Category Archives: Bad Bosses

Our fine local employers

CRAP EMPLOYER OF THE MONTH #1: CLOVER ADVERTISING/APPCO GROUP

With the economy suffffering and the safety net of the welfare state being cut from under us, jobs are hard to come by these days. But as one BRISTOLIAN reader found out, you’d be better offff punching yourself in the face than accepting employment with some of the COWBOYS out there.

‘Jane’ contacted us to warn others about Clover Advertising. “I responded to an advert for an office-based ‘energy surveyor’, and got an interview. But in the interview it suddenly turned out to be door-to-door sales – and the advertised hours of 10-7 became 10-8,” recalls Jane.

The interview began as a sales pitch for Riverford, an organic veg box scheme from Devon. When asked what this had to do with energy surveying, the interviewer cagily said “Um, you’ll be doing some of that too”.

“They lied through their teeth. Advertising a different job to the one they had,” says Jane. “I want people to know they’re a bunch of crooks. From the start they were ABSOLUTE BLAGGERS.”

Other people conned into applying for MISADVERTISED JOBS with Clover have told The BRISTOLIAN that it gets worse if you work for them! Clover is a Bristol-based marketing company run by Gareth Byrne and Natalie Powell from an office above an unlet shop off Park Street. It’s effectively a franchise of the UK’s largest direct sales outfit, Appco Group, run by MILLIONAIRE WIDEBOY Chris Niarchos.

“Billion dollar enterprise” Appco once traded as Cobra Group – until its reputation got known – and sells direct debit subscriptions on doorsteps, mainly on behalf of charities.

Meanwhile in Bristol, Clover – like other Appco companies – recruits mainly young people with vague promises of “fantastic average earning potential”. Appco-linked firms don’t employ their doorstep canvassers either.

Instead they consider their workers self-employed (so don’t pay tax or National Insurance contributions) and only pay commission. That’s right – no basic wage. If you don’t sell anything you don’t get paid! Appco-style self-employment also means answering to the same boss everyday, being contractually tied to the company and being forbidden to work for competitors.

So you’re like a charity street seller only without the Minimum Wage. A few really ruthless I-could-sell-anything-to-your-102-year-old-gran types do succeed – but most Appco workers are simply exploited, with reports of staff earning less than a hundred quid for fifty-hour weeks.

So why does right-on farm Riverford Organics use a company that rinses the desperate-to-work unemployed to sell their lovely organic veg? They proudly display ‘Best Online Retailer 2011 in the Observer Ethical Awards’ on their website; ethical with vegetables not people though.

Other clients of Clover include the Red Cross, who recently started providing food donations in the UK for the first time in seventy years. So the people who flog their direct debits will likely be the same people forced to use their food banks! Clover Advertising and Appco Group: you win The BRISTOLIAN‘s very first CRAP EMPLOYER OF THE MONTH award.

You absolute scumbags!

CORPORATE FEED-IN FEEDING FRENZY SET TO HIT BRISTOL OVER SOLAR SCHEME

China & big business cashing in on city’s solar power bonanza

While leafing through our latest copy of Construction News, the ‘Magazine of the Chartered Institute of Building’, a headline leaps out: CONTRACTORS EYE UP BRISTOL’S £47M ‘DASH FOR SOLAR’.

Maybe this a reference to Mayor Fergo’s go-ahead earlier this month for a £47m plan to install solar panels on 7,000 council houses and a variety of public buildings in the city?

This is “triggering one of the biggest solar PV projects since the Feed-In-Tariff (FIT) was cut in November 2011,” the magazine breathlessly informs its corporate readership. It then lists massive global companies including Lakehouse, Wates, Willmott Dixon and NOTORIOUS BLACKLISTERS Carillion among the contractors who might be interested in this feed-in feeding frenzy. Hardly the kind of local businesses that Mayor Redtrousers and his sidekick, solar-powered windbag Sir Gus Hoyty-Toyty seem so keen to promote at election time!

