Featherstone Make a Difference Forum
August 22, 2017, 10:22:59 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)
Little Miss Sunshine
Full Member
***
Posts: 14


« Reply #40 on: March 29, 2009, 11:10:55 pm »

You got me stumped for a minute there little miss sunshine with your last 2 posts, then it dawned on me the way the words are written.  I could be right in thinking that what is being said is copied over from the communist labour forum where I am excluded (“message go away you are not welcome”, is given).
I thank you for making me aware of this tripe that has plenty of zero back up. I do like the bit about Brendan being a lib dem. Didn’t he get kicked out for being independent and giving out labour leaflets at their last election. Lies! It just gets easier to prove labours. Roll Eyes

work together? would be nice Wink

Don't thank me, I'm just fed up will all the political rubbish you keep coming out with!
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
belle
Full Member
***
Posts: 15


« Reply #41 on: March 30, 2009, 12:50:44 pm »

I never saw any "rumble or concrete" on the pavement where they were working ...why would there be concrete on the pavement? ...they are renovating the canopy not digging up the pavement! Grin

Perhaps the workers moved the lamppost  Tongue
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
Forkhandles
Full Member
***
Posts: 648


« Reply #42 on: March 30, 2009, 01:47:48 pm »

Credit where its due, the site was cordoned of properly with tape, and as belle says, there was no concrete or rubble lying about, as there was no rubble or concrete involved in the job, only steel and wood.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
John
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


« Reply #43 on: March 30, 2009, 08:22:28 pm »

 was having a drink Sunday with a driver from ross.the sign came up as he swaps drivers in the lane. he was sat on the bench about 8foot away and saw the lady walk in to the post. he got up to help but the lady got up quickly and rushed off. dont know about any rubble i will ask.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
fev angel
Full Member
***
Posts: 163


« Reply #44 on: March 30, 2009, 08:55:49 pm »

thanks she is ok now tho which is good
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
John
Full Member
***
Posts: 47


« Reply #45 on: April 19, 2009, 07:37:12 pm »

sorry, been away, just got back to pub Grin
the lady walked in front of him and just walked in to the post because she was not looking forward. there was definately no concrete or other to trip over. the lads working went over to him and explained what had been happening. the 2 police men walked by and heard the conversation.
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2009, 07:13:09 pm »

Angela Murphy
WMDC planning support assistant
Newton Bar
Leeds Road
Wakefield
WF1 2TX

Ref: 09/00326/ful

24.04.2009

Dear Angela

INVALID APPLICATION

Proposal: restoration of shops
Location: The Precinct Station Lane Featherstone

I have today received your letter dated 3rd April 2009. You comment that you have received no correspondence from your letter dated 20 February 2009 and because of this you are returning my still incomplete application. Also you note that to resubmit the application it will have to alter to meet the new regulations that come in to force today the 6th April accompanied with another payment of £170.00.
I am sure you are not aware of the circumstances surrounding neither this project nor the episodes on site over the last 6 weeks. To give you some idea 2 weeks ago the workers walked off site due to malicious complaints, lost paper work and sudden withdrawal of all ready approved WMDC funds towards part of the costs. After the local district council and chairman of the chamber of trade agreed to meet today with Cllr peter Box and confirm all is correct and calm the local political storm work re-started today. Surely nothing could go wrong? The post man changed that with your letter.
Since receipt of your first letter you were notified that I was working with a member of the planning department called Hubert. In that time all most every week alterations or new plans have been requested. As was expected these some times went missing by post resulting in all correspondence being delivered by hand from Featherstone to Wakefield. Hubert was on leave last week but prior to his leaving the application was at a stage that was considered fit for approval and not invalid.
After talking to Hubert today he is perplexed as to why the file has been taken and why my application has been altered from recommend approval to invalid. Fortunately thanks to Hubert the application will be now correctly passed via the correct channels when I again have hand delivered it to Wakefield.
My concerns are who took my application and altered the status? Are you responsible as the information is provided by you on behalf of WMDC? Was this correct to perform? Will my application be handled correctly in the future process?

