A reply please Mr van de Laarschot, come on answer the question
Since 2006 we have been campaigning for justice regarding the unlawful operation of premises next door to us.
We have consistently claimed that the storage of lpg in the yard at Salem Street and currently operated by Capital Gas Centre Ltd is unsafe. We have backed up that claim in a report commissioned by us in January this year called The Powell Report.
The Powell Report is a deadly accurate and damning indictment regarding the dubious tactics used by those involved to obtain planning permission and the continued dangerous use of the site.
Since the report was published with several addendums, we have sought a response from the City council regarding The Powell Report, but have yet to get any kind of meaningful response.
The City Council are hiding behind a spurious report from the Health and Safety Executive, regarding a site visit last October (2013), we have never seen the report and would call it into serious question if we could, however the council are relying on that report rather than the detailed factual Powell Report, in other words all we hear are a pack of lies.
We have asked Dr Joanne Nettleton of HSE to comment on the report, that is to either condemn it out right or to agree with it. As she has failed to reply we have to assume that she agrees with it, quite frankly she would have no choice as the report is completely and utterly correct.
We consider the behaviour of the council officers to be reprehensible, we have written to the CEO Mr Jon van de Laarschot, but have failed to get a response regarding the Powell Report, we asked the Lord Mayor Mr Majid Khan to ask on our behalf, but still no response. We did eventually contact our MP Tristram Hunt, his intervention did cause a response and Mr Laarshott wrote back to us giving hearsay information, which indicated that he had not read the Powell Report; if he had read it and understand it the premises would be shut down.
Over the past 20 years we have had all sorts of complaints hurled at us, the HS department of the City council have made numerous visits, they even responded to, one trumped up claim before we had even moved into the property.
The last 3 years however have seen these complaints intensify, and due to the involvement of various parties we decided that enough was enough and to ask Staffordshire police to look at the case. We are citing criminal conspiracy and misfeasance in public office. Whether or not this will be investigated fully and if anyone is prosecuted, I don’t know, what I do know is that my business has been under attack and my family have suffered a lot of stress as a result. We were under threat of prosecution from the City council, again trumped up complaints, and following 2 years and nine months they withdrew their prosecution. Something really stinks about all this.
The Powell Report can be seen here http://rottentothecore.co.uk/thepowellreport.html
I will also scan and reproduce other material so that the public can read and see for themselves the dangers of the situation.
I can now add the following statement to this topic:
To the management of
Capital Gas Centre Ltd
Stoke on Trent City Council
Calor Gas Ltd
Flogas Ltd
Health and Safety Executive
If the management of these organisations deny the validity of the Powell Report then they are liars, if not then sue me.
Rottentothecore
We have recently been attacked by the cyber goons, again, but we are sorted now.
Stoke on Trent City Council,et al
Moderator: Admin
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Stoke on Trent City Council,et al
by Admin » Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:45 pm
-
Admin - Site Admin
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:40 pm
Re: Stoke on Trent City Council,et al
by Admin » Tue Dec 09, 2014 5:10 pm
A reply please Mr van de Laarschot come on answer the question
Anyone with a passing interest on this matter, may by now wonder what is going on, to bring you up to date I have posed the following question (in an email and in other correspondence) directly to the Chief Executive of Stoke on Trent City Council Mr Jon van de Laarschot.
The following is a transcript from emails sent/received recently they are self explanatory:
This is the latest email from Mr Laarschot's assistant and our reply:
Dear Madam
I do not agree, the chief executive has avoided the questions put to him, therefore he has not
responded clearly. He has deliberately avoided answering the question because it is quite clear, that
to do so, and, to therefore answer truthfully, would implicate officers of the council in misconduct.
As the Chief Executive is aware of all the details and not answering a simple question concerning this
matter, then it follows that he too is now party to that misconduct and will eventually have to carry
the can for them all.
There is no need to go to the ombudsman. They check decisions of the council, Mr van de Laarschot has
yet to make a decision about the report for us to make a complaint about. Why won't the CEO just
answer the simple question 'is the Powell Report correct'? It is a yes or no answer.
