Technical Blog - Labour Still Conceal Bescot Sidings Stitch-Up!

This is one for anoraks only.

Bent Labour Sandwell Council told Network Rail in 2014/2015 that they could plonk a concrete sleeper factory into Bescot Sidings - right next to houses. To date, Labour have refused to say who gave Network Rail "the nod" and then tried to force this through its own planning department.

The comrades reckoned without the spirit of local residents who rose up against Labour's attempt to shaft them. Carol White and many others formed an Action Group and fought a valiant battle. I was at the Planning Committee meeting when Wayne Trinder and others put up a superb presentation against the absurd project and won the day! (You see Sandwell - you don't have to sit p*ssing in your pants when Labour keep trying to f*ck you over. Get off your bellies and fight!)

In January, 2020 I put in a Freedom of Information request to identify the guilty Labour Councillors. Shortly before Christmas I received a large bundle of documents but, guess what, nothing naming the jokers who tried to force this plan on people (except Cllr Paul "The Cipher" Moore - a whimpering poodle and employee of Tom Watson).

This is my response to bent Sandwell's eventual (incomplete) disclosure which is really intended for hardcore addicts only but it does show what a sh*tbag bunch are running the bent Council.

The full FOI request can also be seen here:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bescot_network_rail_sleeper_fact#incoming-1603141

Response to Sandwell - 19/01/21

On 17th December, 2020 you posted a bundle of documents to me purporting to be in response to my FOI request of 2nd January, 2020 (over one-year ago).

May I firstly make some general observations:

1   The bundle was extensive but not numbered and, in parts, appeared to have been “mixed-up”. There is substantial repetition - particularly of long chains of emails.  It is not clear which documents are part of the Network Rail reports or separate. There are large numbers of documents dealing with mundane matters but, as with other corrupt SMBC “deals” a dearth of evidence in respect of political involvement. Once again, and if you will excuse the American idiom, members of David Stevens’s team appear to be “blowing smoke up my ass”;

2   You will appreciate that, thanks to the incredible work of the local Action Group, the Labour plan to foist this industrial development next to their homes ultimately failed. Thus most planning documents etc are of academic interest only and I am sure we both have better things to do than revisit that pile of ordure. However, there are very serious questions still arising which relate to corruption and, at best, very poor governance during the Cooper/Eling/Britton era and it is blindingly obvious that the thrust of my FOI request was aimed at establishing what actually went on here - particularly noting the pronouncements of  [name redacted and sent separately]. and others. Further, a major protagonist in this fiasco was Cllr Moore and he is still a serving Councillor. His role must be fully disclosed particularly as, at all material times, he was also an employee of (then) MP, Tom Watson.

3   There are pages of emails disclosed relating to meetings being set up and yet almost nothing relating to the actual meetings - a badge of corruption and also a common feature of poor governance under Jan Britton. I hesitate to criticise Mr Andy Miller since in many of the fraudulent and/or incompetent deals in the Britton era NO notes of important meetings were kept at all. Even in multi-million pound deals like the Lion Farm Fields developments SMBC say no records whatsoever were kept of crucial meetings! Thus it may be to his credit that Mr Miller was able to produce a single page of notes relating to FOUR critical early meetings (including an important site visit to Doncaster) even though this is a risible offering. The truth appears to be, as we shall see below, that Mr Miller was, as the concentration guards used to say, “only obeying orders”.

4   I am confused regarding a planning point and it may be that you can easily resolve it. Perhaps there had been a change in the law between 2014 and 2018 but Mr Miller and others were clearly under the impression in 2015/2016 that they were giving “pre-application” planning advice and yet a sort of formal “pre-application” process seemed to commence in or around October, 2018. There is no mention of the fact that pre-application advice had been given since 2014? Why did the pre-application advice stage appear to begin again de novo in 2018?

5   Mr Stevens has told Information Rights Tribunals that senior employees of the Council will not enjoy anonymity when documents are disclosed. If memory serves he said those on Grade H or above will be identified. Obviously I am not aware of the Grades of most individual employees but am surprised that you have redacted eg. the names of the “Principal Planner”, “Senior Environmental Health Officer” and others. Am I to assume that you class such experienced employees as being “junior”?

6  Given the cover-up here have SMBC asked Cllr Moore if he has any documents etc that can shed light on this sorry episode? If not, why not?

7  It is not clear from the disclosure when and how ward councillors were first appraised on this scheme. Please provide full details.

Turning to specific issues and specific questions arising from the incomplete disclosure:

There is no disclosure whatsoever that I can see whereby Sandwell Labour Councillors informed Network Rail in 2014 and 2015 that they would view this ludicrous project favourably. I am aware from previous correspondence that Jan Britton moved very quickly to erase the emails of the late Leader, Cllr Darren Cooper, from the system (itself an astonishing act) from the system but SMBC were eventually forced to admit that erased emails were recoverable. The disclosure of all emails and other documents relating to the political decision was specifically asked for in the original request but has not been forthcoming. Your employee X alleges that there were three Councillors pushing this project. Given the set-up at the time the starting point for you to re-search for the relevant documents should be centred on Cllrs Cooper, Eling and Moore. Further the communications between these Cllrs and Tom Watson should be located and disclosed where they are on the SMBC system.

Despite police investigations etc I understand that Mr Bubalo’s emails were also deleted. Once again these should be recoverable.

In Network Rail’s purported “Environmental Impact Assessment Scoping Report” prepared by AECOM in April 2017 (pages unnumbered) which you disclosed it states under the heading  “Consultation”:

“Early engagement with Sandwell Council began during the site search process in 2015, and continued throughout 2016 with a site visit to the other facility at Doncaster, and a site visit to Bescot Yard in 2017. The Council’s initial response was a contributing factor to the site selection.”

And yet no documentation has been disclosed relating to the initial dealings and, more particularly, the initial response. This must now be forthcoming or the matter will have to proceed to the ICO.

It is noteworthy that Sandwell Council admit that the early dealings were “confidential” but now that the planning process is concluded there can be no justification for withholding key documents. If you think there is, you must say, for the benefit of me and the ICO, which specific documents you hold which you have not hitherto disclosed and what specific legal provisions you rely upon to withhold disclosure.

Referring to extracts from specific documents:

Email 22/01/15 Andy Miller to Redacted Name [Seemingly Network Rail]

“I was wondering if you have any update on the [Proposed Concrete Sleeper Factory] since our meeting in December.”

This indicates that this matter was going on from at least December, 2014. At least one male from NR attended. Who attended for SMBC? Where are the minutes? 

Email 03/09/15 Andy Miller to Network Rail cc someone in SMBC surname ending in “s”.

“Obviously we are still keen to facilitate this proposal xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”

Why has this sentence been redacted? Please show the full sentence. Who was keen to facilitate the project and why?

Email 07/12/15 Network Rail to Peter Yeomans

What was the role of Mr Yeomans in all this? Has he been asked to produce documentation in response to the FOI? He is addressed by his first name and so was clearly on familiar terms with Network Rail staff.

Email 08/12/15 Andy Miller to Network Rail (?)

“Yes the Council does support the proposal in principle”.

Please confirm the recipient of this email and where and when the Council agreed the proposal in principle. Who agreed this? Why did Labour politicians agree this when the senior planners were extremely concerned about the proposed developments proximity to housing?

[Network Rail responded 07/01/16: “We recognise that the Council supports the proposal in principle"].

Email 09/12/15 Principal Planner to Redacted Name cc Andy Miller

“This is a confidential pre-app submitted by Network Rail… Andy Miller will be organising an internal meeting about the proposal in the near future… I have had an initial look at the plan and am seriously concerned about the impact on nearby residents… There is pressure to support the development I understand”.

Where is the “confidential pre-app submitted by Network Rail” in this disclosure (and see point 4 in the general comments above). What “pressure” was being applied to planners and where is the documentation regarding this political involvement?

Email 10/12/15 Andy Miller to Redacted Name

“I can’t stress enough the importance of keeping the number of people who are involved in this to an absolute minimum as it’s absolutely confidential at the moment”.

Who were the Councillors and Staff in the know as at this date?

Email 11/12/15  to Redacted Name cc Andy Miller & Redacted Name

After referring to the unsuitability of the site: “In other words, it is just too close to residents… Having looked at the additional email with further information from Andy, I can see that the prospective applicant expressed their own concerns in the earlier stages of correspondence which is why they sought the Council’s views early on.”

I am not sure which of Mr Miller’s emails is being referred to here but clearly the “earlier correspondence” with Network Rail has NOT been disclosed. Please now disclose it forthwith.

[I am sure local residents will be surprised that it is now said NR themselves raised issues given the hard sell they gave in public consultation meetings!]

Once again, it is a matter of considerable public interest for the disclosure of which politicians decided to give the go ahead and how they decided the difficulties of the site could be overcome against the concerns of their professional planners.

“Andy, I appreciate you may have been trying to keep this confidential and maybe that’s why the views of all relevant persons may not have been sought earlier. But I also see that YOU [my emphasis] have more recently advised the applicant that the council has no objections in principle.”

[Incidentally the Principal Planner immediately expressed his view that this was an absurd proposal and yet Labour politicians continued to give Network Rail, “the nod”, causing untold wasted expenditure by the Council and considerable distress to local residents:

“Forget the Doncaster information... It’s just not realistic to expect that there can be any effective mitigation to protect the residents here.”]

The obvious questions are who instructed Mr Miller to deal with this matter and keep it confidential? When did this happen and where are the documents? Obviously Network Rail’s Doncaster facility had already been discussed with SMBC in 2015. When and where? Where are the documents relating to this meeting or meetings? Who attended?

Who ordered Andy Miller to keep this confidential and why was he singled-out to carry this burden?

Email 14/12/15 Andy Miller to Redacted Name cc Redacted Name

“... I’ve already made it clear off the record to NR that this [proximity to local residents] will be a difficult issue to overcome. I’ll get the meeting fixed up ASAP and we can explore this further.

The reason for the confidentiality is twofold: Network Rail had (maybe still have) two other sites under consideration and didn’t want to create a firestorm for no reason if one of the others was chosen, and then there is the political angle. It has been made very clear to me that there is a clear desire from the Council’s leadership to see this happen.”

In his very sparse notes Mr Miller has not indicated when he gave his “off the record” opinion to NR. Should this not be recorded even in “pre-app” discussions? Can Mr Miller trace a record?

Who made it clear to Mr Miller that the “Council’s Leadership” wanted this to go ahead and when? Once again where is the record that the “Council’s Leadership” wanted this to go ahead and why? [You will appreciate given the fraud and corruption at Sandwell at this time that the public may infer, rightly or wrongly, that financial or other gain was offered here and it must be in SMBC’s interests to show that everything was above board - apart, of course, from the political decision to shaft the local residents].

I should add that given the paucity of disclosure here after almost one year and the obvious cover-up there is certainly a possibility of this matter proceeding to another Tribunal hearing and I would expect SMBC to call Mr Miller to give live evidence in that eventuality.

File Note [sic] 07/01/16 - Andy Miller - Internal Meeting

“Government may declare this proposal as a national infrastructure project”.

Where does this come from? Had SMBC been in contact with the Government? If yes, where is the documentation? What grounds did Mr Miller have to make this assertion in this note?

File Note [sic] 02/02/16 Andy Miller - Doncaster Site Visit

This joke note which is one line in length is redacted. Other documents state that five SMBC staff and/or members attended but the note of attendees is redacted. Why? It is essential to know who spent a day travelling to Doncaster to visit the site. 

Who paid for this trip and where are the documents concerning expenses?

Briefing of Councillor Moore & Letter of Support

By email dated 21/03/16 Network Rail were pressing Mr Miller for a formal letter of support. In a response dated 24/03/16 Mr Miller replied including this:

“Anyway, I have now briefed Cllr Moore who is the Cabinet Member with responsibility for both planning and transport and he is supportive of the scheme… I am in discussions with my Director [Bubalo] about a letter of support…”

On 19th April, 2016 Bubalo produced for Network Rail an astonishing letter which included:

“Whilst I understand that a final decision as to the location of this facility is yet to be taken, Network Rail’s investment in the Bescot site is extremely good news for Sandwell and the Black Country generally and is welcomed.

“The proposal sits well with the Council’s aspirations for the Bescot/Friar Park area and with the desire of the Council, the Black Country Local Enterprise Partnership and the West Midlands Integrated Transport Authority to see the rail yard play a full role in the region’s economy.

“It is inevitable when dealing with proposals of this nature that there will be difficulties to overcome in order to secure a planning consent. This is particularly true in this case given the proximity to residents in the Friar park area. However, my officers, along with colleagues from the Environmental Health will provide all possible assistance and advice to enable you to address these concerns and to achieve a solution that is acceptable, both to yourselves as applicant, and to the residents and businesses of the borough.

“...we are engaging with local ward members in order to assist the passage of the planning application...I look forward to working with you on this exciting proposal and to receiving your application in due course. Do not hesitate to contact me if there is any additional assistance I can give.”

This was shortly after the briefing with Cllr Moore yet there is no documentation disclosed of any communication with him on this subject and, in particular, no evidence of communications between him and Nick Bubalo. Even given the latter’s eventual disgrace and what was going on at the time it is inconceivable that he should write such a letter without political approval. Once again your disclosure is wholly inadequate.

Mr Bubalo indicates that the Black Country LEP and West Mids ITA were backing the project but there is no disclosure of anything relating to communications with either of these bodies at or prior to 19th April, 2016. Please disclose this.

The Associated Land Sale

There is seemingly no documentation whatsoever regarding the agreement to sell SMBC land to facilitate the project save perhaps for an email to Mr Miller from Network Rail on 7th September, 2016 referring to an Option. The political leadership of the Council could not have backed the proposal without also agreeing the land sale and so all documentation with regard to that approval is also required.

Redacted Invoice 

An invoice apparently dated 10/01/18 was sent to Network Rail on 19th February, 2018 with an IL1 Protect marker and the actual invoice has been redacted in its entirety. I may need to see the invoice but at this point in time I do need to know what the invoice was actually for?

End.

THE SANDWELL SKIDDER - COMMUNITY NEWS - READ THE SKIDDER, KIDDER!

**** Phone No: 07470 624207 ****

Email: thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

Facebook: Julian Saunders  

Facebook Group: The Sandwell Skidder - Speaking Truth To Power!

Twitter: @SandwellSkidder            

Post:  Jules Saunders, 11 Chelworth Road, Birmingham B38 0BG

PROUD TO HAVE BEEN TROLLED BY DICKHEAD DARREN COOPER DECEASED!

LEGAL NOTICE (Version 2 from 15th February, 2020)

I cannot list every previous mention of individuals referred to in the entirety of this blog. Where I refer to a specific story please follow the supplied hyperlink since this forms legal justification for later comments. Similarly references to “posts passim” and to earlier posts mean any individuals concerned about purported defamatory material should read later posts in the context of earlier posts. Full information can also be supplied within a reasonable time upon application via email to thesandwellskidder@gmail.com

Every now and again we make a genuine honest error and get something wrong. If an error in the blog affects you please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com and we shall use our best endeavours to make appropriate corrections forthwith.

If you consider that anything written is libellous please email thesandwellskidder@gmail.com or telephone 07470 624207 forthwith. If your complaint has merit we shall endeavour to make immediate amends.