Regards
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #47 on: April 30, 2009, 10:25:14 pm »


Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

30th April 2009

Ref: Featherstone renaissance steering group

Dear Mr Tricket

I was delighted to read your article in the Pontefract and Castleford express today as it confirmed a number of my concerns presently under investigation by the local government ombudsman’s office that when rectified will hopefully put Featherstone on the upward track it deserves.

I and the ombudsman would appreciate a reply to the following;

1. Can you please clarify if the article on page 12 of the Pontefract and Castleford express is a news story or a labour party political press release?

2. The proposals passed by WMDC cabinet under the name “masterplan” were factually not those agreed by the public, the committee or Cllr Denise Jeffery. WMDC cabinet appear to have been misled that has led to a plan being passed that will eventually be used to access public money. Cllr Peter Box in reply to the local government ombudsman has stated that Cllr Denise Jeffery has absolutely “no power” to alter or amend plans or make decisions under the terms of reference supposedly written within the process of the Featherstone masterplan. As you have publicly commented that you have conferred with Denise Jeffery to ask for a member to be allowed on the renaissance committee could you please provide copies of the correspondence so that it can be evaluated within the present investigation?

3. You confirm that Cllr Denise Jeffery added the Business known as “Featherstone Rovers” to the steering group after you asked. Featherstone Rovers are 1 of many hundred businesses in the immediate area. Many are struggling to survive and also have and are entitled to a say in the plans for the future of the town. Is it not prejudice to ask 1 business and not all? Surely the opinion of the heart of Featherstone should be the main concern?

4. Featherstone rovers have a great facility that could be developed as they wish. The fact that the last 6 years work evolves around getting rid of property at the end of post office road to create an access is unacceptable and is a stab in the Featherstone Pride you recognise. The greatest Rovers fan business looks set to be destroyed either by Featherstone’s regeneration or no one listening to the Takeaway planning plague.

5. Can you please confirm when you notified Mr Prout of the date and time of the meeting? Every other member was either not informed or notified by hand delivered letter between 3.00pm and 5pm on the Friday before Monday’s meeting.

6. Can you please confirm when you notified the chair person Cllr Binnersly that you wished to insert a new representative at your request and also provide any corresponding documents?

7. After now making you aware of grave legitimate concerns surrounding the process that has been involved and those proposed to continue should not the MP call for an enquiry?

Your speedy response will be welcomed by me and the ombudsman so that a final resolve to the neglect and bizarre happenings can be ended allowing Featherstone to go forward.

Regards
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #48 on: May 06, 2009, 08:59:29 pm »

 Another good one in the diary politics holding back the regeneration of Featherstone. You may have seen for the last 2 weeks planning notices for phase 3 of the precinct restorations tied to lamp posts.
To get to this stage your documents (even if lost or altered to slow you down) must be correct. Surprise, surprise planning call this week and wish to meet on site as part of the plan is incorrect. Also highways have considered the security bars to be used as some thing that needs to be discussed. What the frig has highways got to do with security bars on a roof on private land?
Time to step up the pace!
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #49 on: May 07, 2009, 08:18:44 pm »

Met with planning today on site with an honest employee (yes I said that as he got of his arse to come look at the injustice that’s getting comical).
A single red lines position marking the area of a security bar to stop roof trespass was agreed and multiply photographed (that had been provided 6 times before).
The concern of highways was vaguely headed. In fact the security side of planning was raising its voice (didn’t know they had one?) there concern is that the roof rails to stop roof trespass will be a waste of time. My reply is why after 3 years planning how to address the problems disagree now? How else do you stop walking from one side to the other without a blockage in the path?
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #50 on: May 17, 2009, 10:28:24 pm »

Judy Jones

Development Control Manager

Wakefield MDC

Planning Services

Newton Bar

Wakefield

WF1 2TX

jjones@wakefield,gov,uk

Telephone 01924 306621

16.05.09

Ref: voluntary group regenerating Featherstone town centre area called the Precinct

Dear Mrs Judy Jones

I refer to your email of 11th May in reply to my concerns regarding my application. It would appear from your reply that either you have not investigated fully or the one sided inconsistency are continuing.


