Seventeen Windows

[sooty2]

The above post was actually written by Beverly Hills. Admin split her post into two, widening of Dan Bank/ Seventeen windows.He moved the first part of her post,but not the second.So I moved it for her, so it shows myself as the author.

[Dave]

I'm getting even more confused now    I thought we already had the outcome of the LGO investigation: 

I feel compelled to write about the results of the complaints made to The Local Government Ombudsmen and in particular the Council Complaints Officer. To reject a complaint made about a Councils inappropriate spending of public funds on the basis that the Council approved the spend is a nonsense. 

[Miss Marple]

Everyone on this site has been privy to information concerning Seventeen Windows.  Sadly the general public who do not use this site have no idea whatsoever re the funding of the landscape gardens, the drive in drive out drive and the extensive no essential work that was undertaken by SMBC.  When I speak to people they are horrified when they find out about how much of tax payers monies was spent on the project which in turn profited an individual.  If the facts surrounding Seventeen Windows had been published there would be more than a handfull of local people complaining about the situation.  Lets face it even Andrew Stunall was not aware of the excessive spending until it was brought to his attention.  Once aware he started own investigations into the amount of monies spent as did several other councillors.  As i have already said we are still awaiting the findings along with other intrested parties as soon as I have a reply I will post it

[Barbara]

I have just read a book set around the 1900's supposed to be a factual reminisence of the author as a young boy.  He states that Seventeen Windows was an inn at that time.  I have never heard this before and wonder if his memory was playing tricks when he wrote the book (he was about 90!).  Can anyone confirm this either way?

[Duke Fame]

For what it's worth, I think Duke Fame's post above is probably a neat summary of what happened.

......except that I've just remembered that the owner gave SMBC the strip of his garden, rather than selling it to them.  At least I think he did (but I'm not going back through 489 posts to check   

Again, if I was giving something away, I'd like to think I was getting something back. May just save on solicitors fees etc if we give it away and get a bit of gardening done in return. Avoids a bit of tax etc.


It looks a little geared in Mr 17 windows favour but hey, he held the  cards in the first place.

[Dave]

For what it's worth, I think Duke Fame's post above is probably a neat summary of what happened.

......except that I've just remembered that the owner gave SMBC the strip of his garden, rather than selling it to them.  At least I think he did (but I'm not going back through 489 posts to check   

[Tricky]

For what it's worth, I think Duke Fame's post above is probably a neat summary of what happened.

I concur.

+1

[Harry]

For what it's worth, I think Duke Fame's post above is probably a neat summary of what happened.

I concur.

[Dave]

To reject a complaint made about a Council's inappropriate spending of public funds on the basis that the Council approved the spend is a nonsense. It in effect means that the Council are not responsible to anyone and can spend as and when they like on whatever scheme they wish with no comeback whatsoever.

The reality is, Beverley (and Blessedly), that it is just your opinion that the spending on the works at 17W was 'inappropriate'.  Your opinion is perfectly valid, but no more so than mine or any other resident's.   The remit of an LGO investigation is nothing to do with the opinions of residents.  Instead, it examines whether proper procedures, due process etc were followed, that a properly constituted and quorate Council committee took the decision, and it was accurately minuted, etc etc etc.  If a properly reached decision happens not to be in accordance with the preferences of some residents, then that is a matter for councillors to explain to those residents, and if it comes to it, answer for at the next election.   

As well as being answerable to us residents, as the voters, local authorities are also answerable to the Audit Commission, which inspects their work.  Here is a link to the most recent inspection report on SMBC.  http://oneplace.audit-commission.gov.uk/infobyarea/region/area/localorganisations/organisation/pages/default.aspx?region=53&area=455&orgId=1543

For what it's worth, I think Duke Fame's post above is probably a neat summary of what happened.

[admin]

Thanks BS, I was hoping Beverley H would do that herself but no worries.

I'm going to introduce a ban on 17 Windows being mentioned in any other thread as the wisecracks are becoming a little tiresome - I may not be the only one who feels like that. Either I will edit out the reference or more likely delete the entire post if it is mentioned in other topics.

[sooty2]

Post by Beverley Hills
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have just received the latest newsletter about the planned 'improvements' to the Dan Bank / Dooley Lane junction. It has prompted me to update myself with the comments made about Seventeen Windows. I feel compelled to write about the results of the complaints made to The Local Government Ombudsmen and in particular the Council Complaints Officer. To reject a complaint made about a Councils inappropriate spending of public funds on the basis that the Council approved the spend is a nonsense. It in effect means that the Council are not responsible to anyone and can spend as and when they like on whatever scheme they wish with no comeback whatsoever. Beverley hills
 

[sgk]

Forgive if I’ve missed a bit but as I see it, the local authority proposed to do work on the bottom of Dan Bank which would mean some encroachment onto the land owned by 17 windows man.

He said, that he doesn’t want to give up his land, he’s paid for it etc etc.

The council have said you’ll have to, we’ll get an order if we have to.

Owner’s said, that will cost you, I suppose I could do you a deal. I’ll need compensating and the noise is going to increase so I want a sound proofing fence and Everest windows. Plus I’ll need a gate and you’re going to mess up my garden so you’ll have to put that right.

The council, being generally staffed by wth willing unemployable have not been too good at negotiation, they have said OK, we’ll do that for you.

The Owner has also said, BTW that land is going to cost £££££ too so let me have a cheque.

Again the council have said OK.

Given a compulsory purchase order would take ages and cost loads, they may have been right to do as they have.

Is that about right? If so, I think it’s better to accept it and not add any more cost.

Kinda.

The hope is that the investigation will put an end to such speculation, by placing the facts in the public domain.

Something that should have been done in the first place.

[Duke Fame]

Forgive if I’ve missed a bit but as I see it, the local authority proposed to do work on the bottom of Dan Bank which would mean some encroachment onto the land owned by 17 windows man.

He said, that he doesn’t want to give up his land, he’s paid for it etc etc.

The council have said you’ll have to, we’ll get an order if we have to.

Owner’s said, that will cost you, I suppose I could do you a deal. I’ll need compensating and the noise is going to increase so I want a sound proofing fence and Everest windows. Plus I’ll need a gate and you’re going to mess up my garden so you’ll have to put that right.

The council, being generally staffed by wth willing unemployable have not been too good at negotiation, they have said OK, we’ll do that for you.

The Owner has also said, BTW that land is going to cost £££££ too so let me have a cheque.

Again the council have said OK.

Given a compulsory purchase order would take ages and cost loads, they may have been right to do as they have.

Is that about right? If so, I think it’s better to accept it and not add any more cost.

[Miss Marple]

No the investigation is into the misuse of public monies to profit an individual 

[Duke Fame]

Getting back to the heart of this topic - what is happening with the Local Government Ombudsman's investigation into 17 Windows? Those of you who have been corresponding with Andrew Stunell and the council, isn't it time you asked for an update if you haven't had anything recently? How long does a LGO investigation take for goodness sake!

I contacted Andrew Stunell and  have been promised a copy of the findings which has not apparently been upheld so the constituent in question has been advised to go to the next stage

Hasn't all the work been done, isn't is a little too late?