Anomalies arising from Planning Committee Meeting - Letter to Council's Chief Executive

[Diego_Sideburns]

I have sent this letter to Andrew Kilburn, OMBC Chief Executive, with copy to the Leader of the Council, Alan Hardy (and I_C for the reason stated).

 

I think I have lit the blue touch paper! Awaiting the fireworks!!

 

 

Dear Mr.Kilburn,

 

I wish to draw to your attention, as the Council’s Chief Executive, anomalies which occurred at the Planning Committee meeting on 14th November 2007, relating to the consideration of the two planning applications associated with the redevelopment of Boundary Park and surrounding land.

 

1. Declaration of Interest

 

An article by Carl Marsden in the Oldham Advertiser published on 25th April 2007 stated:

 

“I won't rule on Latics' stadium, says planning boss

 

PLANNING Committee chairman Steven Bashforth has denied any impropriety after assisting a residents’ group opposed to Oldham Athletic’s multi-million redevelopment plans for Boundary Park.

 

Concerned club officials sought clarification after learning that Cllr Bashforth was set to chair a protest meeting against their recently-submitted planning application tomorrow night.

 

Cllr Bashforth also confirmed to the Advertiser that he had printed leaflets advertising the meeting for the ‘Residents Together’ group and booked their meeting venue.

 

However, the Royton South member insists he was simply helping his constituents in the same way he would assist any community group and has now pledged to remove himself from the final decision-making process.

 

“I have no intention to abuse my position as chair of planning and would not knowingly do so,“ he said.

 

“I do not believe I have acted improperly here and believe that I have a strong responsibility and moral duty to listen to constituents' concerns and give them the best advice I can.”

 

He added: “However, I don’t think it is now possible for me to chair the residents’ meeting. I also don’t think I will be able to chair the planning meeting that discusses this and will likely leave the room and defer to my deputy.

 

“It has been difficult but you often walk a tightrope with issues like this when you’re obliged to help constituents on the one hand while also wanting to be careful not to be seen as taking sides.”

 

Alan Hardy, Latics’ chief executive, said officials’ concerns had heightened when they saw the leaflet carrying the names of Cllr Bashforth and his ward colleague Cllr Phil Harrison.

 

“We were alarmed that a hand-out opposing the plans was distributed with the names of two councillors on it; one of whom chairs the planning committee making the final decision,” he said.

 

“We had obvious concerns about rules and impartiality but – after consultations with Cllr Bashforth and colleagues – we understand he will not chair either meeting if he thinks his position has been compromised."

 

____________________________________________

 

 

To my knowledge this article has not been challenged or retracted and therefore I assume that it is accurate.

 

Prior to the October Planning Committee meeting, I sent an email to the Council seeking clarification about whether Councillor Bashforth intended to vacate the Chair and leave the meeting during discussion of the two Planning Applications relating to Boundary Park.

 

I received the following reply from Christine Chester of OMBC:

 

"Hi

 

I have spoken to Councillor Bashforth who has informed me that he has sought advice on this and has been advised that there is no reason why he should not chair the meeting, as he has not given a definite view on the application, either to residents or to the applicant and he has not prejudged the application.

 

He is quite comfortable that whilst he has listened to both parties concerns and aspirations he has in no way prejudged the issue and provided that he declares an interest in respect of the meetings that he had with residents and OAFC directors and therefore he will be able to, and intends to, chair the meeting.

 

Regards

 

Christine"

 

Christine Chester's reply was on the basis that Cllr Bashforth had not given a definite view on the application, either to residents or to the applicant and he had not prejudged the application.

 

However, OAFC Chief Executive Alan Hardy, on the club’s official internet site, has said that Cllr Bashforth told the Applicant that there was no reason whatsoever why the application should not be approved. I would say that that is giving a definite view on the application and prejudging the issue, which changes completely his position on the need to declare an interest and not take part in the discussion or voting thereon. In the event he took a massive part in the discussion at the Planning Committee meeting, which influenced the Committee members on how to vote and, of course, he voted.

 

It is my opinion arising from many years' experience of advising Councillors in various local authorities, that this makes both of the Committee's decisions on the BP applications null and void.

 

Also I am of the opinion that in order to legalise the matter, another meeting should be called as a matter of urgency, with both applications being heard again, without Cllr Bashforth in the Chair or taking part in the discussion or voting.