1.” If I could provide you with some background into the validation the process which is not intended as an excuse but to try and explain what occurred in this particular instance. Your proposal was first registered on our system 13.02.09; your application was found to be invalid as it contained insufficient, inadequate supporting information, including the plans and mistakes on the application form.  As there were a number of problems with the proposal, the case officer Hubert Tos contacted you to discuss the various matters with you and to try and assist you.  I understand that Hubert spoke to you on a couple of occasions; however the outstanding matters remained unresolved when the officer went on holiday 28. 03.09.”
To correct your version, upon receipt of my application parts of it stared going missing. After numerous complaints I was then allocated a case officer called Hubert Tos. For the last year I have in fact contacted WMDC planning to discuss this project but until now have had no interest shown.
The sentence I have underlined proves my concerns are valid. Hubert did not speak to me on a couple of occasions. He in fact spoke to me everyday for almost 2 months. The reason the correspondence was so frequent was because the information to be altered when posted to Hubert regularly went missing. In the end I resorted to paying a driver to hand delivery every amended piece of paper on a one to twice weekly basis. When Hubert went on holiday on 28.03.09 he contacted me to inform me all was correct and that he had now validated the application. WMDC emails and telephone records can confirm my statement is correct and that yours is incorrect.


2. “Your proposal was left with other similar invalid cases so that other planning officers could validate your application if the requested information came in”.
My application was not left as you describe unless you are telling me that I have been told an untrurh? Please can you confirm who is incorrect as obviously someone is?


3.“Unfortunately it was during this period that your case was returned to you in error, I believe that this happened because invalid cases are usually only held for one month before they are returned to the applicant/ agent; and in this case it was not clear to the returning officer that you had been in dialogue with the case officer. This clearance of invalid cases is routinely done within the service so that the backlog of invalid applications and any accompany fees does not become too great, this procedure is correct and I can advise that Councils are entitled to return invalid applications to the sender.  I would however wish to clarify that no technical assessment or recommendation for approval is made on any application at this stage; it is purely an exercise of validation so I am unable to comment further about your question about why your application has been altered from recommend approval to invalid”.
If something is un-clear then surely as a council WMDC should provide as a duty of care procedures to promote good practice. You appear to mince the word validation compared to recommendation. Again to make it clear on Friday 03.09 my application was left by Hubert as “valid”, yet on Monday 06.09 someone made a huge effort to seek out just one application and return it as “invalid”. I would like to request that persons name for the record so that it may be passed to the local government Ombudsman. I am sure your reply will be that you cannot give name so I request the person’s first name and ask that you record this name for the purpose of investigation later.

4.“I understand that Hubert has remained proactive and arranged with you for the submission to be passed back to him, so that he could continue to try and progress the proposal.  Hubert has since registered that application, that the correct fee was provided without the need for further payment and he has also very recently been in touch with you to seek further amendments and clarification about certain proposal details so that your application can continue to be considered."
Proactive is a good description of Hubert. In my opinion he has proved to be an asset to WMDC as he operates with 100% correctness whilst working in a political mine field. This project will be a huge boost to the local area that could not have gotten off the ground without a large free/ voluntary input. The only thing in the way has been and is WMDC planning.
I have received a call from planning who are now objecting to the reason why railings are needed. The application is now on hold until they arrive to “discuss options”, yet an appointment was only available 2 weeks on. The options were discussed 3 years ago and verified by all concerned.

5.“ As stated above I am sorry that your application was returned to you in error, I have asked officers to put clear instructions on invalid applications to try and minimise the likelihood of this type of problem from reoccurring”.
I hope you are right because for every day that WMDC play the political messing about game the project gets set back a week. There is a time scale to finish this plan. No thanks to WMDC planning is that you could right off this project due to administrative error. How ever you dress that up this project has so far not received the duty of care it should have.

