Featherstone Make a Difference Forum
October 17, 2017, 08:55:45 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: FEATHERSTONE MASTER PLAN  (Read 5190 times)
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #20 on: December 04, 2008, 10:25:37 pm »

Well, well, well, Tonight’s meeting chaired by Peter box. Not only that, Peter ran the meeting at the level of the Featherstone labour party. Sad
Ive loads to write up, so for now, hi Peter glad your reading the “blogs”. Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn Sad? This could be discussed “around a table”. Suppose I will have to keep telling the truth, but louder. Grin
And to think a tiny forum was getting more readers than the Pontefract and Castleford politically controlled express. Roll Eyes
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
karen
Full Member
***
Posts: 272


« Reply #21 on: December 05, 2008, 12:50:53 pm »

nothing has changed then
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2008, 09:21:02 pm »

Lots have changed. The cracks are starting to apear.

Minutes of meeting 4th December 2008 Featherstone Master Plan

Chair Peter Box accompanied by the regeneration team.

Featherstone update.

Peter explained that the final master plan document had been passed in council cabinet earlier this year and that the document was now being worked on by him and his regeneration team. Key goals are to regenerate the Girnhill estate and Station lane.
Peter then went in to detail that people should not listen to rumour or bloggs on the internet. People should look at the plans that are widely available for the master plan and the recent proposed developments now logged with WMDC planning services. After a 10 minute talk including introductions peter asked if any one had any questions. A reply was yes. A further reply by Peter was, we don’t won’t to be here until 8pm.

Q1. GY: Peter was informed that at the final public master plan meeting in November 2007 it had been agreed by all the members of the public present, steering group, council and Denise Jefferies to remove the item named as “the plaza” from the plan before it went to cabinet. Denise Jefferies stated to the people present at the meeting that she would do this and notify the district council to confirm.
R1. Peter informed the meeting that he had talked with Denise about this and that he felt the actions of the people present at that meeting were threatening towards Denise Jefferies. Denise had asked Peter to consider calling the police as some people were being threatening and were attempting to damage and kick her car.
R2. GY: Peter I think you are mistaken as no such incident occurred. I think you are confused with is a meeting in March chaired by Denise Jefferies for the residents of the Girnhill estate. At that meeting WMDC patrol officers arrived first and refused entry to anyone other than residents. The exclusion included council members and legal representatives. After complaints from residents council members and legal representatives were allowed in to the meeting as rightly they should. Other supporters numbering 7 stood outside the grounds of the building. These magnificent 7 were all elderly who believe in their friends plight so much that they stood in the cold for 2 hours in support. 4 of the 7 have walking sticks. All stood in silent protest. If a crime had been committed then there would be a crime number or log. As there is none then it must be considered misleading for the head of WMDC Peter Box to inform us with gossip and an untruth anyway. What you may also be confused with Peter is that at the November meeting Denise Jefferies was hassled by a member of the public whose name is available but is best described as “chuff chuff”. The people that stand wrongly accused now are the same people that escorted Denise to her car and away from the man. The folk of Featherstone will take a lot more cracking until we get to that stage.

Q2. GY: to confirm what is in the master plan can I confirm that the plaza has been removed. I have a letter dated January 2007 from Denise Jefferies that was copied to the district council that states that the plaza area has been removed from the final plan and will not go to WMDC cabinet as part of the final plan.
R1: Peter informed the meeting that “THE MASTER PLAN IS NOT WMDCs PLAN, IT WAS DTZs”. The whole master plan is the creation of DTZ and nothing to do with WMDC or him.
R2. GY: if the master plan is not from WMDC or anything to do with WMDC and is by DTZ why is the whole document that includes the “plaza” available on the WMDC website and in literature freely available and states WMDC as the people behind Featherstone’s master plan. Does this mean that its just Featherstone’s master plan that is being run by DTZ or all the 5 towns……..Peter interrupts ……..
R3. Peter interrupts and states that Denise Jefferies has had no power to remove any item from the master plan as the master plan is DTZs and not WMDCs…
R4. GY interrupts and states again then why do have a letter from Denise Jefferies that says different? Is it an untruth?
R4. Peter picks his head of the table after trying to ignore the question as his gesture of not listening to a point of none order. (Peter interrupted first. Freedom of speech?)
Peter replies that what ever is on view on the WMDC website is not their plan but DTZs. There are lots of things on our website. What you should not do is listen to rumours and gossip nor articles on websites. Without evidence I cannot comment. I will tell Denise you are calling her a liar. I also put forward that it should be looked in to providing “public health warnings “for any items on the WMDC website that are not ours so that the public can see what we are not involved with.
R5. Clive Tennant: the residents who live on the plaza have had leaflets through their doors promoting rumour and gossip.
R6. GY:  to Peter, so as head of WMDC you are telling us that the master plan is nothing to do with WMDC and that you do not believe that Denise Jefferies said she would remove the plaza item nor had the power to?
R7. Public 1: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R8. Public 2: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R9. Public 3: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R10. Public 4: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R11. Public 5: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.
R12. Public 6: I was at that meeting and Denise Jefferies did say what GY said she did.

