Forum Topic

Nearly 100 residents turn out for MRAG's same-day Mogden protest

Nearly 100 local residents come out onto the streets at very short notice yesterday to register their disgust at the decision by Hounslow's Sustainable Development Committee to approve an application by Thames Water to expand capacity at its Mogden plant by over 50%.The demonstration, organised the same morning, took Thames bosses completely by surprise as they hosted a meeting of the "Mogden Residents' Liaison Committee", a talking shop organised by the water company at which council officers from Hounslow and Richmond along with a small, select group of actual residents are given the opportunity to marvel at Thames' commitment to eradicating the odour and mosquito nuisance that it has inflicted upon the neighbouring community for decades and to watch slick slideshow presentations over sandwiches and fruit juice.Earlier in the day volunteers from MRAG and the ICG had leafleted 6,000 local properties alerting them to the decision and its consequences.The demonstration was attended amongst others by delegates from Ivybridge, the Worton estate, Twickenham and Hounslow South."Just like the old days", one ICG member commented as the campaign came to Ivybridge in earnest earlier in the day.It's not just about public demonstrations,of course.  A lot of work is also going on behind the scenes with a view to either challenging or overturning the SDC decision on a number of grounds, and neither are residents prepared simply to roll over and accept that officers of the council can choose to withhold vital information from members of SDC and not be held to account.  For those who think this is going away I have only bad news.In the meantime residents living within sniffing distance of Mogden can be assured that we will continue to fight every inch of the way until Thames finally condescends to honour its statutory obligations and deal with the problems it causes.

Phil Andrews ● 6265d35 Comments

Quite right she did. It was about a week after she met with MRAG Committee members who briefed her on the apalling situation and she promptly demanded a meeting with Thames Water at the Mogden site.

Steve Taylor ● 6110d

"I doubt Mary Macleod had even heard of Mogden before last week"Wrong: 0/10Mary MacLeod paid an "Official" visit to Mogden soon after she was selected as PPC for the local Conservatives. Please stop posting twaddle.

Jim Lawes ● 6110d

... and not long ago Mary Macleod moved out to Chelsea to try and secure the Tory nomination for that seat. They rejected her - which is why Brentford & Isleworth has her as their candidate.I doubt Mary Macleod had even heard of Mogden before last week. She has now moved in to Chiswick Riverside Ward (where her local Tory councillor Sam Hearn casts his votes on the SDC on the basis of "hunches").

Robin Taylor ● 6110d

Robin Taylor lives in Southall.  Ann Keen lives in Waterloo. They know nothing about Isleworth.

David Giles ● 6110d

Robin is rather quiet for a change. No doubt his database has produced the real facts now!

Steve Taylor ● 6116d

"Hopefully, it will refresh your memory" My memory is perfect and even if it wasn't - the video of the SDC tells the truth. Now to refresh YOUR memory, the March SDC was a farce never before exprienced by anyone -even Thames Water's own Director who attended the SDC couldn't believe the behaviour of members - in particular the Chair and the cowardly u-turn by Barbara Reid and her lot. However, following the March debacle the SDC met again on 8 June by which time I had met with Andrew Dakers and provided him with information of the failed 1999 expansion, the failed 2004 - 2008 improvenment program as well as the public court documents alleging negligence. Had I been permitted to speak at the March SDC, all members would have had the info but the Environment and Planning Division of the Council did not give me the opportunity and this is now the subject of a formal Stage One complaint against the  Director of Environment. In light of the legal implications - Andrew Dakers abstained on 8 June. That was his decision which I don't agree with but he had his reasons which I have to respect as I believe he did indeed give it due consideration and spent considerable time studying the documents. Unlike Labours Cllr Cooper who didn't have a clue what was going on (and just wanted to get home) and Cllr Cadbury who clearly didn't agree with the expansion, was brilliant and tough in her cross-examination of Thames and then voted approval for petty party political reasons despite her wealth of knowledge of the issues and the concerns of residents. I am 100% convinced though that if SDC voted again  tomorrow, Andrew would not only vote refusal - he would move for refusal. He will of course feel free to contradict me on this though.

Steve Taylor ● 6117d

To be entirely accurate, according to the minutes from the SDC meeting back in March Councillor Dakers did indeed abstain on the first motion to approve, but when that failed and after further discussion and a revised motion to approve was proposed and seconded, he voted for approval.

Adam Beamish ● 6117d

Steve Taylor posted a comment on the forum today in which he claimed that Andrew Dakers abstained on the issue of the Mogden expansion.Steve, please see the previous post on this thread (posted by you on 06/05/09 at 22:45).Hopefully, it will refresh your memory.

Robin Taylor ● 6117d

The public should be aware of who voted for the massive expansion of Mogden to double the capacity of the cesspool and thus place Hounslow firmly at the top of the  Rotten Borough listing.Motion for refusal  - Councillor Jon Hardy  - Syon Community GroupMotion for Approval -  Cllr John Cooper -  Feltham West LabourMotion for approval seconded - Cllr Ruth Cadbury - Brentford Labour - Labour Group Deputy LeaderVoted Approval - Cllr Lily Bath - Hounslow Central LabourVoted Approval - Cllr Barbara Reid - Osterley & Spring Grove - Conservative -Lead Member, Environment and PlanningVoted Approval - Cllr Sheila  O'Reilly -  Osterley & Spring Grove Conservative - Chair of the Sustainable Development CommitteeVoted Approval - Cllr Bradley Fisher - Hounslow South ConservativeVoted Approval - Cllr Felicity Barwood - Chiswick Riverside ConservativeVoted Approval - Cllr Robert Oulds - Chiswick Homefields ConservativeVoted Approval - Cllr Andrew Dakers - Brentford Liberal Democrats - Liberal Democrat Group LeaderAbstain - None.

Steve Taylor ● 6230d

Thanks steve Really apreciated!!

Simon Anderson ● 6243d

Simon I have managed to check MRAG's email addressbook and somehow your email address wasn't there anymore so I have arranged for it to be included again so you will be kept informed with updates and 'events'Thanks your continued interest and involvement

Steve Taylor ● 6244d

Certainly will do Simon, many thanks.

Phil Andrews ● 6245d

PhilThank you for your Reply, as you know I've been involved in this for sometime and been on the News with you etc so if there is anything going on in the Future you have my email please get in touchThanks

Simon Anderson ● 6245d

Hi SimonSadly the Mogden problem is unlikely to go away anytime soon and so there will be a great deal more going on in the field of activity and campaigning.  I'm sure we'd all be very happy to have you involved.

Phil Andrews ● 6246d

Can i ask if there is anymore Demo's regd Mogden if i could be informed please as i would off loved to been standing there with you all and would off Tried to bring some others.My email is simon_anderson1973@yahoo.co.uk

Simon Anderson ● 6246d

This weeks  Isleworth VILLAGE NEWS sums it up perfectly.  SHAME on Hounslow Council! Only ICG Cllr Jon Hardy voted against the application which was formally moved for approval by Labour's Cllr Cooper and Cllr Cadbury who live nowhere near the site. The incredible stab in the back for local residents came when Cllrs Brad Fisher and Lilly Bath, who had minutes before complained energetically about the stench and mosquitoes their constituents endure, scurried behind the Cooper/Cadbury team and voted approval. One can fully understand that Cllrs are wanting to call it a day and are obviously not seeking re-election but why not do it gracefully? Why turn their backs on the people who elected them in the first place?

Steve Taylor ● 6247d

"but I did see both Cathy Gallagher and Gerry McCarthy were present, both of whom are vastly experienced Officers who I would have thought had an extensive knowledge of Mogden and all of the relevant issues" I also would have thought that these vastly experienced officers had an extensive knowledge of Mogden but when it comes to 'managing'  Thames Water and ensuring the Company complies with procedures - the mind boggles!  In answer to a residents concern about odorous work being undertaken on Good Friday the experienced officer replied on 9 April "the Council was not consulted by Thames Water on when this work was due to take place and when it was due to be completed"  In answer to another residents complaint of odour the same officer replied on 9 April"ERG attended the site and advised it was necessary to  have the OCU serviced and a notification was sent out on 3/4/09 advising that the OCU would be serviced this week and the OCU would remain in operation during this period of time. This is due to be completed by tomorrow (10/4)"  So what's it to be? The Council was notified or it wasn't? If it wasn't notified - why wasn't it? There are procedures in place and the Council has to be notified of odorous work taking place at night or on weekends.If the Council was notified that odorous work would take place on the Easter weekend, why didn't the experienced officer instruct Thames Water to delay the work? It wasn't essential work - it was routine maintenance work.  This is typical of the lethargy residents have had to endure for the last decade.

Steve Taylor ● 6253d

AndrewI largely agree with you and it's all in hand.  Indeed you may be aware that we had IDeA in a couple of weeks back for this very purpose?In terms of resources I had always assumed that this would of necessity involve significant financial commitment, but IDeA were actually of the view that good community community engagement is cost-neutral or even financially beneficial.  Certainly better engagement with the Voluntary Sector can have positive cost implications.  It is important to bear in mind that to some extent we already have the infrastructure for improved community engagement in place, for example the Area Committees.  It's just a question of utilising old structures for a new purpose - involving the community in local decision-making in a truly meaningful way.I certainly agree that many if not most officers (and members for that matter) will need some help on this, but there is no reason why this cannot be achieved in the year ahead.  We don't intend that this should be allowed to drift beyond the next local elections, for reasons which will be obvious.

Phil Andrews ● 6261d

I see this got front page coverage of both Richmond Twickenham Times and the Brentford Isleworth Times

Steve Taylor ● 6261d

"At least we have some prospect of accountability and action at a local level."Thanks your comments Andrew - I certainly hope so - but so far we haven't seen much action at local officer level and the most worrying aspect is that when Richard Aylard came out to talk to residents at Mogden Gates on Wednesday he was pretty smug with his assurances that Thames are doing everything they are doing with full countenance  of the Local Authority. When I discussed the possibility of dredging the River Thames again, instead of increasing capacity at Mogden, he had his views and I asked why he didn't make his views known to the SDC; he had a good laugh about the meeting and  said it was because he wasn't asked  "and just how much can one say during the allocated 5 minutes"My point being that, according to the Local Authority legal assistant,  nobody even has a right to speak at SDC and those that are given the 'opportunity without right' are given maximum 5 minutes to state their case. I may be totally wrong but I would have thought 'higher authority' would take the matter a little more seriously and at least give ALL interested parties an opportunity to state their case.

Steve Taylor ● 6261d

Phil - "An administration which has community engagement at the heart of its agenda cannot have departments or sections of departments dismissing residents and their community groups as though they were an inconvenience.  I want to see engagement, and willing engagement rather than grudging engagement, all across the board.  The new mindset must permeate the whole organisation if it is to succeed."Building on the motion that was passed at full Council, if you want to start to achieve this cultural turnaround in the year ahead it will demand leadership/ reinforcement from the entire executive and investment in capability and capacity building (ie skills and resources).Training could probably be delivered by IDEA who developed a fairly good workbook on community engagement a few years ago - but I'd suggest nearly ALL council staff need to go through it.  It should be part of the Performance Improvement Programme (PIP).  There is also a need to recognise the resourcing that good community engagement demands.  Its more expensive both in staff time and supporting resources (e.g. out of hours meetings to newsletters etc) than making decisions in isolation at a desk - of course in the long term you should save money from projects that are better designed, supported by the local community etc.  Perhaps projects that demand effective community engagement need the extra time and resource planned in at the design stage?Best, Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6262d

Steve - "...these officers have failed the community as they should have recognised their limitations and passed this application to higher authority."I am afraid I do not share your optimism that this will be better handled if passed to a "higher authority".  Further removed from the community they could make a bigger mess of things.At least we have some prospect of accountability and action at a local level.Best, Andrew

Andrew Dakers ● 6262d

Your friend Mr. Taylor is without doubt one of the rudest most self-opinionated people it has been my misfortune to encounter, and that's saying something. That he can make such sweeping, ridiculous judgements about a person he has never met astounds me, it is arrogance personified. However, what I was referring to as 'fanciful' was the thought that officers jumped through hoops for any councillor regardless of political persuasion, we had just the same obstacles as you seem to have encountered, it always seemed to me that we should, as I thought, be on the same side of serving the local residents, not so. There were many times when I thought we'd asked for something to be done only to find that in fact nothing had been forthcoming, or even been totally ignored, even in the case of group decisions and policy. I got into hot water more times than enough when I finally lost it, and had we had a halfway respectable Leader (JC apart) these incidents would have been dealt with and people taken to task. That's why your assertion that these things are a 'mindset' from the last administration in my experience is fanciful. Sometimes it's like trying to pin down a jelly just to get what you expect and thought you had asked for.

Vanessa Smith ● 6262d

Phil,  it is possibly fanciful to expect Vanessa to understand that officers should have recognised their limitations because the inbred culture which some within the current administration are trying so hard to change was in fact cultivated and nurtured by the old administration whilst under her watch. We are where we are as a result of Vanessa's apathy and lethargy in taking any action whatsoever to make things better for the community she  purported to serve, no doubt because she would have had to put in a little effort. Now that would have been fanciful, and she is  where she is -  a bitter and twisted has-been who is hell bent on deriding everyone who is trying to improve things for the community she failed so miserably. 

Steve Taylor ● 6262d

What is fanciful in your view Vanessa - the mindset, the demo or the pong?

Phil Andrews ● 6262d

Also equally fanciful.

Vanessa Smith ● 6262d

Adam I totally respect your views on this matter, as I do on most subjects to which you contribute on this forum.I also accept that in planning applications Officers will always end up making recommendations which Councillors, objectors, applicants etc. don't like. I do believe however that with an application of such magnitude as this, or Heathrow expansion for example, we cannot be flippant and accept that "Sometimes Officers get it right, sometimes they get it wrong"  That, to me is irresponsible. The video clearly shows that SDC members were so out of their depth it was quite embarrassing and to claim that this was democracy at its best as the Lead Member proclaimed? The fact is that Officers withheld vital information and/or were unable to provide information and the SDC should have seen this and done the proper thing and have the matter referred to higher authority at worst (i.e. Mayor of London / Secretary of State) or at best recommended deferment until the High Court of Justice makes known all the facts after the 6 week litigation trial beginning in October. The only Cllrs in the SDC one can respect were those who abstained (and of course Cllr Jon Hardy who saw through the farce and moved for refusal) You may be correct that  Cathy Gallagher and Gerry McCarthy are vastly experienced Officers but you are wrong to assume that Cathy has extensive knowledge of Mogden. She has extremely limited knowledge and experience of Mogden and to my knowledge she had not set foot on the Mogden site until the meeting on 1 April, and then only at our behest. In fact she refused to reply to our question of whether she would or wouldn't attend the meeting. During a recent meeting with Cllr Andrews, Cllr Paul Fisher, Michael Jordan and myself she openly admitted that she had little understanding of the Mogden works and asked us to 'excuse her ignorance'. To my knowledge Michael Jordan has never visited the site either. Gerry McCarthy on the other hand may have experience of the site (and the attitude of Thames' Management)  as he has been involved since before 1998 but he is also the officer who wrote to me in 2000 and, in answer to the question of whether or not LBH had ever taken any action against Thames Water, advised me that the Council had not taken any action and preferred to deal with Thames Water on an 'informal basis'. He is also the officer who was party to the agreement to the schedule of works undertaken during the 2004 to 2008 odour improvement program which has failed so miserably. MRAG's experts repeatedly advised that covering only 2 tanks would not be sufficient and MRAG repeatedly requested that Mr McCarthy issue an Abatement Notice to force Thames to cover the remaining tanks. He refused so we are where we are and now residents are expected to sit back and be patient for another 3/4 years to see if the expansion programme limits the number of tanks being used, and if it doesn't, to sit back for another 3 years whilst Thames tries to get Ofwat to fund the covering of remaining  which will only cost £1 million. There is no question about it - these officers have failed the community as they should have recognised their limitations and passed this application to higher authority. 

Steve Taylor ● 6263d

AdamThanks for your kind words.For clarification I have never suggested that any officer or group of officers is influenced by political persuasion, if indeed any of them have a political persuasion.  What I have said is that the mindset which seems to operate in parts of the department, and certainly that which has informed officers' conduct over Mogden, belongs to the last administration rather than the current one.

Phil Andrews ● 6264d

Steve,I again must emphasise I'm not taking sides on this issue, I guess in some ways I'm in the enviable (!) position of being a professional planner, an ex-Local Government Officer of many years, and a resident of the Borough, so I try to balance those various 'hats'.As most regular posters will know I'm not averse to criticising Councils or Council staff, indeed a fair amount of my working week is spent handling matters which are directly due to the behaviour of Councils or individual Officers.On the whole I agree with Phil, who I always found/find to be entirely fair and reasonable, although as I've already said I do think the quote attributed to him (and in direct relation to this particular issue) about Officers being in some way tied to a particular political persuasion was rather inflammatory.  But, in his defence (not that he needs it) I could cite the recent case of a planning committee chairman who was cleared of improper conduct (having been suspended by a Council's standards committee) for saying in a newspaper article that the planning department was not performing adequately and described the Council as being "officer-led".  It was found by the Adjudication Panel that his remarks were legitimate political comment and not disrespectful of any individual, and the same conclusion can be reached here.I guess, as I've touched upon with Phil before, I'm somewhat naive in that personally I never came across (or at least wasn't aware of) any such Officers in my time in Local Government, Councillors were seen as Councillors, and their particular political affiliation didn't affect how they were treated.  Indeed I would still like to think that I could go for a social drink with Councillors from all of the different political affilitations across the Borough and find all of them perfectly reasonable and fair and for them to have the same view of me.I always think of one Council (not Hounslow) where I felt the conduct and attitude to the public of certain high level employees was completely unacceptable (and me being me I eventually took a stand against it and quickly found I was having my contract of employment terminated/being paid off), whereas all of the Councillors I ever dealt with at the same Council were completely reasonable and fair.  As I've always acknowledged I haven't viewed all of the webcast (indeed the last time I did there was no sound - my PC playing up) but I did see both Cathy Gallagher and Gerry McCarthy were present, both of whom are vastly experienced Officers who I would have thought had an extensive knowledge of Mogden and all of the relevant issues.As for your questions, the only one I can probably answer is about the lack of a response from the Health Authority, as whilst they may have been a statutory consultee the Council cannot force a consultee to respond, and if that consultee doesn't respond then the Council has to make a recommendation based upon planning policies and all other material planning considerations, including any responses receieved from statutory consultees or third parties.Officers will always end up making recommendations on planning application and associated matters that Councillors, objectors, applicants etc. don't like.  Only last week my firm had a large scheme up for approval at a Planning Committee which was duly refused by every Councillor sitting on that committee.  Sometimes Officers get it right, sometimes they get it wrong.  Sometimes Councillors support Officers and they both get it right, sometimes they both get it wrong, other times Councillors will be right and Officers wrong, and vice versa.  Ultimately it's inherent to most Council Officer's jobs that they won't be able to please everyone all of the time.  Of course though I appreciate that you accept that and are concerned that this issue runs much deeper than a simple case of a recommendation that you didn't agree with, as it is clear that MRAG don't believe the decisive issues were a case of subjective judgement, but that there were clear policy reasons for refusal.As for the smell in Fulwell, rather worringly one of the ladies in our office told me she couldn't smell anything, and she lives nowhere near Mogden so there was no reason she could have got used to the smell either...Sorry I can't really be of more use generally on this matter.

Adam Beamish ● 6264d

Adam I totally support everything Cllr Andrews has stated. My only observation is that he has perhaps been too kind to the Dept by reporting on this forum in an exemplarily professional manner. One only has to view the webcast of the SDC to see what an utter shambles the meeting was. The Cllrs who 'actually spoke' at the meeting made it clear that this was one of the most difficult cases they had to review. They knew it, we knew it and the officers knew it well beforehand. Yet they deemed it appropriate to have on hand only a legal assistant to try and give advice and Ms Gallagher to answer all the questions. Where was the Director of Environment? Where was the Borough Solicitor? This wasn't an application to build a loft conversion! It was an application which will have a major impact on the environment in this  community for the next 4 years at least. When the important question was raised on funding - not once did Ms Gallagher say that she had asked Thames Water the question. She repeatedly stated 'We'  Who is 'we'? Junior officers? Not once did she confirm that she or her department had raised the issue with Ofwat directly. Why - because they didn't. Why not? On the question of health impact raised by Cllr Hardy - the officer replied that they hadn't yet received replies from the Health authority. Why not? They had plenty of time. How can you recommend approval before the health implications of hydrogen sulphide are available? What about the other toxics which make up the odour cocktail? These questions were raised but not answered. Why not?  Its very clear to see on the webcast that this application was handled  diabolically  - there were clear 'planning grounds'  for not approving the application and these were provided. Firstly the officers should not have recommended approval and put the unqualified and inexperienced Cllrs in such a position and secondly the Cllrs shouldn't have been so stupid as to not see through all the flaws. I personally don't think the Cllrs were that stupid and it is quite apparent that their motivation was purely political. I total mess and its not going to go away. LBH environmental services  is the laughing stock from litter collections, recycling, roadworks and now this.I note your view about Cllr Andrews bringing his concern on officer behaviour to this forum. I welcome it. They work in the public sector and I believe it is the duty of elected Cllrs to air their views publicly to the electorate. I would also mention that I wrote officially to the Director Environment on 4th March and followed up again on 14th March. He has not responded. The Chief Executive and the Leader of the Council are aware of this but have made no attempt to intervene.  By the way the Councils response to your complaint / observation of odour near Fullwell Station would be:  "We have investigated this matter and Thames Water assures us that on the date in question, recorded odour levels  (H2S) were low with no unusual activities taking place on site. Thames Water acknowledge that the treatment of sewage can be odorous, and would like to apologise for any odours that residents may have experienced."It could also be suggest that the odour was  a figment of your imagination Adam. Have you considered that because you had driven past Mogden you imagined a stench and you simply couldn't get it out of your mind so you just believed Fulwell was smelling when it wasn't?  Yes - this is the type of rubbish residents have to put up with year in and year out.

Steve Taylor ● 6264d

Neither is she unhelpful.  I was speaking more about the general culture rather than individual officers.  An administration which has community engagement at the heart of its agenda cannot have departments or sections of departments dismissing residents and their community groups as though they were an inconvenience.  I want to see engagement, and willing engagement rather than grudging engagement, all across the board.  The new mindset must permeate the whole organisation if it is to succeed.

Phil Andrews ● 6265d

Fair points Phil, I hope you realise I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, and I really didn't doubt you were also approaching your own concerns, and those of local residents, through 'official' channels.  At the same time though the alleged quotation from you provided on the article on the front page of this website ("unhelpful Officers still serving a past regime") surely leaves little doubt, to any reader approaching it with a wholly open mind, as to what you believe ?!.Like you I have also known and worked alongside that officer for a long time and I would never suggest for one second that she would be either unhelpful or favour any political persuasion.

Adam Beamish ● 6265d

Or four possible reasons, of course...

Phil Andrews ● 6265d

AdamIf you read through my previous posts on this topic you will notice that I give the planning officer who advised SDC on the night of the Mogden decision the benefit of the doubt and acknowledge that she probably genuinely did believe that the advice she was giving was correct.  My judgement on this matter is probably influnced by the fact that I have worked with this officer for a long time and have always found her to be open, honest and highly professional.However, the fact remains that when she told SDC that OFWAT would not permit Thames Water to cover its storm tanks she had, by her own admission, the findings of an independent advisor in front of her, the first line of which read: "TWUL could fund the work independently of OFWAT, and from its own resources, in the interests of improved customer service."For whatever reason she could have shared this information with the Committee, but didn't.As I see it there can only be one of three possible reasons why this should have been so:1. Despite the fact that she had the independent advice in front of her, she hadn't actually read it.2. She had read the advice, but hadn't understood it.3. She took the decision, off her own back, not to share the information because she wished the recommendation to be accepted.4. She was under instructions, or at least pressure of some kind, to persuade the Committee to accept the recommendation and for that reason felt unable to release this particular piece of information.My difficulty is that, whilst it would seem obvious that important information which should have been shared wasn't shared, the reason for it not having been shared and the origin of the decision not to share it is not obvious.  I would not want a good planning officer to be hauled over the coals if she was an innocent party who was, or believed she was, acting under duress of any kind.You say that I should deal with it internally.  Do you really think that I have not been trying to do so?  As I see it senior officers who were being wrongly accused of misconduct of this kind would wish to put such allegations to rest as a matter of some urgency.  So you will be surprised to hear then that all I am being greeted with is a wall of silence.  There seems to be a smug assumption either that I do not exercise the necessary power within the administration to progress this to a satisfactory conclusion, or that my desire for justice on this matter is a temporary enthusiasm that will blow over with the passing of time, or that if it is dragged out for long enough the local elections will be upon us and I may not be involved with the next administration.The longer the silence continues the more likely it is that this episode will be perceived by residents as conspiracy rather than cock-up.  Those who have nothing to hide will be keen to explain how this was all an innocent misunderstanding and to draw a line under this matter.  My telephone number and e-mail address are listed in the Corporate Directory.

Phil Andrews ● 6265d

Certainly chose the day for it, I drove past Modgen early on yesterday and the stench was particularly bad, even at our offices down here near Fulwell Station it could still be smelt all morning.I don't know the ins and outs and the rights and wrongs but as I've said before Phil the content of some of your post does alarm me in terms of implying that Council Officers deliberately withheld information (although I concede you actually refer to residents).  If what is alleged is correct then common sense implies those employees could be at risk of suspension/termination of employment and is a public forum the place for discussions about such matters ?.Before the residents 'jump' on me for defending Officers that isn't what I'm doing, simply in my personal opinion if an Elected Member believes Council Officers have behaved improperly then this should be addressed 'in house', as I'm sure if any Council Officer came on here and said "I think Councillor so and so has behaved improperly" that employee would be in serious trouble (and rightly so).

Adam Beamish ● 6265d