Yours sincerely
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #51 on: May 24, 2009, 10:33:56 pm »

A great read. And they thought fev would sit back and take another rip off Grin Wink







Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #52 on: May 25, 2009, 05:21:14 pm »






Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

Date: 13/05/2009

Ref: your letter of 11th May 2009

Dear Mr. Tricket

Your first point “I constantly fail to provide my home address”, confirms that you have not read my letters as I have previously stated and that you choose to waste ink with an ignorant reply. I choose to use my works address for certain correspondence so as to speed up the turn around of information. As a rate payer on both my home and business I have the right to use what address I wish when addressing the likes of an MP whose wages and expenses I pay.
Your second point “not clear if whether my views are those of the Featherstone Chamber of Trade”, is a bizarre statement. As my letter was just that and addressed from me why would I be writing on behalf of the chamber of trade? Why would you say the chamber of trade and not one of the many other groups I help with in Featherstone?
Your third point “I note you also appear to be asking questions on behalf of the Ombudsman”. It would appear that your manipulation of words can be simply answered by replying that I did not use the word “behalf”. I am glad you have contacted the Ombudsman to report your version as one of my cases will benefit from your reply. However your actions are noted as providing misleading information to a government body.
Your Fourth point “I appear to pursuing a vendetta against Featherstone Rovers as I have provided misleading information”, I consider as liable and yet another labour party political termialogicalinexactitude created to slander me. Please can you prove your accusation?
Your fifth point relates to 1 section of an application. To explain;
Recently a leaflet was posted through my door explaining some detail of a planning application by Featherstone Rovers. On Sunday 26th April I viewed the WMDC website as advertised. On view were 5 parts to an application. One was described as “to sensitive to view”, 4 showed other areas and 1 showed the addition of 6 mobile transmitters in addition to 6 existing. The same letter of complaint was sent to WMDC planning regards only 1 item regards more transmitters that I disagree with. Unsurprisingly the day after my letter was sent to you the applications disappeared from the WMDC web site.
At no point have I objected to the other proposals from Featherstone rovers. Your comments appear to me painting a fairytale picture that you are then reading as a story better suited for “Jackanory”.
Your fifth point “I am un-aware who will be representing the Chamber of Trade on the Featherstone Renaissance Board but do feel it is important that WMDC are aware of the attitude of at least one businessman within Featherstone to Featherstone rovers and the campaign I have endeavored to orchestrate against the club and their community effort”.
I assume that you are replying to 2 separate matters within 1 letter. This is not acceptable and I request a separate response to my original letter so that it can be passed in relevance to the Ombudsman regards matters surrounding the master plan/ renaissance presently being investigated.
Yet again you appear to write a fairytale response that is without fact that slanders my name. I therefore require a response to:
1.   Why have you informed me that you have passed your opinion to Cllr Denis Jeffery when if you had any comment to make you should have passed to Cllr Peter Box under the “terms of reference” regards the Featherstone renaissance? Your comment is misleading?
2.   It would appear that only labour party supporters were made aware in advance of the renaissance meeting you mention. Please can you confirm what date you received confirmation of the date and time of the meeting and by whom it was sent?
3.   Why as an MP have you taken it upon yourself to assume I am a member of a group and provide a personal opinion regards it that could influence others?

Your sixth point “disappointing to see those efforts hampered”, suggests you have proof that I have hampered something? Please can you provide proof of your comment?

It is very clear from your letter that you have tried to fabricate an imaginary story that you have then used your political stance to publicise. For Featherstone this is very sad.
My opinion of Featherstone rovers for the record is greater than most. So much so that after attending numerous meetings I have drawn up a plan that would give the solution to the development of the Post Office road plans. As I am also a supporter of Featherstone rovers I consider you comments offensive.
If you can not reply in a helpful manor please could you confirm this in writing so that I can then move on to the next local MP for assistance and help?

regards
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #53 on: May 25, 2009, 05:24:20 pm »






Jon Tricket MP
1A Highfield Road
Hemsworth
Pontefract
West Yorkshire
WF9 4DP

Date: 25/05/2009

Ref: your letter of 19th May 2009

Dear Mr. Tricket

I thank you for your reply and confirming that you have checked with planning and the chairman of Featherstone Rovers. However it would appear that yet again there is inaccuracies with the information you have been given.

I also contacted Cllr Binnersly with my concern. The reply she received from Featherstone rovers Andy Prowt was that the plans were on public view but were a mistake. Planning has yet to comment if they did remove the other applications. As Featherstone Rovers confirm that I was correct in what I viewed on the WMDC website it will be interesting to follow the paper trail at planning. Applications as you will understand do not normally just appear and then disappear. At WMDC so far this year I can prove that they do depending on who you are.