 

I also draw to your attention that another member of the Committee said that he had also been involved in discussions on the applications. I don't know whether those discussions amount to the same failing as Cllr Bashforth's, but the Applicant will know to what extent he was involved. If he did not give a definite view on the application and prejudge the issue, then his position is different to Cllr Bashforth's.

 

2. Right to Make a Statement to the Planning Committee

 

Subject to advance notice having been given, the Planning Committee’s procedures allow one representative of the Applicant and one representative of the objectors to make a statement to the Committee, for a maximum of three minutes and then to answer questions thereon.

 

In the case of these two planning applications the residents’ action group was represented by Mrs. Linda Brooks and the Applicant was represented by Mr. Simon Corney. The Chairman indicated that he was also allowing to address the Committee Councillor Philip Harrison, who although not the Councillor for Coldhurst Ward, had indicated his wish to speak on both applications as he had been in discussions with the residents.

 

One of the other Members of the Committee questioned whether to do so would be creating a precedent, which could make it difficult not to allow the same facility in future. The Chairman said that a precedent had already been created.

 

Mrs. Brooks spoke for the maximum three minutes on each application. Mr. Corney spoke for his maximum three minutes on the both applications, admitting later to the Committee that he had not realised that he could speak again for another three minutes on the outline application. So when it came to the outline application, he simply summed up the situation in a few seconds.

 

Councillor Harrison was permitted by the Chairman to speak in respect of both applications for a period in excess of ten minutes.

 

In my opinion Cllr Harrison's passionate, articulate statements to the Committee are likely to have swayed them more than the residents' representative's statements.

 

3. Councillors’ Appearance

 

I feel sure that you, like myself, are surprised at the lack of effort made by Councillors to dress in a business-like manner at Committee meetings, as we have both grown used to a decline in standards of appearance over the years.

 

Therefore I was not surprised to see the appearance of the Councillors at that Meeting, but to see one Councillor wearing an Oldham rugby shirt did surprise me, especially with the Rugby Club being a tenant of Boundary Park. It crossed my mind that this particular Councillor might appear to have pre-judged in favour of the application in view of his allegiance to the OAFC’s tenant. In the event he voted against the outline application.

 

I raise the matter of the Councillors’ appearance because so many of the members of the public present at that meeting, supporting both the Applicant and the residents, commented that they were disgusted at the Members’ perceived scruffiness, and said that it did not give a good impression of the Council or the Councillors’ business professionalism.

 

4. Conduct of the Meeting

 

Throughout this email and others which I have been writing in connection with this matter, I have been unable to refer to particular Councillors by name. This is because from where I was sitting I was unable to read their name-cards and the Chairman referred to them only by Christian name, which again gave a bad impression to the many observers.

 

It may never be possible to rectify the disillusionment felt by the public at the conduct of the meeting, and felt throughout the Borough since the outcome of the Meeting was known.

 

I should be glad if you would look into these matters and let me have your observations.

 

I am sure that you are fully aware of the need for urgency in resolving the issue of outline planning refusal, because of the disillusionment of the Applicant arising from the Committee’s actions at that meeting, which continue to cost the Applicant a considerable amount of money.

 

I consider that if both are or only the outline application is to be reconsidered, a special meeting of the Planning Committee is required, rather than waiting until the next ordinary meeting on 11th December 2007.

 

I have also copied this message to the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive of OAFC.

 

As time is so important, and I shall be away for a day or two, I should be grateful if you would copy any reply to Mr Jeff Blackburn at the email address to which this has been copied.

 

 

Yours sincerely

[Bertie_Dugger]

Cracking stuff Diego,I'm certain this encapsulates what most of us were thinking during this pantomime. Go get 'em.

[chaddymatt]

brilliant stuff diego, you're a star

[warwickshire latics]

Very well put D_S

 

Without any swear words!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

Good job i didn't compose that letter

[Guest M_OAFC]

Absolutely superb work!!!!!!!!!!! Truly magnificently worded and structured.

 

Diego for Prime Minister?

[Diego_Sideburns]

I have not yet received a reply to my letter, so I've sent a chaser.

[singe]

I have not yet received a reply to my letter, so I've sent a chaser.

I am really suprised that they have not even acknowledged receipt of your letter and given a holding reply.