The article then finds Simon Green from Lakehouse – which grabs lucrative public sector contracts – waxing lyrical: “Because of MASS PRODUCTION IN CHINA, the unit cost of the kit has come down considerably and with the feed-in tariff the same as it was, then you have a large enough project, and the RATE OF RETURN is as big as it was before,” he gushes.

Bollocks. Unit costs have not “come down considerably”; they’ve been driven down. China has unlimited access to forced, slave and child labour and gives workers zero human rights. So they can undercut competitors in European markets by selling panels below cost. Why? To break Europe’s companies and get a monopoly.

Just the sort of practices we should be encouraging here in Bristol for our long-term benefit don’t you think?

Anyway, with £47m to play with, why can’t we manufacture and install the damn things from Bristol?

HORSEWORLD BOSS GOES A BIT ‘PINOCCHIOWEN’ LIVE ON RADIO!

Web ExclusiveIt was can’t-tell-the-truth bingo on BBC Radio Bristol this morning, as HorseWorld’s MD, the ever incompetent Mark ‘Not That One’ Owen, was interviewed on the Breakfast Show by Steve Le Fevre.

HorseWorld M.D. Mark Owen: management skills of the back end of a panto horse

HorseWorld M.D. Mark Owen: management skills of the back end of a panto horse

Pinocchiowen had taken to the airwaves to lament his regime’s FAILURE at yesterday’s Bath & North East Somerset Council planning meeting to secure permission to raze the horse charity’s land in Whitchurch in order that a bunch of houses that local people couldn’t afford could be built there.

And despite some direct questions from Le Fevre, the troubled charity boss just didn’t seem able to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth…

Here’s the link to the show on BBC iPlayer – it’s at 1h 52min; or here’s a link to just the interview.

And in case we’ve not made it easy enough for you with that, here’s the full transcript:

Steve Le Fevre: Now let’s talk more about HorseWorld. It’s one of the area’s best known animal charities, it’s been told it can’t redevelop on its base in green belt land on the edge of the city, it wants to build a new visitors’ centre at its complex in Whitchurch, and build more than a hundred homes on its land to help pay for the project.

And Mark Owen is the Managing Director of HorseWorld, and joins us just now… Hello Mark…

Mark Owen: Morning Steve, how are you?

Steve Le Fevre: So this turn down, a major blow for your finances?

Mark Owen: It’s certainly very disappointing, you know I wake up this morning slightly shell-shocked by what’s happened there. We had some extremely exciting, well thought-through, meticulously planned application for a much more exciting and sustainable future, which had the support of the case officer, had the support of BANES’ own transport experts, it had the support of an independent business consultant, which verified the business plan.

So we went into this meeting with all the technicalities ticked, and all of the important information supported by BANES. Yet they voted against it.

Steve Le Fevre: There was a lot of opposition though Mark, as well, wasn’t there?

Mark Owen: There’s more support than opposition on the actual BANES website. Yes, Save Our Green Spaces have an opposition about building in green belt in general, but actually if you look at the facts, there is more support for what we are doing than against…

Steve Le Fevre: Well, you have opposition from Whitchurch Parish Council, Compton Dando Parish Council, Whitchurch Village Action Group, Bristol City Council…

Mark Owen: No, no, no… There is no objection from Whitchurch Parish Council. They’ve actually accepted the very special conditions.

Steve Le Fevre: Must be our mistake, then, we had an objection from them. My apologies if that’s not the case. Let me talk to – stay with us, and we’ll talk to Dr Mary Walsh from Whitchurch Village Action Group. Hello Mary…

Mary Walsh: Hello!

Steve Le Fevre: What are you against necessarily – it sounded like a great tourist attraction for the area…

Mary Walsh: I have a very bad line – can you repeat?

Steve Le Fevre: What are your objections to this?

Mary Walsh: My only objections, and Mr Owen will know, all along, everything between us has been…

Steve Le Fevre: Well just tell us!

Mary Walsh: We want to save our green spaces. Whitchurch depends on our green belt, as a village. We have very little left – there’s only 13% green belt in the country, and unfortunately BANES have 3/4 of that 13%.

Steve Le Fevre: Alright, and that is the point, Mark, really trying to build on the green belt and then put the houses on your land – just the topography that’s the problem?

Mark Owen: Well there’s a certain irony about this because with this BANES have recently – and I mean as recent as the 19th November – have promoted HorseWorld’s land as the most likely area of land within the Whitchurch village to be…

Steve Le Fevre: But what about the land you’re hoping to go to with your visitor centre and your arena and so forth?

Mark Owen: Yes, we’ve got two parts of our site, the most contentious part is where the houses are being built, and that’s where 95% of the discussion last night was on, and on that part, this is where BANES have earmarked as the most likely area to be brought out from the green belt, and there is a Core Strategy initiative to bring two hundred houses to the Whitchurch village.

A certain irony where they support our land as the most likely for housing.

Steve Le Fevre: Right, well we’ve, we can’t go on too long on this, but just on the finances themselves, just a text that’s come in from J in Bristol, ‘please ask HorseWorld how much charity cash they’ve blown on a naïve, ill-judged plan, a betrayal of donors and legacies…’ Is that a fair point?

Mark Owen: Of course there’s a concern about, you know, going into applications, planning applications, it’s an expensive thing. But what I would like to say is, what if we don’t do, you know, the sustainable future of a sixty year old charity will not be there unless take these plans. The current centre is unviable, it’s land-locked, it’s too small, and it needs investment.

Steve Le Fevre: Alright, we’ll have to leave it there, Mark – thank you very much indeed. Mark Owen, Managing Director of HorseWorld, Mary Walsh you heard as well from Whitchurch Village Action Group.

Just in case you were starting to believe Mr Owen’s fanciful claims, here it is in black and white, from the BANES ‘reports pack’ (entitled ‘20112013 1400 Development Control Committee.pdf’) accompanying yesterday’s Development Control Committee meeting:

To date 38 individual objections letters and 46 letters of support have been received in respect of application 13/02164/OUT for the proposed residential development. 567 identical objection letters have been submitted from local residents through Whitchurch Village Action Group. 8 objections letters and 64 letters of support have been received in respect of application 13/02180/FUL for the proposed Visitors Centre application. 2 Objection letters were received in respect of Listed Building application 13/02121/LBA.

(The same, identical summary of consultations/representations appeared in last month’s reports pack as well, then labelled as  ‘23102013 1400 Development Control Committee.pdf’.)

Allow your super soarway BRISTOLIAN guide you through the VERY TRICKY SUMS which Owen clearly has trouble with…

  • Objections: 38 + 567 + 8 + 2 = 615
  • In support: 46 + 64 = 110

(And as we have previously noted, those 110 notes of support actually break down into 108 notes from 72 people.)

For the record, Steve, when you said “you have opposition from Whitchurch Parish Council” you were correct in that Whitchurch PC had recorded official objections to the plans in both the above mentioned reports packs. The full text:

WHITCHURCH PARISH COUNCIL – OBJECT for the following reasons:-

1. A lack of confirmation from the Inspector regarding B&NES Council Core Strategy housing numbers for Whitchurch Village.

2. Whitchurch Parish Council believes that the protection of the existing Green Belt is of paramount importance in order that the Village protects its traditions, culture and sense of community which has been built and retained over many years. The majority of the land in these applications is in the Green Belt.

3. The Plan for traffic is flawed. In the Traffic Assessment 4.10 it states that ‘the proposed development is unlikely to have any impact on the existing traffic flows or the operation of the narrowest sections of Sleep Lane’. We believe the projection of traffic is inadequate and that Sleep Lane will be greatly affected by the increase in traffic from the developments together with the junction with Woollard Lane, Staunton Lane and the A37. Therefore given the current constraints with regards to the layout of Sleep Lane, any increased demand to use this route as a result of development is unacceptable.

