Tag Archives: webxclusive

THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOLMWOOD: THIS IS WHAT ABUSE LOOKS LIKE

When Kathleen Cole was removed from Holmwood House care home (see The BRISTOLIAN passim), the new home into which she was placed was so concerned about the state she was in that they took a series of photos to carefully record the clearly-visible injuries that she had suffered.

With the permission of Kathleen’s daughter, we publish here a selection of those photos.

This is what abuse looks like:

Kathleen Cole

Bruising to the arm

Bruising to the leg

Skin tear on the elbow

Grade 3 bed sore

» If you’re concerned by what you’ve seen and want some ACTION from Bristol City Council rather than reports, write to or phone the following and tell them “SHUT DOWN THE HORROR HOME NOW”!

Alison Comley
Director Health and Social Care
Email: alison.comley@bristol.gov.uk
Tel: 0117 353 7860

Mike Hennessey
Director Neighbourhoods
Email: mike.hennessey@bristol.gov.uk
Tel: 0117 903 7061 or 0117 352 1069

George Ferguson
Mayor
Email: mayor@bristol.gov.uk
Twitter: @georgefergusonx

THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOLMWOOD: THE CQC RETURNS TO BRISTOL’S HORROR HOME!

Leave a reply

The BRISTOLIAN has learned that care home regulators, the Care Quality Commission, have had to be called urgently back in to HOLMWOOD HOUSE in the last month after an 84 year old woman fell from a hoist.

It seems the woman was being lifted by a single member of staff – contrary to all health and safety regulations and advice – when she had the accident. Apparently the wrong sling had been fixed to the hoist and the woman fell straight through it.

“The CQC have been crawling all over the home,” we’re told. This comes despite another safeguarding investigation in to the horror home by Bristol City Council last March, which came about after a medical practitioner attending the home had expressed concerns about “the use of slings, hoists and air mattresses for Mrs [Kathleen] Cole”, the deceased woman at the centre of the Holmwood storm.

The practitioner told the investigation that there was “poor management, training, staff resources and facilities inadequate for the needs of the patients.”

And the council’s safeguarding investigation report tells us that investigating on behalf of Holmwood House was – wait for it… the struck off nurse ISLA MEEK! Which was absolutely fine by council social care boss, DAVID TOOLE and his crackpot safeguarding team who described her work as “appropriate and thorough”… So thorough, in fact, that an accident has happened within six months.

Bristol City Council also said in their report “that if further evidence became apparent it would be acted on”.

This obviously hasn’t happened as the horror home remains open and Bristol City Council continue to commission the home and currently have around 40 people placed in the death trap at a minimum cost of £600 A WEEK each.

The BRISTOLIAN has also been told about another resident of Holmwood who when admitted to Frenchay Hospital was found to be suffering from dehydration and malnutrition. She subsequently died.

How much more of this cruelty is Bristol City Council prepared to endure before they act decisively?

» If you’re concerned about what you’re reading and want some ACTION from Bristol City Council rather than reports, write to or phone the following and tell them “SHUT DOWN THE HORROR HOME NOW”!

Alison Comley
Director Health and Social Care
Email: alison.comley@bristol.gov.uk
Tel: 0117 353 7860

Mike Hennessey
Director Neighbourhoods
Email: mike.hennessey@bristol.gov.uk
Tel: 0117 903 7061 or 0117 352 1069

George Ferguson
Mayor
Email: mayor@bristol.gov.uk
Twitter: @georgefergusonx

NOT JUST ‘MS X’ – HOW BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL FAILS TO REHOUSE DOMESTIC ABUSE VICTIMS

1 Reply

Do you want the good news or the bad news first?

Today The BRISTOLIAN can exclusively reveal that domestic abuse survivor ‘Ms X’ – whose case we featured prominently through November – has finally been rehoused. Yet this excellent news is overshadowed by figures released by Bristol City Council that show others like her face an astonishing SIX MONTH WAIT.

We understand that Ms X received the keys to her new home yesterday, following a rush of activity in recent weeks by senior council officials whose sudden interest in her case mysteriously only took hold after The BRISTOLIAN took up the cudgels in support. She had up until that point been ignored by the Service Director, housing managers and the Mayor’s office, despite being at a very real risk of serious violence from her abuser.

Meanwhile, after a long wait for the data on how many others like Ms X there are out there in Bristol, the council today responded to a Freedom of Information request by a BRISTOLIAN reporter with statistics that are EVEN MORE HORRIFIC THAN FIRST FEARED.