R13. Peter announces that on January 28th Mr.Stokes from WMDC will be holding a meeting at Chesneys for the Featherstone master plan. At this meeting the public will have a chance to input and alter the plan as part of the 1st stage of implementing the document.

Q3. Girnhill resident: could you tell me Peter why a plan has been published in the Pontefract and Castleford express labelled”exclusive to this newspaper” that shows a finished plan agreed with by you and yet states that consultation will take place before any plans are made.
Could you explain to me Peter why residents are being made to injure, power cuts from WEDEL condemned supplies, street lighting below the European requirement, drains bloked by WMDC workers with hard core and roads that are in dangerous condition. After many letter and emails of complaint no action has been taken.
R1. Peter replies that the Girnhill estate is not a part of this meeting; however I do understand the resident’s plight is great. The plans put forward will secure new housing and a start to the regeneration plan.
R2. Girnhill resident: what does WMDC intend to do with its CPO order?
R3. Peter replies that his legal team has worked hard to put in place the relevant documents to ensure the regeneration takes place.

 Comments
 The comment Q2. R13. is a bonza, as why was that not mentioned before trying to end the Featherstone part of the meeting?
  I think the best detail is the 1 fact that Peter Box the head of WMDC and local labour party missed out. Peter attended the meeting with a number of paid WMDC workers for reference information. Tell me I am wrong but are not details for WMDC showing that 2 people present at the meeting on the 4th December and sat next to Peter are responsible for the master plan and its finance with WMDC money. Surely Peter box would know this as chair. It would appear not so as I am sure he would not mislead a public meeting regards public money.
Again the word misleading springs to mind with the comments made regards the Girnhill estate. Peter forgot to tell the meeting another detail that there was to be a public meeting in the Chesneys centre to talk with the developer.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
Mr T
Full Member
***
Posts: 251



« Reply #23 on: December 20, 2008, 07:47:47 pm »

Just something I found! You've probably heard/seen it already!

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/whall/?id=2008-06-17b.227.0
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged

"I PITY THE FOOL"
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #24 on: December 27, 2008, 07:48:41 pm »



Mr Peter Box
Leader of Wakefield District Council
Chairman of the Master Plan committee
Wakefield Town Hall
Wood Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire

29/12/2008

Re: The Featherstone Master Plan part 2

At this meeting you stated that any points that required answers should be written down and handed in at the end of the meeting.
 As a member of the Featherstone master plan steering committee and having worked on the master plan for 4 years I have a number of concerns that appear to be ignored. I left a number of documents that still have outstanding answers regards the “master plan” from the last 18 months and agreed that questions raised from this meeting requiring answers would be written down.

Questions regard the Minutes of meeting 4th December 2008 Featherstone Master Plan

You explained that the final master plan document had been passed in council cabinet earlier this year and that the document was now being worked on by him and his regeneration team. Key goals are to regenerate the Girnhill estate and Station lane.
After a 10 minute talk including introductions you asked if any one had any questions. A reply was yes. Your reply was “we don’t won’t to be here until 8pm.” Perhaps more time and meetings should be allocated to Featherstone’s re-development.

Question 1: at the steering committee meeting of June 25th 2007 at Newton Bar the proposal for a better access for Featherstone rovers and a better community space by removing the buildings in front of Chesneys under the name of “Plaza” was put forward and agreed upon not to be put forward by a majority decision. At the following meeting on the 13th August 2007 the item remained on the agenda. Why had it not been removed if it was agreed to remove it?