At the time of contacting you it would appear that my concerns were valid. Personally I wish Featherstone Rovers to grow and will be offering help if regeneration process are conducted correctly. My original concern is that the surrounding land does not become a field of mobile phone transmitters next to my home.

After reading your first page I actually thought you were replying correctly as an elected member should. After reading page 2 I see the palaver will continue.
 You comment;
 “just as I would never attempt to guide you on who you should be communicating with and the style you communicate in, I as the member of parliament for the area, will not be advised by you on where, how or whom I communicate”.
Leaves me wondering why you would create such an inept comment?
I will take advice from anyone if that information is beneficial to the wellbeing of Featherstone. Should I not be contacting you after you claim responsibility for overturning planning in a land mark case that in parliament you voted against and actually created? It would suggest you think I should contact someone else, why?
As you will not take advice for the good of Featherstone’s people but in fact take offence is that not a betrayal? If you had taken my advice you might have found the incorrectness before the local independent Cllr. I thought an M.P. was a normal person acting on behalf of the people and not someone who thinks they are above everyone else. Life is a learning curve that educates me everyday.

Your final comment;
“for the clarity on the word of “behalf” in relation to you and the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman has been left in no doubt what you have actually said as I sent him your e-mail which includes your direct comment,
“I and the Ombudsman would appreciate a reply to the following”.
After contacting the local government Ombudsman with your replies in relations to one of my investigations a check was carried out regarding the actions you have stated. No correspondence can be found from you to them. I would like therefore to request the documents you have sent as they are in relation to my investigation.

I would also ask for a third time for you to answer my original questions.

Regards
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #54 on: July 02, 2009, 09:56:08 pm »

Dear Mr

1.   First of all, I apologise if there has been some misunderstanding between us about your village green application.  As you will see the e-mail I sent back to you, I cannot investigate a complaint unless it has been registered through our Access Centre in Coventry and then the Council must be given an opportunity to respond to it first.  Although I know about the village green application (from Mr Clayton, I believe) it is not something the Ombudsman has been asked to investigate. 
Your complaint

2.   The complaint I have been investigating is that Wakefield Council, having invited you to become a member of a steering group for Featherstone’s regeneration Master Plan,
   mismanaged the steering group; and
   disregarded its views; and
   that the Deputy Leader of the Council gave a promise to a public meeting, later confirmed in writing on the Council’s official writing paper, which a senior officer subsequently said she had no power to make.

