Conservative councillor convicted of voting fraud, plus minor exclusive
Written by Mark Pack on 18th March 2008 – 5:57 pmA special election court ruled earlier today that Eshaq Khan and his supporters carried out “corrupt and illegal practices” to secure his election in Slough. A by-election will now be held, and Eshaq Khan has been expelled from the Conservative Party:
He and his electoral team were found to have created hundreds of false names in the weeks running up to the 3 May election and entered them on the electoral register for the ward, the court heard.
They then made applications for postal votes for these “ghost voters” and used the ballots to vote for Khan.
It was only when Labour party activists, surprised by the Conservative victory in an election which had otherwise been a success for Labour, pressed for an investigation that the fraud was discovered, the hearing was told. (BBC)
Followers of election law cases will not be surprised to know that Richard Mawrey’s judgement is, shall we say, lively. He’s the man who also presided over the huge Birmingham postal vote fraud case where he likened the British postal voting system to that you would expect to find in a “banana republic”. This time round, fruits are out and racing is in. And then there’s paragraph 127:
The system of registering voters in Great Britain may fairly be described as shambolic. As will be seen later, it causes perplexity and concern on the part of our European neighbours, many of whom regard the United Kingdom as a beacon of democracy, which kept the flame of democracy alive while continental Europe descended into totalitarian night. They are saddened to observe the authorities of the United Kingdom apparently indifferent to the debauching of democracy by widespread and persistent fraud.
You can (exclusively it would seem, as I’ve not found the document elsewhere) read the summary and full judgement courtesy of Liberal Democrat Voice.
The Conservatives end the day with no change in their number of councillors though, because earlier today a Liberal Democrat in Westmorland switched to them.
Posted in News, Opposition watch
18th March 2008 at 9:52 pm
Please correct me if I’m mistaken: why does this story not appear on ConservativeHome? I am, therefore, doubly grateful for the detail here.
Instead the Tory Boys have finally read the Sunday Times and are dining out that Livingstone is alleged to have a dodgy donation somewhere. Hmm: Ashcroft anyone?
As for a small further whiff of venality and corruption, why, for example, did I have to wait until today to read (from Hugh Muir in The Guardian Diary)? –
“The stakes are high for all the [London Mayoral] candidates, and for the capital — but also for Associated Newspapers. Next year, the mayor, whoever it is, must give someone the lucrative contract to publish and distribute the capital’s free morning newspaper on the London Underground. At present the contract, worth several million, is held by Associated, publisher of the Evening Standard and the morning freesheet Metro. But having tussled throughout his reign with the Standard - the paper he calls the Evening Boris - Livingstone will think twice, and twice again, before letting his bitterest foes walk off with the new contract. Might the talks be easier with Mayor Johnson?”
18th March 2008 at 10:13 pm
Every page of the judgement begs for a quotation, but I particularly liked:
“…there was nothing to account for the sudden dramatic increase in the population of Central Ward in the four weeks preceding the election. The Slough Trading Estate may be an attraction but, as far as could be ascertained, it did not become in April 2007 a Berkshire Klondike.”
18th March 2008 at 11:09 pm
MawreyJ is a gem: this one, all 96 pages of it, is a great read.
My choice quotation was paragraph 288:
“The one part of Mohammed Basharat Khan’s evidence I did accept was his admission that he had been part of Mr Eshaq Khan’s election team, albeit (he claimed) in a very minor capacity. For reasons which will become clearer when we consider the handwriting evidence, he was altogether too modest in his assertions. He was, in fact, a prime mover, playing a major part in the false registration of voters.”
I note the literary artfulness in the foreshadowing there.
The darkest element is, surely, the quotation from the Council of Europe observers: see paragraph 155.
19th March 2008 at 10:00 am
I rather like paragraph 29 where Mawrey admits that he himself forgot what decision he’d taken on a key point of law in the the Birmingham case, which he had also presided over!