It gets more sambolic by the minute.

 

Adding to the positive comment,s a superbly crafted and very powerful letter in my opinion. that will carry significant weight.

[oafc0000]

Oldham Council statement on Boundary Park

Oldham Council's Chief Executive Andrew Kilburn today issued the following statement concerning the proposed plans for Boundary Park Football Stadium.

 

"Oldham Athletic is an important part of the Borough's heritage, and we very much hope the club remains a key part of our future. The Council is supportive of the principle of regeneration and development in this area of the Borough and very much hopes to find a solution which will meet the needs of residents and fans as well as complying with planning guidance.

 

"When the planning application came to Committee on Wednesday night although the officers' recommendation was for approval it was clear that a number of councillors had significant concerns around traffic levels in particular.

 

"The application was therefore turned down. The Council is now working with the football club to try and resolve outstanding issues and secure the regeneration of the area.

 

"In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Council to make any further comment as we do not wish to prejudice the outcome of any future planning committee," said Mr Kilburn.

Date: 16 November 2007

Reference: ND/PR/SR/147/07

 

Unlike when Bashforth prejudiced the whole flipping metting having been a champion for the residents.....

[Diego_Sideburns]

Oldham Council statement on Boundary Park

Oldham Council's Chief Executive Andrew Kilburn today issued the following statement concerning the proposed plans for Boundary Park Football Stadium.

 

"Oldham Athletic is an important part of the Borough's heritage, and we very much hope the club remains a key part of our future. The Council is supportive of the principle of regeneration and development in this area of the Borough and very much hopes to find a solution which will meet the needs of residents and fans as well as complying with planning guidance.

 

"When the planning application came to Committee on Wednesday night although the officers' recommendation was for approval it was clear that a number of councillors had significant concerns around traffic levels in particular.

 

"The application was therefore turned down. The Council is now working with the football club to try and resolve outstanding issues and secure the regeneration of the area.

 

"In these circumstances it would be inappropriate for the Council to make any further comment as we do not wish to prejudice the outcome of any future planning committee," said Mr Kilburn.

Date: 16 November 2007

Reference: ND/PR/SR/147/07

 

It may be just me, but it's the first time I've seen this statement from the Council dated 16th November.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

It may be just me, but it's the first time I've seen this statement from the Council dated 16th November.

 

Apparently it was sent to us all by Hotmail.

[garcon]

I saw it a few days ago, God knows where though...

[The Chaplain]

I saw it a few days ago .... but it's all a haze now ......

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Diego_Sideburns]

I am becoming increasingly worried that all the 'eggs' of TTA are in the one 'basket' that will be the amended outline planning application to be considered by Bashforth's gang on 11th December. Even if the traffic report is in words of one syllable that can be understood by numpties, if the councillors' attitude is still that there are too many residential units, then they will vote against.

 

So I am concentrating my efforts on the procedural failings of the last meeting, which I highlighted in the email at the start of this thread. If Bashforth (and Rogers) can be removed from the equation, there will be a lot more light at the end of the tunnel than the current light from an advancing train.

 

So I've sent the following email to the Council's Chief Executive, with copies to the Leader of the Council and Alan Hardy.

 

Dear Mr Kilburn,

 

I sent an email to you on this subject on 18th November 2007, as a matter of urgency, and I sent another email on 22nd November asking for your reply. Both emails are set out beow for ease of reference.

 

On the point about the declaration of interest by Councillor Bashforth, I quote from the Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17th October 2007, when consideration of the Boundary Park planning applications was deferred:

 

" Councillor Bashforth informed the meeting that whilst he had been present at meetings with Officers and both representatives of the applicants and objectors to the proposals where this issue had been discussed, he had not formed an opinion on the matter."

 

To say that Councillor Bashforth had not formed an opinion is contrary to the statement by the OAFC Chief Executive on the Club's official web site, which said that Councillor Bashforth had told the Applicant that there was no reason whatsoever why the applications should not be approved.

 

I intend to submit a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman about the conduct of Councillor Bashforth during the Planning Committee's consideration of the Boundary Park Planning Applications but, before doing so, I await your reply to the points which I have raised.

