-Suing Yourself


Council Get Away With an Apology
Another story came to my attention, this time it was about a developer of a golf course in Bynea, Carmarthenshire who was found guilty and fined £2500 for destroying rare vole habitat. The point being that planning permission for a golf course is relatively easy to get because the associated landscaping gives the council somewhere to dump it's waste (hopefully not toxic). This was also the case here, and I can understand the developers annoyance;
'The court was also told that earlier this year Carmarthenshire council had deposited excavated material on his land and removed his boundary fence, although the Local Authority had apologised, Mr Shelley was upset that there was 'one rule for him and another rule for different people"
He's so right!


More Than Meets the Eye
I was considering the application by Draeth developments for an opencast coal mine in Pentremawr in the Gwendraeth Valley. As Carmarthenshire County Council owns most of the land, and as the developer has already stumped up £50k in planning fees and who knows what other costs associated with such an application, there have bound to have been extensive 'pre-application' discussions with the planning department.
It therefore seems likely to go ahead. I would suggest to the residents opposed to the mine to get the strangely powerful Leader, Councillor Meryl Gravell, on their side, so that should the proposal be recommended for approval (like the Coedbach Biomass plant in Trimsaran), she can wave her magic wand and get a complete U-turn and make sure it's turned down.


Another Blow to Local Newspapers
Briefly, it seems that struggling local papers may be soon struck another blow. a consultation in England is underway regarding the ending of the statotory advertising of planning applications in the local papers. The same would follow in wales I presume. Not only would this mean loss of important revenue to the papers but another nail in the coffin of democracy over planning consultations.

Carmarthenshire Council TV
As this now seems to be a dead cert, I thought I'd put a link to a recent post by one of the critics of Kent Council TV. Could this be what we've got to look forward to?!
And there's this from Timesonline.

Carmarthenshire County Council - Ready to Openly Fund Libel Claims for Council Officers

Today I had a partial reply to this (Carmarthen Council or Audit Office - Who's Telling the Truth?), apparently the delay in the council releasing further information to the Audit Commission (I asked on July 2nd) is partly due to to our "ongoing relationship with the Council has meant obtaining information has been somewhat difficult" - I shall be asking him to explain this statement further.

The initial information from the Audit Commission confirms my suspicions that in fact, the council legal department have systematically lied to us, the Audit Commission and the Freedom of Information office about incurring costs over the constitutional amendments regarding defamation; they now say that they have incurred legal costs.
I shall add to this when I have a full response.

Anyway I can now confirm that the changes to the constitution to enable the council to fund defamation cases brought by officers was (as I thought) based on the case law; R (Comninos) v Bedford Borough Council [2003] LGR 271, [2003] EWHC 121 (Admin.).To summarise the case, the district auditor brought the case (Judicial Review) as he felt that the council should not have used public money - around £500k - to fund officer's libel claims. He didn't win which was partly due to the fact that the council officers concerned had homes and families and to make them repay the money would be too greater burden.

The judges in the Bedford case had a few words of warning to say on the matter, including;

"This case seems to be very much a 'one-off'...The hazards of defamation actions are, or should be, notorious. Common sense suggests that the Council's disastrous experience in the present case should be sufficient to warn-off all but the most litigious of local authorities from granting indemnities in respect of the costs of defamation proceedings brought by their officers"

That must make Carmarthenshire County council one of the "most litigious of local authorities" then.
Carmarthenshire Council still cannot, of course, sue for defamation as a body, this was laid down by the case of Derbyshire Council v Times Newspapers in 1993, but those legal eagles in County Hall have a good way of getting round that. We still believe, of course that the council backed the libel claim by the Head of Planning against us, the Bedford case law states that the three officers all swore that they would definitely not have commenced the libel action without the full backing of the Council.

A previous post on this matter can be found here.

Carmarthenshire Residents Deserve the Same

Following Adam Price's promise to the residents of Carmarthenshire that he would request that the Audit Commission investigate Carmarthenshire County Council Planning department, this news article from West Lindsey, Lincolnshire caught my eye, 'Fraud Probe into District Planning Service'
Pehaps some brave soul blew the whistle. It seems an investigation is well underway by the Audit Commission into suspected 'fraud and mismangement' in this department, the police are also involved. One 'manager' from the department has already been suspended. A local councillor, Kristen Smith, has blogged about this, here and here and includes a handy link to the council minutes where the investigation (public and press excluded - of course!) was sanctioned. However, the details are unknown due to a council imposed gagging order.

There are parallels to be drawn here and the people of Carmarthenshire deserve no less than the same. An urgent, thorough and I hope public investigation into the governance and ethics (to be polite) of the planning department in our county is long overdue.
I shall be writing to Adam Price in the near future to see if he's as good as his word.

