Last night at the town hall

[BFR]

This is quite a long post so please feel free to fall asleep at any moment. I will first give a brief account of the evening, including personal highlights in an otherwise pretty dull evening. I went primarily as I was interested to hear what Councillor Janik had called-in, regarding Slough Town Football Club and Wexham Park Stadium. However, as Councillor Janik had left the room when it finally got round to his part of the agenda, the call-ins were deferred, presumably until the next meeting. At the bottom of this post I include what the call-ins were according to enlarged agenda complete with appendices given out at the meeting.

 

I arrived in the public gallery at 7.30, was the only person in the public gallery and caught the tail end of a presentation by the Chief Constable of Thames Valley Police. A few minutes later the committee administrator came up to the gallery, gave me a copy of the agenda and turned on the lights. With Cllr Anderson arriving late, Cllr Small took the chair.

 

7.40 Revenue Budget Strategy 2005/06 was discussed with Cllr Howard leading the discussion. Questions were then raised by members of the committee regarding certain things that were included in the growth and savings sections of the budget report.

 

8.05 Cllr Janik arrives. He may have been at the meeting earlier, or simply out of my view, but he arrived at this time and took off his coat which to my mind suggests he had just arrived.

 

Approx 8.15, due to Cllr Swindlehurst and Cllr Howard exchanging words while others are speaking, Cllr Shine interupts to say 'I have a hearing defect', meaning that Cllr Swindlehurst was disturbing his ability to listen to the debate. At this Cllr Small replied 'I have a sight defect because he (appeared to point at Cllr Janik) keeps moving around. James (Cllr Swindlehurst) shut up, you (I guess at Cllr Janik) keep still.

 

At around 8.25 Cllr Shine bemoaned the fact that they were talking about the Revenue Budget Strategy, saying surely it was going to the sub-committees of the Scrutiny Committee. Cllr Small replied that this was her only chance to scrutinise the strategy and in her opinion scrutinising the budget was the most important function of the Scrutiny Committee. She went on to say she would be quite prepared to discuss the budget until 11 o'clock as it is that important. At this I groaned to myself.

 

Cllr Stokes was there and spoke at one point, saying he believed that Fiona McTaggart MP had made some sort of pledge for extra money for Slough although this seemed to be very different to what the Labour councillors were saying. This went into a politcal debate which the Chair rescued by telling everybody off, saying to them the job of the Scrutiny Committee is not political and that politics was not allowed in the chamber this evening. She then threatened to remove the next person who took the meeting down a political route.

 

8.50 - Cllr Key announces 'I am thick', although this was in reference to her being able to understand the layout of the Budget Strategy.

 

8.55 - Cllr Janik spoke for the first time.

 

8.56 - Cllr Anderson arrives.

 

9.10 The Budget debate concludes. Shortly afterwards Cllr Janik eats one of Cllr Key's party ring biscuits.

 

9.30 During the debate on the Reorganisation of Council's Senior Management Structure, there is a moment where Cllr Anderson and to a lesser extent Cllr Swindlehurst burst into laughter as Cllr Stokes announces he does not recall making comments that Cllr Anderson said he had, admittedly three or four years ago rather than a week later (Woof woof saga)

 

9.35 It is said that three members of the Council Management have resigned in three weeks, Councillor Anderson questioned if there would be anybody left to manage the Council in February

 

9.50 Cllr Shine said 'I'm a layman, most of us are and don't really understand what goes on in the council.'

 

10.25 During a brief discussion about E-Gov (electronic government) Cllr Shine remarked 'I've not got the ability to understand E-gov'. Cllr Small then made a comment that she was the original thick one on the council, Cllr Key had said she was thick earlier in the meeting and now Cllr Shine was joining their group.

 

10.30 The agenda finally moved onto Members Call-ins, but as Cllr Janik had left the room, it was decided to defer the call-ins, presumably to the next meeting of the Scrutiny Committee. With Slough Town no longer on the agenda I lost the will to sit there any longer. Three sodding hours of my life wasted.

 

10.35 Still there.

 

10.45 Cllr Shine started talking about something slightly off-topic that was not meant for public hearing. Cllr Small asked Cllr Shine to pause and then asked me to leave the gallery. On my way out Cllr Anderson met me and we had a brief discussion. Ten minutes passed and the meeting was over.

 

Below I have copied the call-in material that was in the agenda, and included a cabinet briefing note regarding the sale of Wexham Park Stadium. Given that this information was handed out to me as a member of the public at this meeting I shouldn't have thought there is a problem with reproducing it on here. If there is then I will remove it.

 

Britwell Regeneration Project – Payment to Mr Deaner

 

Councillor Janik has submitted a call-in in the following terms:-

 

“After the last Scrutiny Committee meeting, its Chairman made public comments in the local press which, when taken as a whole, are said by some to be inaccurate and misleading. In view of the importance of the Council’s scrutiny function and the necessity to inspire public confidence in the Scrutiny Committee’s accuracy, fairness and impartiality and because of the apparently misleading public statements originating from the Committee’s last meeting which are said to confuse Councillors, Officer and members of the public, it would be advantageous to all interested entities if the scrutiny process examined its functioning to identify how statements subsequently disputed by Officers were not corrected by the Committee and thus allowed to create a false and misleading impression of actual events particularly those related to the matter of whether or not this local authority owes, or had owed, Martyn Deaner any money attributable to his involvement in the Britwell Regeneration Project.

 

I ask that the Chief Executive and Assistant Director, Legal Services be invited to give evidence which will hopefully permanently clarify the matter of money for Mr Deaner.”

 

Wexham Park Stadium

 

Councillor Janik has submitted a further call-in in the following terms

 

“There has been great controversy relating to selling-off an area of council land totally approximating 46 acres for the total sum said to be circa £300,000. Any prudent person would naturally be surprised that public property was effectively given away for a tiny amount of its actual monetary value. Some members of the public believe this excessively generous disposal of public property is a current policy of the Council and they often ask how the Council allowed itself to be placed in a position of extreme benevolence at a time when the children’s play centres remain closed down to save scarce public money caused by the Council being virtually bankrupt, save for the amazing rescue donation of £1.4 million by Accord, and there remains an acute shortage of money for urgent socially essential services.

 

I ask that the history of this utterly cheap give-away of valuable Council land to a known multi-millionaire property developer be examined and made known and that the Council examines all aspects of this matter and, if possible, suggests proper controls on any further Council contracts to prevent the residents of this Borough being deprived of essential funds necessary for the provision of some very basic services.

 

Although this occurred under the previous Labour administration I respectfully ask all members of the Committee, particularly its Chairman and his colleague Cllr Swindlehurst, to abandon their political instincts and investigate the series of events openly without concealing matters which might cause embarrassment to their political group and/or political party. To avoid any re-occurrences of this dreadful mess, we have to discover precisely what happened, why it was allowed to happen and by whom, and why the public were not kept fully informed at every stage.”

 

Briefing note prepared for Cabinet on the background to the Wexham Park Stadium issue – written by one of the Council officers.

 

The sale of Wexham Park Stadium was agreed by the Policy & Resources Committee on the 13th July 1998. The background to this decision is set out briefly in the note for Cabinet annexed. In 1998 it was seen as the only way to save the football club by concluding an agreement with Mayfair. This gave the club the opportunity of 5 years to find a new location. In 2003 the sale was concluded at the market price. The market price of any property is a factor of its current use and/or any proposed planning permission granted for any development of the site. In this case the current use of the property was as a football stadium and since it is built on green belt land and not entitled to any planning permission at present value was valued as a football stadium based on general revenues that such stadiums can generate. In order to ensure that the Council was properly informed in its valuation decisions and (sic – BFR) an independent firm of valuers who were experienced in valuing football stadiums were engaged to carry out the valuation and the negotiation of the sale. The sale price was an appropriate one in the market place and conducted in the appropriate manner.

[BFR]

There you go you buggers, don't say I don't ever do anything for you! I was most pleased to find a beer in my fridge when I got home last night

[Barry Scott]

good old Janik, championing the underdog

[Guest]

Ironic that Cllr Janik wants to bring up football club matters at scrutiny meetings when Stokes has said he wont attend any more scrutiny meetings regarding the club. This is, of course, because he knows he will be asked to account for the various statements he made to the Observer, then retracting them, then stating that he had received an apology (when he hadn't) etc.

 

I wouldn't trust this Council to run an egg and spoon race let alone our town.

[Barry Scott]

that's it, I'm moving to Fallujah

[BFR]

You can probably see though from the reasons the call-ins were being made that they weren't with the football club in mind. The first was to attack Rob Anderson over comments he is alledged to have made that are false (the cheek of it!) and the second to have a go at Labour for selling Wexham Park or as PJ was suggesting, giving it away when it could have been sold for much more. The officers note spells out quite plainly that it was sold at market price.

[Guest]

So nothing political about Janik's intentions then, despite the direction that scrutiny meetings are non-political.

 

If this lot were my children, I'd bang their bloody heads together and tell them to grow up.

[BFR]

I did find it funny with the bit where he asks Anderson and Swindlehurst to abandon their political instincts and tell everything that will make them look bad - as if that would not be used for political purposes.

 

Still, I'd still be interested to hear this debate in Scrutiny so I'll be looking out for the next meeting

[PJ-STFC]

BFR,

As no-one else has said so yet...

 

'Thank you'

 

...for spending your time monitoring this bunch of <insert appropriate description here> councillors.

 

The final briefing note is fairly useful too. Pity they could not have been a bit more pro-active in finding a new site for us, once they set the clock ticking...

 

PJ <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/chat.gif" alt="" /> [NOT Paul Janik!!!]

[BFR]

Cheers Pete, I'll do the same if I see us on the agenda of future meetings as well

[Guest]

as an elected councillor elsewhere, I can say that the report above, if accurate, sounds like Slough is run by a bunch of idiots who can't even deal with a call-in appropriately or be civil to each other.Were the press there? I can safely say it wouldn't happen here but then we don't have a big Labour group or a 57 varieties lumped together like BILLD.

 

By the way I am interested that there was a secret bit at the end.What was the agenda item for that?

 

I have been searching the councils website for minutes etc but got nowhere.Is there a public question time at Executive Committee?

[BFR]

The report I gave is accurate, though clearly I skipped a lot of the important bits and included some very minor observations, partly for a cheap laugh, partly to illustrate the quality of some of the people who are in charge of Slough. From what I understand of other meetings, this bickering is pretty commonplace as there appears to be a lot of bitterness between the two 'sides'.

 

The bit where I was asked to leave came in Item 12 or 13 I believe, though it wasn't scheduled to be a bit where the public are excluded. It is just that one of the Councillors was referring to business that was not common knowledge but was relevant. The Chair stepped in and asked me to leave. The press had already left by this stage

 

The minutes for the meeting won't be up just yet, but they have recently started publishing them. Meetings for previous meetings can be found on this page.

 

http://www.slough.gov.uk/YourCouncil/minutes.asp

 

Now then Mr Anonymous, having shared that information with you I am a little interested to find out a bit about you. If you would prefer to retain your anonymity on here I can respect that, but on a personal level I'd be interested to know who you are and which authority you represent. If you would like to engage in a private conversation you can email me at bfr_stfc@hotmail.com

[Burnham Lad]

Well done BFR - This sounds pretty typical of council meetings I have attended.

 

But to business.....

 

If Wexham Park was valued as a Football Stadium, sold as a football stadium, and given that the Planning Department at South Bucks have told me that it has received no planning applications and given that they would be highly unlikely to agree to anything else, it seems that it won't be developed for some time- say seven years, so how about the council really helping us and getting together with Bucks to suggest to Mayfair Communications that they might as well get some benefit and kudos from owning the land and lease it back to STFC. If they don't kiss any planning permission goodbye. That at least would give us seven years to find a new home, as at present we have just 18 months to do it - fat chance!