For the year 2012-2013, Bristol City Council received 396 applications for rehousing due to domestic abuse. Just 228 were rehoused – that’s a success rate of under 58%*. Incredibly, domestic abuse victims had to wait on average more than 185 days to be found a place of safety. ONE-HUNDRED AND EIGHTY-FIVE DAYS at risk of violence, sexual assault, mental torture and much more besides.

Whilst budget cuts have clearly made the situation worse over the past year, the figures show that this scandal has not appeared out of thin air. In 2008-09, UNDER 40% OF 224 ABUSED APPLICANTS WERE REHOUSED, with an average wait of 120.5 days.

The following year, 2009-10, there were more applicants – 275 – but better performance from the council, with 61% rehoused and the wait down to just over 112 days. 82% of 307 people were found safe homes in 2010-11, with the wait cut to three months – though that means there were still MORE THAN FIFTY PEOPLE AT RISK OF ABUSE LEFT OUT IN THE COLD.

However, by 2011-12, fewer than three-quarters of the 347 people seeking help were rehoused, with the wait jumping up to 132.4 days. As the data clearly shows, there has been a steady rise in the need for rehousing – NEARLY DOUBLING in just five years.

This comes at the same time that researchers at the University of Bristol have released findings from a study of homeless women in the city which show that nearly 80% had suffered domestic abuse in the past, with almost a quarter of them facing it currently or recently.

So just how are Bristol’s overpaid, self-regarding political élite – whether arrogant Mayor Fergo and his City Hall hangers-on, or the top service bosses in their nice, warm offices – going to solve this sickening scandal? Is their plan to wait for vulnerable women, children and men to just die off, either through the violence of their abusers or the unforgiving harshness of being homeless?

That’s certainly one way to improve the statistics without actually doing anything.

* BCC supplied the data in slightly different forms for numbers of DV applications, which were given by year up to a given date in March; and both ‘successfully rehoused’ numbers and ‘waiting’ times, which were each supplied covering the financial year (April-March). This means that the precise percentages cited in this article may be slightly different to that recorded by BCC – but any variance will be miniscule. If you doubt our figures, check the data provided by BCC in the link above.

THERE’S NO PLACE LIKE HOLMWOOD: WHY THE BRISTOLIAN HAD TO ACT

1 Reply

**So, how did the Holmwood House scandal come to be plastered over the pages of The BRISTOLIAN and featured in gruelling detail at last Thursday’s Cabinet meeting?**

As usual, distant, arrogant council managers who refuse to be accountable to the public – even in the most extreme cases such as the unexplained death of an elderly woman in their care – are the authors of their own public humiliation and downfall.

Rest assured, the Holmwood case did not come out of a clear blue sky last Thursday: Kathleen Cole died in July and her daughter Annette Whiting has been asking questions ever since then and not getting any answers.

A key figure in the scandal is DAVID TOOLE, the Bristol City Council Health and Social Care Manager who oversaw the six safeguarding reports into Kathleen’s care. It was he who worked closely with the home’s struck-off nurse ‘consultant’, ISLA MEEK, to play down the dangerous quality of care at Holmwood House. By September, he simply stopped taking Annette Whiting’s concerned phone calls over the circumstances of her mother’s death.

So did he think she’d just go away? On the basis that when some middle manager plonker at the council stops taking your phone calls that’s the end of any matter? How wrong can he be?

It was at this point, Annette sought the only immediate help at hand, which was seasoned care campaigner Steve Norman and The BRISTOLIAN. She was immediately put in touch with firebrand lawyers Irwin Mitchell, specialists in public law, while Steve tackled the council privately and requested a meeting with the Social Care Strategic Director ALISON COMLEY.

Fat chance. Apparently Comley – herself an ex-social worker, but now a six-figure salaried City Hall boss – was far too busy at strategy meetings to worry about suspicious deaths on her watch. The actual response from Comley’s PA was that her boss was “too busy” and that Annette would need to complete a ‘Fair Comment’ corporate complaint form!

Because obviously the best way to deal with a bereaved relative – with a series of highly compelling issues to raise regarding the care your organisation provided – is to get them to fill in a form and force them through a useless bureaucratic process!

It was at this stage that The BRISTOLIAN took the decision to go public with Holmwood House immediately. It was plainly apparent to us that none of these managers gave a toss about Annette or her mother and were behaving as if they were not accountable to the likes of us.

Just how stupid and arrogant are these council managers? What planet are they living on, which makes them think they can treat ordinary Bristolians with utter contempt and get away with it?