Whistleblowers, Libel and Blogs

You need to be a brave person to be a whistleblower, particularly in Carmarthenshire County Council. Such was the lady who reported the ill treatment of a vulnerable adult in a council run home, the Ombudsman's report condemned not only the abuse, of course, but also the council's total failure to a) protect the complainant from intimidation and b) investigate the complaint.

The Council were found guilty of gross maladministration.

However, failing to manage the correct procedures, a 'culture of intimidation' and the loss of your job, are not the only obstacles in the way of would-be whistleblowers in this particular council. Council officers can now, as I have previously mentioned, sue for libel with the use of taxpayers money. This effectively means that this insidious sword of damocles will hang over anyone who genuinely wishes to report a senior official (after all they're far more likely to fund a case brought by, for example, a Head of Planning or a Chief Executive rather than one brought by a dinner lady), With UK libel law weighted in favour of the claimant, no legal aid for a defence and costs 140 times higher than the rest of Europe the possibility of facing the High Court rather than the local investigator, may well be enough to secure the silence of those that might blow the whistle. We have been contacted by a number of council employees who have expressed grave concerns about senior officers but felt they could not take these concerns any further due to the intense pressure not to whistleblow.
Suffolk Council spent £200k of taxpayers money on gagging orders in the past 18 months to prevent ex-employees blowing the whistle after their contracts had 'ended' - is this commonplace?
Remember, libel case are often (notoriously) brought by the wealthy (or taxpayer funded) to silence unpleasant truths and no one can twist the truth better than a libel lawyer.

Auditor & Defamation
Talking about being able to sue, my requests to the District Auditor in Carmarthen concerning the ambiguous statements by the legal department over the defamation amendments in the constitution, remain unanswered. I have been told several times over the past three months that it is being looked into and I should have a reply 'within seven days'! I was even told over the phone by the auditor (about 6 weeks ago) that he had requested the relevant information from the council and they [the council] were 'trying to decide whether they wanted me to have it'. Great. I really hope they are not giving me the runaround and are taking my concerns seriously as the ability by council officers to sue for defamation can manifest itself in many ways; not only as a neat way to legally get around the rule that a government body cannot sue for defamation but as a sinister obstacle to whistleblowing.
I strongly believe that the amendments to the constitution regarding defamation were unlawful and go against human rights and case law, and should be immediately removed.


Access to Blogs
On a not unrelated issue, I was wondering what Carmarthenshire council's policy on access to blogs, social networking etc was. This was partly prompted by a Councillor from North Wales who asked his Chief Executive details of access to blogs etc, he of course stated that no one is supposed to be accessing non-related internet content in the workplace; but disturbingly he seemed more concerned with preventing access to blogs critical of the council.
The once well defined line drawn between entertainment and information is blurring rapidly and indeed Carmarthenshie Council itself has it's own Facebook page and is about start it's own internet TV station. Somebody asked Carmarthenshire council through a FOI request their policy regarding access to political party websites, and the rather useless answer was "In response, the filtering software used by the Council does not prevent access to any websites because they belong to political parties. However, should any content be placed on a site which is, for example, of an offensive or obscene nature, the software could pick this up and block access to the site."
I was thinking particularly about how access to sites and blogs critical of the council would be controlled in Carmarthenshire Council, and if there are any sites - or blogs- which are blocked, by whom and on what basis that decision was made. Or would they just blame the software?

I could be wrong and Carmarthenshire council may be leading the way in unfettered free speech but speaking from personal experience I very much doubt it. I shall just have to ask.

Council Grant Process Deteriorates

Perhaps Rhodri Glyn Thomas ought to request a review by the ombudsman over the decision not to investigate his complaint against Councillor Kevin Madge for citicising his lack of action over securing funding for the Carmarthenshire County Council. It appears, from the Audit Commission Report for Grant Claims & Returns 2007-2008, that the council themselves are seriously failing in their processes for securing grants. The following failures and marked deterioration in standards were identified;

Errors in completing claim forms;

Claiming ineligible expenditure;

Not complying with standing orders and tendering procedures;

Insufficient supporting working papers;

Inconsistent and poor controls over payments to third parties;

Grant claims submitted for audit without the signatures of the certifying officers.

All this has resulted in added expense in fees paid to the auditor (and therefore the taxpayer) and, more importantly obvious delays in securing these grants. Sixty six grants were applied for, one of which was valued at £127m. I trust those responsible will act swiftly on the auditor's recommendations.
The council should, once again, clearly be looking in-house rather than seeking to blame others for it's failures.