4. Whilst we are sympathetic to HorseWorlds ‘Special Circumstances’ we do not believe that they outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt as explained in Section 9 of the NPPF and the fact that the developments will have a detrimental effect on the safety and operation of the public highways in the area.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS DATED 2ND September:

In view of the recent meeting between Horseworld, BANES & Whitchurch Parish Council we continue to have reservations about the inevitable increased traffic flows notably the two-way system in Sleep Lane and the potential bottlenecks created at the junction of Woollard Lane/Sleep Lane and Woollard Lane/A37.

We wish to record our continuing stance that the existing Green Belt should not be developed. However given the lack of clarity surrounding the number of houses Whitchurch Village is expected to take on, BANES Core Strategy, and the developing scenario with other housing developments we feel that we should record our thoughts as follows.

In the event that BANES Core Strategy is ratified by the Planning Inspector at a level of 200, we would not object to the Horseword application of 125 houses subject to the following conditions:

1) Strict implementation of the traffic controls proposed by Horseworld and agreed by BANES Transport/Highways.
2) Support for the revised traffic proposals by BANES
3) Absolute and irrevocable refusal of any other housing development that would exceed the 200 or lower figure agreed between BANES and Planning Inspector.
4) We acknowledge the special circumstances put forward by Horseworld.

Claiming that very measured statement from Whitchurch as outright support shows that Owen is not just wild for the old pork pies, but apparently SELF-DELUSIONAL as well!

Even the Bristol Post has seen through his wishful thinking and corrected its latest story to more accurately reflect the balance of public opinion over the HorseWorld plans after The BRISTOLIAN politely drew the attention of the journalist assigned – amusingly a crime reporter – to the actual recorded numbers of 615 against and 110 for.

So Mark: seek treatment. Not just for your sake, but for the charity you’re running into the ground.

A RIGHT KICK IN THE PADDOCKS: FLAWED HORSEWORLD PLANS THROWN OUT BY BANES COUNCIL

Some interesting developments today in the HorseWorld ‘let us knock down our visitor centre so we can sell the land to a property developer who will build a bunch of executive homes and then build a visitor centre’ story… Against all expectations, Bath & North East Somerset Council TURNED DOWN the charity’s planning application by ten councillors to two in a shock decision that left incompetent boss Mark ‘Not That One’ Owen with a very long face indeed.

Here’s our local reporter with analysis:

The word on the street here is that when HorseWorld first started its plan a couple of years ago to do this development, the Managing Director Mark Owen looked at the balance sheets that were showing the massive losses under his leadership and then calculated how to achieve a break-even or profit figure, maintaining the same levels of spending in all areas but increasing income from the tourism side of things. He apparently discovered that if his visitor centre could get 135,000 people per year then it would have higher income from admission fees, merchandise etc, and so would break even.

So the theory is he then began putting together a case which started from this 135,000 figure and worked backwards, to try to show that a new visitor centre would get those numbers through the doors, instead of proving the attraction of the new centre would lead to those numbers. Most companies would tend to do their business plans the other way round of course!

This botched way of doing things might persuade trustees who have a vested interest, innumerate finance directors, and planning officers whose hands were apparently forced by the Liberal Democrat councillors who run the BANES council cabinet and have visited HorseWorld; but it was unlikely to persuade the councillors who had to justify a decision. And it grossly underestimated the intelligence of Stockwood and Whitchurch people!

This back to front approach also showed with the way HorseWorld panicked when they had to pay £1 million Section 106 money and so tried to balance the books by reducing the affordable housing allocation.

Key to the rejection of the vague plans put forward by HorseWorld were the low numbers of affordable homes that would be built, the sketchy reasoning behind the 35% overnight jump in visitors anticipated, failure to adequately argue why there was an exceptional reason to build on green belt land, and the increased traffic. Owen was left spluttering that HorseWorld would now have to close down. (Well, only if he continues to manage it the way he has up till now.)

And finally, there were behind the scenes all sorts of shady deals going on – in Bristol as well as in Bath – to try and push the application through: more on this in the next edition of The BRISTOLIAN paper – on the streets from the end of next week. In the meantime, check out Stockwood Pete’s blog about today’s decision.

HORSEWORLD PLANNING APPLICATION, TAKE TWO: A BIT OF A PANTOMIME? (OH NO IT’S NOT!) OH YES IT IS…

Web Exclusive…And so we return to the ongoing saga of attempts by INCOMPETENT CHARITY BOSSES at HorseWorld in Whitchurch to persuade Bath & North East Somerset Council to let them knock down their visitor centre, sell the land to property developers, and then build a new visitor centre.

Apparently that will suddenly make them all financial geniuses and not the same dunderheads who created a massive black hole out of the generous donations and bequests from animal lovers keen to see abused donkeys, horses and other equine beasts rehomed.

Last month you may recall that all three planning applications were withdrawn at the eleventh hour – could The BRISTOLIAN‘s detailed reporting on how HorseWorld bosses made staff write letters of support to the council have had anything to do with the committee members’ irritation?

Well, this afternoon (Wednesday 20 November) is crunch time: all three apps are back in the room. Indications are that the BANES committee might be minded to slip it through – especially if they read the awesome puff piece in the Bristol Post earlier this month by its Business Editor Michael Ribbeck, which all but suggested the fall of western civilisation if this new development doesn’t go ahead.

Most amusingly of all was the elaborate plucking of ‘facts’ out of thin air, conjuring with made-up statistics, and general air of the reporter having HUFFED TOO MUCH GLUE whilst glumly waiting for the next round of redundancies.

A little taste:

The planning application also includes plans for 90 homes which would be built on green belt land if the application is approved by Bath and North East Somerset Council.

Err, no, Michael – the application is for “up to 118 dwellings”. Despite the norm for an affordable element of 35%, HorseWorld is trying to get away with an allocation of just 10% at the site. That means potentially more than 100 RICH MEN’S HOMES plonked in the middle of Whitchurch instead of meeting local young people’s need for housing they can actually afford.

And the extra kick in the balls? HorseWorld wants to have subsidised on-site staff accommodation counting towards that meagre 10%!

Let’s keep going…

There have been eight objections to the scheme on the grounds of the traffic it will create and the loss of green belt land. However, the council has received almost double the number of letters in support of the redevelopment.

As we pointed out in great detail, there have been 615 letters or emails objecting to the proposals, with 108 (from 72 individuals or businesses) in support. The majority of supporters had non-local addresses. One-third of the supporters were directly linked to the charity (though most failed to declare so).

HorseWorld saw visitor numbers hit the 100,000 mark in 2011…the eventual aim is to increase numbers by around 35,000 a year.

As Highways Development Control has noted, “the anticipated increase in annual visitor numbers…from 100,000 to 134,000 per annum, ‘based on research’, no information has been submitted in order that those assumptions can be checked/verified.”

In other words, the Bristol Post-annointed ‘Communicator of the Year’ HorseWorld loves to spin a good yarn, to tell a tall tale – but can’t really back up any of its claims. And as for Ribbeck and the Post, well, who needs facts when you’ve a full tin of Evo-Stik Impact and a carrier bag on your desk.

Anyway, if anyone is in Barf tomorrow and at a loose end, do pop in to the Brunswick Room at the Guildhall for the Development Control Committee meeting; kick-off is at 2pm.

Though this might not be the end of the matter – even if BANES passes it through though, it looks likely to face objections from Bristol City Council…

THE BRISTOLIAN #4.8 – OUT NOW FROM ALL GOOD STOCKISTS!

Bristolian_4.8_coverWell, we have been so busy working on the ‘Ms X’ story these past few days that we have not had the chance to tell you that the latest issue of your favourite local Smiter of the High and Mighty has been on the streets for a week!

