Monday, 24 September 2007
Number 10 Petition Launched
Sign the petition against the arena via this link on the Number 10 website: Petition
Saturday, 22 September 2007
News From The Public Inquiry
Sources at the Croydon Public Inquiry into the CPO by Croydon Council, tell me that the Inspector has ordered the marketing hoardings to be ripped down over the weekend!
Interestingly this instruction was issued after I had sent my earlier article about the independence of the inquiry to Persona Associates, who are handling the admin etc for the inquiry.
I also am told that the Arrowcroft architect, after many hours of close questioning, said that he has not yet been paid by Arrowcroft. I assume his fee is based on "success".
Interestingly this instruction was issued after I had sent my earlier article about the independence of the inquiry to Persona Associates, who are handling the admin etc for the inquiry.
I also am told that the Arrowcroft architect, after many hours of close questioning, said that he has not yet been paid by Arrowcroft. I assume his fee is based on "success".
Wednesday, 19 September 2007
Independence and Ethics
I draw your attention to this comment posted on this site today, re the room in which the CPO inquiry is being held:
"The room is more like a marketing suite for Arrowcroft and the Arena rather than an independent inquiry.
Each wall is covered in images of the Arena and buildings.
How can the inspector be seen to be independent in these circumstances?"
As an experienced FCA, auditor and forensic investigator I would remind the inquiry that it not just a case of "being independent" but being "seen to be independent".
Failure to observe both of the above ethical principles will irreparably damage the credibility of the inquiry.
"The room is more like a marketing suite for Arrowcroft and the Arena rather than an independent inquiry.
Each wall is covered in images of the Arena and buildings.
How can the inspector be seen to be independent in these circumstances?"
As an experienced FCA, auditor and forensic investigator I would remind the inquiry that it not just a case of "being independent" but being "seen to be independent".
Failure to observe both of the above ethical principles will irreparably damage the credibility of the inquiry.
Tuesday, 18 September 2007
Farce
It would appear that, if the reports are to be believed, day one of the public inquiry into the arena development was not a resounding success wrt logistics.
The Croydon Guardian notes:
"Televisual equipment was out of order and dozens of people were left in the foyer of the Jury's Inn hotel straining to hear what was going on.
One resident said: 'This is an absolute travesty - this is supposed to be a public inquiry and we cannot hear a word of what is being said.'..."
Maybe Croydon Council will begin to realise that they have underestimated the strength of feeling against the arena.
The Croydon Guardian notes:
"Televisual equipment was out of order and dozens of people were left in the foyer of the Jury's Inn hotel straining to hear what was going on.
One resident said: 'This is an absolute travesty - this is supposed to be a public inquiry and we cannot hear a word of what is being said.'..."
Maybe Croydon Council will begin to realise that they have underestimated the strength of feeling against the arena.
Public Inquiry
The public inquiry into the CPO and related matters wrt the Gateway site and the arena commences today.
Thursday, 13 September 2007
The Elephant in The Room
Here's a little question, that has been troubling a good number of people in Croydon over the past few years, wrt the Arena.
If the Arena is such a good commercially viable project, as Arrowcroft and Croydon Council would have us believe, why is that no one has yet been found to take it on and run it (in the event that it is built)?
Some may argue that the question is irrelevant, given that a local council and construction company in the UK would never commit to building something that would be a commercial and cultural failure.
I will disregard the obvious comparison to Bliar's Dome, and move on to the little loophole within the agreement between Arrowcroft and Croydon Council.
After the unconditional date (ie if Croydon Council have taken the site by CPO, and given it to Arrowcroft) the potential returns of the newly acquired site will be reviewed.
In the event that the Arena is considered to be no longer commercially viable, in the form that Arrowcroft have "sold it" to Croydon Council, Arrowcroft could turn around and say that they don't think the Arena is viable and not build it.
Don't believe me?
Read it for yourself:
Source www.persona.uk.com/croydongateway/CPO_docs/LBC-Arrowcroft/2-lbc-arrow-6-2.pdf
Para 4.2
"..members will review the potential return to the members and discuss alternatives for realising profit and the future of the LLP and profit allocations should the members decide to progress the Development."
A cynic might argue that Croydon Council have allowed themselves, and the citizens of Croydon, to be placed in a very vulnerable position here; ie the plans for the Arena may well be pulled, and Croydon would be saddled with an unknown "plan B" for goodness knows what.
They have let us down big time.
Like it or not, this elephant of will not leave the room!
If the Arena is such a good commercially viable project, as Arrowcroft and Croydon Council would have us believe, why is that no one has yet been found to take it on and run it (in the event that it is built)?
Some may argue that the question is irrelevant, given that a local council and construction company in the UK would never commit to building something that would be a commercial and cultural failure.
I will disregard the obvious comparison to Bliar's Dome, and move on to the little loophole within the agreement between Arrowcroft and Croydon Council.
After the unconditional date (ie if Croydon Council have taken the site by CPO, and given it to Arrowcroft) the potential returns of the newly acquired site will be reviewed.
In the event that the Arena is considered to be no longer commercially viable, in the form that Arrowcroft have "sold it" to Croydon Council, Arrowcroft could turn around and say that they don't think the Arena is viable and not build it.
Don't believe me?
Read it for yourself:
Source www.persona.uk.com/croydongateway/CPO_docs/LBC-Arrowcroft/2-lbc-arrow-6-2.pdf
Para 4.2
"..members will review the potential return to the members and discuss alternatives for realising profit and the future of the LLP and profit allocations should the members decide to progress the Development."
A cynic might argue that Croydon Council have allowed themselves, and the citizens of Croydon, to be placed in a very vulnerable position here; ie the plans for the Arena may well be pulled, and Croydon would be saddled with an unknown "plan B" for goodness knows what.
They have let us down big time.
Like it or not, this elephant of will not leave the room!
Wednesday, 12 September 2007
Planning Committee Approve Arena
Thursday 6th September saw the Croydon Council Planning Committee unanimously approve the Arena scheme again.
The Planning Committee Councillors were Councillors Mogul, Mansell, Khan, Scott, Winbourne, Gatland, Wright, Osland, Hopley and Clancey.
Councillor Winbourne is a Fairfield Ward Councillor but had no problem voting for it, indeed she is quoted as saying:
"My ward has lots of concerns, however it brings much needed regeneration to the Ward"
Her view is at variance with the citizens of Croydon and indeed certain other councillors who are publicly opposing the Arena.
Addiscombe Councillor, Andrew Price spoke eloquently and summed up the objections from; local Addiscombe councillors, Andrew Pelling MP, Warehouse Theatre, Network Railway. He pleaded with the committee not to endorse this application.
Councillors Mansell, Scott, and Clancy all commented on the welcome addition of the Warehouse Theatre to the plans. However, they fail to recognise that it is still an inadequate proposal that is not capable of delivering the theatre a sustainable future.
Why does the ward councillor back the Arena, when there is clearly so much opposition to the Arena?
Democracy in action!
The Planning Committee Councillors were Councillors Mogul, Mansell, Khan, Scott, Winbourne, Gatland, Wright, Osland, Hopley and Clancey.
Councillor Winbourne is a Fairfield Ward Councillor but had no problem voting for it, indeed she is quoted as saying:
"My ward has lots of concerns, however it brings much needed regeneration to the Ward"
Her view is at variance with the citizens of Croydon and indeed certain other councillors who are publicly opposing the Arena.
Addiscombe Councillor, Andrew Price spoke eloquently and summed up the objections from; local Addiscombe councillors, Andrew Pelling MP, Warehouse Theatre, Network Railway. He pleaded with the committee not to endorse this application.
Councillors Mansell, Scott, and Clancy all commented on the welcome addition of the Warehouse Theatre to the plans. However, they fail to recognise that it is still an inadequate proposal that is not capable of delivering the theatre a sustainable future.
Why does the ward councillor back the Arena, when there is clearly so much opposition to the Arena?
Democracy in action!
Friday, 31 August 2007
Council Ignores Citizens of Croydon
Councillor Andrew Price is quoted in today's Croydon Advertiser, on the subject of the council's much derided plans for their unwanted and unloved arena.
Quote:
"We've been overwhelmed by how many people have replied and the strength of feeling there is against the arena. The results show that over many years the people of Croydon have been ignored by the council."
The Advertiser also talks about the survey carried out by Councillor Price and his colleagues, the results of which were featured on this site last Sunday.
I would, at this stage, have liked to have said that the strength of feeling against the arena should come as no surprise to those in the council who are championing it.
However, since the council have never bothered to ask for the views of the citizens of Croydon about the arena (even though they misleadingly claim that they have) it may well come as a "surprise" to them.
That being said the council do visit this site (and www.croydoniscrap.com) regularly, where the arguments for the arena have been soundly demolished over the past few years. Therefore it is "disappointing", and rather surprising, that they have continued to push ahead with this unwanted and unloved development.
Quote:
"We've been overwhelmed by how many people have replied and the strength of feeling there is against the arena. The results show that over many years the people of Croydon have been ignored by the council."
The Advertiser also talks about the survey carried out by Councillor Price and his colleagues, the results of which were featured on this site last Sunday.
I would, at this stage, have liked to have said that the strength of feeling against the arena should come as no surprise to those in the council who are championing it.
However, since the council have never bothered to ask for the views of the citizens of Croydon about the arena (even though they misleadingly claim that they have) it may well come as a "surprise" to them.
That being said the council do visit this site (and www.croydoniscrap.com) regularly, where the arguments for the arena have been soundly demolished over the past few years. Therefore it is "disappointing", and rather surprising, that they have continued to push ahead with this unwanted and unloved development.
Thursday, 30 August 2007
Reputations
Tim Pollard wrote back to me re my mail sent yesterday, saying that "all enquiries about the evidence base are being dealt with by Donaldsons on the Council's behalf. I have sent your email on to them and they will respond to you direct."
I sent him the following reply this morning:
"Tim
Thank you for your response, I look forward to reading Donaldsons' reply.