Question 2:  the 13th august meeting was the final steering group meeting to finalize with DTZ the Featherstone master plan. It was the most unusual meeting I have ever been to in the way it was conducted.
The meeting opened and it was explained to us that 2 key people were missing and would arrive late. We were asked if it was ok and go straight to the presentation of D.T.Z. latest plan. We would return to the minutes as soon as the 2 people arrived. I then expressed that I had a number of issues with the minutes and passed D.T.Z. a copy of my concerns in writing. It was explained to me that they would come back to them as soon as the 2 people arrived. We agreed and D.T.Z. continued showing the final design. The Plaza area or post office road corner was then shown. This had changed with some buildings back again except the chip shop, corner flats and terrace houses behind but still not what had been agreed. I expressed my concern that the plan was still not as agreed. The 2 missing people turned up in the meeting. I requested to go back to going through the minutes. It was insisted that the meeting continue and the minutes be read at the end. I stated that the minutes were important to the discussion. It was explained that the D.T.Z. presentation was almost over and they should finish first. We agreed.
D.T.Z. finished and the meeting was brought to a close. I expressed that we still had not discussed the minutes. The chairman offered that the meeting close and I go through the minutes with a member of D.T.Z. I explained that the concerns I had with the minutes were for discussion with the group for the good of the project. It was then explained that 1 of the people we had waited for and the most important had to go. I was left with no choice but to agree as it was the only way I could supposedly officially lodge concerns that at some point will need to be answered. I gave details of my concerns and a copy of my notes. How can it possible that such an important meeting was allowed to be conducted in such an un-democratic way without any recall or investigation?

Question 3: At the final public and committee meeting of the second Featherstone master plan held on 7th September 2007 an alteration was publicly announced after overwhelming disproval.  It was agreed by all the members of the public present, steering group, district council and Denise Jefferies to remove the item named as “the plaza” from the plan before it went to cabinet. Denise Jefferies stated to the people present at the meeting that she would do this and notify the district council to confirm in writing it had been removed before going to cabinet. Written confirmation was received from Denise in January 2008 prior to the cabinet meeting that the “Plaza” had been removed. The final published plan by WMDC shows the “Plaza” still on the plans as a passed by WMDC cabinet item.
A: Why was the “Plaza” not removed from the plan?
B: Is it an offence for someone to put forward to WMDC cabinet a plan different to that confirmed by officials and public?
C: The final published plan is provably different from that agreed. Will DTZ be responsible for any alteration costs or the tax payers out of council monies?
D: The facts would suggest that some form of investigation takes place as public money may have been miss-used and procedure ignored. Should an investigation be held?

Question 4: At the Featherstone regeneration public meeting held 4th December 2008 you commented in to detail that people should not listen to rumour or bloggs on the internet. People should look at the plans that are widely available for the master plan and the recent proposed developments now logged with WMDC planning services and available on their website. I replied “can I confirm that the plaza has been removed. I have a letter dated January 2007 from Denise Jefferies that was copied to the district council that states that the plaza area has been removed from the final plan and did not go to WMDC cabinet as part of the final plan. The final master plan as shown on the WMDC website shows the “Plaza” still on”
 You then stated that the “Master Plan“available to view on the WMDC website was just a plan created by a company called D.T.Z. and was nothing to do with WMDC. You then commented and conferred with your colleagues that perhaps WMDC should provide public heath warnings for its internet pages stating they are nothing to do with them.
A: can you confirm the fact stated by you to the public that the master plan is nothing to do with WMDC?
B: can you confirm the fact stated by you to the public that the master plan for Featherstone is only a document produced by a company called D.T.Z. with no public money involved in its production?
C: according to documents within the public realm is it not correct that members of your panel present at the meeting are responsible for using public money to employ the services of D.T.Z. to produce the master plan on behalf of WMDC and the tax payers?

I and many others would appreciate your reply to the questions here written to which you publicly agreed to answer.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #25 on: January 07, 2009, 09:14:08 pm »

Any comments?
Development Services
Major Projects
Room D5
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 1XS

Interim Service Director: Ann Pittard

7th January 2009

Dear  Mr
I am writing in response to the concerns which you raised at the Towns Team meeting on 4th December 2008 regarding the Featherstone Masterplan.

The notes of the town team meeting which took place on the 7th September 2007 record that :
•   Duncan Melville of DTZ presented their master plan proposals for Featherstone. They included the recommendation that Featherstone needs a number of “destinations” to increase its attraction and suggested the creation of a Civic plaza in the vicinity of Chesney’s in order to transform Featherstone. The proposals also included the potential for the development of housing in the vicinity of Featherstone Rovers.
•   Concerns were raised at the meeting about the possible demolition of properties in the vicinity of Chesney’s to facilitate the development of new housing close to the Rovers ground and to  create a “Civic Plaza”
•   The meeting was informed that the Civic Plaza proposal was seen a longer term proposal which, if implemented, would be likely to occur towards the end of the masterplan period, and that wide scale demolition was not envisaged though it may be necessary to investigate selective demolition in order to bring forward plans to improve the town centre.   
•   Cllr Jeffery who chaired the meeting recommended that there be further discussion as to how this specific proposal should be taken forward, but accepted that elements of the masterplan needed to be agreed by Cabinet as  this has implications for the  funding of the Girnhill Lane housing area.