The Council’s response

3.   The Council says the steering group was managed quite informally.  It acknowledges that, in some cases, not everyone who should have been invited to the meeting received adequate notice, proper minutes were not always taken and there was no proper procedure for ensuring that minutes were properly checked.   
4.   There is a difference between informality and casualness.  The purpose of these meetings was ultimately to access substantial public funding.  Of course meetings should have taken place in a relaxed, inter-active environment but those responsible for running the meetings had a duty to ensure they were conducted in a business-like way. 
5.   I have discussed my concerns with the Council’s Mr Wallhead who has agreed to improve procedures.  The Council may want to make small changes but I suggest that the following basic principles should be observed. 
a)   In the case of public open meetings, at least 14 days notice should be given, officers facilitating the meeting should introduce themselves at the outset (not just name, but office, if appropriate, and role) and a book should be circulated for every attendee to write his / her name.   Public open meetings should have an experienced chairman and an experienced note-taker should keep a record of the proceedings.  The original hand-written notes should be retained for 12 months in case there is a dispute. 
b)   Steering groups and committees should have clear terms of reference and a register of members. 
c)   All meetings (other than public open meetings) should have at least 14 days notice, including a copy of the minutes of the preceding meeting and the agenda.  The first agenda item at any meeting should be consideration of the minutes of the previous meeting followed by matters arising (other than those to be covered elsewhere in the agenda.  This ensures that matters raised do not drift into oblivion.)  Every meeting should be minuted by an experienced note-taker, the typed draft of whose notes should be checked by the Chairman within 48 hours, before being finalised for circulation.    Original notes of the meeting should be retained until the minutes have been approved at the following meeting.
6.   Did the Council disregard the view of the steering group?  The evidence does not enable me to say it did not.  However, the Council has remedied the situation.  In its report to Cabinet on 24 March this year, in its letter to me and in Mr Wallhead’s letter to you, the Council has stated unequivocally that reference to the Civic Plaza has been deleted from the Masterplan. 
7.   Did Members exceed their powers?  I believe there has been a misunderstanding here.   On 4 October 2007 Councillor Denise Jeffery, Deputy Leader of the Council, wrote to her colleague, Councillor Kay Binnersley saying that “following the meeting at Featherstone to discuss the Masterplan, (she had taken) the paper to Cabinet… (asking for all reference to) the Civic Plaza (Chesneys) to be taken out and (for there to be) no redevelopment at Post Office Road, (involving homes and businesses) at the present time.”  She said Cabinet agreed to this.   
8.   Subsequently Councillor Box, Leader of the Council, suggested that Councillor Jeffery had no authority to do this. 
9.   The paper submitted to the Cabinet had been prepared by the consultants, DTZ.  It was their property and Councillor Box had a fair point when he said Councillor Jeffery had no authority to meddle with it.  As a Councillor, however, she had every right (arguably a duty) to tell Cabinet that the steering group strongly opposed DTZ’s proposals for the Civic Plaza and to ask Cabinet not to approve redevelopment of Post Office Road. 
10.   Once again, however, the documents presented to Cabinet and the documents posted on the Council’s website lacked clarity and, if records are unclear, disputes arise and people lose confidence in the Council.   All this, however, has now been remedied by the Council’s recent actions and the assurances it has given. 
Provisional View
11.   The Council has remedied your concern about the Civic Plaza and it has agreed that, in future, meetings will be conducted in a more business-like way.  This should ensure you go forward on a better footing and with more confidence that views, at local level, will be taken into account although, inevitably, not everyone will be happy with the outcome, whatever it is! 
12.   We seem to have achieved a satisfactory local settlement of your complaint and I would recommend its acceptance.  However, before reaching any final decision, I would welcome your comments.  If there is anything else you would like me to take into consideration, please would you let me know within the next two weeks?   Otherwise, as soon as you confirm this settlement is acceptable to you, I shall close the complaint and notify the Council accordingly.   
Yours sincerely
Investigator
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2009, 08:52:41 pm »

Andrew Wallhead
Regeneration Culture & sport
Town Hall
Wood Street
Wakefield
West Yorkshire
WF1 2HQ

10.08.2009

Dear Mr Wallhead

Although I believe I have not obtained all the facts I require before meeting with you circumstances dictate that I now must. I am free all day any Thursday that you can possible travel to Featherstone. I would have communicated earlier (approximately a year) but I have for some reason not been invited to the Featherstone Renaissance part 2 meetings held since last August 2008. My only knowledge of them has been after making a request for the meetings minutes that finally arrived on 27.07.2009.
On a second point can you confirm that WMDC have started repairs on the precinct today? Whilst I was on site from 9am to 4.45pm I noticed WMDC workmen. As I have been forced to copy with HSE and WMDC health and safety please can you comment why your employees did not do the same?
Why have hundreds of pounds worth of ornate floor plates been uplifted and replaced with £3.50 worth of gravel that as I write is being used as missiles by the kids we all know are systematically vandalising the precinct area?
The best bit was watching the painters. Yes 2 men that managed in half a day to paint 4 out of six benches. Before the excuse of preparation is used the painters did not even wipe down the metal frames or rub down. They just approached and blathered. Even funnier still was when they then stuck wet paint signs on the floor and left after a nothing shift. The kids that are always there quickly removed the signs and stood back chuckling, waiting for some poor soul to sit down. This is a police grade A zoned area with a camera. Unless its screwed down or fenced off it will be trashed.
Can I send any bills for damage to my works to you from stones thrown?

Hope to talk to you soon
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2009, 10:55:16 pm »

Dear  Wink

Many thanks for your recent Email regarding various issues.

Regarding your request for a meeting in Featherstone this Thursday. Unfortunately, I already have other appointments on Thursday. However, I would be happy to meet with you at a mutually convenient date. Perhaps you could contact my PA, Sara Hall who would be more than happy to arrange this with you. Sara can be contacted on 01924 306951.