I flatly refuse to let this matter drop, and will make it as public as possible, then the good people
of Stoke on Trent will be able to judge if they are getting value for money in the CEO, and to inform
them that their safety is being jeopardised despite concerns and evidence exposed in the report and
being brought to your attention on many occasions.
Faithfully
M I McNicholas
On Thu Jan 22 10:42 , Maxine Lyons sent:
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Mr McNicholasThe chief executive has responded clearly to all the points you have raised. You
will appreciate that we cannot continue to remain in this dialogue with you. As you remain
dissatisfied, please contact the Local Government Ombudsman if you have not already done so.
Sincerely Maxine Lyons | Executive Support ManagerCity of Stoke-on-TrentCivic Centre |Glebe Street
|Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RNt 01782 232602e maxine.lyons@stoke.gov.uk ---
Dear Mr Laarschot
Thank you for your email received today (7 January 2015)
I agree with your opening line regarding clarity, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will be specific
with regards our claims and make it as clear as anyone possibly can.
The Powell Report makes reference, amongst others, to site ventilation and in particular the sites non
compliance due to being ‘walled in’.
Not only does the site perimeter not meet the regulations, the situation is further complicated by
storing cylinder gas in yet another walled in section within the site, so we have the matter
compounded, i.e., walled in twice.
Now this is simply explained in the Powell report by measurement
Extract
2.4.1.1. The site storing LPG containers (400kg or more) should be well ventilated to allow dispersal
of gas from any small leaks. Tall buildings and high walls may adversely affect natural ventilation.
In general not more than 50% of the perimeter of the storage area should be obstructed. The
obstructions should not be on adjacent sides. (See ACOP1)
The east and west boundaries are tall buildings the lowest of which is 5.8 metres, the rear boundary
with the embankment rises to 3metres.
The bottle store is sited to the north west corner and is bounded by the 5.8metre wall of the adjacent
building, the 1.9metre rear wall plus embankment of 750mm totalling 2.65metres. and a small bund wall.
We again have a double jeopardy situation, where we have a walled in storage area contained within a
larger walled in area, both in excess of 80% instead of the 50% required under 2.4.1.1 above.
It follows, therefore that there is gross under ventilation of the site for the storage of LPG.
It is my understanding that following the publication of the report, officers of the City council
obtained the measurements of the site and no doubt came up with the same calculation as did Mr Powell.
Despite this evidence the City council and the HSE continue to refuse to answer the question, which is
and I repeat “Is the Powell Report correct or isn’t it?”
With further regard to the extract above (which is only part of the overall safety failures of the
site) it relates to hard and fixed measurements, these cannot be adjusted, nor can the high buildings
be made smaller.
For further clarity here are some measurements, these are of the site perimeter and do not include the
inner storage area.
Total perimeter = 112metres (40metres long x 16metres wide)
Total walled in = 96metres (40 + 40 + 16)
% walled in 96/112*100 = 85.7%
This equates to more than 58% over the prescribed allowance
This does not account for the high buildings on the two longest sides
For the HSE to say that they cannot explain Mr Powell’s, findings is a joke, teenagers in school with
average mathematics ability could work that out, therefore they are completely incompetent or not
telling the truth.
The extract above accounts for a mere portion of the sites failings, yet another extract from the
reports fits quite nicely, here it is:
THE FOLLOWING ARE FAILINGS ON SITE
• Severe lack of ventilation - to prevent explosive atmospheres forming
• fire walls - to contain runaway exothermic explosions
• existing walling on site will promote the spread of explosive pressure effects through
openings
• separation distances - to reduce the possibility of fire spread
• measures to contain spills - to reduce the possibility of fire spread
• lack of onsite surveillance - to prevent trespass and tampering
• inadequate fencing to public access - to prevent public access and tampering
• water sprays and curtains - to prevent vapour cloud spread
• zoning - prevention of vehicles entering what has become TOTALLY a Zone 1 area
• vulnerable population - danger of property destruction or death to people in adjacent office
and nearby residential accommodation when a pressure blast carrying burning materials
• connecting workplace areas - there is a connecting door between Capital Gas Centre Ltd and
Capital Roofing Centre Ltd encouraging explosive pressure and flame spread
• bulk tanks - supported by untested bunded mound with surface cavity
So there we have it, you called for ‘clarity’, there it is, so lets have the answer from you, is the
Powell Report correct or isn’t it?
