What are we to make of ex-Cllr Eddie Setterfield's latest letter
to the Mercury, in which he slams anti-LNG campaigners for trying
to force Milford Haven Port Authority to publish the quantified
risk report on the importation of liquefied gas?
According to Eddie, these people are "not from the area"
and that if they don't like the situation they "should find
another place to live".
I sometimes wonder if the description "mouth in top gear,
brain in neutral" was specifically devised with Eddie in
mind, because, presumably, he would also have to argue that natives
of Milford Haven living under the Heathrow flight path would have
no right to protest against the building of a third runway.
Perhaps those of us who "are not from the area" should
wear distinctive clothing so that others will immediately know
whether our views are worth listening to.
Eddie has stated that he will not be running for election in May,
and, as a large proportion of the population of Milford Haven
are "not from the area", having been attracted to the
town to work in the fishing and oil industries, that would seem
to be a wise decision.
Indeed, the town's founding fathers were a bunch of Yanks from
Nantucket, and the Setterfield clan is not immune from criticism
on the grounds of spatial purity, having originally followed the
herring fleet from East Anglia.
It is noteworthy that, prior to the electorate's decision to dispose
of his services, Eddie was a leading member of the Independent
Political Group (chairman of both planning and highways).
His latest effort is on all fours with the statement put out by
the IPG's former leader, Maurice Hughes, who described attempts
by the Council for National Parks to overturn the Bluestone planning
decision by way of judicial review as " a disgrace".
How anyone who claims to be a democrat can criticise someone for
pursuing their legal rights is a mystery.
To me, it smacks of an authoritarian desire to silence all opposition.
Voltaire's dictum: "I disagree with what you say, but I will
defend to the death your right to say it" would seem to be
a better guide..
A reader has raised an interesting point with regard to the
discrepancy between QinetiQ's asking price (£250,000-£300,000)
during negotiations for the sale of the East Blockhouse site to
the National Park and the Meopham family's offer (£200,000)
that was eventually accepted.
In fact, the Meophams eventually paid £235,000 which, as
SF, who did hard sums at university, has pointed out, is exactly
17.5% more that the offer price and most probably represents VAT.
Clearly, if the original asking price was ex-VAT, the Meophams
bought the site at a considerable discount.
Less so, if it was inclusive of VAT.
An FoI request has been dispatched with a view to clarifying this
point.
As you will recall, soon after the Park's asset management group
decided not to purchase the site, Mark Meopham (brother of head
of asset management Gary Meopham) telephoned QinetiQ with an offer
of £165,000, increased to £200,000 after he was told
that £165,000 was too low.
It would be interesting to know what steps Gary Meopham took to
negotiate a lower price, when acting on the Park's behalf.
Another FoI request.
This is important because it is not beyond the bounds of possibility
that the asset management group's decision might have been different
if it had been aware that the site could be bought at a sizeable
discount.
During the debate on the Chief Executive's decision to issue a
final warning to Gary Meopham, the Park's hierarchy went to great
pains to emphasise that Gary Meopham had not played a prominent
part in the decision not to buy.
This seems rather strange given that, as head of asset management,
he would have been the group's lead officer.
Mr Peter Hoardley, the director who carried out the final investigation
into the affair, said that Gary Meopham's chief concern would
have been "value".
That being the case it would surely have been incumbent upon him
to try to beat down the price on the Park's behalf, just as his
brother did when acting for the family.
I hear that the Park's newly-formed and grandly-named special
investigations and reputation committee has already held its first
meeting (Reputational wreckage).
And, according to reports, with the sole exception of Cllr Michael
Williams, the members voted to exclude the public and press.
Not the best way to enhance your reputation for openness and transparency,
I would have thought.
Old Grumpy has been closely following the events surrounding the
sale of East Blockhouse ever since I first heard about it back
in October last year (Inside
track).
On the face of it, what has become known as Garygate, revolves
around two conflicting accounts of events in May 2006.
The asset management group's "decision" (the apostrophes
will be explained later) not to purchase was taken on May 4.
According to QuintiQ's estates officer, he was telephone by Mark
Meopham sometime between 1-4 May with an offer of £165,000.
Mark Meopham was told this offer was too low and on 5 May he came
back with an offer of £200,000 which he confirmed by way
of a letter dated 8 May.
Q's estates officer's version of events is corroborated by a memo
he sent to his boss on 10 May 2006.
When questioned about these events more than a year after they
happened, the Meophams insisted that these telephone calls from
Mark Meopham had all taken place on 8 May by which date; the "decision"
not to purchase having been taken on 4 May, Gary Meopham's interest
in the site as Park officer had ceased to exist and he was therefore
free to pursue his private interest unimpeded.
At which point we may notice the elephant in the sitting room:
no decision was made on 4 May because, under the authority's constitution,
it was not within the asset management group's powers to make
such a decision.
All the asset management group was empowered to do was make recommendations
to the senior management team in whose hands the final decision
lay.
As far as I am aware, the senior management team has never ruled
on the issue.
That being the case, the Park (and Gary Meopham as one of its
officers) still had an interest in purchasing the site on 8 May.
In his report, he monitoring officer skirted round this little
difficulty by observing that it was common practice for the asset
management group to make "decisions" in this way.
As former chief clerk to the magistrates he will know that the
defence "But, I've always parked on the double yellow lines
outside my house" is hardly likely to carry much weight with
the bench.
His second line is that there was an implied delegation of the
senior management team's authority to the asset management group.
I am not sure that an implied term is capable of displacing an
express term in the constitution.
To argue otherwise would mean that the officers could modify the
Park's constitution as they saw fit.
While that sort of thing might pass muster in Putin's Russia,
it is not the way things are done in democracies under the rule
of law.
Talking of property being bought at knockdown prices, Old Grumpy
notices that planning permission has been granted to renovate
the Commodore Hotel in Pembroke Dock.
In addition, the developers have obtained consent to build four
town houses, 22 apartments and five maisonettes on the site.
According to the Land Registry website, all this development land
was bought for the princely sum of £170,000 - little more
than the price of a three-bed terrace in Milford Haven.
I also notice that the developer's name is given as P.E.M. Developments
though Irish company records office has it down as Pem Developments.
This is important because, as I wrote last October (Insider
trading), this company was set up specifically to take advantage
of business opportunities in Pembrokeshire (hence Pem) and the
apparent change to P.E.M. rather obscures that connection.
As I said, Cllr Brian Hall's erstwhile business partner Dr Michael
Ryan (see Hall-Ryan)was involved in the
establishment of this company which then bought two properties
(land at Withybush designated for a motor retail park and the
Commodore) which were both under threat of compulsory purchase
by the county council.
In addition, the company was awarded a potentially lucrative contract
to develop the Withybush Business Park.
This despite the fact that it had been incorporated only a year
earlier and, therefore, had no track record of carrying out similar
developments.
Old Grumpy was interested to read in the minutes of the planning
committee where these consents were granted that "Cllr Brian
Hall declared a personal interest in this application and withdrew
from the meeting ."
Unfortunately, the minutes do not record that Cllr Hall declared
the nature of this personal interest as required by the Code of
Conduct.
back to home page