I am pleased that you have now received the minutes from the Steering Group. You will note from those minutes that the group comprises of a small number of strategic organisations with senior level representation. If you feel that there are gaps in the representation and/or that you would like to be part of that group, I would ask you to write directly to either myself or Councillor Kay Binnersley who chairs the group. The request can then be discussed at the next available steering group meeting. We have followed this approach with other requests. I can advise you that the steering group are proposing to hold an open forum meeting at some time in the autumn. This will be open to all local organisations and members of the public.

The works on the precinct are designed to tie in with the shop front improvements which are being led by the Chamber of trade. Together we hope that these works will significantly improve the environment of the precinct. Your comments regarding the removal of "ornate floor plates" are noted, but I will have to speak to colleagues before I am able to respond more fully. I can however confirm that all works have to comply with relevant health & safety legislation. If you have concerns regarding the conduct of the contractors, please contact the Project Manager, Andrew Woodhead (01924 304598). I have sent a copy of your Email to Andrew so that he can investigate the standard of the works.

Finally, I am sorry to hear of the anti-social behaviour resulting in damage to your works. We will do what we can minimise opportunities for this kind of activity, but ultimately  criminal activity is a matter for the police. Similar issues have been raised at the Steering Group in the past and I will bring this latest activity to the attention of the wider group at our next meeting.

Kind regards,


Andy Wallhead
Corporate Director Regeneration, Culture and Sport
Wakefield MDC
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #57 on: August 11, 2009, 10:56:44 pm »

Dear Mr Wallhead,

I did not mean this Thursday, but any Thursday as that is the only day I am
not working with my staff at my expense to regenerate the town centre. I
will call your PA and leave it with her as you could not pick up the phone
yourself.

the minutes you refer to are incomplete as I am sure you are aware if you
have read them. I will provide my evaluation shortly. what I and anyone else
reading the minutes can confirm is that only WMDC employees are represented
and one business called Featherstone Rovers. all else appear to have been
excluded. I have all ready passed written comment that to date has received
no reply dated from December 2008. a copy is filed with the Ombudsman
office. as for "gaps" I see the Grand Canyon. as the person most informed
and up to date regards all the issues you discuss why would I be required to
"request" sharing my knowledge? my information is available to almost anyone who
asks.
it would appear that your approach is as the Ombudsman describes "unclear".
There is no consolidation of committee members within your group that can
determine a true picture of your aims and goals. It would appear that my
only input will arrive from  being allowed to wash your dirty washing in
public sometime soon. at least the public will witness a spicy meeting with
the truth provided.

"tie in with shop front improvements". as I am performing the so called
improvements at a cost of nothing from myself may I ask when someone at WMDC
will contact me with a view to helping? I know nothing of the poor quality
contractors that arrived on Monday other than that they are crap and I
believe are charging £6k for the pleasure. please tell them to stop before
they waste any more of my council tax money.

your final comment is obviously without a clue as to the situation. the
precinct is WMDC owned. it is monitored by a WMDC camera system. the fact
that WMDC has failed in its duty of care by using this equipment on its land
for the sake of public safety is WMDCs responsibility. As for the police
they have no one to police the area even though the area is only 1 of 2
zoned hot spots.
please do not waste your time reporting to your committee these problems as
I have all ready done so to many of them for the last 2 years. the majority
of them simply require to be sacked. perhaps Featherstone then can actually
move forward.

I will not hold my breath for action in stead of words.
regards
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #58 on: August 11, 2009, 10:58:04 pm »

Mr  Wink

Further to my earlier Email. I have been advised that tree grills you referred too in your earlier Email had to be removed because of the growth of the trees (either that or remove the trees). The tree pits have been filled with gravel as a temporary measure, but a permanent solution will be put in place in due course.

I hope that this answers your query.

Regards,

Andy Wallhead
Corporate Director Regeneration, Culture and Sport
Wakefield MDC
Report Spam   Report to moderator   Logged
yetion1
Administrator
Full Member
*
Posts: 1713


READY


« Reply #59 on: August 11, 2009, 10:59:30 pm »

Dear Mr Wallhead

whilst the surrounding shops are pelted with YOUR STONES, who should I
advise they send the bill of repairs to?

regards
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