Sincerely
Mike McNicholas
Dear Mr McNicholas Thank you for your further email. For clarity, the city council has never
indicated to you that the HSE has condemned the Powell report. My last email stated that the HSE did
not concur with the Powell report. Your message below states that this information has not been
shared with you. However on 27 February 2014, the HSE wrote to you and what follows below is an
extract from that letter. “Having visited the premises in October 2013 HSE did not concur with your
conclusions about the safety of these premises. We judged the conditions observed against the
standards set out in UKLPG Codes of Practice 1 and 7, and made a decision on that basis. We are
unable to explain why Mr Powell arrived at a different conclusion but I can assure you that had we
have discovered that the risks were unacceptable we would have taken action to ensure the matters were
rectified.” The other points raised in your letter have previously been addressed and we have nothing
further to add. If you wish to take matters further, you can of course complain to the Local
Government Ombudsman and I have attached a link to their website, which explains how you can do this
http://www.lgo.org.uk/ Sincerely John van de Laarschot | Chief ExecutiveCity of Stoke-on-TrentCivic
Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RNt 01782 232602e
Dear
Thank you for your email dated the 26.11.14.
In my last letter dated 13 November (copy attached) I advised that I was unable to assist you further. However, your latest email has asked whether I accept “that the Powell Report is factual and whether it is true or not.” As I have previously advised, I am not qualified to give that opinion and rely on the experience of the professional officers within the Public Health team and the determination of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
As has also been explained, the city council has not been asked by the HSE, following its attendance at the site in October 2013, to investigate matters further. In addition, I understand that the HSE has considered the content of the Powell Report and did not concur with its findings.
At this stage, there is nothing further that I can add to what has already been said to you unless, of course, any new information comes to light.
Sincerely
John van de Laarschot | Chief Executive
City of Stoke-on-Trent
Civic Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RN
t 01782 232602
e maxine.lyons@stoke.gov.uk
Our reply:
Dear Mr Laarschot
Thank you for your email today.
In reference to your second paragraph, the HSE have consistently remained silent on the matter of the
Powell report, therefore they have not answered the question - to say otherwise is untrue - nor indeed
have your 'professional' officers answered the question.
Regarding your ability to understand the Powell report and therefore having to rely upon your
officers, the report is written in very simple terms, and assuming that your have read it and that
your officers have read it can you please speak for them and as CEO for the City council and answer
the question or ask your officers and or your legal department to answer the question, the latter
should understand the implications better than anyone.
It should be quite clear to all reading these statements, letters and emails that the constant
skirting around of the subject of the Powell report shows that it is being deliberately avoided,
presumably because when the truth is admitted, there would be more serious questions to be answered.
Anyone, and I repeat, anyone who condemns the Powell report as being anything other than the absolute
truth is a liar, I stand by that statement and await a truthful answer from you, albeit by proxy from
your so called 'professionals'.
To summarise, the Powell report quite clearly and unambiguously refers to basic lpg storage and safety
at these premises, these facts are the basic requirements when considering storage of this nature, as
such it is quite clear that planning permission should not have been granted, how could this have been
ignored? What was the purpose of disregarding safety to this extent, why should the good people of
North Staffordshire be duped by trusting those in positions of power to look our for their safety,
they are being misled and their trust is being betrayed.
Why should we, a small family business have to put up with a situation that threatens our livelihoods,
whilst having to put up with harassment from your 'professionals' for over 20 years? The most recent
harassment borne out of a spurious complaint from the very gas company supplying this sham outfit.