Better Late Than Never, Adam Price

I see in todays South Wales Guardian that Adam Price MP is calling for the Audit Commission to investigate Carmarthenshire County Council Planning Department. About time too.

He said he received a range of complaints from constituents about planning policy in the county and claimed it was important these concerns are not ignored.
"I will be writing to the Audit Commission asking them if they have conducted a recent assessment of the planning department at Carmarthenshire Council.
If not we would request that they do so. It is important that people have full confidence in the planning process"

I am pleased that he has finally decided to act on the many complaints he has received. I hope this is genuine concern and I trust that other members of the local Plaid group will support this move. We, as you can see from this blog, have been asking for an investigation for a few years, even getting sued in the process. Every public meeting I have attended where either Mr Price or Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM has been present has been dominated by the subject of planning in Carmarthenshire. The Welsh Assembly ministers still refuse to believe that there is anything wrong.

However, I question Mr Price's choice of investigatory body, I think the police may be more appropriate than the Audit Commission.

I will be watching to see if Mr Price pushes for this before he jets off to the US and, if he has time, perhaps he could also ask for an investigation into the council's use of public resources to sue their critics.

St Catherine's Walk Tenders

I notice that the Lincoln based Simon's Group has been fined nearly £1m for taking part in illegal tender rigging by the Office of Fair Trading. As the preferred developers for the £75m St Catherine's Walk, Could we please have the assurances from the Council and Chief Executive Mark James that nothing like this happened with the tendering process in Carmarthen? I seem to remember that there were other tenders at the time which were dismissed without reference to full council, and will Mark James still be enthusiasticaly endorsing the company in their brochure in the future as he has in the past?

I wonder whether the council, or even the auditor, will now re-check the tenders that were submitted for St Catherine's Walk.

My letter in South Wales Guardian

Strange Interpretations of Policy

Following on from my previous post re Councillor Gravell's 'vow on affordable housing' this recently submitted application caught my eye, it is for 336 houses in Ammanford, Carmarthenshire (E/21663). For these parts, this is a very large development. It would, if approved, increase the number of households by a quarter. Of particular interest, and I would hope of interest to the aforementioned leader of Carmarthenshire County Council, is that there is no provision for any affordable housing despite the Council's own 'Affordable Housing Policy which confidently states that;

"When we give planning permission for larger new housing
developments (more than 10 homes in towns and five homes
in ‘rural areas’), we will make sure a percentage of the homes
will be sold or rented to local people at affordable prices."

The 'pre-application discussions' with planning officers seems to have produced an agreement whereby the obligation to provide affordable homes has been commuted to an unspecified financial contribution to a nearby affordable development by a housing association on council owned land which has already been approved and I presume, already funded. It must be the cheaper option, and I hope it consists of more than a couple of swings. Those discussions seem to have paid off. Although the construction industry needs a boost in this recession I notice many, much smaller developments having to provide affordable homes, why not the big developer? In an area described by the council as economically disadvantaged I wonder who is actually going to buy these homes.

The site in question was earmarked for residential development in the recent Unitary Development Plan for approxiamately 150 homes and assessed as such by the Planning Inspector. Indeed the developers already have consent for 141, but have abandoned that idea hoping to squash another 195 homes in the same area. The developer argues that this will maximise land use but perhaps the motive is to maximise profit at the expense of the living conditions of the future residents, and the enjoyment of green spaces by the present.

I shall follow this with interest.

In Denial

Every year there is a steady increase in the number of complaints recieved by the council, and every year this is explained away by the phrase "We were advised that this increase could be due to a greater awareness of the Council’s Complaints and Compliments Policy" (Standards Committee Sept 2009).
For a start, most people have always been 'aware' of this 'policy' and secondly could it not be possible that the council is failing to deliver and that is why there are more complaints?

Carmarthenshire Affordable Housing - Meryl Gravell's Vow

I was surprised to see Carmarthenshire Council leader, Meryl Gravell's vow on affordable homes in the local paper, and state that;

'affordable homes had been a priority for many years'.

Funny then, that as recently as 2008 during our planning appeal for a rural affordable dwelling, when house prices were at their highest peak, we were told by the Director of Regeneration that there was absolutely no discernable need for affordable housing in the Llanwrda area and in fact Carmarthenshire as a whole.

It is also the case that nearly every large development in the county has applied to have the number of affordable units reduced, and been successful, 'due to the current economic climate,' never mind the economic climate for young families. It will be interesting to see exactly how many affordable units (supposed to be a meagre 15%) are eventually included at the new, possible 500 home development surrounding Councillor Gravell's pet project, the Ffos Las racecourse.

