Sandwell Labour Council itself is applying to build two huge "toblerone" advertising signs on green belt land. Now read on...
In my earlier post on this subject I pointed out that it was the normal course of events would be for a sign company to apply for planning permission but that, here, Sandwell Labour itself has decided to apply to build these things on green belt land.
I have been repeatedly asking via various media what commercial deal has been done here by the comrades. Our old friend Nick Bubalo has applied for planning permission himself on behalf of the sleazy "socialists" and the application is for planning permission for 10 years STARTING 01/01/16 ie just weeks away - a sure sign that the Dictatorship hoped this would slip through quickly and without fuss.
It seems inconceivable, therefore, that this is a purely speculative project by Darren Cooper and his cabinet cronies and why is a decision to put these objects on green belt land not publicly minuted anywhere?
The obvious candidate to erect and operate these signs is J C Decaux. Interestingly, they applied for planning permission themselves (ie in the normal way) for a very similar sign which now stands alongside the M5 in Oldbury (but not on green belt land). They applied for planning permission in 2008 and Sandwell turned them down (DC/08/5591A) on safety and amenity grounds. JCD appealed to the Planning Inspector and won. It should be remembered that each application is different and this does not "set a precedent" to nod through the two current applications and, here, there are the additional "green belt" considerations.
I have attempted via the Charlemont Twitter account and other means to ask the three local Councillors who claim they are opposed to these things, Liam Preece, Liz Giles and Sue Phillips, to confirm whether a deal has already been done (seemingly without Cooper & cronies bothering to consult the voting fodder and against the Council's own normal procurement procedures) but I can't get a direct answer. Liam will only say, when directly asked, that the three Charlemont Councillors are "fighting" their own Council comrades on this via the planning application as they perceive this to be "the best way".
Incidentally they have set up a petition but I think that, as Councillors, they would have been better advised to ask dissenters to complain formally through the proper planning process. Details here but you need to act TODAY:
http://thesandwellskidder.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/urgent-smbc-attack-green-belt.html
It was good to see Adrian Goldberg doing a piece on this today on BBC Radio WM. Liam was on but said nothing whatsoever about the commercial arrangements. Adrian said his team had also been onto SMBC to ask why THEY THEMSELVES had applied for planning permissions on green belt land but that the Dictatorship deemed in "inappropriate" to comment on a live planning application - EVEN ONE OF THEIR OWN!!!!!!
Let us float some scenarios:
1 I haven't met Sue and Liz but I have met Liam and he is one of the few members of Cooper's flock who has the balls to speak to me. He appears, therefore, to have slightly more intelligence that many of the other Cooper drones. But if these three genuinely don't know what the commercial side of this arrangement is then, in my humble opinion, they are doing a very poor job for their constituents. Why are they not down at The Kremlin now demanding that Cooper tells them what is going on? If he won't say why haven't they got the guts to go public and say that?
2 Perhaps these three DO know the details but have been silenced by Cooper and Co. Again, this would be a very poor situation for their constituents and surely cowardice of the first order?
3 Maybe they DO know but are putting loyalty to the Cooper Dictatorship above the needs of their own constituents. See "2" above. It should not be forgotten that in the interests of good open governance you would think they would be raising questions why the commercial operation of these signs has not been put out to tender IF a deal has been done. Are they lying about their state of knowledge? I think we should be told and I will be happy to publish their response.
As we cannot get answers from Cooper and his Gang nor the Charlemont Councillors I have put in a Freedom of Information Request on your behalf which is set out in full below.
STOP PRESS
This from J C Decaux:
"From what I have been told we are NOT involved in this. [My emphasis]
We were approached by the council for advice on the project, but we are not responsible for operating the site.
I am afraid we know nothing else about the project apart from this."
This implies that sleazy Sandwell are doing this off their own back and we now need to know why they felt it necessary to "seek advice" on putting huge signs on green belt land (I am amending the FoI). Who within SMBC instigated this? This also does not mean, of course, that they have not done "a deal" with someone else.
I did also ask JCD if they knew who was in on the deal here but they have not replied to this point.
Charlemont Labour Councillors - YOU should be asking these questions not me!
A curious historical footnote:
Many moons ago someone used to have a contract with "Sadwell" to supply illuminated street signs etc to the comrades but then, for reasons that are not clear, it was decided to give the contract to JCD instead. One of the Councillors delegated to sort it all out and to negotiate the cancellation of the existing contract was one Darren Conrad Cooper. And the departing sign company was one controlled by, er, Mr Jim Cadman, latterly the statue "entrepreneur".
THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!
email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com facebook: Julian Saunders
Confidential phone no: 07599 983737 twitter: @bcrover (Vernon Grant)
FOI -
Mr Nick Bubalo has made two planning applications on behalf of SMBC (DC/15/6211A and DC/15/6212A) for the erection of two giant "toblerone" signs adjacent to the M5 at Ray Hall Lane on green belt land.
Please state:
1 Who at SMBC made the decision to attempt to erect these signs? Please state specifically which Council members and officers were party to the discussions? Is the decision minuted anywhere in publicly available form? Please disclose the minutes and/or other records relating to the said decision.
2 What pre-application discussions have taken place with third party commercial operators in respect of the commercial use of the signs? Please disclose the minutes and/or other written records of any meetings/discussions and other relevant correspondence and communications with third party operators?
3 Who decided the signs should be placed on green belt land? Please disclose the written record of this decision.
4 Who decided that SMBC (as opposed to a commercial operator) should apply for planning permission itself in respect of these signs when the normal course of events would be for the commercial operator to apply/? Please disclose the written minutes and/or any other written records relating to this decision? (In particular it is noted that Bubalo claims to have had pre-application discussions in respect of these applications with SMBC employees Michael Nicholls and John Baker. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing please disclose the minutes and/or other written records in respect of those advice sessions).
5 If a contract has already been awarded subject to planning permission to a commercial operator please state why this matter was not put out to tender? My understanding is that SMBC requires a form to be completed specifically stating why normal procurement rules are to be suspended and so please disclose that form and the relevant contract. If it is not apparent from the face of the form please state who authorised the normal procurement procedures to be suspended. Please disclose and other correspondence/communications to and from the party or parties seeking to suspend the normal procurement rules and the person who authorised that suspension.
6 Please disclose all other written communications/minutes and/or written records not specifically disclosed in respect of 1 - 5 above pertinent to the planning application, the decision to erect the signs, the decision to erect the signs on green belt land, the decision for SMBC to apply for planning permission itself, the decision not to put the construction and operation of the signs out to tender (subject to planning permission), the decision - if it be so - to award the contract outside the Council's own procurement rules, the decision as to who and why - if it be so - a single commercial third party has been granted a contract of operate the signs (subject to planning permission) without competition.
End (but to be amended to add question about "advice" from JCD).
For more information visit
ReplyDeleteuk sign company