Carmarthen TV? - A Lesson From Kent Council

Before Carmarthenshire County Council bosses pour any more of our money into their proposed 'Carmarthen TV' propaganda venture, I suggest they contact Kent County Council for some urgent advice as they are now having to close 'Kent TV' after two and a half years and £1.8m taxpayers money.

There's a lesson to be learned here.

http://bignewsmargate.blogspot.com/2010/02/kent-tv-what-went-wrong-from-kent.html

http://www.kentonline.co.uk/kentonline/news/2010/february/9/kent_tv_to_close.aspx

Mr Humphreys Planning Appeal, Felin Wen - Inspectors Opinion

Returning to Mr Humphreys and the Mill at Felin Wen, Llandybie; he was devastated to learn that all but one of his Planning appeals has been turned down. Basically they involved the sympathetic conversion of the long redundant mill to a single dwelling, tied to the cottage, combining planning and listed building applications.

However what is of great interest, is that the Planning Inspectors Decision letter also deals with the issues which were subject of the magistrate's court case against Mr Humphreys, concerning the machinery, which he won; and which Carmarthenshire County Council are now appealing at the High Court. Although the Inspector recognises that these matters were being dealt with by the court, he comments at some length and agrees with the original decision by the magistrates, his remarks include;

"..what is clear to me is that there is no compelling
evidence to undermine the conclusions of the two reports from qualified
Structural Engineers that the machinery and its supporting structure was in an
imminent state of collapse....
...there is no compelling evidence to show how this [reinstatement of machinery]
might be achieved given that the ‘Listing Description’ used the term ‘rotten’ in
1999...I consider that it would be
inappropriate in terms of authenticity to seek to re-instate or re-create the
machinery within the structure."

I wonder what the Council make of the Inspectors comments. Carmarthenshire's Planning department is currently being investigated by the Wales Audit Office and this includes the way in which the department handles Listed Building Applications.
It is hoped that, should the Council persist in persuing Mr Humphreys in the High Court, the opinion of the Planning Inspector, as an independant quasi-judiciary body, will be taken into account.

Shopping Trips, Playgrounds and Library Closures

I notice with disbelief that the Regeneration and Leisure Scrutiny Committee (Item 4.2) are arranging an 'official' trip to the shops in Carmarthen for themselves. How nice.
It stems from concerns that, as the new St Catherine's Walk shopping centre fills up with 'name' retailers previously sited elsewhere in town, there will be many vacant outlets scattered around Carmarthen centre. This should come as no surprise. They were reassured however by the Director of Resources that this would be a 'short term' problem - I don't know what he bases that statement on; apart from nightclubs I doubt if many local retailers would be in a position to compete with the new development. Even though this shopping centre is not as 'out of town' as Llanelli's Parc Trostre and Pemberton, it's opening day must be a daunting prospect for many a traditional local shop. Being as the council were so eager to arrange at the very least £2 million to ease the path for the developers at St Catherine's Walk, I hope similar help will be forthcoming in financial assistance for local traders.
Lessons should have been learned from Llanelli but they won't be (see interesting post over on Blog Sir Gar) and the fulfilment of certain senior executive's 'visions' knows no bounds. The Welsh Assembly seems to encourage these 'clone' towns ensuring that much of the Welsh wealth, what there is of it, goes straight over the Severn Bridge.

Apparently, not even children's playgrounds will be allowed to stand in the way. I notice the 'task and finish' group for playgrounds (Regeneration and Leisure) are looking for £250,000 funding for this year. They asked if it could be taken from the Llanelli 'Works 2' development but were told they couldn't as the council had already 'committed' itself for this to the Welsh Assembly. It was then put to the Executive Board (Item 5.7) to see if the funds could be taken from the 'Eastern Gate development' (also Llanelli), another prestige enterprise, but this time partly funded by private investment; still the answer was a resounding no, they'd have to find the money somewhere else.

I'm sure the kids of Llanelli and Carmarthenshire as a whole would much rather have better playgrounds, paddling pools and somewhere tidy to kick a ball around than fancy coffee bars and a 'cultural experience' at one of our Chief Executive's pretentious follies.

The dire finances of the council and frontline cuts (unless of course you're part of the 'vision') are further illustrated as the six libraries earmarked for closure have been named, they are Laugharne, Felinfoel, Hendy, Llandybie, Glanaman and Penygroes. The closures will apparently save the council around £34,000 per year. A mere drop in the ocean compared to the amount spent on consultants and developers to fund the above projects; external legal advice; and don't forget it's about a quarter of the yearly cost of producing the useless council rag, 'Community News'.

Wales Audit Office Meets Carmarthenshire County Council

A meeting was held yesterday (2nd February) between Carmarthenshire Council and the Wales Audit Office about our ongoing issues including the degree of involvement of the Council in the 'private' libel case, legal costs, etc (well documented throughout this blog).
As the meeting concerned ourselves we asked if we could attend and for it to be minuted, but were told that it was 'private' though we could submit a list of questions, (as shown below).

The Audit officer contacted us after the meeting to say he had requested further information from the council and would write soon. I am not holding my breath. I hope that the Council will not palm the Wales Audit Office off quite as easily as they did everyone else, including the High Court.
I must also add that we are very grateful to the Audit Officer for listening to us and appreciate his efforts in trying to pursue our concerns. We will await the outcome of this meeting before taking further action

To; Wales Audit Office, Carmarthen
Dear Sir,

We are disappointed that the meeting is to be in private. Please could you inform us of the names and positions of those present as soon as possible.

List of questions;

1. Please explain why this document from an apparently private legal case was present in County Hall and why it was sent there by the Head of Planning's solicitors? (As proven in court)

2. Please explain why the document referred to was stamped by two departments, particularly the Resources Department? and provide the names of those who stamped it? (As proven in court)

3. The exact date, please, on which the Head of Planning approached the council to request financial assistance for this private legal case.

4. Will the council admit that if the decision to bring the libel case against us had not been made, it is very unlikely, given the potential financial risk to public funds, that the constitution would have been amended the way it was to enable council officers bringing actions for defamation to be funded?

5. Non-exempt details please of all external legal advice sought and received regarding defamation since mid-2006.

6. Any financial assistance provided by the Council towards the High Court hearing on 22nd September 2008 as certain other council executives were involved. (you have copies of the transcript and judgement).

7. As the solicitor acting on behalf of Carmarthenshire Council's Head of Planning is also the County coroner and receives funding from the council, was this not a conflict of interest?

8. As the case law upon which Carmarthenshire's constitutional amendments were made was brought by the district auditor, did the Wales Audit office not consider, given the actual cost of public funds in this particular case and the warnings given by the judge, that, for Carmarthenshire, this was financially an unwise move?

9. The answer to our Freedom of Information request concerning the constitution and related legal costs was not correct, please could the council substantiate their response further, as their letter to us dated 16th December is contradictory. Could they please explain the 'particular set of facts and circumstances' to which they refer.

10. Could the council confirm how many other legal documents from private cases requesting money have been stamped by these departments.

Would you kindly pass on to the Council our intention to pursue this matter.

We look forward to your early response.

Update; Incidentally (surely not coincidentally!)the Auditor General for Wales Jeremy Colman suddenly resigned today with immediate effect. No official reason yet....http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8496466.stm

Update; 4th Feb - it seems that Mr Colman, head of the Wales Audit Office, resigned after pornographic material was found on his office laptop. Police investigating.

Carmarthenshire Council and the Press - Reassurance Please?

My letter below, sent a couple of weeks ago but not printed in the Carmarthen Journal letters page. Perhaps I can understand why....

Dear Editor,

We are yet again appalled by the attempts made by the regime at Carmarthenshire's County Hall to silence criticism, this time targeting the press. Through the letters page of your paper, could we ask for reassurance that the Carmarthen Journal and it's sister papers will continue to be free to report, independently and fairly on Council matters as they have always done so excellently in the past despite Chief Executive Mark James' complaint to Northcliffe Media?

We sincerely hope that threats by the council to withdraw financial support through advertising if 'negative' stories were published were dismissed outright, and that both the newspaper and Council bosses have agreed that it is of the utmost importance for democracy and transparency that the local press be completely free to report both the good and the bad? And that the newspapers have not subsequently bowed to such blackmail from the Council?

It would be a sad day indeed for freedom of speech in Carmarthenshire if our only knowledge of Council matters was limited to the one-sided press releases from County Hall and it's mouthpiece, 'Community News'. It would be even more alarming if this was a decision made by one person without any reference to the full council.

Investigative journalism at a local level should be protected and actively encouraged at all times if we are to live in a society where those that govern are accountable to those that they serve.

Yours,
Caebrwyn

- And still no reassurance then?

Council Newspaper Update

With thanks to 'L Barnett' for asking Freedom of Information requests to every Council in the UK regarding Council newspapers, including Carmarthenshire who, incidentally, were late replying.
Here is a link to the request and response.

Carmarthenshire Council Finances - Let's See What's Going On

I see the council tax rate has been set for this year at 2.9%, although there are warnings that next year it could be over 12% and so on. The arguments over job losses and service cuts will rumble on for some time and in my opinion boils down to a complete lack of foresight and excessive expenditure on 'prestigious' projects.

Anyway, I was looking at some of the points made on the proposals for 'efficiency savings' in the various departments I have given examples before but here are a few more; reducing opening hours for leisure centres (Llandovery pool is open so infrequently it's not worth filling it up); removing free school transport for over 16's, (not good in a mainly rural county); closing public toilets (not good for tourism and neither is withdrawing funding for Llandovery Heritage Centre); closing six libraries; apparently the new multi storey car park in St Catherine's Walk will result in around £211,000 loss in parking revenue so it is proposed to raise existing parking charges (ever popular with struggling town centre local retailers); Naturally, the Community News rag is safe for now and is to become 'self-financing' as all council advertising will be in that rather than the local papers; the planning department is to merge Development Control and Enforcement and is way behind schedule with the new Local Development Plan and the sixteen schools running at a deficit will just have to manage the best they can (Pantecelyn School, Llandovery has already lost it's Headmaster)

One Councillor had the audacity to suggested a 1 to 2 % reduction in Councillor's allowances but was swiftly sent to the back of the class.

I notice that within this confusing financial murk that there is no mention of abandoning the proposed 'Carmarthen TV', this could prove very costly as other councils have discovered. If money is to be spent on these things, I have a much better idea. I have been quite impressed recently be the use of WEBCASTS of Council meetings on other council websites. I give a few examples here, here and here (Worcestershire, Cardiff and Kent Councils respectively). Surely this would be far cheaper option, utilising the existing council website (or how about a YouTube account?) and improving the current complete absence of transparency and democracy.
Hopefully none of those featured would 'play-up' to the cameras and I doubt if there would be, or could be much more of an increase in shady 'pre-meeting' decisions. I would suggest the filming of full County Council, Executive Board, Scrutiny Committees, Audit and Standards Committees and last but far from least, the Planning Committee.

Are any Councillors brave enough to propose this then?
If nothing else, at least we'd all be able to witness the total shambles that this Council truly is.

Update 9th Feb;
Kent Council TV, (which was separate from the webcast service described above) has been scrapped after two and a half years and £1.8m taxpayers money - Take note Carmarthenshire Council!

Brecon Beacons Planning

I thought I would mention the judges decision to quash the planning permission granted to the Gilestone Caravan site, Talybont-on-Usk, due to the "serious failings" of the Brecon Beacons National Park Planning Authority. (Links to Western Mail and BBC for fuller story). There were other issues connected to the saga including missing documents which are still under investigation by the police and a Chief Executive who was suspended then 'resigned', complete with a 'confidentiality agreement'. All a bit of a mess.
The merits or otherwise of the caravan park in question do not, and should not, concern me; I do not live there. What I find interesting is that this case prompted intervention into the authority by the Welsh Assembly who took action to 'restore' public faith in the planning system ;
This has been something we, and others, have been calling for in Carmarthenshire. As far as I can see the only difference here lies with the strength, and perhaps more particularly the wealth and 'influence' of the group opposing the development. Whilst this group has the financial wherewithal amongst their membership to commission a very expensive independent report and expert legal representation; most of us have to rely on our own resources; and our concerns are easily brushed aside by public bodies and politicians alike; we are soon classed as 'troublemakers'.

Carmarthenshire planning authority is very fortunate in that, despite a long history of questionable planning decisions, endless complaints of bias, incompetence and worse, no one has yet been able to prompt (or afford) an independent inquiry into certain planning decisions which would open the proverbial can of worms.
It also seems that the overly bureaucratic quangos and bodies we complain to do not wish that can of worms to be opened any more than the council does.

Council Newspapers - Carmarthenshire

I see in the Carmarthen Journal (no links) that the council has reacted to the findings of the recent Audit Commission report into council newspapers with misplaced self-satisfaction. Of course the report only looked into English council publications and decided, as 'value for money' they were not 'unreasonable'. Many local newspaper editors begged to differ. The report failed to examine either the impact on local independant media of poaching advertising or the more disturbing issues of propaganda, self promotion and the erosion of democracy. Newspaper bosses are now hoping for an investigation by the Office of Fair Trading.

Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM makes these points in a seperate article criticising Carmarthenshire Council in particular for wasting money on the 'Community news' and the upcoming 'Carmarthen TV', which would be much better spent elsewhere.( I hope that the recent 'Carmarthen News Special Edition' was fully funded by the St Catherine's Walk property developers and top brand retailers whose logos are splattered all over it). Mr Thomas emphasises the need for the council to work with, not against local papers so they can "continue to provide scrutiny of local democracy, as well as uncover those unique county stories that would otherwise be ignored" - an alien concept to the bosses at County Hall. Do they not realise that their patronising 'good news' publication merely makes the council look faintly ridiculous?

Councils should have no need to promote themselves at our expense, they are not a trading company dependant on the whim of a buying public as we are not free to take our custom elsewhere and are stuck with what we've got. On the other hand, political bias, which is unfortunately prevalent in many council papers, including Carmarthenshire, will be handy for cheap canvassing when the local elections are due.

Of course in Carmarthenshire the County Council appears to have gone one sinister step further, and as I have mentioned before actually tried to put a gag on local papers reporting 'negative' stories. I don't suppose this would be under the remit of the 'guardians of the public purse' either, or even the OFT.

For many reasons, this Council should be investigated by the 'guardians of free speech' but as yet I have been unable to determine exactly who that might be, and I am beginning to doubt if one even exists.

More on Mr Humphreys v Carmarthenshire Council

As reported in the South Wales Guardian we learn the legal costs incurred so far for Carmarthenshire Council after losing the magistrate's case against Mr Humphreys at the Mill in Llandybie. Not only are they liable for Mr Humphreys' costs so far of £28,000 but their own which amount to £20,765 out of which £15,000 was spent on external lawyers. Perhaps, as they are so strapped for cash, they should bear this in mind as they try to Appeal the decision at the High Court, as they could be risking a whole lot more taxpayers money.

Mr Humphreys' defence was based upon The Planning (Listed Building and Conservation areas) Act 1990 Chapter 9, Section 9 Para(3) it states;

"In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove the following matters—
(a) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the interests of safety or health or for the preservation of the building;"
(b) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the case may be, the preservation of the building by works of repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter; .
(c) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum measures immediately necessary; and .
(d) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of the works was given to the local planning authority as soon as reasonably practicable."

The Magistrates decided the defence was proven. They heard the Council's very own structural engineer admit that Mr Humphreys' structural engineer had, in fact, been best placed to make the initial decision to carry out the work as a matter of urgency. The local magistrates, to their credit, went to see the site and the issues involved, so surely they were also best placed to reach the correct decision and recognise the validity of Mr Humphreys defence, rather than a distant London court.

The Council, of course, are having none of it.
Councillor Scourfield (Executive Board member for Planning) tries to justify the action in the newspaper by saying that the Council had to appeal or a precedent would be set affecting listed buildings, this is not the case as the 1990 Act is specific and robust in it's protection of our heritage. However, should the Council win on appeal, not only would Mr Humphrey become financially crippled but the precedent would be set for all structural engineers and builders who become liable for a similar offence, to be unable to plead the defence of the above 'paragraph'.

As it stands, the building that is the subject of this row is currently worth about £10,000. It is astounding that this 'cash strapped' council are prepared to plough so much money into this disproportionate action to save face, reputation and to indulge their favourite game of 'making an example' of someone.

And don't we know it.

More from the Muck and Brass Blog

As I have been following the excellent Muck and Brass blog, based in Somerset, which was apparently instrumental in the recent mass resignation of Somerton Town Council, I thought I'd mention the most recent post . The blog author has now managed to obtain various documents finally released to him under the Freedom of Information. Of interest is the legal lengths taken by the then Town Council to see if they could 'shut him down'. As far as I can see the blog is well researched, honest and the criticism is constructive. Some of the advice given to the town council (three seperate offerings, which was probably paid for by the taxpayer) suggests that the information he had been requesting should have been released and that there was no basis for legal action. However, the third opinion is rather disturbing in that a 'governing body' is being advised, amongst other things;

"to look at the ways in which that freedom [access to information and freedom of speech] can be limited or denied.......What I do expect, having only glanced over this matter, is that Mr Connolly is not a man who will cow to threats, empty or otherwise, so if we are going to look for a solution then it needs to be an effective one."

We all know, of course, that Carmarthenshire County Council, in that situation, would have gone for the third opinion. Fortunately, and quite correctly, for Mr Connolly, he was not subjected to the 'effective' solution.
When authorties anywhere, be they town councils or otherwise, indulge in such overbearing legal posturing, the only conclusion that reasonable observers reach is that, clearly they have something to hide.

Coedbach Biomass Planning Appeal

A planning appeal has been lodged against Carmarthenshire Council's decision to refuse planning permission for the Coedbach biomass plant in Kidwelly. I have previously mentioned it here, here and here. Whilst I have no opinions either way on the pros and cons of biomass energy and find each argument fairly convincing, I do recognise a peculiar planning decision when I see one (even by Carmarthenshire planning department standards) which shows how this Authority can make the rules up as it goes along

Two strong recommendations for approval from the Head of Planning suddenly turned into a refusal (based on a 'consultation' document, not yet policy, from the Welsh Assembly) shortly after a flight taken by councillors and officers to Lockerbie to see a similar plant. The residents group were lucky enough to have the public support of the leader of the council, and local member, Meryl Gravell; (the site was very close to the Ffos Las racecourse), and even the attendance of the Head of Planning at one of the 'action' meetings.

The situation became even more bizarre at the Committee meeting last March where the council's solicitor decided that only the members who'd been to Lockerbie could vote; despite this being nowhere in the Standing Orders. There was a ripple of defiance from some and one councillor wanted it recorded that if he'd been allowed, he would have voted for the proposal; which in the event was refused by one vote.

Oddly, at the same meeting permission was then granted for a railway siding for deliveries at the 'refused' plant - just in case it was approved on appeal; this shows the lack of confidence that the Head of Planning had in his own reasons for recommending refusal.

As I said, I remain neutral on the proposal but I have heard some other rather curious facts relating to this decision so will be popping along to the inquiry to see if they have an 'airing'.

Scratching the Surface of Democracy?

I noticed an interesting post from Carmarthenshire's Plaid councillors which suggests the Assembly Goverment may insist that council scrutiny chairs will become more politically balanced. I am politically undecided but do believe that some sort of actual opposition in Carmarthenshire would help generate a modicum of debate and improve the accountability of the council.Whilst perhaps merely being a case of re-arranging the deckchairs on a sinking ship, there may be the potential to loosen the current stranglehold of the rubber-stamping cosiness between the executive officers and it's puppet, Meryl's Executive Board.
I presume the post is referring to the current consultation from the Welsh Assembly on Scrutiny and Political Structure related to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. The consultation makes a few interesting suggestions including the possibility of a politically balanced Cabinet; a move away from the 'jobs (or SRA's) for the boys (and girls)' as it is currently perceived? Meryl Gravell and co will not be happy with that!
The party 'whip' would be removed from scrutiny committees and the range of these committees to include non-members widened and be placed under an obligation to 'provide the public an opportunity to contribute to policy reviews' - I cannot see how this would work but I suppose 'members of the public' wouldn't really include the likes of me!
The Audit Committee would be selected by full council and chaired by a lay-person as is presently the case in the Standards Committee.
The range of circumstances where Welsh Minister could intervene in a local authority would also be widened to include the situation where political impasse prevents effective operation.
The Welsh Assembly is suggesting a more structured petitions scheme which an authority will have to adopt and fully publicise - and apparently, 'under the 2009 Act, certain senior council officers could, as a result of a petition, be called to account at a scrutiny meeting', Very interesting!

The Welsh Assembly is merely skimming the surface and as I have said many times there are certain elements within Carmarthenshire council in particular, which are, self serving, untruthful and definitely undemocratic, I would suggest, for a start, that the council should be forced to revoke the highly unethical constitutional amendments regarding defamation - but any measures, no matter how small which open up local authorities (especially this one) to transparency, accountability and democracy should be imposed as a matter of urgency.

Llanwrda Community Councillor

I would just like to thank the community of Llanwrda for voting in yesterday's election despite the awful weather conditions. As a Community Councillor I shall endeavour to help and serve the local area to my best ability.
I look forward to the first meeting.

Meeting with the Wales Audit Office

On the 1st December 2009 the Wales Audit Office in Carmarthen kindly agreed to meet with us to address our concerns regarding planning and the council's legal costs related to libel (posts throughout this blog). We submitted a long list of questionable planning decisions/issues that we consider warrant urgent further investigation.
The Audit Officer was surprised and shocked to see the stamped document and could not understand why this 'private' legal document was present in, and stamped by, both the Chief Executive's and Resources Department, with no explanation. He fully understood the unlawful implications. He was keen to have further evidence but we explained that, apart from circumstantial evidence (of which we went into detail), any other 'paper' evidence would be at County Hall; where he has the power to investigate, but this will probably, by now, have been carefully recycled into hamster bedding. He took photocopies of the document and of the High Court transcript and Judgement.
He agreed with us as to of the severity of the matter and the importance of the evidence. He promised to look into it as a matter of urgency. So urgent was it that we haven't heard another thing. Quite clearly his approach to the Council legal department was quickly rebuffed and he was sent back to his office.
Where do you go? I have little faith in the Ombudsman and feel that this matter will be conveniently deemed 'out of his jurisdiction', I cannot comprehend how some senior council officers can lie with impunity and seem to have a license to manipulate the Freedom of Information Act.
I can, however, reassure Carmarthenshire Council that we will not go away.
Watch this space.

Llandeilo Northern Quarter Planning Brief

For all those interested in the proposed new developments in Llandeilo of 215 homes here is a link to the recent consultation;
Responses received to the Draft Llandeilo Northern Residential
Quarter Planning and Development Brief
(The 'brief' itself is available on the Council website)

The report is due to be presented to the Executive Board on the 21st January.
I hope, for once, all the responses are fully considered, including those from members of the public.

Local Papers Silenced?

Following on from previous posts, including 'Blackmail', I understand, from a very reliable source that there maybe a little more to it. After a meeting between the newspaper executives and Council bosses, the local editors have been told, by SWWMedia (which comes under Northcliffe Media) to keep away from bad news and 'negative stories' concerning Carmarthenshire County Council. This includes the Carmarthen Journal, the South Wales Evening Post and the Llanelli Star.
If this is the case, it is a very worrying and shocking development and suggests perhaps that the financially struggling newspapers have bowed to the demands of the council to protect their income through advertising.

Does this mark the end of free speech in Carmarthenshire? Will there be no effective criticism of this government body left in the county? And what about our elected Councillors, haven't they got anything to say about it?

Any further developments will be posted here.

You Reap What You Sow

With all the talk about salt and grit shortages perhaps we should be concerned that Carmarthenshire Council won't be able to afford any at all next year. As reported in the Carmarthen Journal, the rows over how to save £13m or thereabouts over the next couple of years are rumbling on and the article contains a selection of the usual proposals, the easiest targets clearly being children and the elderly this is despite the Assembly settlement being the highest in Wales; and in their continuing commitment to education, six libraries are up for closure.

The Chief Executive, Mark James and Leader of the council, Meryl Gravell are offering the usual stark 'choices' and threats of 'a 1000 of job losses' (not theirs mind you) or cuts to elderly, children's and special needs services or a huge rise in Council Tax. I know that matters of funding/budgets are complex issues but it doesn't take an accountant to realise that this was somewhat foreseeable and in Carmarthenshire anyway, appears to be partly a matter of bad management, it is not a political issue but simply poor housekeeping; you don't go out and blow all your money on a big new flatscreen TV the day before your mortgage is due.

The Council's Plaid leader, Peter Hughes Griffiths, puts it politely "the council has
been too willing, for too long, to risk taxpayers money on grand schemes rather than delivering core services" I would go further and suggest that the Chief Executive's ''vision' for our county (all decisions conveniently rubber stamped by the ever amenable Executive Board) has been unquestionably detrimental. The countless millions poured into the new Parc y Scarlets stadium (which will continue to pour) would have been enough to cover this shortfall with many £ms to spare. The Ffos Las racecourse and new retail developments at Trostre in Llanelli and St Catherine's Walk in Carmarthen have not only cost us dear but also ensures that nearly every pound we spent in these towns will go straight across the Severn Bridge and probably out of Britain. The commitments made to big developers and external consultancies will now mean amongst other things, the 'modernisation' (closure) of elderly care homes and the 'rationalisation' (closure) of OAP luncheon clubs.
At a recent meeting of the Audit Committee concern was expressed (quickly brushed aside) that the 'framework' system of tendering could lead to 'cosiness' between the Authority and the provider - you bet it does!
Suffice to say, it appears that the Chief Executive is far more concerned with prestigious 'gateway' developments and 'image' (prevalent in the ever wasteful 'Community News') rather than essential services, in fact there is a plan to sell off 'surplus' council property to fund their forthcoming pet projects. Perhaps they will look good on a CV.

It was only a couple of years ago the Chief Executive was happy for the taxpayer to spend £66k per year on a limo to chauffeur him around, now, the council seem happy to 'reconfigure' (cut) Special Educational Needs services to the tune of £137,500, (wouldn't Mr James salary cover that with a fair few grand to spare?).
I suppose those extensive 'rainy day' reserves are always there to quietly dip into and proclaim sudden financial wizardry.
I have asked but they will not tell me how much has been spent on libel lawyers, I dread to think of how much that was, particularly as they can, and as we discovered, do, charge £1000 per hour, and as I have said, they can now legally fund further claims (as they have unlawfully in the past) - a potential financial disaster for the taxpayer.
I have suggested other potentially wasteful projects throughout this blog.

They've turned off the lights, perhaps Mr James and Co, complete with generous golden handshakes could quietly close the door on their way out.

A New Year Message from Caebrwyn

Reflecting on the past year, particularly since I started writing this blog, I have been amazed at the number of people who have kindly taken the time to read it, whether agreeing or not; free speech is what it's all about; particularly the freedom to speak the truth about decisions made by those in public office, either elected or otherwise.
On the 14th January I am standing for a seat on Llanwrda Community Council, I hope I am elected as I wish to support the community which has always supported us, but either way, I know that whatever happens I shall never have a bigger voice than I have with this blog.

Perhaps understandably, I have also been following the national campaign to reform UK libel law. I am pleased that Adam Price MP has put his name to it as well. The enormous cost risk and the onus entirely on the defendant to prove their innocence completely skews any matter of truth, and of course nearly always leads to an utterly meaningless forced apology; unsatisfactory to either party. The issues of libel tourism and the involvement of libel law as an impediment to scientific debate also need addressing as does the fact that most cases are decided by the pre-formed opinion of one judge, Mr Justice Eady. I agree that redress is sometimes necessary; and perhaps this should be in some form of a tribunal rather than the money spinning circus it is at present; Hence my disgust at Carmarthenshire Council's actions not only over our case but of the constitutional changes I have written about.

Anyway I shall carry on keeping an eye on our local authority in 2010, no doubt they will provide me with plenty to write about. I shall also persist in seeking replies to some unanswered questions from certain persons (they know who they are) in County Hall.

By the way, the Caebrwyn Awards for 2009 for being dishonest, manipulative, arrogant, overpaid, incompetent, undemocratic, backscratching and egotistical, (I have been trying not to swear since the first post in March so will not start today) go, of course, to those oft mentioned certain senior officers of Carmarthenshire County Council.

And on that note I wish everyone a Happy New Year.
Blwyddyn Newydd Dda

Planning Department Investigation - West Lindsey District Council

I have mentioned in previous posts an investigation into the above planning department, I have also stressed that an investigation is both necessary and years overdue here in Carmarthenshire. The Wales Audit Office is carrying out an investigation but at the moment it is unclear as to the extent; but if anyone ever thought that planning departments were incapable of questionable behaviour, both the Brecon Beacons Planning Authority and this matter at West Lindsey suggest a mere tip of the iceberg.

Interestingly it appears that by the 17th December WLDC heads began to roll, including the Leader of the Council and the Senior Planning Officer.

There are early reactions to the Audit Commission investigation into the WLDC planning department before a full report is issued.
One measure to be put in place in January is a live web-cast of planning committee meetings. This seems like a good idea although very unlikely to happen in Carmarthenshire. If they did perhaps I could suggest that the Council utilises You Tube where the meetings could be featured in an end-of-year comedy special of video blunders? And perhaps 'hidden camera' recordings of senior executives offices would complete the series; but of course that might amount to hard evidence rather than light entertainment!

Libel Funding - Carmarthenshire Council Style

Semantics - the study of how meaning in language is
created by the use and interrelationships of words, phrases, and sentences or, in the case of Carmarthenshire Council, 'How to lie and sound like you're not'

I finally got a reply to this (Post; Secrets and Lies). I certainly wasn't expecting much and I wasn't disappointed. Clearly someone in the council legal department has been taking evening classes in advanced semantics.
To those who are interested (and it all does seem to have got unnecessarily complicated), there are various posts throughout this blog concerned with the Council's decision to amend the Constitution to enable officers suing for libel to be funded by the taxpayer and also the council's manipulation of the Wales Audit Office.
The matter was further complicated by the council's unwillingness to share with me the details of the cost of the expert legal advice and the identity of the advisor. I was further mystified by their initial denial that they had spent anything at all along with the fact that this advice was sought during their planning chief's libel case against us. The presence of the related court document in the Chief Executive & Resources Department remains unexplained.

To paraphrase, basically they have said that; 'although we told you through the FOI that we didn't incur legal costs regarding defamation 'advice', well, er..actually we did, but it has got absolutely nothing to do with our very own planning chief's libel case against you or even the changes to the constitution (so that if anyone overly criticises council departments in the future we can arrange for someone to whisk other unsuspecting punters off to the high court, at taxpayers expense, and threaten them with financial ruin) - and we're not telling you the details anyway because we don't want to (because it would be embarrassing, not because it is exempt information).

Clearly the fact that public money could be used to sue the public and the potential for abuse of the 'Derbyshire' case law makes all this very much in the public interest. This is also of importance for the local press particularly considering the recent threats from the council to withdraw support if the paper publishes 'negative' stories. It is certainly of interest to us, particularly if the legal 'advice' stemmed from the same source as was employed by the Head of Planning and particularly if the amount paid for this 'advice' met his private legal costs - their reticence in releasing the details rather confirms that this is the case.

The whole business stinks and has done from day one. I don't suppose they ever thought we would have the nerve to try and defend ourselves. The Council acted unlawfully, financially backing the Head of Planning and acting as a safety net if the case had gone pear-shaped; clearly they would never have seen him lose his home over criticism of the planning department.
By changing the constitution they have ensured that they would not be caught out in the future.

As a footnote, it is worth noting that when we were first sued we considered a counterclaim, on contacting various solicitors we were told two things; firstly do not even consider suing someone for libel unless you've got at least fifty grand going spare and secondly they would have to check that they did no work for the council (yes..the council) or there would be a conflict of interest. So, if the council are telling the truth, a) the post of Head of Planning must be a very lucrative one and b) How was it that he chose the county coroner (funded by the council) as his solicitor....

Blackmail

Following on from recent posts here and here, this week's Carmarthen Journal includes an article on the ongoing row between the council and the newspaper.

It is worth mentioning a few points; Rhodri Glyn Thomas AM has accused Carmarthenshire council of blackmailing the Journal by threatening to withdraw advertising and support in response to printing 'negative' stories. He said "The council is basically saying 'write anything negative and we will pull advertising'."

The politics of the matter are irrelevant, as is the council's claim that this is a 'cost cutting' exercise. The essence of the matter is the freedom of the local press to scrutinise and hold the council to account. In October the Journal met with the Council bosses who made the threat, as did the Leader, Councillor Gravell at a Journal sponsored tourism event. As I said previously, the council's Community News was also used to issue a threat.
The editor of the Journal was diplomatic but firm, she said "..if the Council is failing in some way, you will not read about it in the [council] newsletter. The Journal has a duty to give it's readers a full and balanced picture and we will continue to do so"

The local papers (and maybe a couple of blogs) are the only voices of criticism of the local authority and it is important, in a healthy society that they remain so. The papers report the good and the bad. Without them all we would have is council press release spin and PR. The ability of the council to sue for libel on behalf of officers is another new threat, and unique to this litigious council.

As certain senior executives, and certain senior councillors, believe themselves to be not only exempt from accountability and scrutiny but actually above the law (more on this soon) it is time for them make a New Year resolution - and go.

Lastly, I wish everyone a Very Merry Christmas and a Happy, Peaceful and Healthy New Year. I would also like to say a very big thank you to everyone who has taken the time to read this blog. Diolch yn Fawr

Planning - The Further Demise of Democracy

I note from the recent Carmarthenshire Council minutes (item 3) that planning officers are attempting to drive another nail in the coffin of democracy. The latest proposal is for planning applications with objections, which are at present, automatically referred to committee, to be possibly decided by delegated power. One Councillor did manage to point out a warning that "..a precedent could be set in granting delegated authority to officers to determine what objections should or should not be reported to the Planning Committee."

The Head of Planning is preparing a report. My concern is that, along with many applications already being delegated to the mercy and personal whim of planning officers, the consideration of objections will now be subject to the same treatment. Rather than saving time, this move could remove an important, (if often cosmetic) element of democratic debate. The element of 'discretion' in delegated planning decisions is basically flawed as no matter how professional the decision maker tries to be, the decision is often based upon personal opinion; susceptible to the pre-conceived prejudices and preferences of the officer concerned and believe me, some Carmarthenshire Planning officers are very well versed in both.

Carmarthenhire Council Carries out the Threat to Local Press

Following on from my previous post 'Carmarthenshire Council Threatens Local Press' an article in today's Western Mail reveals that the threat is to be carried out and advertising withdrawn from the Carmarthen Journal in the new year. Both Adam Price MP and Rhodri Glyn Thomas slam the decision and point out, as I did, that this is no more than blackmail and that the publicly funded 'Community News' was used to deliver the threat. This is the work of the Chief Executive, Mark James, other senior executives, and the Leader of the Council, Meryl Gravell. The last time the local papers and residents were highly critical of the Council they decided to make an example of somebody and we ended up in the High Court trying to defend an allegation of libel.
This is a council which is more concerned with ego and reputation than the dire financial situation it finds itself in and is prepared to spend money on defending it, to illustrate the financial situation I quote from the minutes of the last Executive Board meeting;

"...projected Council Tax increases of 3.30% in 2010-11; 4.68% in 2011-12 and 9.40% in 2012-13...the Chief Executive advised that the Authority would be facing considerable budgetary pressures over the next three years due to the anticipated reductions in grant from the Assembly and would need to identify very significant savings in order to reduce the projected Council Tax levels. In order to avoid major service reductions and possible large scale job losses, the Authority would need to identify alternative means of delivering its current services"

The attack on the Carmarthen Journal shows yet more shameful behaviour from this council and indicates to all that it is now time for a full investigation into the blatant disregard for democracy and accountability, and the entire matter of the governance of Carmarthenshire. It is time for major 'restructuring'.
I include my comment on the article here, just in case it is removed;

This is not just a party political debate, this is a calculated decision by the Chief Executive and the Executive Board to silence criticism. It is well known that Mark James and co dislike adverse stories in the local papers, this recent spat was partly due to a report concerning the developers of the new St Catherine's Walk, who were fined for bid rigging elsewhere. We have now reached the point where the council have resorted to blackmail. They have also planned to start their own taxpayers funded propaganda TV channel. Failing the success of the blackmail, the Chief Executive and the Head of Legal now have the unique delegated power to fund libel cases on behalf of officers; easily open to abuse and a direct threat towards residents and the local press.

The Council may succeed in stopping criticism in the local papers but I guarantee they will not succeed again to silence us.

Carmarthenshire Council Threatens Local Press

It comes as no surprise that the Council's latest issue of 'Community News' contains no mention of the impending financial doom. I am disturbed however by the use of this taxpayer funded propaganda sheet to attack the local newspapers. I quote;

"The Council has recently had to defend this community newspaper against attacks by some local newspapers and some local politicians [Adam Price and Rhodri Glyn Thomas]. It is not entirely clear why they are so opposed to the Council informing every citizen in the County about what we do....The local authority is legally required to advertise certain items...As a result we have been spending over £150,000 per annum with local newspapers. Obviously, we regularly keep this under review to ensure it is good value for money. We will continue to work with our local newspapers as we believe they are important in any community, but we believe they have a duty to report fairly and in a balanced way. We will encourage them to do this, without fear or favour."

The article, which suspiciously sounds like it comes from the pen of a certain executive ego, is nothing more than a threat to withdraw advertising and support unless local papers cease criticism. The council should remember that as a governing body, they do not have a reputation and should be open to criticism; be it concerning policy decisions or the 'community news' itself.

"Some newspapers do not wish to use any “good news” stories and others occasionally change the story so that it has a very negative angle. Often what we read bears little resemblance to what we actually said or did. We accept that newspapers can report as they see fit. This is their right. That does not mean that the Council has to simply accept that our residents will only be given one side or on occasion misleading information."

The papers are not opposed to the spread of service information, it is the one-sided manner of it's delivery; the undermining of the integrity of local news reporters, and the questionable use of taxpayers money that is of concern. This is not the first time the Council has attacked the press, a couple of years age the Chief Executive wrote to all employees of the council suggesting they ignore critical reports in the local paper.
In the interests of any remaining elements of democracy in this county the local papers should be supported and encouraged to continue their present way of reporting which is fair, balanced and informative, threats like this should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

News report here.

100% Proof

When we took the council to court last year on allegations of perjury the judge didn't think a council would lie. Now that we have 100% proof that they do, we are considering lodging a late Appeal to see if the judge comes to a different 'balance of probabilities'....... it's just a shame that we can't rely on taxpayers money to do it.

Financial Incapabilities

The Carmarthen Journal reports that the council Leader, Councillor Gravell and Chief Executive, Mark James stated that severe cuts to public services, to the tune of £25m over the next three years will need to be made to avoid 'hundreds' of job losses. This is a lot of money and again begs the question of their financial capabilities and priorities. Firstly, as I have mentioned, there's the issue of rushing off to the high court to appeal Mr Humphreys acquittal (see recent posts), if they lose, another £50,000 - £100,000 could be added to the £55,000 legal bill they already have. Switching off streetlights may fractionally help the 'carbon footprint' but the 'saving' of £67,000 will just about cover their legal costs so far. Incidentally, the switch off will apparently cost around £150,000 to implement. Residents' worries about an increase in crime were swept aside by the labour leader Councillor Madge's strange assurances that " they [gangs] were too scared to hang around in the dark" Very reassuring!
There is also the issue of new 'prestige' developments such as the new Arts centre in eastern Llanelli - all very well in a prosperous financial climate, but surely not at the expense of closing all the Old People's Homes (let's hope the Plaid councillors' success in stalling the proposal is not reversed by closure by stealth - I was disappointed to see Llandovery's County Councillor Ivor Jackson voting for closure.)
As for Carmarthen Council TV, surely this expensive folly will be put on hold?
Axing a few senior executive posts would save a fair chunk of money...I could make some suggestions..

Maybe it's also time for them to reverse the defamation amendments in the constitution before one of them decides to sue someone and blow an entire year's legal budget on fancy London barristers...again.

Update 17th December

Interesting blog post from Plaid Councillors - 'Council decision probably illegal'
and also a related post from Borthlas blog - 'Council Contortions'

St Catherine's Walk - Still Quiet on the Tenders

I have noticed that the next meeting of Carmarthenshire County Council's Audit Committee contains an item on the Office of Fair Trading Investigation into alleged bid rigging in the construction industry.

What is interesting is there is still no mention of the tendering process for the St Catherine's Walk development in Carmarthen and the involvement of Simons Group, fined for bid rigging elsewhere. I think it must be a bit of a touchy subject for some certain senior officers who don't seem to want it mentioned at all!
However it is mentioned that the main contractor on the Queen Elizabeth High School project, Carillion, were fined nearly £5.5m during the OFT investigation. Apparently an internal audit was carried out in 2006 which raised no cause for concern, as an internal one would. Perhaps a more up to date one should be carried out.
I think it is high time that a similar investigation was carried out into the contract for the Carmarthen development. The report emphasises the new 'framework' for awarding contracts, which is supposed to reduce the risk of rigged tenders and other anomalies; I presume it is some sort of pre-approved list of suitable contractors, but doesn't address the current issue.
The awarding of contracts, particularly the more lucrative ones would benefit from a more 'open' system. currently all discussions and decisions are held in secret, I realise there are elements concerning private financial details which should be exempt, but within the council there is a wholesale presumption against the 'public interest' which is unhealthy.
I would like to know, for example, who has the three year contract to supply refuse bags, valued at half a million quid per year, or why the council needs to employ private agency staff to the tune of over £1,000,000 per year or what exactly is a 'Design Engineering Framework' to the value of £1,250,000 per annum?
The government guidelines state that local authorities shouldn't be put off awarding contracts to those fined for tender rigging; rather like employing a burglar to clean the family silver. The reasoning being that these firms will now behave after being suitably chastened by the OFT, similar to the unproven theory that a recently punished rat-infested restaurant (or school kitchen as is the case in our county) will now be the cleanest place to eat.

Silence of the Lambs

Following on from my last post, it is with little surprise that I learn that, at today's full council meeting, not one Councillor raised the issue of the Council frittering away money at the High Court appealing Mr Humphreys acquittal. This is despite much of the business being concerned with financial pressures and essential cutbacks. As with our case, the councillors either seem to lack any sort of backbone or easily bow to the whim of the dictatorial legal department.
Shameful.

As the South Wales Guardian reports, at least Plaid's Adam Price attempted to challenge the Chief Executive over the issue, which is more than Carmarthenshire's Plaid Councillors did.
The paper is also to be commended on their 'Opinion' column which nicely sums up Carmarthenshire Council's priorities;

"First it was their own newspaper, then it was an Internet TV channel. Carmarthenshire Council are certainly not slow in thinking up seemingly limitless ways of frittering away their budgets.
Now County Hall seems hell-bent on pursuing legal action against a retired Llandybie builder.
Contrary to what the rest of us have been led to believe, they really must have boundless funds.
Nigel Humphreys, readers will recall, was recently acquitted of all charges relating to legal action launched by the council, which left the taxpayer with an estimated bill of around £28,000.
Although that appeared to be the end of the matter, the local authority has now been granted leave to appeal.
Heaven knows what this new High Court action is going to cost.
At the end of the day, this is public money being used to take members of the public to court.
It has been a dreadful year and each and every one of us has had to tighten our belts in order to survive.
Yet at a time when council spending is so restricted, County Hall stubbornly insists on pursuing further legal action against Mr Humphreys – and at the taxpayers’ expense.
Their justification – that the decision made by the magistrates was fundamently flawed – simply will not wash as far as cash-strapped families throughout the county are concerned.
People aren’t fools. They know full well that this is money that would be better used on frontline services.
The Guardian’s award for the year’s worst losers goes to Carmarthenshire Council "

I would also like to thank the Carmarthen Journal and the South Wales Guardian for printing our recent letters.

Death of Democracy

I always believed that in a democracy; a) officers advised, b) councillors recommended, and after some muddling and debate, depending upon the seriousness of the issue, c) a decision was reached. In Carmarthenshire this is not the case and some senior officers seem have just about managed to do away with b) altogether.

I copy below an email sent from the Head of Administration and Law, to all seventy-four Carmarthenshire County Councillors concerning Mr Humphreys of Felin Wen, Llandybie. It follows his polite approaches to Councillors to try and give his side of the story as of course public money is being spent on the court appeal. Mr Humphreys, like many of us, is under the impression that this should be a democratic council and that theoretically, the Councillors run the show. Quite clearly, and as we have seen in the past, this is far from the case.
The intention is not to harass or intimidate elected members but to raise awareness of decisions and ongoing problems which otherwise they would perhaps know nothing about. The voice of one councillor on his or her own is easily silenced (unless on the 'hand picked' Executive Board of course), but we hope that, collectively, they will have more clout to question officers decisions and actions; it is called democracy.

This is not the only example of an attempt to smear 'complainants' in the eyes of councillors and make allegations to deter any correspondence with that person. We ourselves were accused of 'damaging the council' by writing to councillors; it then turned out that, despite the legal department stating that they had complaints from councillors, it turned out that not one actually had. I know another lady who was accused of harrassing 'many' councillors; in fact she had only contacted her own local member to ask about a planning issue and another for information about mineral extraction;

Anyway, here's the email;

Sent: 30 November 2009 13:24
To: DSU Members English Only
Subject: Mr Humphreys, Llandybie
Importance: High
Sent on behalf of Mr Lyn Thomas

"Dear Councillor,
I understand that a number of members have been contacted by a Mr Humphreys of Llandybie who is complaining about the fact that he was recently prosecuted by the authority in relation to alleged listed building contravention. He has also contacted the media about the matter and there has already been media coverage. The prosecution was unsuccessful, but the Authority have lodged an appeal, and therefore the matter is still 'sub judice'. There should be no discussion on the matter therefore, and any contact he makes with the authority should be through his solicitor.
In these circumstances we should proceed with caution as we have reason to believe that he may be recording telephone conversations and may well be looking to use what may be said to him in conversation against the authority.
Yours sincerely,
Lyn Thomas"

cyfarchion/regards,
Shari Jones
Pen Swyddog Gwasanaethau Democrataidd/Principal Democratic Services Officer
(01267 224030) Mewnol/Internal 4030
e-bost/e-mail:sjones@sirgar.gov.uk

For a start I would seriously question whether the matter is 'sub judice' at all; this is just legal nonsense with the intention of alarming councillors. If an government body is appealing (please note it's a civil court and one judge) then the fact that Mr Humphreys is trying to put his side of things to elected members, hardly constitutes contempt - remember, theoretically the councillors run the council and this appeal involves spending public money.

I am even more appalled by Mr Thomas' last paragraph, he has no evidence whatsoever that Mr Humphreys was 'recording telephone conversations' (for the record, he wasn't) and even if he was - what was there to hide? Mr Thomas must have been worried that councillors might of said something against the council (God forbid that they might disagree with senior officers, and of course we don't like adverse council stories in the press do we?).
Alarmist nonsense again.

Quite clearly there has been no involvement by elected members in the decision to use public money to appeal this case - delegated power at it's worst again. This is yet another example of senior officers attempting to manipulate councillors, if they continue to succeed then democracy in Carmarthenshire County Council is certainly dead and buried.

This court action should be stopped immediately. The email from Mr Thomas is extremely disturbing. It is also defamatory and Mr Thomas should apologise not only to Mr Humphreys but to all the Councillors forthwith. I am surprised that this legal department has been so careless with it's correspondence considering all the recent costly legal advice regarding libel that it has received.

If anyone should proceed with caution it's Mr Humphreys because we know from experience that this council will lie and manipulate to any degree to prevent the truth coming out.

Wales Audit Office Investigates Carmarthenshire Council Planning Services

I can now confirm and it is now in the 'public domain' that the Wales Audit Office is investigating Carmarthenshire Council Planning Services. This is not an 'inspection', which was last carried out in 2006, but an investigation in response to complaints and concerns. I trust this will be very thorough and carried out with as much transparency as possible and will be under these rules.
Hopefully such an investigation will soon extend to a couple of other departments of this Council.

If you would like to express your opinion with regards to the planning process in Carmarthenshire, please sign the petition and leave a comment. You can also comment on this blog, or send me an email which will be treated in confidence. (Or on any other issue you may have with Carmarthenshire County Council for that matter).
(Email via 'View My Profile' link on the right.)

Pensioner Power

The proposed closure of several Council run care homes for the elderly is a little off topic for me but I can, I suppose, reluctantly envisage the day when perhaps I will be in dire need of such a facility. The idea that such homes should be phased out so that all elderly persons can live independently in sheltered bungalows or in their own homes with round the clock care would be wonderful but it is unrealistic.
The council seem to be looking for easy ways to save cash; a recent critical Audit report into the Council's Building Management (Asset Management) showed the value of council owned buildings and land to be around £437 million. It also showed a backlog of maintenance costs of £77 million. So basically, to stop council buildings crumbling away they're going to have to sell few, I suppose the elderly and vulnerable are an easy target; but promises of 'care in the community' and sheltered housing complexes springing up everywhere will do little to ease the worry of current residents and their families.
I think the council may have underestimated the vehemence of pensioner power.

This week's Llanelli Star has run an extensive feature on the subject but I was particularly struck by a letter from a member of the Carmarthenshire County Council 50+ forum who slammed the loaded 'consultation' questionnaire (sent to 'service users' - an awful expression and conveniently less personal than 'people' or 'residents') "...for example; would you prefer to be cared for in your own home rather than a residential home? Needless to say, most people naturally opted for their own home. Now the Council are quoting the answers to their loaded questions as evidence that they do not need to keep their residential homes open! It turns out that the 50+ Forum is merely a cynical tool for the council to deprive those who may someday need residential care"

And so much for the Leader, Cllr Gravell's promises a couple of weeks ago to protect the vulnerable from 'cutbacks'. There she is, smiling in the paper, promoting the closures.

I have just read an enlightening post from Plaid's Borthlas which shows an interesting split in the usually rigidly tight coalition Executive Board over this matter.

Welsh Assembly Wastes £15,000

The Welsh Assembly recently cut down a row of trees screening their not very
attractive office in Picton Terrace, Carmarthen. It was done without any warning, on a weekend, at a cost of £9500. (how much?)
Understandably many local people were furious as not only was the building fully exposed but the office windows now also overlooked their homes.
In response, the Welsh Assembly are now going to replace the mature trees at a cost of at least £5000
How to waste £15,000?!

Email from Mr Humphreys to County Councillors

Here is a copy of an email that Mr Humphreys from the mill in Llandybie (see recent posts) has sent to all the County Councillors of Carmarthenshire. He has spoken to some on the phone and whilst many have been sympathetic and helpful, others have said that they have been told not to speak to him and abruptly ended the conversation.
It also appears that further changes are afoot to the constitution giving further powers to the 10 members of the Executive Board to make decisions on controversial matters. The Executive Board, as we all know, are in the pockets of the senior executive officers. More on this when it can be confirmed or otherwise.

Dear Councillor

If I have spoken to you over this past week I would like to thank you for taking the time to listen to me, if how ever I haven't spoken to you and you would like more details on my case please telephone me, my number is 01269850718, I have added part of the Planning ( Listed Building and Conservation Areas ) 1990 Act section 9 (3) by the request of some Councillors below,this section is what my case is based on.

You will read that urgent works can be carried out on a Listed Building under section a, b, or c, and as I had a Structural Engineers report out lining his concerns of the buildings stability, the work I carried out was covered by the section above,this is what the Magistrates based their decision on and came to the same conclusion therefore I was acquitted, but as you are now aware Carmarthenshire Council are going to the High Court to try and have the Magistrates decision over turned.
But of course councillor's as I have been informed,have the powers to intervene on any decisions made by council officers as these officers are instructed by councillor's.

Several Councillor's have told me there is a full council meeting on Wednesday the 9th of December, and that views can be aired by councillor's under urgent business.

If you would like a copy of the court decisions when it is available please let me know.

If you would prefer not to talk to me again or receive my e-mails please let me know and I will respect your decisions.

Yours Sincerely


Mr Nigel. J. Humphreys

c.9 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas ) Act 1990

offences. 9. ( 3 ) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a
defence to prove the following matters------
( a ) that works to the building were urgently necessary in the
interest of safety or health or for the preservation of the
building;

( b ) that it was not practicable to secure safety or health or, as the
case may be, the preservation of the building by works of
repair or works for affording temporary support or shelter;

( c ) that the works carried out were limited to the minimum
measures immediately ;and

( d ) that notice in writing justifying in detail the carrying out of
the works was given to the local planning authority as soon
as reasonably practicable.

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.