 

In addition I am still awaiting publication of the Planning Committee Minutes of the 14th November meeting. It will be seen from those Minutes that the recommendation in the Planning Officer's report was defeated by seven votes to four. Another of Councillor Bashforth's failings was that he did not then put to the vote the substantive motion that the Outline Planning Appication be refused. Therefore no decision was actually taken on the Outline Application.

 

The applicants have a right to resubmit the application to the Planning Committee, even before it goes to any appeal, should one be lodged. At that new meeting, all Councillors, including those who voted for the Planning Officer's recommendation on 14th November, would need to be able to demonstrate, with confidence, that they were considering it again fully and on its merits.

 

I would expect all members of the Planning Committee at the new meeting to demonstrate, more clearly than last time, that they take their quasi-judicial responsibilities seriously and do not want to run the risk of compromising themselves further on this issue. Would you please advise me whether the members of the Planning Committee have undergone any training in how to carry out their quasi-judicial role properly?

 

The Oldham Chronicle's 'Comment' column on 23rd November 2007 stated that, irrespective of the decision that was arrived at on 14th November, there seems little doubt that Councillor Bashforth was wrong to chair the meeting, in view of his close involvement with protestors before the application was heard, thereby jeopardising his position.

 

The Local Government Code of Conduct strives to ensure that Councillors avoid circumstances where they are perceived to be acting contrary to the pblic interest. The Oldham Chronicle pointed out that Councillor Bashforth left himself open to accusations of being on the side of the residents, rather than completely neutral, something which had prompted him to say in the Advertiser that he would not take the chair at the Planning Committee meeting - the right decision. The Chronicle said Councillor Bashforth should seriously consider his position before the next Planning Committee meeting.

 

I agree with the Oldham Chronicle and I would go so far as to say that if Councillor Bashforth was to chair the meeting and vote in favour of granting outline planning permission for the Boundary Park development, the residents whom he has represented would be likely to ask the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate his conduct.

 

In short Councillor Bashforth's conduct has put him in a position whereby, whichever way he votes on the Boundary Park development, he (and the good name of the Council) cannot avoid criticism and possible rebuke by the Ombudsman. Therefore I call on yourself and the Leader of the Council to avoid further jeopardisation of the proper consideration of this outline planning application by ensuring that Councillor Bashforth decides to take no further part in its discussion or voting thereon.

 

Similarly Councillor Rogers wore an Oldham Roughyeds (tenants of OAFC at Boundary Park) shirt at the last Planning Committee meeting. I would not expect any Councillor wearing an Oldham Athletic shirt to be seen to be considering the application as a neutral, and the same applies to the shirt worn by Councillor Rogers. Although Councillor Rogers voted against the Planning Officer's recommendation, if next time he were to vote in favour of granting outline planning permission, the residents would say that he had a vested interest as a supporter of Oldham Roughyeds. Therefore, like Councillor Bashforth, Councillor Rogers has put himself in a position whereby, whichever way he votes, he cannot avoid criticism and possible rebuke by the Ombudman. Therefore I call on yourself and the Leader of the Council also to ensure that Councillor Rogers decides to take no further part in its discussion or voting thereon.

 

Whilst the perceived bias in their conduct is a matter for both Councillor Bashforth and Councillor Rogers, you will appeciate fully that the good name of the Council must be seen to come first.

 

I wish you to take into account the following when deciding on your action in this matter.

 

Councillor Rogers replied to an email as follows:

 

"Good Morning if that was me who had done those leaflets and said that to the press then i would have declaired an interest of personal and predudicial and walked out of the meeting, however i presume steven took legal advice on what to do from the brough solicitior and her advice was its only a pesonal interest and this is what he declaired. I reittterate though if it was me i would have left the room Cheers Mr Rogers."

 

Your replies to my previous email and reminder are still awaited. I ask you now to consider fully all of the points I have made. I look forward to your being seen to be taking appropriate action in this very serious matter, to ensure that the planning process is administered properly, without leaving the Council open to criticsm, in what is a flagship development outline application designed to bring major benefits to the Borough.

 

Yours faithfully,

[Diego_Sideburns]

I fear that the revised outline planning application will be viewed by residents (and therefore by the residents' supporters on the Planning Committee) as simply 'moving the deckchairs on the Titanic', without removing the reason for refusal of the original outline application.