At the meeting it was agreed that:

1.   The draft Masterplan for Featherstone Central Area apart from the proposed Civic Plaza area be agreed and recommended for approval to Wakefield Council’s Cabinet
2.   Further consideration be given to the proposed Civic Plaza area

Following the meeting there were conversations about how this should be taken forward. Since the masterplan was DTZ’s document and contained the consultant’s recommendations to the council, the study was reported with all the recommendations discussed at the 7th September meeting.

It is my understanding that at a meeting on 11th September that this item was discussed and that it was agreed that the original report would go to Cabinet, but that the recommendations would be approved except for the issue relating to Chesney’s and the creation of a Plaza.

The Featherstone masterplan was reported at the Cabinet meeting on 18th September 2007 as a guide for future development in Featherstone Town Centre in order that the principles encompassed in the Master Plan would act as a basis for the development of an implementation framework for Featherstone including the further development of specific project proposals contained in the plan. It was also decided that further consultation would be undertaken on the detail of individual proposals as these are worked up.

The Cabinet meeting resolved that:
•   the Featherstone Central Area Master Plan be approved as a vision for the regeneration of the town for the next twenty years, and as a starting point for further detailed work leading to the development of definitive proposals and implementation arrangements for the redevelopment of parts of the central area and the wider regeneration of the town.
•   That further reports on the details of the proposals, implementation plans and partnership arrangements required be taken to Cabinet for approval as necessary.

It was evident at the December meeting that the wording on the web site was insufficiently clear, and this was amended as a matter of urgency following the meeting.  I think it is also important to note that the masterplan has no statutory status, and while it will be used as a basis to guide the development of the area over the next 20 years, it will not be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework.

As you will be aware from the Towns Team meeting of 4th December, Featherstone has been designated as a pilot Coalfield Action area, and as such a steering group has been established to guide the work to be undertaken and to determine the priorities for action.

The proposals for the creation of a Plaza are therefore unlikely to be progressed as a priority in view of all the other projects which require implementation. 

I trust that this responds to the queries raised at the meeting

Yours sincerely

Maggie Thompson

Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #26 on: January 15, 2009, 09:38:21 pm »

Development Services
Major Projects
Room D5
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 1XS

Interim Service Director: Ann Pittard

15th January 2009
Dear Maggie Thompson

I have provided my reply high lighted in blue,


Dear  Mr Yates,
I am writing in response to the concerns which you raised at the Towns Team meeting on 4th December 2008 regarding the Featherstone Masterplan.

The notes of the town team meeting which took place on the 7th September 2007 record that :
•   Duncan Melville of DTZ presented their master plan proposals for Featherstone. They included the recommendation that Featherstone needs a number of “destinations” to increase its attraction and suggested the creation of a Civic plaza in the vicinity of Chesney’s in order to transform Featherstone. The proposals also included the potential for the development of housing in the vicinity of Featherstone Rovers.
   Yet again it appears the notes are not what actually happened but are a pre-recorded set of events. Duncan Melville of DTZ did give the talk only after first explaining that key people were missing and that the minutes of the previous meeting are heard later so that he could begin. Apart from the Plaza everything else explained was correct by DTZ.

•   Concerns were raised at the meeting about the possible demolition of properties in the vicinity of Chesney’s to facilitate the development of new housing close to the Rovers ground and to  create a “Civic Plaza”
•   Mr Melville informed the meeting that any questions should be raised at the end of the meeting to allow him to talk. A representative would stay back to answer questions. No questions were allowed to be taken.•   

The meeting was informed that the Civic Plaza proposal was seen a longer term proposal which, if implemented, would be likely to occur towards the end of the masterplan period, and that wide scale demolition was not envisaged though it may be necessary to investigate selective demolition in order to bring forward plans to improve the town centre.
•   Again, Mr Melville informed the meeting that any questions should be raised at the end of the meeting to allow him to talk. A representative would stay back to answer questions. No questions were allowed to be taken.