Several people I have spoken to speak very highly of you, I have no reason to doubt them one way or
the other, however that praise seems to conflict with the treatment we receive from you. As we see it
is obvious that this dangerous problem of gambling public safety to support an illegal business is not
going to go away and I would suggest that it is given careful consideration on your part as it has
gone on for far too long and needs to be addressed.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Mike [/color]
"Hello Maxine
I am still waiting for the answer, which is quite simple really and not wishing to sound insincere but
it is an either or answer to a very simple question, quite simply "yes" or "no" to the question which
is, is the Powell Report correct?
Regards
Mike
On Fri Dec 5 9:28 , Maxine Lyons sent:
Hi Mike
Thank you for the email. I am currently liaising with colleagues who I have followed up again with
this morning. We will come back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Maxine
Maxine Lyons | Executive Support Manager
City of Stoke-on-Trent
Civic Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RN
t 01782 232602
maxine.lyons
-----Original Message-----
From: GT Gas Distribution Ltd
Sent: 05 December 2014 08:46
To: Maxine Lyons
Subject: Fwd: Capital Gas Centre Ltd, etc
Hello
Would it be possible to have a reply please?
Regards
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: GT Gas Distribution Ltd
To: maxine.lyons, tristramhunt
Sent: Wed Nov 26 17:19
Subject: Fwd: Capital Gas Centre Ltd, etc
Dear Miss Lyons
As you are the mentioned contact on Mr van de Laarschot's letter of the 13th inst, regarding the
Powell Report and Salem Street, Etruria.
I am seeking an unequivocal answer regarding The Powell Report, in plain and simple terms, will Mr
van de Laarschot please say whether the report is factual and true or not? This question is not answered
in any correspondence so far.
Regarding my complaint to Staffordshire police as far as I am aware and concerned that investigation
is not complete, and should a Judicial review agree with the Powell report then it will open the case
for serious consideration regarding misconduct.
Sincerely
Mike"
[/color]
Anyone with a passing interest on this matter, may by now wonder what is going on, to bring you up to date I have posed the following question (in an email and in other correspondence) directly to the Chief Executive of Stoke on Trent City Council Mr Jon van de Laarschot.
The following is a transcript from emails sent/received recently they are self explanatory:
This is the latest email from Mr Laarschot's assistant and our reply:
Dear Madam
I do not agree, the chief executive has avoided the questions put to him, therefore he has not
responded clearly. He has deliberately avoided answering the question because it is quite clear, that
to do so, and, to therefore answer truthfully, would implicate officers of the council in misconduct.
As the Chief Executive is aware of all the details and not answering a simple question concerning this
matter, then it follows that he too is now party to that misconduct and will eventually have to carry
the can for them all.
There is no need to go to the ombudsman. They check decisions of the council, Mr van de Laarschot has
yet to make a decision about the report for us to make a complaint about. Why won't the CEO just
answer the simple question 'is the Powell Report correct'? It is a yes or no answer.
I flatly refuse to let this matter drop, and will make it as public as possible, then the good people
of Stoke on Trent will be able to judge if they are getting value for money in the CEO, and to inform
them that their safety is being jeopardised despite concerns and evidence exposed in the report and
being brought to your attention on many occasions.
Faithfully
M I McNicholas
On Thu Jan 22 10:42 , Maxine Lyons sent:
>
>
>
>
>
>Dear Mr McNicholasThe chief executive has responded clearly to all the points you have raised. You
will appreciate that we cannot continue to remain in this dialogue with you. As you remain
dissatisfied, please contact the Local Government Ombudsman if you have not already done so.
Sincerely Maxine Lyons | Executive Support ManagerCity of Stoke-on-TrentCivic Centre |Glebe Street
|Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RNt 01782 232602e maxine.lyons@stoke.gov.uk ---
Dear Mr Laarschot
Thank you for your email received today (7 January 2015)
I agree with your opening line regarding clarity, and for the avoidance of doubt, I will be specific
with regards our claims and make it as clear as anyone possibly can.