 

This fear has been realised in a short letter from a Carlton Way resident in tonight's rarely wrong Chron. In a nutshell she says that, regardless of the height configuration of the residential bocks, the traffic reason for refusal has not been removed by the revised application. She says that if the revised proposals are approved in these circumstances, it will have been a political decision.

 

This is likely to result in the residents asking the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate the matter, with possible delays to the detriment of TTA.

 

Even the anticipated simplified explanation of the fidings of the traffic surveys is unlikely to prove to be the solution to the problem which the Committee created for itself at the last meeting.

 

I still say that the only way to get a fair hearing which does not jeopardise the Council or the Applicant is for Councillor Bashforth (and possibly Councillor Rogers) to take no part in the discussion or voting for the reasons in my letter to the Council's Chief Executive.

 

I am still awaiting a reply.

[Alec1954]

What I cannot understand is that why Bashers and his kids couldn't accept/understand that the traffic will only be managed if the road widening/traffic light phasing takes place. Without this action, traffic will be worse.

 

So, I wonder if TTA have asked a consultant to attend the meeting and if he/they can address the meeting like the rogue Councillor did?

[oafc0000]

I fear that the revised outline planning application will be viewed by residents (and therefore by the residents' supporters on the Planning Committee) as simply 'moving the deckchairs on the Titanic', without removing the reason for refusal of the original outline application.

 

This fear has been realised in a short letter from a Carlton Way resident in tonight's rarely wrong Chron. In a nutshell she says that, regardless of the height configuration of the residential bocks, the traffic reason for refusal has not been removed by the revised application. She says that if the revised proposals are approved in these circumstances, it will have been a political decision.

 

This is likely to result in the residents asking the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate the matter, with possible delays to the detriment of TTA.

 

Even the anticipated simplified explanation of the fidings of the traffic surveys is unlikely to prove to be the solution to the problem which the Committee created for itself at the last meeting.

 

I still say that the only way to get a fair hearing which does not jeopardise the Council or the Applicant is for Councillor Bashforth (and possibly Councillor Rogers) to take no part in the discussion or voting for the reasons in my letter to the Council's Chief Executive.

 

I am still awaiting a reply.

 

I share the same fear....im not hopeful at the moment

[BP1960]

i presume steven took legal advice on what to do from the brough solicitior and her advice was its only a personal interest and this is what he declaired

 

Taking legal advice does not mean you get the absolute correct decision, it's only one persons opinion, and other legal advisors may differ.

[RoytonBlueLad]

Hang on there gripe was the height of the bloody things wasn't it? That's been changed now.

 

"Ooh councillor, councillor don't forget this bit either"

 

 

This is essentially the same

application to the one that was

refused so the planning committee

have no option but to

refuse it otherwise they will be

seen as acting politically on a

planning matter.

 

What like last time, you daft bint

 

[singe]

There is good news in this, if ther resident are still concerned about the traffic, (and if it were me I would be complaing about the conference centre bowling alley and leisure facilities rather than the residents) then there is an implied acceptance that the changes to the height and moving the highest block nearer the ground have negated that. (and they know 700 houses with LAtics, 1000 if Latics go bust)

So if I were the TTA, then some sort of plan to further imrpve the junctions could be worked out with the council.

[KYLEOAFC]

I got it on good authority that the plans will be passed this time without doubt.

I know that’s vague and I don’t expect people to be jumping for joy based on this post but I feel better.

[BigfinLatic]

I got it on good authority that the plans will be passed this time without doubt.

I know that’s vague and I don’t expect people to be jumping for joy based on this post but I feel better.

 

allegedly

[brookfield_blue]

brookfield_blue

 

 

Nov 23 2007, 21:11 PM Post #1

 

Residents Appeall

 

Should planning permission be granted on December 11th, what right of appeal would the residents have. If they could string it out long enough, we could see TTA lose patience and throw in the towel anyway. Hope the NIMBY's haven't a leg to stand on.

 

Diego_Sideburns

 

Today, 14:08 PM

This is likely to result in the residents asking the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate the matter, with possible delays to the detriment of TTA.

 

Think this amounts to the same thing, stalling tactics by the residents in the hope TTA get fed up and take their ball home. I am very worried that the residents have everything to gain if they can get it to drag on.

[Inspiral_Carpet]

brookfield_blue

Nov 23 2007, 21:11 PM Post #1

 

Residents Appeall

 

Should planning permission be granted on December 11th, what right of appeal would the residents have. If they could string it out long enough, we could see TTA lose patience and throw in the towel anyway. Hope the NIMBY's haven't a leg to stand on.

 

Diego_Sideburns

 

Today, 14:08 PM

This is likely to result in the residents asking the Local Government Ombudsman to investigate the matter, with possible delays to the detriment of TTA.

 

Think this amounts to the same thing, stalling tactics by the residents in the hope TTA get fed up and take their ball home. I am very worried that the residents have everything to gain if they can get it to drag on.

 

From what I understand, the Residents have no right of Appeal should the Application be granted on 11 December. They could only cause issues if they raised a complaint with The Local Government Ombudsman and that would have to be for a technicality.

 

There were many technical breaches at the last meeting (including the Residents having a model of the development in the room which is not allowed) so hopefully, the Chairman and his Councillors will get it right this time knowing that they are in the full gaze of The Press and other interested parties.

 

It the votes do change - and it is for bona fide reasons - then my view is the Residents will find it hard to make a serious complaint to the LGO since so far, all the technical offences have gone against the Applicant.

[Diego_Sideburns]

Hang on there gripe was the height of the bloody things wasn't it? That's been changed now.

 

"Ooh councillor, councillor don't forget this bit either"

 

 

 

This is essentially the same

application to the one that was

refused so the planning committee

have no option but to

refuse it otherwise they will be

seen as acting politically on a

planning matter.

 

 

What like last time, you daft bint

 

 

What she is saying is that it was refused last time on the ground that 693 dwellings would produce unmanageable traffic, and nothing has changed with the revised application. Therefore if it is approved this time, the Committee has gone back on its previous decision due to political pressure, which is not allowed in the Planning process - a matter for the Ombudsman.

 

Where the Committee went wrong was to allow Cllr Bashforth to lead them to ignore professional advice regarding the manageability of the traffic, and I can't see how they can reverse their previous decision (even though it was a wrong one) based on the same amount of traffic.

 

I keep saying the only way out is for Bashforth (and possibly Rogers) to admit that their actions last time were prejudicial to the proper consideration of the application. Therefore for him (or possibly them) to continue in the discussion and voting could result in the matter being investigated by the Ombudsman, causing further unacceptable delay to TTA. He (or possibly they) should not take part in the discussion and voting next time and the remaining members should be able to understand better a more simplified explanation of the traffic surveys. The Committee then can take a decision in the light of this more understandable explanation and without putting Bashforth (and possibly Rogers) in the position of going back on what they said/did last time, when they should not have been misleading the Committee.

 

The main plank of my argument is that Cllr Bashforth was advised that he could take part in the discussion and voting if he had not given a definite view on the application, either to residents or to the applicant and he had not prejudged the application.

 

However, OAFC Chief Executive Alan Hardy, on the Club’s official site, has said that Cllr Bashforth told the Applicant that there was no reason whatsoever why the application should not be approved. I would say that that is giving a definite view on the application and prejudging the issue, which changes completely his position on the need to declare an interest and not take part in the discussion or voting thereon. The only way in which he was entitled to take part in the discussion and voting was if he had remained completely neutral throughout his meetings with the parties involved, which was blatantly not the case. In the event he took a massive part in the discussion at the Planning Committee meeting, which influenced the Committee members on how to vote and, of course, he voted. Even though he voted in a different way to what he had indicated to Alan Hardy by saying there was no reason whatsoever why it should not be approved, he was not entitled to be in a position to influence the Committee and vote, because he had prejudged the application, only to change his mind later.

 

If Bashforth takes part in the consideration of the revised outline application, votes for it and it is approved, the residents will report him to the Ombudsman. If he votes against it and it is rejected, then I'll report him to the Ombudsman. Either way the Ombudsman getting involved will delay it and TTA will give up the fight. Bashforth cannot win whatever he does, and therefore he must not put himself in a position to jeopardise the application, the benefits to the Borough and the future of OAFC if TTA decide they have had enough of all the delays.

 

I assume that the Chief Executive is still considering my point because he has not yet replied to my emails of 18th, 22nd and 26th November.

[Diego_Sideburns]

I got it on good authority that the plans will be passed this time without doubt.

I know that’s vague and I don’t expect people to be jumping for joy based on this post but I feel better.

 

Se my post No. 28.