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/boxing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/angry.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/boxing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/angry.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/boxing.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wall.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wall.gif" alt="" />

[BFR]

The problem is Andrew, from what I know from my limited understanding of Law (martin, feel free to step in) the landlord and tenancy agreement is something that very much favours the tenant. At the end of the seven years the landlord is obliged to renew the contract with the tenants, which if the Thornes are serious about developing the site, is not in their best interests. As has been said before, there are several generations in the Thorne family and if this bit of land has to be passed down then so be it. South Bucks at this stage have no intention of giving planning permission on the green belt, but come a time in the future when they may have central government pressuring them to free up land for housing, I think I know whose number they will call first.

 

The other obvious obstacle is of course the fact that Deaner wasn't very good at paying rent to the Thornes before and I'd doubt very much that they would think he would do any differently were we to secure the 7 year deal.

 

These problems are well documented and is why in my opinion Wexham Park will sadly never be a viable option for our club.

[Guest]

Just like to add my own thanks BFR! Gosh, aren't our local politicians wonderful...

[Burnham Lad]

I take your point about Deaner and the rent, BFR, but I keep hoping that we can start to get the Trust in a position where we will be able to look at paying our way.

 

From my own experience in our company, it is possible to get lease agreements that are outside the Landlord and Tenant legislation where there is no security of tenure - our office lease of such a sort is just ending after five years. Also, many landlords, to encourage tenants will offer rent free periods. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shocked.gif" alt="" /> OK, it's the Thornes we are talking about, but certainly one of them use to love STFC once, and if the councils went in strongly enough - I still think it is worth a try if only because what other options are even remotely on the table at this point in time? Five years seemed a long time for the lease after we got kicked out of the Conference and it disappeared in no time - three years at Windsor seemed fine yet here we are with only 18 months left. "Desperate diseases require desperate measures" as Guy Fawkes remarked, and talking is about the only support we are likely to get off this council and asking the question would not cost them any lost pride or cost them money.

 

I do understand all the reasons why it may not work, but I fear that in 18 months there may be nothing else and will we wish we had at least asked the question, if the club is facing total collapse? This may be unfashionable with the season having gone OK so far, but we are one step away from last chance saloon, and if your findings last night are anything to go by - BILLD were just using STFC as a stick to beat Labour about the head and couldn't give a toss about the club, so let's give them a reason to try to do something.

 

Sorry to be looking into a worrying future, but if something like this is not tried, we may have nothing else I can see at this moment in time and now is the best moment from a PR point of view whilst we have national attention, to ask for what may seem a wayout solution. After all it WAS OUR ground given us after we lost the Dolphin, so why is it being allowed to rot in the hands of a developer.

 

Unfortunately the Guy Fawkes solution is NOT a feasible option with either of them!!!

 

<img src="/forum/images/graemlins/wall.gif" alt="" />

[Guest]

well well !!! poor old BFR ! ! you must be as old as me by the time this is finished !

 

I attended the last scrutiny meeting with Dom the ambassador ! and its got even worse !!

 

Ryan acts better !! and is more responsible !!

 

GOD HELP US !!!

 

rgds chris Sliski

 

PS. Jesus is coming to save us all !

[Martin]

Andrew, we can get a lease without security tenure under the Landlord and Tenant Act no problem - but I understand that league requirements insist on Landlord and Tenant provisions.

 

BFR describes the situation well - with security of tenure under the LTA the tenant can and usually will get an extended lease. The Landlord can break the tenure for various reasons most likely in this case development.

 

My understanding is that the Thornes do not want to provide this security (and they are in a free negotiating position) and are not keen on dealing with Deaner for their own personal reasons.

 

Right, off to Chelmsford, come on Rebels.

[brighton_rebel]

Have just moved house, so only just catching up on posts.

Well done BFR for attending this - i know you must have felt like slitting your wrists, but its very important that we go to these type of meetings to see what they are saying about the club.

I spent many a bored hour in that public gallery, but it was occassionally informative, and with one councillor (who shall remain nameless but is still in the council) dropping off all the council notes, i found out about lots of plans years before the rest of the general public, when it is often too late to act.

 

You deserve a beer off everyone - or will a win on Saturday do?

 

brighton rebel