The Powell Report makes reference, amongst others, to site ventilation and in particular the sites non
compliance due to being ‘walled in’.
Not only does the site perimeter not meet the regulations, the situation is further complicated by
storing cylinder gas in yet another walled in section within the site, so we have the matter
compounded, i.e., walled in twice.
Now this is simply explained in the Powell report by measurement
Extract
2.4.1.1. The site storing LPG containers (400kg or more) should be well ventilated to allow dispersal
of gas from any small leaks. Tall buildings and high walls may adversely affect natural ventilation.
In general not more than 50% of the perimeter of the storage area should be obstructed. The
obstructions should not be on adjacent sides. (See ACOP1)
The east and west boundaries are tall buildings the lowest of which is 5.8 metres, the rear boundary
with the embankment rises to 3metres.
The bottle store is sited to the north west corner and is bounded by the 5.8metre wall of the adjacent
building, the 1.9metre rear wall plus embankment of 750mm totalling 2.65metres. and a small bund wall.
We again have a double jeopardy situation, where we have a walled in storage area contained within a
larger walled in area, both in excess of 80% instead of the 50% required under 2.4.1.1 above.
It follows, therefore that there is gross under ventilation of the site for the storage of LPG.
It is my understanding that following the publication of the report, officers of the City council
obtained the measurements of the site and no doubt came up with the same calculation as did Mr Powell.
Despite this evidence the City council and the HSE continue to refuse to answer the question, which is
and I repeat “Is the Powell Report correct or isn’t it?”
With further regard to the extract above (which is only part of the overall safety failures of the
site) it relates to hard and fixed measurements, these cannot be adjusted, nor can the high buildings
be made smaller.
For further clarity here are some measurements, these are of the site perimeter and do not include the
inner storage area.
Total perimeter = 112metres (40metres long x 16metres wide)
Total walled in = 96metres (40 + 40 + 16)
% walled in 96/112*100 = 85.7%
This equates to more than 58% over the prescribed allowance
This does not account for the high buildings on the two longest sides
For the HSE to say that they cannot explain Mr Powell’s, findings is a joke, teenagers in school with
average mathematics ability could work that out, therefore they are completely incompetent or not
telling the truth.
The extract above accounts for a mere portion of the sites failings, yet another extract from the
reports fits quite nicely, here it is:
THE FOLLOWING ARE FAILINGS ON SITE
• Severe lack of ventilation - to prevent explosive atmospheres forming
• fire walls - to contain runaway exothermic explosions
• existing walling on site will promote the spread of explosive pressure effects through
openings
• separation distances - to reduce the possibility of fire spread
• measures to contain spills - to reduce the possibility of fire spread
• lack of onsite surveillance - to prevent trespass and tampering
• inadequate fencing to public access - to prevent public access and tampering
• water sprays and curtains - to prevent vapour cloud spread
• zoning - prevention of vehicles entering what has become TOTALLY a Zone 1 area
• vulnerable population - danger of property destruction or death to people in adjacent office
and nearby residential accommodation when a pressure blast carrying burning materials
• connecting workplace areas - there is a connecting door between Capital Gas Centre Ltd and
Capital Roofing Centre Ltd encouraging explosive pressure and flame spread
• bulk tanks - supported by untested bunded mound with surface cavity
So there we have it, you called for ‘clarity’, there it is, so lets have the answer from you, is the
Powell Report correct or isn’t it?
Sincerely
Mike McNicholas
Dear Mr McNicholas Thank you for your further email. For clarity, the city council has never
indicated to you that the HSE has condemned the Powell report. My last email stated that the HSE did
not concur with the Powell report. Your message below states that this information has not been
shared with you. However on 27 February 2014, the HSE wrote to you and what follows below is an
extract from that letter. “Having visited the premises in October 2013 HSE did not concur with your
conclusions about the safety of these premises. We judged the conditions observed against the
standards set out in UKLPG Codes of Practice 1 and 7, and made a decision on that basis. We are
unable to explain why Mr Powell arrived at a different conclusion but I can assure you that had we
have discovered that the risks were unacceptable we would have taken action to ensure the matters were
rectified.” The other points raised in your letter have previously been addressed and we have nothing
further to add. If you wish to take matters further, you can of course complain to the Local
Government Ombudsman and I have attached a link to their website, which explains how you can do this
http://www.lgo.org.uk/ Sincerely John van de Laarschot | Chief ExecutiveCity of Stoke-on-TrentCivic
Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RNt 01782 232602e
Dear
Thank you for your email dated the 26.11.14.