One more query for you and the council, rather than Donaldsons. Regarding Gerald Kaufman's assessment of Arrowcroft in 1999, as referenced on the CATARENA site:
'I shall talk about the conduct of people in Arrowcroft, in North West Water and in other firms. I am sorry to say that their conduct involves lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament.'
Also:
'Arrowcroft is the property partner of United Utilities, an enormous organisation, which owns both North West Water and the North Western electricity board, Norweb. It is therefore curious that Arrowcroft is not a public company and that all its shares are held by very few people.
A list of shareholders shows an Alan Jones and, a little further down, a Catherine Leslie Jones; they live together and have 35,000 shares between them. The list of shareholders also shows a Bankim Chand Gossai and, further down, an Umeshwatie Devi Gossai; they, too, share an address. Then, we have Barbara Priscilla Eppel, who owns 440,000 shares; Leonard Cedric Eppel, who is chairman of the company and owns 600,000 shares; and Stuart Neil Eppel, who owns 330,000 shares; other members of the Eppel family are also shareholders. Nicholas Paul Hai and Rochelle Eleanor Hai own more than 360,000 shares between them.
One short list comprises the names of all the shareholders in the property company of one of the biggest companies in the country--it is a family company, and the relationship between the two companies is baffling, to say the least.
However, it is clear that they are not a very successful family. While the property company registered a profit of £501,472 in 1997, in 1998--these accounts were published last month--it made a loss of £192,531.
On the other hand, the family certainly know how to look after themselves. In 1997, directors' emoluments were £487,204 and, in 1998, they increased to £605,939. The emoluments of the highest-paid director increased in one year from £119,679 to £194,353. The House may agree that certain fishy matters should be investigated.'
Are you and the council comfortable to have your names associated with, and to have entered into an agreement with, a company whose conduct according to Gerald Kaufman involves 'lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament'?
Thanks for your help.
Kind regards
Ken Frost
Croydon Against The Arena"
I sent him the following reply this morning:
"Tim
Thank you for your response, I look forward to reading Donaldsons' reply.
One more query for you and the council, rather than Donaldsons. Regarding Gerald Kaufman's assessment of Arrowcroft in 1999, as referenced on the CATARENA site:
'I shall talk about the conduct of people in Arrowcroft, in North West Water and in other firms. I am sorry to say that their conduct involves lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament.'
Also:
'Arrowcroft is the property partner of United Utilities, an enormous organisation, which owns both North West Water and the North Western electricity board, Norweb. It is therefore curious that Arrowcroft is not a public company and that all its shares are held by very few people.
A list of shareholders shows an Alan Jones and, a little further down, a Catherine Leslie Jones; they live together and have 35,000 shares between them. The list of shareholders also shows a Bankim Chand Gossai and, further down, an Umeshwatie Devi Gossai; they, too, share an address. Then, we have Barbara Priscilla Eppel, who owns 440,000 shares; Leonard Cedric Eppel, who is chairman of the company and owns 600,000 shares; and Stuart Neil Eppel, who owns 330,000 shares; other members of the Eppel family are also shareholders. Nicholas Paul Hai and Rochelle Eleanor Hai own more than 360,000 shares between them.
One short list comprises the names of all the shareholders in the property company of one of the biggest companies in the country--it is a family company, and the relationship between the two companies is baffling, to say the least.
However, it is clear that they are not a very successful family. While the property company registered a profit of £501,472 in 1997, in 1998--these accounts were published last month--it made a loss of £192,531.
On the other hand, the family certainly know how to look after themselves. In 1997, directors' emoluments were £487,204 and, in 1998, they increased to £605,939. The emoluments of the highest-paid director increased in one year from £119,679 to £194,353. The House may agree that certain fishy matters should be investigated.'
Are you and the council comfortable to have your names associated with, and to have entered into an agreement with, a company whose conduct according to Gerald Kaufman involves 'lies, concealment, deception, double dealing, proposed blackmail, proposed bribery and attempts to manipulate Members of Parliament'?
Thanks for your help.
Kind regards
Ken Frost
Croydon Against The Arena"
Wednesday, 29 August 2007
Termination of Agreement
Text of email sent to Councillor Tim Pollard today:
"Tim
Buried within the mountain of documents relating to the proposed arena development, championed by some members of the council and Arrowcroft, is this statement:
'The council and Arrowcroft have the right to terminate the Agreement in certain circumstances.'
Source: Appendices to proof of evidence of Alan Jones (page 8 para 4)
Please can you advise me as to what those circumstances are?
Thank you.
Kind regards
Ken Frost
Croydon Against The Arena
www.catarena.org"
"Tim
Buried within the mountain of documents relating to the proposed arena development, championed by some members of the council and Arrowcroft, is this statement:
'The council and Arrowcroft have the right to terminate the Agreement in certain circumstances.'
Source: Appendices to proof of evidence of Alan Jones (page 8 para 4)
Please can you advise me as to what those circumstances are?
Thank you.
Kind regards
Ken Frost
Croydon Against The Arena
www.catarena.org"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)