Para 116 has this gem: “It may safely be said, however, that there is no problem so bad that the enthusiastic application of electronic technology cannot make it a good deal worse.”
19th March 2008 at 10:07 am
I liked “It may safely be said, however, that there is no problem so bad that the enthusiastic application of electronic technology cannot make it a good deal worse.”
20th March 2008 at 8:36 am
Before you Lib Dems get too excited about Tory fraud, you should know that the Slough Lib Dems sit in coalition with the Conservatives and have been working with Khan for the last 11 months. With his expulsion the alliance no longer holds a majority and Labour will re-claim the seat and take control of the council. So a very happy ending
20th March 2008 at 8:59 am
“Monster” is yet another oracle who predicts the future, it seems.
Actually, the Leader of Slough UA is a member of the Independent Liberal Party, not the Liberal Democrats.
Presumably, “Monster” approves of what Councillor Khan did, on the basis that there is no morality in the class struggle (oops, I forgot - Labour ditched the class struggle some time ago and became an alternative bosses’ party).
20th March 2008 at 11:45 am
The Lib Dems have been in bed with these ghastly and criminal Tories in Slough for the last four years.
The LEader of Slough may be an old-fashioned Liberal (not a Lib Dem) but Lib Dems have kept this coalition together depsite the fact that this is the third Councillor to be kkicked off the council for nefarious activities.
You ought to keep better company!
20th March 2008 at 11:54 am
Actually, George, it was LABOUR who tried to flog off Upton Court Park to a developer last week.
20th March 2008 at 1:19 pm
Don’t think so. They are in opposition.
20th March 2008 at 2:23 pm
Wrong, George.
Labour did the deal with the developer while still in power. Last week, they kicked up an almighty fuss when the Cabinet refused to release the covenants that protect the land. We heard a lot of unconvincing rhetoric about beastly Liberals wanting to stop the poor getting houses on open land, and the protection of the strategic view of Windsor Castle being of nil interest to the working masses.
By the way, I once sat at a restaurant table opposite the then Councillor Fiona McTaggart, who was chatting to a group of chums hoping to take control of Wandsworth Council. Every second word this lady uttered began with “F”.
20th March 2008 at 3:25 pm
She was talking about the people who ran Wandsworth back then it can hardly be a surprise that every second word was “F”.
I understand in Slough that the only reason they did not sell that land for a much-needed £7m was that they did not want to invest in a court case to over-turn the covenant.
But the controlling group (including a Lib Dem) voted to make the land available for planning (i.e. building on).
Lib Dems should be embarrassed to prop up Tories and old-style Liberals in Slough. It’s a better party than that.
20th March 2008 at 3:42 pm
Wrong again, George.
The vote in favour of appropriation was based on inaccurate advice from officers. Councillor Dexter Smith subsequently admitted to objectors that this was the case.
In fact, the Planning Department had previously refused to copy planning documents for the public, in clear breach of the Local Government Access to Information Act 1985. It took the advice of a firm of solicitors in Lincolns Inn and the threat of litigation to force them to climb down. I understand that the land will be unappropriated in April.
Councillor Smith (whom I know personally and know to be one of the more decent Tories) made is very clear in Cabinet that he favours enforcement of restrictive covenants. If local councils don’t respect covenants, who in the future will give them land? Those were his words. And they were right.
Fiona McTaggart MP is a foul-mouthed harpie. In her previous incarnation as Chairman of London Students Organisation she was known as “Fifi”, dressed in sackcloth, and in my hearing denounced medical students as “right-wing farts”.
How appalling that the Labour Party should want to sell off a piece of public park to facilitate some developer’s private greed.
20th March 2008 at 5:19 pm
Dexter Smith was agent to a local councillor who has just been convicted of massive electoral fraud and suspended from holding public office.
To use an old-fashioned phrase, he is either a fool or a knave.
He is being kept in power by Lib Dems.
20th March 2008 at 8:35 pm
You are all at it so why the gloating.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article1294927.ece
23rd March 2008 at 8:02 pm
Those using this case for a generalised attack on Postal Voting have missed the point; most postal vote frauds have been built on reisdtration frauds.
In the recent Slough case, multiple voters were registered at a pair of derelict houses. The electoral registration officer could and should have spotted this and stopped it by cross-checking with Council Tax registration.
Opportunities for Fraud have been seriously reduced in some places by
* mid-year additions to the register being asked to produce proof of identity and residence
* pilot schemes checking signatures of postal voters
* removing voters after three years of non-contact.
* cross-checking with Council Tax register and Council Tax benefit records. This is effective for catching landlords registering at addresses they own but don’t live at.
Liberal Democrats have no cause to be smug on this subject. Allowing membership in places where the member doesn’t live and is not registered to vote leaves the organistion wide open to fiddles.
Lib Dems as prominent as London MEP candidate Jonathan Fryer are resident in one place (Tower Hamlets) and members in another (Leyton & Wanstead). It says so on his blog!
Where does he vote?
23rd March 2008 at 8:36 pm
Let’s make this perfectly clear. The Labour Party in Slough is crying foul because the Council refused to sell a piece of a public park to a developer who had taken the gamble of buying a landlocked site. And all because the developer offered the Council a bribe. Is the Slough Labour Party saying that local authorities are obliged to accept planning bribes, contrary to what the House of Lords said in the Tesco case? Is the Slough Labour Party in favour of developers buying planning permissions? In any event, the decision not to sell the land was not made under the Planning Acts. The Council was acting in its capacity as owner and provider of a public park.
24th March 2008 at 10:33 pm
The entire 98 page judgment is available at http://www.simmons.slough.info
Regards,
Paul.
25th March 2008 at 9:41 pm
Thanks to Paul for putting up the link to the judgement. The Election Court does not express itself in this way, but the summarised evidence shows that the whole project began with registration frauds.
Some of these could have been caught early if Slough Council’s staff had cross checked with other Council records, which they are entitled to do. A Council shall “carry out all its responsibilities with a view to reducing Crime and disorder”. False voter registration is also used to rip-off Banks!
25th March 2008 at 10:23 pm
A footnote: the document Paul has linked to is the same as the full document in the original blog posting. He’s put it up as a series of web pages whilst the posting links to a Word document. Take your choice
25th March 2008 at 10:25 pm
Alan Ji at 9:41 pm:
True enough, as far as it goes.
As the transcript shows, the plot (not too extreme a term, I feel) was more subtle than that.
The Registration Officer was “bombed” nad overwhelmed by a last-minute submission of postal votes. The Judge is very benevolent to the ERO.
So: what do we do? If this is going to become commonplace (and we’re already up to number three), the only solutions are:
To go back to something like a November register, in force from the following February. Thus allowing a reasonable time-lapse for challenges.
Or:
Individual identification, on the Northern Ireland pattern. And that, as I read it, is the Judge’s implicit recommendation.
25th March 2008 at 11:21 pm
Thanks Alan.
The current situation is actually worse than portrayed in the judgment at paragraph 341 and in the Report to the High Court at paragraph R.12
“On the evidence before me, there was no reason to believe that corrupt practices had extensively prevailed at the election of 3rd May 2007 in any other part of the area of Slough Borough Council.”
I have evidence of suspicious multiple voting at one house in the Baylis-Stoke ward (same symptoms as the Central ward fraud) and evidence of a voter in Foxborough ward also and unlawfully voting by post in Central ward from the infamous Richmond Crescent.
Labour has evidence of another 70 plus fraudulent registrations in Chalvey ward.
However none of these worrying incidents can be properly investigated because the RO/ERO Steven Quayle allowed his staff to unlawful destroy the election records for all wards, other than Central, contrary to The Local Elections (Principal Areas) (England and Wales) Rules 2006 (No. 3304). The law states election records must be retained for 12 months. The law gives ample opportunities for the council to apply to virtually any court to prolong the keeping of election records beyond 12 months.
It is my belief it would have been wise and prudent for Steven Quayle when faced with 80 plus objections in one ward, Chalvey, whilst knowing an election petition was probing another ward, Central, to have carefully secured all election records especially all ballot forms. However he did not. I’m willing to publish the correspondence if anyone is interested.
In the case of Chalvey ward Labour complained about 86? dodgy voters in Chalvey ward. The RO/ERO delayed investigating those instances until after the election records for Chalvey were destroyed. About 74? apparently non-existent voters were removed from the register but with the election records destroyed police are now severely handicapped.
Regards,
Paul.
11th April 2008 at 5:38 pm
If Sesenco believes that Dexter Smith is one of the more decent Tories, this does not say much for the other five Tory Councillors now that Eshaq Khan has been airbrushed out in their election leaflets. I see that Mohammed Basharatt is now a candidate in the Slough elections is there any link to the Mohammed Basharatt Khan named in the recent vote rigging. If so where does he stand in relation to Dexter in decency ?
11th April 2008 at 6:03 pm
On Thursday 10 April 2008, 4 males were charged with various offences relating to the voting fraud. Sources say this is merely the first batch of charges.
Today Friday 11 April 2008, the succesful candidate and now the ex-Cllr Eshaq Khan was charged.
The charged are:
Altaf Khan, aged 30, Knolton Way
Arshad Raja, aged 52, Broadmark Road
Mohammed Khan, aged 45, Mirador Crescent
Yasar Mumtaz, aged 19, Wellesley Road
Eshaq Khan aged 51, Oban Court, Chalvey.
Interestingly, Yasar Mumtaz is the 19 year old nephew of Conservative councillor Mohammed Aziz.
Mr Muntaz lives at the home of Cllr Aziz. In the Judgment (http://www.slough.info/law/law41/law41p021.html) at paragraph 176 Cllr Aziz is declared in ex-Cllr Eshaq Khan’s evidence to be an “agent” of ex-Cllr Khan during the election campaign. However Mr Muntaz was not declared to be an agent.
12th April 2008 at 1:03 pm
Sensco said “Councillor Smith (whom I know personally and know to be one of the more decent Tories) made is very clear in Cabinet that he favours enforcement of restrictive covenants”
He clearly completely forgot this when the sale of the Town Hall land came up then, as the land is subject to several restrictive covenants.
12th April 2008 at 1:31 pm
What is it in Slough that mesmerizes LibDems to abandon their pronciples and back Tories , Liberal backwoodsmen and the varied assortment of independents and even a UKIP councillor ?
In neighbouring Windsor they are a worthy opposition to the Tories, where Slough Tories now base themselves.
Is it the lust for power they otherwise would never have ?
15th April 2008 at 11:33 am
Slough Conservative cllr Aziz, The Deputy mayor has now been arrested too–for false applications for postal votes amongst other charges.
Only last night the local Lib Dem councillors were saying, in an extraordinary council meeting, that all was well with their joint administration with the bent councillors.
15th April 2008 at 2:27 pm
It is hard to believe that the leading Tories were unaware of what was going on in Central Ward. The question of Aziz being elcted first time around must surely now be under scrutiny ?
15th April 2008 at 2:40 pm
Sid of Slough, I know nothing about Slough Town Hall and am not particularly interested. What I do know, and what does bother me, is the fact that Slough Labour Party tried to sell part of a public park to a developer in return for a £7 million planning bribe.
15th April 2008 at 3:25 pm
Sesenco, when has selling something (which is primarily a disused car park used for drug dealing at night) suddenly and miraculously turned into a bribe?
“The vote in favour of appropriation was based on inaccurate advice from officers. Councillor Dexter Smith subsequently admitted to objectors that this was the case.” Is that the same Dexter Smith who is renowned for the accuracy of his statements such as ” Our campaign teams of this year are fresh and untainted by this sorry episode”? Slough Observer, 4th April
15th April 2008 at 3:34 pm
The section of Upton Court Park in question is well-maintained open green land with a metalled access path and a double row of poplars. If it is used by drug dealers, then surely that is a matter for the Police? Is it now official Labour Party policy that as soon as drug-dealers allegedly use a piece of public park the land should immediately be flogged off to developers?
Gerald Moran of Hunters, one of Britain’s leading specialists in the law of freehold covenants, confirmed that the advice Members had been given was inaccurate.
15th April 2008 at 3:48 pm
So you havn’t noticed the disused car park? How odd!!
15th April 2008 at 4:21 pm
Sid of Slough, I have noticed a park in full use. I have seen the pictures, I have seen the plans. You obviously haven’t.
15th April 2008 at 4:33 pm
Sorry Sesenco you have obviously spent too much time with your pal Dexter. Sid is absolutely right, the piece of land is a derelict area that used to include the bike training scheme area that Dexter and his cronies scrapped. You are confusing car parks, but then you know nothing of Slough.
The area concerned is for the benefit of the people of Slough…..not just the those who have properties surrounding. It is not their park.
Are you unaware of Dexter and crew ignoring the covenants on the site the town hall is on. This was given to the town by Jackaman in much the same way that Cornish agve the open land. They want to knock down the original town hall to grasp another £2M.
15th April 2008 at 5:13 pm
Sesenco, I live within a few hundred yards of the affected area. The car park has been there for years. I even passed it this morning, and guess what? It was still there.
If you are unaware of it, you are quite clearly not a local.
15th April 2008 at 5:24 pm
Mal and Sid of Slough. Look at the plans. The proposed new road would have been built on GREEN OPEN SPACE wholly within a public park and mature poplar trees would have been felled. In addition to that, more than 300 high density houses would have been built on a green farmland site.
Nasty little Labour hacks tell nasty little lies.
15th April 2008 at 6:08 pm
Gosh, a town that has the largest waiting list for housing that it has ever had, wants to build houses for people to live in!! Shock horror!! Build the barricades!!
The tarmac is coloured grey/black, not green.
Sesenco, have you ever even visited Slough? You seem to know nothing about it.
15th April 2008 at 6:24 pm
Sesenco,
No doubt the plans were given to you by Dexter !!! I would not believe one word of what he says.
The land is not farmland ! even the RSPCA and Owl Sanctuary moved out long ago.
Plimmer one of the LibDem collaborators called last week for more houses to be built in Slough !!!
Derek Cryer an original old Tory and Geoff Howard who defedted from the Tories to UKIP voted to give the go ahead.
I suppose dear old Dexter needs to hold on to otherwise he will not have anybody to lead.
15th April 2008 at 8:14 pm
Mal and Lord Sid of Slough:-
No doubt you feel oh so terribly sore having been humiliated in the Council Chamber last month. Your disgraceful plan to sell off part of a public park (including green open space and mature trees) to a property developer came unstuck, not at the hands of your Tory enemies, but through the diligence of residents who knew more about the law than the Council and had the expert assistance of the Covenant Movement.
Kelobridge has wasted £45 million buying land they cannot develop. Are you going to put a hat round for them? Your friend, Mr Mandelson, loves the “filthy rich”, as I’m sure you know.
Kelobridge now wants access via Blenheim Road. But they have a nasty little problem. That land is still in the Green Belt and the then owner of what is now the proposed development site had no power to grant an easement over the proposed new access land.
No doubt your party bosses told you the road would be built on a carpark and you are dumb enough to believe them. Look at the plans. It is the GRASS and the TREES Labour wanted Kelobridge to cover in tarmac.
No, Dexter didn’t show me the plans. Wrong again, comrades.
15th April 2008 at 8:20 pm
I have a picture in front of me which my friend has just sent me. It was taken last Sunday afternoon from the rear of No 30 Bleinheim Road over the proposed development site towards Windsor Castle. This land is clearly and unequivocally IMPROVED PASTURE LAND suitable for the grazing of cattle.
Mal and Lord Sid of Slough, if you really live in the locality then you are lying through your dentures.
15th April 2008 at 9:00 pm
Well Sesenco, I do live there, and I don’t have dentures. The ransome strip is comprised of about 40- 50% car park, and the rest is open space and road. They plan to build a bigger road on it. This new road does seem to follow the track of the current road for some of its path. Life does not stand still, and the car park with its tarmac does exist. The access through the park is far better for local residents than access through Castleview and Blenheim , which is now a real danger.
What do you think of cllr. Aziz? Arrested yesterday, charged with fraud, then went to the council meeting and voted against criticism of his party for not not being tough enough on fraud.
15th April 2008 at 9:31 pm
Sesenco, Suitable for the grazing of dumped cars! Your “friend” must be a shady estate agent and you are clearly gullible.
Anyway, with one former Tory councillor and the remaining councillor up at the Crown Court on 28th April, things are liable to be viewed diferently after the 1st May.
I notice you are very selective in your replies Sesenco, narrow-minded even, so you are probably a pretentious Tory toff
with wanabee toff Dexter as a fag.
15th April 2008 at 9:50 pm
Mal, to be fair to Sesenco, the development site itself is farmland, not that it is used as such. It is currently an unused field. A nice field, but still a field, and a field for which planning permission has been given.
15th April 2008 at 10:18 pm
While Mal uses homophobic language and calls me a “pretentious Tory toff” (he obviously hasn’t read by attacks on Boris Johnson), Lord Sid of Slough belatedly acknowledges the truth: Kelobridge wishes to build an access road on land which is now part of a public park, and a development of 260 houses on an open field which was formerly Green Belt (and still should be).
There are three wholly separate and unrelated issues here: electoral fraud, Slough Town Hall, and the proposal to develop land behind and within Upton Court Park. I am interested in the third of these, not the first and the second. Don’t assume that my opposition to the proposed Upton Court Park development means that I condone electoral fraud by Tories or know (or care) anything at all about Slough Town Hall.
15th April 2008 at 10:32 pm
Sesenco, you really must try and get your facts right. The ransome strip is no longer part of the park–the ruling Conservative/BILLD administration voted to remove it from the park at a recent Cabinet meeting.
Building houses where there is a housing shortage is a good idea, the real issue is the infrastructure to support the housing. Unless you prefer people to be without homes that is.
15th April 2008 at 11:00 pm
There is no ransome strip. There is land which Frederick Cornish dedicated to the Council on condition that it remain a public park in perpetuity. The appropriation resolution was only passed by the Cabinet because Members had been given inaccurate legal advice by their own officers, as Mr Gerald Moran of Hunters has shown. The Council made a jurdisdictional error of law so its purported decision to appropriate the land is void ab initio - and will be reversed at the next Full Council (I believe).
I am all in favour of building houses, but on brownfield sites, not greenfield sites like the one in question, which was removed from the Green Belt by a ministerial (ie, political) decision (land can only be taken out of the Green Belt with the permission of the Secretary of State).
Why the Labour Party is siding with the filthy rich (a la Mandelson) over the interests of their own constituents might seem perplexing to those who still see Labour as the party of the working-class. Indeed, the arguments we have been hearing in this thread are the kind of stuff one expects from free-market zealots making piles in the City.
Oh, I forgot. There is a £7 million planning bribe. Everyone has their price, it seems, including the socialists of Slough.
16th April 2008 at 10:04 am
It seems as though Mal is salivating at the thought of the goodies he can offer voters in electorally sensitive areas with the Section 106 money the Council has been offered.
Clearly, for Mal, a high density development built to the minimum standards on greenfield land, and the appropriation of a public park to create a roadway to service this development, is what municipal socialism is all about.
Or maybe he just feels sorry for the developer wasting £45 million on a landlocked site.
16th April 2008 at 10:58 am
Sesenco,
The benefits for the whole town need to be looked at, not just the comfortable ward (with two Tory councillors) who think of a Slough asset as their own.
What I am concerned about is that Sloughn will end-up paying heavily in legal costs for effectively sabotaging a previously approved project, so that the occupiers of 30 Blenheim Road can enjoy the views over land no more theirs than mine . Having mentioned dishonesty previously,
1st May beckons !!
16th April 2008 at 11:11 am
i reach the same conclusion as Mal, for somewhat different reasons.
Slough needs new family homes, and there arn’t many sites suitable. Even 3 of the ruling alliance connissioners, including the only conservative councillor to actually live in the affected ward, consider the development inevitable, and that it is best to choose the best access route rather than end up with one that would put traffic through local residential roads such as Blenheim, Marlborough and Castleview. The development will happen, whoever wins the May election., simply because there are so many possible access routes. If the current ones fail, and I certainly oppose the current applications through Castleview and Blenheim roads, there are many alternatives. Sooner or later one will be successful, and I hope its not a bad one.
16th April 2008 at 11:41 am
Sesenco
Do I sense that all would be OK if the properties were large properties then ?
As Lord Sid says, the development will go ahead, but if proper access is not allowed, then heavy traffic will end up going through roads that are residential and not intended for such use.
Logic dictates that access away from settled areas is the correct way to go, not just to stick your head in the ground and try and make out that permission has not been given.
16th April 2008 at 11:45 am
Mal:
At least you are honest enough to admit that your motivation in supporting this proposed development is to punish Tory voters.
Slough will not end up paying legal costs as long as it acts lawfully. Slough Unitary Authority is entitled to obey the covenant which prevents Upton Court Park being used as an access road. Slough will only end up embroiled in litigation if it makes decisions based on errors of law. Richmond did this in a planning case, and an affected resident sought judicial review and won. The reason I mention this is because the Richmond resident in question was advised by the Covenant Movement, which is also helping residents in Blenheim Road and Castle View Road.
Lord Sid of Slough:
The development is NOT inevitable. To go ahead, Kelobridge requires an access road, and there are only two possibilities: the first is protected by a covenant, while the second is still Green Belt (and a public inquiry would be required to take it out).
16th April 2008 at 11:54 am
hello can anyone reply regards this email?as am not inslough or england n i wanna know please?
well am not from slough nor from uk and am abit surprised that what will happen to all these 6 members including th 19 years old boy who is a nephew of cllr. Aziz jail? for how long? does he used to study? was he aware of the situation?
16th April 2008 at 12:21 pm
Sesenco,
It is not a question of punishing Tory voters, Labour has the third councillor in this ward !. The candidate needing to keep her voters sweet is a Tory The land as I understand it is for the benefit of the people of Slough. After 1st May it is likely that the cabinet will not comprise those out to appease their voters in Upton and also those hangers-on in the BILLD camp who independently are no more than minority parties or area protection groups such as the Independent Britwell Residents and Wexham Independednts. The latter two defending their areas of social housing (built on real greenfields) surrounding Slough in the fifties.Cippenham, which has had mass building in recent years had even more approved last year…by those who cannot accept that the pain should be evenly spread.
There is a limit on the amount of building in gardens that can be sustained. providing endless small flats, with no larger acommodation for families.
Your problem Sesenco is that you are not local and are wearing blinkers.My family have lived in Slough for generations and were here before it was a town. We live here you do not !
16th April 2008 at 12:54 pm
Anna,
I do not know anything of the people who are going to appear in Court on the 28th April apart from the fact that two of them were/are Councillors. The boy of 19 is the nephew of the sitting Councillor and is believed to reside with him. I am sure the Court will take into account the fact that he is a young person and likely encouraged to do wrong. I would not want to see somebody of such a young age dealt with too severely and likely of previous good character. I would be very surprised if he went to prison and would not want that to happen.
16th April 2008 at 1:04 pm
Mal, you are claiming to speak for all the residents in your area. In reality, you don’t.
16th April 2008 at 1:51 pm
There are a lot of other ways access could be obtained to the site. If access does not go through the ransome strip (including the car park and the current road), then here are two possible alternatives(Blue sky thinking, not proposals).
With the £7 million saved, buy nos 2-20 (evens only) Castleview road. As the houses are mostly worth about £400,000, offering £700,000 each would see people queueing to sell. The developers could then build a dual carriageway if they wished.
Another blue sky alternative. The developers currently own number 36 (?) Blenheim. Buy 8ft off the front gardens of numbers 2-34 (evens only), for say £300,000 or so each. Total £5.1 million, and access through a widened Blenheim Road is then well feasible. As the houses are worth say £350,000 on average (see sale prices on Upmystreet.com), everyone on that side gets their mortgage paid off, so they count the cash and sell. These are only examples, there are lots of other ways it could be done. Of course there would then be no £7million to spend on the A4 junction and other infrastructure, so I think these are bad ideas, but that is the sort of thing that would eventually happen.
16th April 2008 at 2:24 pm
Kelobridge would have to get planning permission to drive access roads through existing house plots.
Also, those plots may well be protected by restrictive convenants that occupiers on the other side of the road can enforce.
16th April 2008 at 4:54 pm
Sesenco,
As Lord Sid says there are many possibilities open to the developers. There may be covenants on the houses, but equally there may not be and probably are not as they have already purchased a number of the properties.
16th April 2008 at 5:27 pm
Mal:
Restrictive covenants run with the LAND. See Tulk v Moxhay. The developer would have to buy the whole estate to be free of the covenants.
16th April 2008 at 5:40 pm
Sesenco,
I am aware of what you say. What I am saying is there may not be restrictive covenants of the sort you envisage. I have them on my land in Slough, they say I may not keep pigs or structures to house wounded soldiers, nothing more than that. These properties were built on spec. not a philanthropic gift to a town.
16th April 2008 at 6:05 pm
If there are covenants forbidding nuisance or annoyance, then an access road is prohibited. The High Court has enforced such covenants many times. Most residential estates of the inter-war years have covenants of this kind.
The Covenant Movement, which is helping residents in Slough, stopped Bellway Homes developing the Epsom & Ewell Rugby Club, even though Bellway had purchased options on adjoining street frontage houses for the purpose of creating an access road. Before that, they prevented Ealing Council performing a similar trick in Hanwell.
When the Covenant Movement arrives on the scene, developers are best advised to cut their losses and move on.
17th April 2008 at 12:04 am
Sesenco,
Perhaps they can save the Town Hall from Dexter then…..although English Heritage are probably the best bet.
17th April 2008 at 12:27 am
Sesenco,
Please contact me as I am most interested in the Covenant Movement and the alleged restrictive covenants on the Town Hall.
Thank you.
Paul Janik
http://www.contact.slough.info
or via the usual email addresses
17th April 2008 at 12:12 pm
Although cllr. Aziz has been suspended from the Conservative party, he still remains as Deputy Mayor. If he won’t resign, lets hope someone pushes him out. Having a deputyt mayor who is facing voting fraud trial does not reflect well on the town.
17th April 2008 at 8:42 pm
Speaking to people who live in Central Ward, they have not even had an apology from the Conservatives about their man Khan. In fact they have distanced themselves as though it was nothing to do with them. Now with Aziz at the Crown Court on 28th April as well, they should have done something to reassure the electors of the Ward. I pity the remaining candidate he has clearly been put up as a dupe. It was sad that on Monday night the LibDems and those calling themselves Liberals voted NOT to do more to ensure that fiddling cannot so easily happen again.