In my last letter dated 13 November (copy attached) I advised that I was unable to assist you further. However, your latest email has asked whether I accept “that the Powell Report is factual and whether it is true or not.” As I have previously advised, I am not qualified to give that opinion and rely on the experience of the professional officers within the Public Health team and the determination of the Health and Safety Executive (HSE).
As has also been explained, the city council has not been asked by the HSE, following its attendance at the site in October 2013, to investigate matters further. In addition, I understand that the HSE has considered the content of the Powell Report and did not concur with its findings.
At this stage, there is nothing further that I can add to what has already been said to you unless, of course, any new information comes to light.
Sincerely
John van de Laarschot | Chief Executive
City of Stoke-on-Trent
Civic Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RN
t 01782 232602
e maxine.lyons@stoke.gov.uk
Our reply:
Dear Mr Laarschot
Thank you for your email today.
In reference to your second paragraph, the HSE have consistently remained silent on the matter of the
Powell report, therefore they have not answered the question - to say otherwise is untrue - nor indeed
have your 'professional' officers answered the question.
Regarding your ability to understand the Powell report and therefore having to rely upon your
officers, the report is written in very simple terms, and assuming that your have read it and that
your officers have read it can you please speak for them and as CEO for the City council and answer
the question or ask your officers and or your legal department to answer the question, the latter
should understand the implications better than anyone.
It should be quite clear to all reading these statements, letters and emails that the constant
skirting around of the subject of the Powell report shows that it is being deliberately avoided,
presumably because when the truth is admitted, there would be more serious questions to be answered.
Anyone, and I repeat, anyone who condemns the Powell report as being anything other than the absolute
truth is a liar, I stand by that statement and await a truthful answer from you, albeit by proxy from
your so called 'professionals'.
To summarise, the Powell report quite clearly and unambiguously refers to basic lpg storage and safety
at these premises, these facts are the basic requirements when considering storage of this nature, as
such it is quite clear that planning permission should not have been granted, how could this have been
ignored? What was the purpose of disregarding safety to this extent, why should the good people of
North Staffordshire be duped by trusting those in positions of power to look our for their safety,
they are being misled and their trust is being betrayed.
Why should we, a small family business have to put up with a situation that threatens our livelihoods,
whilst having to put up with harassment from your 'professionals' for over 20 years? The most recent
harassment borne out of a spurious complaint from the very gas company supplying this sham outfit.
Several people I have spoken to speak very highly of you, I have no reason to doubt them one way or
the other, however that praise seems to conflict with the treatment we receive from you. As we see it
is obvious that this dangerous problem of gambling public safety to support an illegal business is not
going to go away and I would suggest that it is given careful consideration on your part as it has
gone on for far too long and needs to be addressed.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Regards
Mike [/color]
"Hello Maxine
I am still waiting for the answer, which is quite simple really and not wishing to sound insincere but
it is an either or answer to a very simple question, quite simply "yes" or "no" to the question which
is, is the Powell Report correct?
Regards
Mike
On Fri Dec 5 9:28 , Maxine Lyons sent:
Hi Mike
Thank you for the email. I am currently liaising with colleagues who I have followed up again with
this morning. We will come back to you as soon as possible.