Well, things have changed a bit now haven’t they? Rest assured Comley, her sidekick MIKE HENNESSEY and that lamentable safeguarding manager arsehole DAVID ‘WATTA’ TOOLE are now running round like blue arse flies trying to explain their bizarre conduct and lunatic decisions. And this is just the start …

To steal their own soundbite – “There’s no secrets, no cover-ups, no hiding places in Bristol”.

» Be sure to keep an eye on The BRISTOLIAN: there will be further Holmwood House revelations this week…

BRISTOL (EX) LABOUR WEEKEND FASHION WATCH

Leave a reply

Should this man be running a city?

Former Labour councillor Derek Pickup – who ‘sensationally’ quit the Party in October – stepped out in, er, style to Saturday’s Hengove Park protest.

Displaying a thoroughly independent approach to wardrobe and fashion issues, Derek was sporting a Guantanamo Bay meets Cbeebies’ Mr Tumble combo, tastefully offset with a very classy anorak – Something Special indeed!

Where’s Derek getting his amazing style tips from? Councillor Mark Brain?

Well, it’s certainly bringing Mayor George’s dream of a ‘City of Circuses’ a step closer…

HOLMWOOD HOUSE ‘CARE’ SCANDAL: CENSORSHIP AND COVER-UP IN BRISTOL?

Leave a reply

Following on from our exclusive story about Holmwood House care home, The BRISTOLIAN here reprints word-for-word a statement sent in to Bristol City Council by the son of a resident ENDED UP DEAD in circumstances that would make any reasonable person very concerned.

Its HEARTFELT MESSAGE, intended to be read out at today’s Cabinet meeting, seems to be something which neither Bristol’s Bedwetter-in-Chief, Mayor Red-Nappy himself, nor his middle management cronies, want you to hear.

That’s certainly what the various attempts by senior bureaucrats to prevent the statement’s author from presenting his statement or addressing the meeting look like to anybody outside of their cosy BCC bubble. They’ve spent the last day or so going REDACTION CRAZY, crossing out as much detail in the statement as possible with their big black felt pens, as if to minimise any possible comeback against council officers or policy. That’s on top of trying to strong-arm the author (whose father died in their care) into not mentioning the names of any people, places, companies or court cases – which are already a matter of public record.

“The statement’s defamatory!” they cry, as if they were high court judges instead of the cheap apologists for the abusers of the elderly that they actually are.

As usual the actions of these petty town hall bosses appear designed to protect the guilty and screw ordinary, innocent Bristolians unfortunate enough to be on the receiving end of their outsourced ‘care’ or their cut-price ‘safeguarding’.

Anyway, anyone mentioned in this statement – as those at Shitty Hall know full well – is more than welcome to take action. We wait with interest…

Three years ago this coming January my father passed away under dubious circumstances whilst in the care of Holmwood House Nursing Home. Kenneth Albert Norman was placed in to the of care Holmwood House by the Adult Community Care team after suffering horrendous abuse and neglect at the hands of Mimosa Health Care. Another provider who were fully supported by Bristol City Council and who received millions of pounds from the city’s coffers to provide quality care and end of life facilities to the most vulnerable in society – the elderly.

The establishments’ run by Mimosa within the city were continuously investigated by the biggest toothless tiger on the planet. One that in most sensible thinking people’s minds should be disbanded and replaced with something that can bite. This organisation is the Care Quality Commission.

What action did Bristol City Council take when serious failings were found? Ummm they continued to give this provider millions until their demise. Through this stupidity and madness you helped this provider continue to abuse and neglect the most vulnerable in society and not once has an elected official or senior manager apologised to those that suffered or their families who are left with the permanent scars and nightmares created by the madness of this provider.

We now have a new provider of abuse and neglect on the block – Holmwood House Nursing Home, Westbury-On-Trym. When Kenneth Albert Norman passed away, I requested an inquest in to his death. During this process I made a request through the coroner’s office to obtain his medical records from Holmwood House. The coroner’s office were then informed by Holmwood House that “the gardener had burned/destroyed them in a bin in the back garden of the home.”

This was less than a year after his passing and it effectively scuppered any chance of the files being inspected by me or the coroner’s office before an inquest. After the inquest these records rose like a Phoenix from the ashes and re-manifested themselves. I along with other members of my family have a lasting vision etched on our brains of our father led out in a hospital bed at 01.00am dead and we will never have the answers as to why.

Three weeks ago I was approached by a lady called Mrs Annette Whiting seeking my assistance and help after her mother, Katherine Cole, died of pneumonia twelve days after leaving Holmwood House Nursing Home, having inexplicably lost her swallowing reflex and one third of her body weight.

She died despite six safeguarding investigations by Bristol City Council – who placed the woman in the home – into the care Katherine was receiving at Holmwood House during her last fifteen months there. The city council did a seventh safeguarding investigation following the woman’s death.

I have seen the safeguarding reports and the material is shocking. One report describes two potential assaults on Katherine by nurse Cicily Joseph, who was later charged with one count of common assault for performing an enema on Katherine without proper permissions. Ms Joseph escaped a conviction for this on appeal.

A second potential assault charge for performing a ‘manual evacuation’, a considerably more serious and degrading assault, never came to court. Although seven staff have stated that Ms Joseph had clearly told them that she performed “a manual” on the woman. Staff say Ms Joseph also told them that she had performed the procedure on a male resident with learning difficulties and one member of staff witnessed this. Ms Joseph now works in another Bristol care home.

Meanwhile the ‘consultant’ employed by Holmwood House who worked directly with the council on many of their safeguarding investigations at the home was former nurse, Isla Meek. Ms Meek was struck off by the Nursing and Midwifery Council in 2012 after failing to report six deaths and keep proper drug records at a home in Whitchurch. Why both the city council and Holmwood House owner Ghassan Al-Jibouri consider Ms Meek a suitable person to carry out investigations in to the safety of adults in care homes is unclear.

It also appears that Ms Meek was directly involved in patient care at the home too. She claimed to the council’s final safeguarding investigation that on the morning that Katherine Cole was moved from Holmwood, she was sat up in bed eating porridge. An account that is disputed by legitimate medical practitioners who say the woman had no swallowing reflex on arriving at another care home a few hours later.

Similarly, Ms Meek and Holmwood can provide no explanation as to how the woman lost such a large amount of weight. What there is of Holmwood’s slapdash medical records – that have already been heavily criticised by the CQC – seem to show the patient experienced no weight loss.

Her family are therefore left to believe their mother somehow lost a third of her body weight, her swallowing reflex and caught terminal pneumonia during a half hour ambulance journey to a new care home.

And to add insult to injury, Mrs Cole’s daughter, Annette Whiting, has requested her mother’s medical records from the home, only to be told that this will cost her £50 for copying. In the first instance, a charge of this magnitude is simply not legal and seems designed to prevent Mrs Whiting from accessing these records. Secondly, where’s the basic humanity from this home and its Bristol City Council backers? How can you charge recently bereaved relatives like this?

Does anyone here remember the No Secrets No Hiding Place In Bristol Policy? Has anyone considered renaming that policy ‘Plenty of Secrets Plenty of Hiding Place in Bristol as We Don’t Believe In Transparency’?

I say this to our esteemed Mayor before jetting of round the world on jolly boys outings. Do the job you were elected to do and get the big house on the green in order. I have no doubt that when this story becomes public knowledge and hits the civil courts you will have plenty of opportunity for press coverage and comments about our great city and its failure to protect the most vulnerable.

Three years may seem like a long time but I feel sure from the press I read Mr Ferguson that it is going to be a case of Sia Nara Mr Ferguson in three years time.

Stephen Norman.

You can watch the action live on the council’s website here from 6pm.

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

3 Replies

It 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

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

2 Replies

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…

2 Replies

…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…

MS X & BRISTOL CITY COUNCIL’S FAILURE TO REHOUSE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A BRIEF UPDATE

Leave a reply

We know many readers have been following the ‘Ms X’ story – in which Bristol City Council has WASTED MONTHS and FAILED TO REHOUSE a vulnerable victim of domestic violence who has faced DEATH THREATS – and hoping for a happy ending.

Unfortunately we are not currently in a position to report any such thing.

However, we understand that the wheels of rehousing are – very slowly – moving forward for Ms X, and that she recently (and for the first time) met PAUL SYLVESTER, the optimistically-titled ‘Rehousing Manager’ who seems to be very effective at neither rehousing nor managing.

The Council’s position now appears to hinge on the VAGUE “hope” that she might be rehoused “in the next couple of weeks”, so keep your fingers crossed – and if you haven’t already, please do let officers and councillors know you are taking an interest in this…

Meanwhile, in reporting this story, we have discovered that Ms X’s situation is – depressingly – FAR FROM UNIQUE.

We have uncovered evidence of others forced to suffer twin attacks: both the extended fear of brutal attacks from abusers, and the indignities of ‘BANDING LIMBO’ thanks to BCC’s worryingly inhumane interpretation of housing law.

As soon as we are in a position to publish the full, shocking details of this scandal, we shall.