@glos_labour I hope Ahmed Hansdot appreciates the need to respond to this Write To Them message...



Attn: Cllr Said Hansdot
Barton & Tredworth

Friday 21 July 2017


Dear Said Hansdot,

As the date is now July 21st, it's been well over a month since I asked you at Gloucester Park on June 17th, before the local Labour party's austerity march, to provide me with the minutes for the Barton & Tredworth Neighbourhood Partnership's final AGM last September. You promised to do your 'best' to do so, on video.

Up to now, your best doesn't seem to have achieved anything, so I'm writing this to find out how far you have gone in your 'best' efforts. Have you asked the partnership's last chair, Ismael Rhyman, for this information, or the partnership's last secretary (as a committee member, you should have a better idea of who this is, residents being kept well out of the loop)?

Can you shed further light on the claim by Paul Harries that a 'subsequent' meeting took place after the AGM to discuss the dissolution (called for at an AGM we residents received almost no notification of, to keep 'troublemakers' away, according to Gordon Barrington)? Would you be able to get minutes for that meeting?

Finally, what can you tell me about any efforts to create a replacement for the partnership, since Tony Ward refuses to allow Barton residents to attend TETRA meeting (and makes it pretty hard even for Tredworth residents, by not advertising these meetings on the community noticeboard I pushed to be installed, though Tony Ward took all the credit, and controls what is put on the board)?

Actually, since we're on the subject of residents having no means of being heard by the authorities (as neither you, nor any of our councillors hold surgeries), will you confirm that you are aware of the prospect of the riding arena at St. James' Farm being extended further into the park, and that this is the only possible reason for the construction of stables between the arena and the farm, which planning permission was not sought for, as well as a request by the applicant (presumably successfully?) for condition 9 in the application to be dismissed, so that two trees which would have been an obstacle to expansion didn't need to, and haven't been, replaced?

Or at least, that you're aware now, and this won't be a huge surprise to you or your fellow ward councillors, if/when it happens?

(The city council has been made aware of the above breach of planning rules, has known about it since March at least, so it would be quite amazing if word *hadn't* reached you)

Joe Kilker

Reply · Report Post