•   Cllr Jeffery who chaired the meeting recommended that there be further discussion as to how this specific proposal should be taken forward, but accepted that elements of the masterplan needed to be agreed by Cabinet as  this has implications for the  funding of the Girnhill Lane housing area.
Cllr Jeffery who “chaired the meeting” was one of the officials missing from the meeting who did not turn up until 2 thirds of the way through the presentation. Cllr Jeffery at the end of the presentation explained how we should all agree with it and move on to process it. I pointed out that I did have comments and concerns and had been asked to only mention them at the end of the meeting without a group discussion. Cllr Jeffery agreed with Mr Melville that I should raise my points alone at the end. The Girnhill lane had also been removed from March 2007 with in the master plan.

At the meeting it was agreed that:

1.   The draft Masterplan for Featherstone Central Area apart from the proposed Civic Plaza area be agreed and recommended for approval to Wakefield Council’s Cabinet
No agreement was made but you statement is the opinion of the committee and public. This point contradicts the minutes as they are supposedly written

2.   Further consideration be given to the proposed Civic Plaza area
No mention at the meeting was given to this nor when consultation would occur. Without consultation it would be correct to surmise that public money would be wasted.
Following the meeting there were conversations about how this should be taken forward. Since the masterplan was DTZ’s document and contained the consultant’s recommendations to the council, the study was reported with all the recommendations discussed at the 7th September meeting.
Could you confirm that DTZ were under the employment of WMDC to create a master plan, or were working on their own to provide a plan that WMDC may or may not adopt and put forward to cabinet so that public money would be spent on it.
It is my understanding that at a meeting on 11th September that this item was discussed and that it was agreed that the original report would go to Cabinet, but that the recommendations would be approved except for the issue relating to Chesney’s and the creation of a Plaza.
This statement is correct, so why wasn’t it carried out? Am I to understand as a fact that the cabinet report that passed the plaza area in contradiction to the minutes and written complaints is not the one available under the freedom of information act, but in fact another document passed that no one has viewed as yet?

The Featherstone masterplan was reported at the Cabinet meeting on 18th September 2007 as a guide for future development in Featherstone Town Centre in order that the principles encompassed in the Master Plan would act as a basis for the development of an implementation framework for Featherstone including the further development of specific project proposals contained in the plan. It was also decided that further consultation would be undertaken on the detail of individual proposals as these are worked up.
Consultation was agreed but the facts available again state that the document is complete without further consultation.

The Cabinet meeting resolved that:
•   the Featherstone Central Area Master Plan be approved as a vision for the regeneration of the town for the next twenty years, and as a starting point for further detailed work leading to the development of definitive proposals and implementation arrangements for the redevelopment of parts of the central area and the wider regeneration of the town.
•   Could you confirm that WMDC at this point have paid for a document created by DTZ that they intend to work from?

•   That further reports on the details of the proposals, implementation plans and partnership arrangements required be taken to Cabinet for approval as necessary.
•   If cabinet have been fully aware of the inconsistencies surrounding the DTZ created master plan how can they pass any further monies to a proven incorrect document?

It was evident at the December meeting that the wording on the web site was insufficiently clear, and this was amended as a matter of urgency following the meeting.  I think it is also important to note that the masterplan has no statutory status, and while it will be used as a basis to guide the development of the area over the next 20 years, it will not be incorporated into the Council’s Local Development Framework.

As you will be aware from the Towns Team meeting of 4th December, Featherstone has been designated as a pilot Coalfield Action area, and as such a steering group has been established to guide the work to be undertaken and to determine the priorities for action.
After over a year of complaints of a wrong document passed by WMDC should a steering group be dropped in to the pit of disastrous procedure all ready documented?

The proposals for the creation of a Plaza are therefore unlikely to be progressed as a priority in view of all the other projects which require implementation.
Again a contradiction of terms and the minutes provided. Is the Plaza on or off is a fair question? Cllr Jeffery stated publicly it was off. The best reply so far is “unlikely”. That is not the correct answer according to the facts.

I trust that this responds to the queries raised at the meeting

As you will see from my reply this does not respond to my queries raised at neither the last meeting nor any of the others I have attended recently. Cllr Box publicly stated at the last meeting that questions would be answered. Your reply comments that you were un-sure who was to reply, you or Cllr Box. As the head of WMDC and chair of the regeneration committee Cllr Box should be made aware of the problems and be asked to respond. As the local government ombudsman is now following developments surely particular attention should be raised to the wasting of any more public money.

Yours sincerely
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
mick200
Full Member
***
Posts: 12


« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2009, 09:02:51 pm »

Quote
Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn
I've tried to figure out the problem you have with the world Yetion1 but still I am at a loss. I admire your determination to get what you want but still cannot figure out what you actually do want. There is no doubt that you have a deep hatred of the Labour movement for reasons only known to yourself but if you didn't have such an hatred for Labour I strongly believe that your hatred would be aimed at someone else.
The town is suffering without doubt because of the differences between the Independents and Labour. It reminds me in many ways of the wars of the roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster with the 'Kingmaker' or the Earl of Warwick as he was known in between the two factions. The 'Kingmaker' as he was known was proven to have been involved in the conflict for his own selfish reasons and in this particular instance I believe there is no difference from the prospective of your own involvement.
In the end both sides turned on the 'Kingmaker' and he was hanged for treason. It is a matter of time before both sides see the truth, I'm willing to bet large amounts of cash on it and today I heard for the first time, displeasure of your activities from both sides of the devide. It's a countdown from here on in. Wink


Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2009, 10:13:01 pm »

Quote
Nothings changed has it apart from the battle line has been drawn
I've tried to figure out the problem you have with the world Yetion1 but still I am at a loss. I admire your determination to get what you want but still cannot figure out what you actually do want.
Some people/ parties just cannot get used to the idea that there is a wealth of people in Featherstone prepared to work hard for free at a personal cost for one reason, “ a better Featherstone”.

 There is no doubt that you have a deep hatred of the Labour movement for reasons only known to yourself but if you didn't have such an hatred for Labour I strongly believe that your hatred would be aimed at someone else.
You may find it hard to believe, but in my time I have met certain labour party members who I consider very nice people. You appear to have hatred for me, yet what I have I stated that is incorrect? Your observation is obviously just that your opinion.


The town is suffering without doubt because of the differences between the Independents and Labour.
Is it really or is the rot being treated?



It reminds me in many ways of the wars of the roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster with the 'Kingmaker' or the Earl of Warwick as he was known in between the two factions. The 'Kingmaker' as he was known was proven to have been involved in the conflict for his own selfish reasons and in this particular instance I believe there is no difference from the prospective of your own involvement.
In the end both sides turned on the 'Kingmaker' and he was hanged for treason. It is a matter of time before both sides see the truth, I'm willing to bet large amounts of cash on it and today I heard for the first time, displeasure of your activities from both sides of the devide. It's a countdown from here on in. Wink
A made up scenario, composed out of your imagination and with out facts yet again Mick. Black will never be white what ever we are told from the people we are supposed to trust. Is that not a good enough cause to fight?  Grin


Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #29 on: February 27, 2009, 09:55:43 pm »

A countdown it was Mick (Clive) before justice caught up. Yet again Mick you forgot to mention the facts. Today is a significant day for a number of home owners and business’s in Featherstone. Today was the dead line for Peter Box to reply to me and the Government Ombudsman regards a number of irregularities. I am positive the press will have a field day reporting this. In the mean time Featherstone has now become represented by the full force of central government to investigate ALL of its allegations.
And all it should have taken was to sit down and talk. The following documents should put me 1 point above Roy on the “Labour party Destroy the buggars” list. Cool Shocked Roll Eyes





Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2009, 08:43:36 pm »

Terms of Reference

 This could get very informative. The title “terms of reference” is an item that many of the community groups come across but I am sure have never put in front of a political legal beagle to gain their true meaning.
In plain English when you begin meetings about a subject as a community group that involves others like WMDC or for example a funding body the meeting rules are handed out at the first meeting. This does not all ways happen as many people do not have a clue they should have them. When the rule sheet is given out one of the items is called “terms of reference”. What this legal point states are the powers of the group and what will be listened to from them.
I hope that this topic may be picked up on by certain members who know how to look so their views of what this all means can be written before I give my opinion.
1st suggestion would be to look at the Featherstone Masterplan steering group’s minutes for 9th November 2006 and look at document 3.9.
2nd suggestion would be to look at ALL the minutes of the Featherstone Masterplan steering group for 13th August 2007.
 Wink Grin
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
fev angel
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2009, 09:06:38 pm »

Does anyone know when and where the next master plan meeting will be and where we can get a copy of the master plan from
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #32 on: March 25, 2009, 10:26:36 pm »

Just for now take a look at the latest sign to anonymously appear in Featherstone. Due to the efforts of Featherstone labour party works have stopped that to restart will cost inocent people. Regeneration in Featherstone? Not if it hasn’t got a red rosette.
War! You got one.

Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
fev angel
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


« Reply #33 on: March 26, 2009, 08:11:28 am »

When did this happen why would labour put that up about them self’s   did Kay tell you I saw someone taking photo of you when you working on farm gate
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
fev angel
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


« Reply #34 on: March 26, 2009, 11:48:16 pm »

My personal feelings are that the board put up has to be taken down because iam sure I read some where that there were boards put up on the lister baths site and there were letters sent saying they should be took down well I think that should be as well on the bus going to Castleford a old lady sat near me and read the board her words was why does it say that when Kay is in the paper saying good things about Featherstone regen her last words to me were why has who ever done this made a lovely lady look silly
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
Forkhandles
Full Member
***
Posts: 648


« Reply #35 on: March 28, 2009, 02:17:04 pm »

Alledgedly, the work was stopped for failing to adhere to health and safety guidlines.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #36 on: March 29, 2009, 08:41:42 pm »

3 years ago and only for 3 years WMDC launched a shop front grant improvement scheme. The grant offers 50% of the total cost of refurbishment. A great offer but still out of the reach of many businesses in Featherstone as they have not got even the 50%.
The Featherstone chamber of trade met with WMDC to discuss promoting the grant and to talk about any ideas. The first comment from the WMDC regeneration team was if there had been any interest from any businesses in the precinct? There had been very little as the repairs needed went beyond just shop fronts. It was agreed to contact all the businesses and inform them of the grant. This was done by holding a meeting with all concerned. The results were that the business’s wished to apply but the nature of the works needed went beyond just paint on a shop the front. The canopies and roofs are in major disrepair. Some shop owners had requested permission to fully remove them only to be told they must stay or battle away in court. Any cost spent on repairs was feared to be a waste of money as the roofs were walked on and vandalized daily due to the nature of the entire sites original bad design/ present day youths attitude to property.
 The results of this first meeting revealed a different approach was needed. Further talks were held with WMDC and the chamber of trade where it was decided that a plan should be created around the issues raised. WMDC offered that if all the people concerned could be brought together as 1 project then funding would be made available for restoration of the council owned area and for works on the canopies. Over the next 4 months a plan was created that addressed the problems front, top and back. This was put forward to the businesses who agreed to a selection of ideas and that they would all work together as one. It was also agreed that the chamber of trade would continue to work for FREE on their behalf to pull a project together.
Unfortunately then due to the closure of the Kwiksave and a company called DTZ (the master plan writers) for the next 10 months the possibility of the business being bought up by a supermarket hung over the precinct. The situation ended with the Kwiksave site being sold to a developer who did not wish to try and buy up as part of their plans.
Back on track a final plan was worked up by the chamber of trade. This was agreed by all involved apart from the costs. Even with a 50% grant the proposed costs were beyond some business reach. A further 4 months was spent seeking quotes and the possibility of FREE labour. A difficult task on its own made even more difficult as the brief was to use local resources where possible.
A final project was submitted summer 2008 that included

1.   8 business and 4 flats working together
2.   both canopies refurbished
3.   flat roofs converted to sloping
4.   sofits and fascia replacement
5.   8 shop fronts and 4 flats re-decorated and 1 re-opened and restored that is now shut including a community notice board
6.   ornate security rails to prevent roof trespass
7.   ornate hand rails
8.   various fenced bin storage
9.   graffiti removed and stained walls cleaned
10.   rear dusk to dawn lighting, Bt cables and YEDL cables made not an eye sore
11.   100% of work carried out by Featherstone trades men, 28% of materials found with in Featherstone
12.   a risk assessment and work plan for every stage of repairs although not requested
13.   some FREE voluntary labour
14.   WMDC to replace broken flag stones, corner stones and repair surfaces


You would have thought it would be plain sailing from there on. Up until December 2008 various documents repeatedly went a stray a number of times until the application was finally passed and the go ahead given that all was in place, complete and that works could start. A formal and official letter was received.
As the works involved various trades men and materials that would need to be ordered or booked a start date was given for the beginning of March 2009.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #37 on: March 29, 2009, 08:43:11 pm »

There was a reason for not immediately writing the Full set of facts leading to this outrageous situation. The reason was to see what certain individuals/ politicians would make up/ trip up on, in the short time. Looks like it worked as the results now back the facts.
From day one 3 years ago because of the polatics of Featherstone the precinct project had to be 101% accountable. This was achieved in its planning. A good example of this is the actual cost of the project. Some at WMDC are impressed with the costs saved and the way the project has been put together and cannot understand why the chamber of trade has not asked for any costs in the grant to cover project management. The chamber would get paid if asked but choose to work for FREE for a number of reasons including reducing costs and the fact it would be shoved in their face if they did. Its called pride in your town un-like other towns that just take the money silently with no complaints.
After getting through the “loosing documents” stage that I personally see more and more often the project began 4 weeks ago with an official “all is complete” go a head received.

3 years ago it was all ready worked out that the labour party would try to stop the works with health and safety. During the creation of the project considerations were given to health and safety as the area is thought to be public. In actual fact the area being renovated is private. Further more no trace could be found of payment of the over lapped lease on the WMDC precinct area. As public safety has to be first a risk assessment and plan of works were created as if the site was public.

WEEK -1: before the project starts Health and safety discuss the plan and the assessments provided. Because of the land ownership, the number of people on site and the number of people working for free the project actually required none of the documents created only that all workers have discussed the issues. However it is agreed that the created plans of safety would be adhered too.

WEEK1: out of about 16,000.00 residents in Featherstone who probably would all agree with the project 3 turned out to look at the works armed with a camera. Guess what party they vote for and who got the pictures sent to them? Labour WMDC of course. Various written and telephoned complaints were also made by people leaving their details. I will let you guess who they vote for.

WEEK2: health and safety contact the site after the reports. Work stops and an explanation of procedures is given. ALL is correct beyond what was required.
Whilst working on the Thursday morning a number of ladies stopped to stere at the workers on site (we are not that sexy are we?) On the Friday morning a lady was walking down the lane. When she got passed the Farmgate and in view of the works she appeared to be mesmerized by the works (or workmen?) and looked left glaring. The workers on site, the property owner and 3 café customers then witnessed the most amazing site. Due to not looking forward the lady then walked in to the lamp post by the bus stop. It must have all most knocked her out as she fell to the ground. It was reported to the police so that there could be no repercussions.

WEEK3: bloody hell work got on and no complaints. Just the odd labour party tourist with a camera that are never normally there.

WEEK4:
Monday: left alone loads get done. Workers are enjoying the spirit of progress when a job hums.
Tuesday: left alone loads get done. Workers are enjoying the spirit of progress when a job hums.
Tuesday evening receive an email from WMDC. Your paperwork is incomplete and as it stands no contractor or other will be paid any part of the grant. The grant had to be complete in 2008 as it was passed by a WMDC committee for approval including a covering letter sent out to START all is complete. Infuriated is not the word. Upon contacting WMDC on Wednesday morning it appeared that 3 pieces of paper had gone missing from the application. Also the person who had been running the project at WMDC was leaving on Tuesday. Just to cap it all WMDC had received further complaints from only labour party people in Featherstone that included that I personally was “pocketing all the money”. THAT WAS THE FINAL STRAW for 2 reasons
1.   I am being called a cheat
2.   The chamber of trade cannot confirm to contractors that they would be paid.

Because of this there was no other choice but to ask all concerned to come off site and stop production elsewhere. WMDC were made aware of this on Wednesday morning. Apparently Andy Wallhead the head of regeneration was on his way out to Featherstone to personally sort out the problems. Still waiting?
So as it stands until WMDC can confirm that all is correct with paperwork and that all persons involved will be paid out subject to contract no one in their right mind would do any more work. Would you? You would have thought that some one would have considered it important enough to get here.
There also still remains the problem of complaints. The Featherstone labour party all ready have egg on their face as they are claiming on the internet that the project was stopped due to health and safety issues. The fact is that when the real problem is sorted it would not be correct to not listen to complaints. As the complaints stand the area is requested to be boarded off and closed. This would include reducing or stopping the market for up to 6 months not to mention closing the businesses. The chamber of trade has no option but to look at the complaints in the interest of public safety. Any extra costs involved I am sure WMDC will not be putting up so who will pay. Perhaps we should send a bill to the labour party head office, No bloody10 Downing Street.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
belle
Full Member
***
Posts: 15


« Reply #38 on: March 29, 2009, 09:17:14 pm »

Not one for bickering myself ...and i am certainly fed up of the bickering !...i can actually vouch for Yetion1 when referring to the false allegations made about him whilst working in the Precinct . Smiley

Do we know when the work in Station Lane is going to continue Huh
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1715


READY


« Reply #39 on: March 29, 2009, 10:02:48 pm »

Not one for bickering myself ...and i am certainly fed up of the bickering !...i can actually vouch for Yetion1 when referring to the false allegations made about him whilst working in the Precinct . Smiley

Do we know when the work in Station Lane is going to continue Huh

I thank you for making the effort to give a very positive comment.

Let’s work together, YES PLEASE?
 I keep bloody trying and hope you can understand the frustration.

The buggar of it is that the local trades men involved are/ were up for it. You cannot buy that. It’s down to WMDC for now followed by the chamber of trade having to look at all the complaints and assessing them if and when WMDC pass them on in full.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum | Buy traffic for your forum/website

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines