Forum Topic

No Dave, not 'whatevers', merely a reasonable summary of your comments and accusations towards me so far on this thread, as any unbiased reader would see it.Incidentially, how I smiled at the irony following your earlier comment about leaving things to Council officers to advise on.  I was researching a potential job for a client today (not in Hounslow before you come up with some theory) and wanted to establish if the site was a listed building.  My personal knowledge of the site gave me the impression that it was likely to be, but to confirm I firstly telephoned the planning department of the Council Offices and, after giving a precise address including postcode etc, was told quite categorically that the building was not listed.  I found this hard to believe and wasn't comfortable with giving a client that information until I was satisfied in my own mind that it was correct.  So I did some more digging myself via English Heritage and its website and lo and behold the site is a grade II listed building.  If I'd relied on what the Planning Officer (not some switchboard person, this was the actual planning department) verbally told me, I would have wrongly advised my client that it wasn't a listed building, and my client could have proceeded by way of internal works which would have been wholly unauthorised and, because it is a listed building, a criminal offence.And giving that I'm involved in the business every day, that kind of experience is a fairly common (weekly) event, so if you don't mind whereas my subjective view on the planning merits of an application of a case may sometimes stand up on appeal/application and sometimes fail, I will stick to relying on my own professional knowledge and intuition when it comes to the national legislation, and not take what a planning officer says as necessarily being correct - because quite simply I know that I keep abreast of the national legislation far better than most Council Officers.

Adam Beamish ● 6203d

More veiled threats Dave ?.  So essentially what you're implying is that I must have done, or not done, something back in the days I was employed at LBH (pre August 2006) ?.And in some way that is relevant to this thread where the only contribution I've made is to be critical of what I see as an error of judgement in respect of Councillors and an Officer going to MIPIM ?.  That's not sticking my neck out, that's me expressing a personal view as a resident of the Borough.  And, what I really don't get, is surely that's a personal view that you would agree with ?.So to recap, so far on this thread, you made the following accusations :1) I'm in some way in league with Phil.2) That I advise the public to ignore what Council Officers say and listen to me instead.3) That I'm using this forum for business purposes.4) That if my employer finds out I'll be in trouble.5) That in some way now (in June 2009) I'm at risk of an Ombudsman investigation (from pre-August 2006).6) That I'm also in the same way at risk of investigation from the Standards Board - which will be quite an achievement given I'm never been an Elected Member.If you want to carry on this farce feel free to do so, the only person you're harming is yourself, so far the one piece of common ground between all the other contributors to this thread (Dan, Robin and Phil, who all have different political viewpoints) is that my posts are entirely fair and reasonable, whereas yours are not.  I don't need to make any kind of personal criticism of you, for starters I wouldn't stoop to that level, and secondly you're doing a perfectly good job of making yourself look like a fool.

Adam Beamish ● 6203d

Dave, we all know you are hostile (and I think that is an appropriate word) towards Phil for your own reasons.  That's up to you, sometimes I think you make some valid points, but then you lose all credibility by saying something stupid.Your latest contribution being a classic example, you are now imply that Phil and I have some kind of history, and some kind of cosy understanding.  Based on what ?.  Any reader of this forum will see that my contributions on many topics on this forum are never consistently either in support of or critical of the Council, Councillors and its Officers.  Sometimes I think people's criticism is unfounded, sometimes I think a situation is unacceptable and the Council deserves criticism.  On this thread alone I've criticised the MIPIM situation.  So how do you, as a reader to this forum, come to the conclusion that there's some kind of cosy understanding or agreement between Phil and I ?.For your information Dave, I occasionally (rarely but occasionally) get personal emails from various Councillors of the Borough of all political colours, usually in response to something I've posted and always in a perfectly amicable and friendly manner.  During the 10 years I spent in local government at 5 different authorities, I never came across a single Councillor I couldn't get on with.I haven't actually seen in person a single current or previous Hounslow councillor since I left Hounslow Council.  It may also surprise you Dave, particularly in light of what you are implying, that I haven't had any correspondence, other than exchanging posts on here, with Phil since then either.I just don't get you Dave.  You were an Elected Councillor, I've no idea if you did a good job or a bad job in that role, you were at committee meetings I presented matters to and I never thought "what a plonker".  I found your wife to be an extremely pleasant lady who was eminently sensible when making decisions on planning decisions at Heston and Cranford committee.  So what makes you come up with such absolute offensive twaddle ?.

Adam Beamish ● 6204d

It's a shame that certain posters always end up deflecting the point away from the genuine concerns of the general public by political one-upmanship.  How anyone can genuinely try to 'big up' any of the main political parties at the present time is utterly beyond me, if I was in the shoes of someone like David Giles or Robin Taylor I'd be hiding away out of embarrassment, not trying to discredit their respective opposition on a local website.  Do you have no shame ?!.I have no doubt the purpose of the trip to MIPIM was not for the two Councillors concerned to have "a jolly good time".  A Senior Council Officer with a planning and regeneration responsibility also went.Nevertheless, to me it was an ill-judged and un-necessary trip.  As Dan suggests yes I'm sure some networking was done.  But nothing would have been achieved at MIPIM that couldn't have been achieved by the same individuals attending seminars/training courses/days in London or the south east, or by setting up a forum of local architects, planning consultants, members of the public etc.My company deals with all the issues Hounslow faces in terms of regeneration and town planning and no-one from our various offices in the UK and Ireland went to MIPIM.  Indeed, as I posted elsewhere earlier today, the only person I know who went to MIPIM is a friend of mine who I worked with when she was Sales Director for a major housebuilder, and she went there (at her own expense) to party !.  Now I'm not suggesting that either Councillor or the Officer went there to party, but for the reasons I've explained nor can I see the benefit compared with the similar outcomes that could have been achieved by staying much closer to home.

Adam Beamish ● 6204d

Diverting away from the Cannes junket, I see.My understanding : The Conservatives won the 2006 election by outnumbering the Labour councillors as might be expected given the trend in London, but did not attain an overall majority, so I understand. One reason for this is a new development at both ends of the borough, one at the Bedfont-ish end and another in Isleworth, which may have arisen as a result of disatisfaction with the then 2- or 3-party set-up on the Council and infighting within the parties previously prevailing. Quite what these quasi-Independent groups originally stood for and now stand for, and how representative of their local communities they are, I don't know. Whatever, this trend, and also the floor-crossing of one of the several family pairings on the Council, has meant that the non-Conservative strength appears no longer to be a Labour monolith. For good or ill, the Conservative have formed a coalition with at least one of these groups, Isleworth Community Group, and allotted some roles to the other, though as an outsider I don't know whether you would count the western group as part of the coalition - it seems to benefit from an association with it without necessarily being part of it.Why do I call this coalition unsavoury? Because of your own past (in my view a long quarantine period after National Front activism is appropriate, including eschewing of any form of public office), and because ICG has attained power without responsibility, a hidden veto voting strength within the counsels of the coalition whilst sheltering behind the skirts of the bigger party. Thus you are not willing publicly to defend the Cannes junket whilst maintaining in power those who supported it.It is also unsavoury because the tactics, as manifested here on this Forum, of ICG councillors appear to be similar to, and have all the charm of, those of Rottweilers. The Conservatives meanwhile can smilingly distance themselves from their attack dogs, pointing out they are of another party. Meanwhile, the Conservatives are implementing, apparently unchecked, their agenda for cutting public services in their quest for the holy grail of lower council tax at all costs. But at least they do so civilly, for the most part. I don't, incidentally, doubt that Conservatives also seek value for money and greater efficiency - what has always got up my nose hss been the holier-than-thou attitude that only they have the key or the ambition to seek value for money and greater efficiency.You remain convinced that I am some kind of cover for others in my posts. Far from it, I am - manifestly - an innocent observer of the mayhem of your playpit. My questions about the Cannes were quite genuine and remain unanswered (as a result of your diversionary tactics) - what was the intended benefit of this trip, and what did it achieve? £13k between 3 people (2 councillors, 1 officer) to Cannes is a lot of money and your public hould know the answer. Simply saying they should answer for themselves abdicates your role as a trustee of public money.

Dan Filson ● 6204d