November’s edition of The BRISTOLIAN is another PACKED ISSUE, featuring…

» BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL: WE’RE BEING ROBBED!
More cash disappearing from ‘of concern’ authority – this time from cash-in-transit

» MAYOR GRASS FARCE
A right royal game of lawn-acy as Fergo visit gets preferential grass-cutting treatment

» HOYTY-TOYTY’S PORK BARREL POLITICS SCAM
Green Councillor coughs up three times reserve price for allotments that couldn’t be developed on

» COUNTING THE COST OF CITY HALL LIARS
Farcical claptrap from council managers destroys open spaces, runs up massive bills

» CORPORATE FEED-IN FRENZY
China and big business cashing in on city’s solar power bonanza

» CRAP EMPLOYER OF THE MONTH: CLOVER ADVERTISING/APPCO GROUP
The lowdown on why this is one “billion dollar enterprise” you probably don’t want to work for…

» INDYREDPANT’S UNWISE MONKEY’S HORROR NO-SHOW
How the ‘outsider’ who ran in council elections for IfB “shook things up” on audit committee by not turning up

» B-LIME-Y
A merry-go-round of useless managers squanders £100k on lethal play equipment while kids’ education suffers

» HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO CHANGE A LIGHTBULB?
How PFI deals with the private sector cost us masses more…

PLUS: NEWS IN BRIEF!!!

» BRISTOLIAN BITES
Tantalising titbits including…

  • THE NEW POLITICSLib Dem Stella Hender returns as anti-Green artist Stella Perrett
  • PICKUP PACKS UP! mystery of Labour councillor’s ouster at hands of own party
  • FERGO IN PITTSBURGH CONGRESSHis Redtrouserness continues to rack up those AirMiles
  • HUNGER GAMESstarving kids made to trudge halfway across city to pick up food arcels
  • GASTRO PUB RUN BY IDIOTShard to imagine, we know

…And all that for FREE!

See the Distribution page for your local stockist – and if there isn’t one near you, let us know!

CAN’T WAIT TO GET HOLD OF A PAPER COPY?

Then you can DOWNLOAD a PDF version here:

» The BRISTOLIAN #4.8 – November 2013

BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL’S ‘DOMESTIC ABUSE POLICY’: SOMEBODY BETTER TELL THE BOSSES!

Some extracts from Bristol City Council’s very own Domestic Abuse Policy:

DO

  • Listen positively and reassure the individual. Ensure that they know:
    • You believe them
    • It’s not their fault
    • There is support available

DON’T

  • Pressurise an individual into a specific course of action
  • Be judgmental of the individual’s choices and actions
  • Stop supporting the individual once you have referred to another agency

Perhaps the overpaid idiots mishandling the ‘Ms X’ case should take the time to read it?

And then – heaven forbid – actually PUT IT INTO PRACTICE

HORSEWORLD PLANNING APPS WITHDRAWN AT 11TH HOUR!

Web ExclusiveFollowing a tip-off last night The BRISTOLIAN can report that the ‘interestingly’ managed charity HorseWorld will not be seeing its planning applications for a massive housing development and new visitor centre go before the BANES Development Control Committee today – thanks to the sensational LAST MINUTE DUMPING of the matter from the agenda.

Bath & North East Somerset Council’s DCC is still meeting this afternoon… Only without any discussion of the controversial concrete-in-the-greenbelt scheme that HorseWorld boss Mark ‘Am I In This Month’s BRISTOLIAN Again?’ Owen seems to think is the only way to reverse the financial rot that set in during his five year tenure as Managing Director.

A council source told The BRISTOLIAN:

The applications have been withdrawn – this was done by officers not the applicant. There is further information to be obtained, and issues to be clarified…

Just what could that “further information” be? What “issues” need to be “clarified”? Could it be that the recent revelations in your lovable ‘Smiter’ have been read down yonder..?

It’s expected that Owen’s DOOMED PLANS will be resubmitted to next month’s DCC meeting on 20 November.

In the meantime, questions continue to be asked about a number of aspects to Owen’s development proposals, not least the ‘SECTION 106 CONTRIBUTIONS’.

‘Section 106’ obligations are legally enforceable requirements on a piece of land that a local authority negotiates with an owner. When major development like what’s planned for the HorseWorld land is in the pipeline, it’s meant to ensure that the developer bears some of the financial strain on local services, such as education, roads and health facilities.

And as you can imagine, 125 new houses in a village of barely more than 1,300 people can definitely be seen as major.

So given the FINANCIAL STRAITS that HorseWorld is in, offering £1,008,254.52 in s106 money (‘HorseWorld Trust Financial Viability Statement’) seems pretty impressive (though as some have noted, s106 negotiations are often skewed in favour of the developer).

Certainly, as some of the submissions in support of HorseWorld’s plans suggest, more housing for local people – something of a hot local potato at the moment – would be a great idea.

As HorseWorld marketing assistant Amy Williams noted (whilst simultaneously forgetting to mention who she’s employed by):

Housing is very much needed in the area and will allow the existing listed buildings to be converted and preserved. The site for the housing fits inperfectly with the existing built up area surrounding it. Well done HorseWorld for a well thought out plan!

Well done indeed! And well done Amy for describing so well the need for affordable housing for Whitchurch locals whilst she herself lives in a £200,000+ house in, err, Staple Hill!

Amy’s boss, Communications Manager Samantha Greatbanks – an actual Whitchurch resident – echoes the sentiment:

I feel that for my generation these houses will provide a new place to live that is close to home.

Admirable sentiments from someone living in a half-a-million quid property!

Still, it will be great that with 125 new homes in Whitchurch young locals not born with a silver spoon in their mouth will be able to find homes in their own village and not be forced out by stupidly high house prices, isn’t it?

Erm… Well it seems that HorseWorld isn’t that keen on the idea. Its million pound s106 offer is only on the table if it’s allowed to provide just 10% affordable housing on the site – a mere dozen homes for ordinary Whitchurch people.

That’s contrasted with the not-much-less-meagre demand – carried unanimously – of the BANES Development Control Committee for 35%.

And when you consider that around 110 new dwellings would attract roughly 300 new residents with well over a hundred extra motor vehicles between them, and increase demand for school places by at least a hundred, just how far will that £1,008,254.52 stretch?

Does Mark Owen and the charity bosses who approved his perks and company car and salary hikes – whilst the horse-loving staff at the sharp end survive on little more than minimum wage – really think the people of Whitchurch are so witless?

HORSEWORLD’S ‘SECRET’ SUPPORTERS…(WHO JUST HAPPEN TO WORK THERE!)

Web ExclusiveFollowing on from our recent stories about how HorseWorld’s CRAP BOSS, Managing Director Mark Owen, has been CRACKING THE WHIP and forcing workers to send in letters in favour of the charity’s planning applications – due to be considered today – here’s the full list showing which of the 72 supporters who wrote to Bath & North East Somerset Council are linked to the award-winning Whitchurch equine centre…

Employees, volunteers etc who didn’t declare their interest:

  1. AMY WILLIAMS  (Marketing/Communications Assistant?)
  2. ANDREA MOUNTAIN  (Unknown role)
  3. DAWN PARKER-WATKINS  (Wife of Jerry Watkins?)
  4. EMILY MITCHARD (Community & Corporate Fundraiser)
  5. EMMA BURT  (Recent volunteer)
  6. IAN RICHLEY  (Partner at Smith & Williamson, where Trustee Mike Neale is also Partner)
  7. JERRY WATKINS  (Director of National Equine Welfare)
  8. JULIE SCARRETT  (Marketing Assistant)
  9. KAREN HARDWICK  (Visitor Centre Yard Manager)
  10. KAYLEIGH MACLEOD  (Training Groom)
  11. KIM POUNSBERRY  (Education Worker)
  12. KIRSTIE SMITH (Groom/Visitor Centre Assistant)
  13. MARG STENNER  (Trustee)
  14. MARCUS LEE KEARTON  (Equine Welfare Groom)
  15. NIKKI BRIDGES  (Director of Finance)
  16. REBECCA HOPKINS  (Director of Human Resources)
  17. SAMANTHA GREATBANKS  (Marketing & Communications Manager)
  18. SAMANTHA GROVER  (Stable Assistant)
  19. SHARON CREWE   (Visitor Centre Coordinator)

Employees, volunteers etc who did declare their interest:

  1. ALISON RAWLING (Worked at HW for 5 years)
  2. DEBBIE LINTON (Volunteers at HW)
  3. JANET PERRNS (Fundraising Manager until recently)
  4. MARK ROGERS (“Worked for HW for 26 years”)
  5. PAULINE REED (“Recently started working for the charity”)
  6. VICKY GREENSLADE (Visitor Centre Yard Assistant Manager)

Other supporters who did declare an indirect interest:

  1. ANNETTE LINTON (Daughter volunteers at HW)
  2. MICHAEL TOMS (Local supplier)
  3. N.J. ROBERTSON (Local vet)
  4. V CAMERON  (Former volunteer)

That’s heading towards HALF of the written support for HorseWorld’s half-baked development plans coming directly from, err… people involved in running HorseWorld! And that’s just who cropped up without any particularly deep digging!

Of course, no one should be prevented from putting across their opinion just because of where they work – but why hide your connection to an organisation that wants to undertake such a massive development? Unless the idea is to deliberately give the impression of being impartial local voices…

That’s certainly what the charity’s cash-burning senior management might like BANES to think its dealing with!

++ STOP PRESS ++ STOP PRESS ++ STOP PRESS ++ ++ STOP PRESS ++ STOP PRESS ++

We have had word that the HorseWorld planning applications have been dropped from today’s Development Control Committee meeting, which was due to take place at 2pm.

We will try and confirm exactly what is going on and report back as soon as we hear something.

HORSEWORLD PLANNING APPLICATION: A QUICK CANTER THROUGH THE NUMBERS…

Web ExclusiveOn the trail...A curious tale, is this HorseWorld planning application shenanigans

As we reported yesterday, the HOPELESS BOSS of the charity (which, it should go without saying, does great work rehoming and rehabilitating horses, donkeys and other equine beasts that have come upon hard times) – Mark ‘Large Sums’ Owen – has been leaning on his 60-odd employees and 150+ volunteers to send in letters of support to BANES Council.

We reported that – based on Bath & North East Somerset Council’s own figures – there had been 615 letters of objection and 110 letters of support. Having crunching through all the available information, we can reveal some STARTLING FACTS.

There have actually been 108 expressions of support, from a total of 72 people, split across two separate planning applications – both the ‘enabling’ application for a massive housing development, and the ‘enabled’ application for a new visitor centre.

Even more interesting is that of those 72 supporters, we have POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED* 23 of them as trustees, executive officers, managers, paid employees or current (or very recent) volunteers. A 24th is a partner in HorseWorld’s investment manager Smith & Williamson – alongside trustee Michael Neale. A 25th appears to be the wife of a director. Of these 25 with clear, proven interests in HorseWorld, just SIX have declared that interest.

Curiously, of the other 47 supporters, only FOUR mention any specific connection to HorseWorld: the mother of a volunteer, an ex-volunteer, and two businesses which trade with the charity – something of a statistical anomaly in the circumstances…

Is Large Sums getting so desperate that he thinks he can get away with such an amateurish attempt to ‘astroturf’ support for his ill-thought out master plan?

* Just to be clear, we have only counted clear evidence of close connection to HorseWorld – such as paid employment, current or very recent volunteering etc – and we haven’t sneakily included every person who has ‘Liked’ a post on the HorseWorld Facebook page, or described themselves somewhere as a ‘supporter’ of the charity.