The Council's 'Improvement Plan' for the forthcoming year promises to provide 100 affordable homes - not very ambitious considering there are 6500 people on the waiting list. But, of course, there is far more cash to be made with the development of executive homes.

As for the release of council owned land for housing, why did the council give the Pemberton development in Llanelli land to the value of £22m? That land could have been used to house the young people of Llaneli who will now be part of the 'brain drain' Councillor Gravell wishes to stop.


N.B. Carmarthenshire is indeed a beautiful place to live but, if you have a home here, affordable or otherwise, be very careful criticising the council, or, like us, you could end up fighting to keep it.

Adam Price MP - Misplaced Loyalties

I am wondering where Adam Price's loyalties lie. Shouldn't they be with the constituents he represents, who, after all have got him where he is today through the ballot box? His political ambitions suggest that he is prepared to stand anywhere where he will have a good chance of being elected to the Assembly, and to lead Plaid - this is political opportunism.

Speaking as a 'grassroots' elector who is presently undecided, I was wondering whether amongst all the political posturing at the recent Plaid party conference anyone had discussed the problems in Carmarthenshire. We have a Plaid MP, Mr Price, a Plaid AM, Rhodri Glyn Thomas and a large chunk of the electorate who voted for Plaid/other at the local elections last May.
It is well documented that Plaid were completely stuffed after the elections in the formation of the executive administration, which remained unscathed and unchanged. They remain in useless opposition and, along with the rest of us, continue to be treated with contempt by a non-democratic council. As Rhodri Glyn Thomas knows, they're laughing all the way to the Ombudsman.

With another nine months of heroic political speeches to look forward to, from all sides I thought I'd make a few points as an ordinary, financially strapped member of the electorate. The public are not taken in by spin and, through the fault of many of our elected members themselves, have become cynical of the entire system of government, local and national. Never have the phrases 'snouts in the trough' nor 'feathering their own nests' been so widely and correctly used.

No matter which party makes the least public spending cuts, which party promises the least tax cuts etc; the main issues which will matter the most will be the honesty, integrity, accountability and commonsense of the candidates. Voters will be looking for someone who has an empathy with the problems most of us face if not the actual ability to do anything about them; I list a few examples here; the enormous, and still rising cost of feeding a family; the crippling cost of fuel and electric; young people not having a hope of buying a modest home (or obtaining planning permission for one in a rural area); young people working in the countryside who's car insurance is three times the price of the car; a debt of at least £15k to go with your hard earned university degree etc etc. For Adam Price to be demanding an apology from the Tories for flooding a village in 1965 might be good speech material but is completely missing the point.

There are many who are tired of the unwillingness and inability of our MP and AM to challenge the many poor decisions made by the local authority. Both have recognised the lack of democracy in Carmarthenshire County Council but are not prepared to act in any meaningful way on the concerns of constituents. At various local meetings both have agreed with residents that there is something badly wrong with the planning system in the county yet will not even raise the debate. They only will jump on popular causes which ensure a good photo opportunity.

In our case, we took our concerns to Adam Price regarding the use of public money to fund libel cases against members of the public, he did not appear very concerned - perhaps it was because he had already used public money to fund his fruitless legal bid to impeach Tony Blair, or maybe it was because his mind was not on his constituents but on climbing the greasy pole of politics.

This issues of accountability and honesty are paramount; both are lacking in our local authority, particularly amongst senior executive officers - there seems to be little that can be done about that, for the time being. However, our MP's and AM's should always remember that they should be directly accountable to their constituents and the taxpayer. And whatever policies their party puts forward, honesty is usually the best one and a good place to start.

Update 19th September;

So Adam Price MP is standing down at the next election. As a constituent of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr I am more concerned with who will stand for, and win, the seat. It will certainly be interesting. Mr Price said "I feel I've done all I wanted to do - I was never a career politician," clearly this is not quite the case as he hopes to return from America after a year and stand somewhere as Welsh Assembly candidate in 2011 with a view to party leadership. This is probably a calculated move on his part; I predict that the next election will be bitterly fought by all parties and Mr Price will be out of the firing line ready to make a comfortable return when the dust has settled.

The Independent Party, Carmarthenshire Council

There is a Special Responsibility Allowance payable to leaders of political groups in Carmarthenshire Council, as long as that party makes up at least 10% of the council. Fair enough and I can understand how the leaders of the Plaid and Labour group qualify but I cannot understand how the Executive Board recognises a 'leader' of the Independant 'group' surely by definition independant councillors are just that; independant and not tied by a party line or leader. Of course, in reality the Independants vote as a group, and the next time there is a local election they should, to be honest with the electors, present themselves as such.