Regards
Maxine
Maxine Lyons | Executive Support Manager
City of Stoke-on-Trent
Civic Centre |Glebe Street |Stoke-on-Trent |ST4 1RN
t 01782 232602
maxine.lyons
-----Original Message-----
From: GT Gas Distribution Ltd
Sent: 05 December 2014 08:46
To: Maxine Lyons
Subject: Fwd: Capital Gas Centre Ltd, etc
Hello
Would it be possible to have a reply please?
Regards
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: GT Gas Distribution Ltd
To: maxine.lyons, tristramhunt
Sent: Wed Nov 26 17:19
Subject: Fwd: Capital Gas Centre Ltd, etc
Dear Miss Lyons
As you are the mentioned contact on Mr van de Laarschot's letter of the 13th inst, regarding the
Powell Report and Salem Street, Etruria.
I am seeking an unequivocal answer regarding The Powell Report, in plain and simple terms, will Mr
van de Laarschot please say whether the report is factual and true or not? This question is not answered
in any correspondence so far.
Regarding my complaint to Staffordshire police as far as I am aware and concerned that investigation
is not complete, and should a Judicial review agree with the Powell report then it will open the case
for serious consideration regarding misconduct.
Sincerely
Mike"
[/color]
-
Admin - Site Admin
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:40 pm
Re: Stoke on Trent City Council,et al
by Admin » Fri Dec 12, 2014 2:15 pm
We have been corresponding with one of our MP's - Tristram Hunt, unfortunately he felt that as the police were investigating council officers regarding this matter he felt it better to stay out of it.
This is our reply:
To Tristram Hunt MP
12 December 2014
Dear Mr Hunt
Thank you for your letter dated the 18th November 2014
I take special note of your final paragraph and would like your assistance in this matter to go
further.
The crux of this matter is the safe operation and use of the premises operated by Capital Gas Centre
Ltd. We have proved without doubt that the premises do not meet basic requirements of safety by
engaging The Powell Report.
It is unarguable that the report is factually correct and precisely accurate yet it is still being
ignored by those responsible, ie the City Council and the HSE.
There are many questions to be answered going back to 2006, for instance when planning permission was
granted, how could this happen, knowing that the site is unsafe? The general public are being put at
risk.
I seek your help by directing me to the relevant government Minister or Ministerial department who
will formally answer the question regarding the Powell Report and to ask the HSE, who do have the
power over the City Council in these matters to answer the question directly.
I think you should reconsider your role and show a proactive stance. The longer this dangerous gas
facility is allowed to operate the closer it gets to causing a tragedy. Would you rather be remembered
as the MP that ignored public safety warnings or be known as the MP who prevented this spiteful
disregard for public safety? Bringing to the fore honesty, decency, and integrity, words which seem to
have slipped from society and rarely enacted.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely[/color]
This is our reply:
To Tristram Hunt MP
12 December 2014
Dear Mr Hunt
Thank you for your letter dated the 18th November 2014
I take special note of your final paragraph and would like your assistance in this matter to go
further.
The crux of this matter is the safe operation and use of the premises operated by Capital Gas Centre
Ltd. We have proved without doubt that the premises do not meet basic requirements of safety by
engaging The Powell Report.
It is unarguable that the report is factually correct and precisely accurate yet it is still being
ignored by those responsible, ie the City Council and the HSE.
There are many questions to be answered going back to 2006, for instance when planning permission was
granted, how could this happen, knowing that the site is unsafe? The general public are being put at
risk.
I seek your help by directing me to the relevant government Minister or Ministerial department who
will formally answer the question regarding the Powell Report and to ask the HSE, who do have the
power over the City Council in these matters to answer the question directly.
I think you should reconsider your role and show a proactive stance. The longer this dangerous gas
facility is allowed to operate the closer it gets to causing a tragedy. Would you rather be remembered
as the MP that ignored public safety warnings or be known as the MP who prevented this spiteful
disregard for public safety? Bringing to the fore honesty, decency, and integrity, words which seem to
have slipped from society and rarely enacted.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely[/color]
-
Admin - Site Admin
- Posts: 109
- Joined: Wed Apr 15, 2009 9:40 pm
3 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Stoke on Trent City Council
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest