<<Back to most read

Comment | Read Comments (17)

[bold]THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL A CORRUPT, FLAWED & HIGHLY PREDICTABLE PUBLIC CONSULTATION " ... Jeff McQuillan, Chair of The Great Northern Trail Forum, and consultant to Sustrans. Tel. 01943 865445 or Mobile 07811 107 607 ..."[/bold] (Source: SUSTRANS website) So ..... [bold]as predicted last week[/bold] ...... the "fair", "impartial" and "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan has at last reported his findings .... on a Bank Holiday weekend - are Messrs McQuillan, Scull & SUSTRANS so naive to think he can "bury" this so-called "fair", "impartial" and "independent" report like this ? [italic]How easy it is to predict the vicious game that Messrs McQuillan, Scull & SUSTRANS have been playing ......[/italic] http://www.ilkleygaz ette.co.uk/mostpopul ar.var.2117384.mostv iewed.future_of_ilkl ey_moor_up_for_debat e.php [bold]"Future of Ilkley Moor up for debate"[/bold] [italic]Posted by: HAROLD, ADDINGHAM on 8:33am Fri 14 Mar 08[/italic] [bold]THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL A FLAWED & CORRUPT PUBLIC CONSULTATION[/bold] Take note .... [bold]Councillor Andy Scull, SUSTRANS and not forgetting the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] could learn a thing or two from the way this debate is being handled. I commend Ilkley District and Parish Councillor Anne Hawkesworth for setting a clear example as to how such matters should be debated. [italic]" We want to hear the views of residents, cyclists, farmers, landowners, walkers, wildlife lovers and anyone else who uses the moor or who takes an interest in its future."[/italic] Given that the vast majority of the proposed WHARFEDALE TRAIL passes over privately owned land who have Councillor Andy Scull, SUSTRANS and not forgetting [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] chosen to engage with [bold]BEFORE[/bold] obtaining funds from two local authorities to conduct this flawed consultation. [bold]CORRECT:- CYCLISTS - JD CYCLES were at the very first invitation only meeting held by SUSTRANS and attended by the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan (MEETING - Tuesday 12th July 2005 in the Old School, Addingham at 7.00pm) HOWEVER:- FARMERS - never consulted LANDOWNERS - never consulted WILDLIFE LOVERS - never consulted[/bold] This week's Ilkley Gazette has a "good news" story (page 3) from the SUSTRANS spin machine ...... this therefore heralds the undoubted fact that [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] will shortly be issuing his so-called "independent" report on his flawed consultation. What can we expect from [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] :- - there will be unsubstantiated and scandalous accusations thrown around of so-called misconduct from landowners and those against the Trail - YET, there will be no mention of the offensive and, misleading statements on Councillor Sculls "pro" website - need I ask who employed [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] ?! - there will of course be numerous letters and emails of support for the Trail addressed to "Jeff" - there will be mention of the Forum members ...... all with the exception of Councillor Scull and Councillor McLachlan have already publicly distanced themselves or resigned from Scull's Forum ...... questions questions questions ?!!! - and, yes, there will be mention that landowners, farmers and wildlife lovers should perhaps have been "engaged" beforehand HOWEVER - [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] will undoubtedly tell us all that his findings show that there is support and that the matter should now be progressed via the two local authorities, who stumped up the cash for the consultation, to pursue the matter on the Forum's (SUSTRANS) behalf. - further, [bold]the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan[/bold] will also have convinced some local "notable" to stand as an independent scrutineer to verify that all the "voting" papers were examined with total transparency - what nonsense .... let's not forget that McQuillan was regularly emptying the ballot boxes himself .... totally unsupervised !!! [bold]THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL A CORRUPT, FLAWED & HIGHLY PREDICTABLE PUBLIC CONSULTATION[/bold] ----------- Why has Councillor Scull downgraded himself to being just a "member" of his own Forum & why is he the only one prepared to pass comment ? How extraordinary that there is no comment in either the report OR in the Ilkley Gazette from any member of Councillor Scull's so-called Forum ? [bold]WHAT A COMPLETE WASTE OF PUBLIC FUNDS[/bold]

I commend Harold for his foresight in predicting how Scull, McQuillan & Sustrans would "spin" their biased and flawed report. How despicable that Scull, McQuillan & Sustrans should contrive to "bury" it on a Bank Holiday edition of the Ilkley Gazette. [italic]In summary:-[/italic] [bold]THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL A CORRUPT, FLAWED & HIGHLY PREDICTABLE PUBLIC CONSULTATION[/bold] [italic]Prepared by:-[/italic] [bold]" ... Jeff McQuillan, Chair of The Great Northern Trail Forum, and consultant to Sustrans. Tel. 01943 865445 or Mobile 07811 107 607 ..."[/bold] (Source: SUSTRANS website) [italic]Who did Scull, McQuillan & Sustrans Consult:-[/italic] [bold]CYCLISTS - JD CYCLES were at the very first invitation only meeting held by SUSTRANS and attended by the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan (MEETING - Tuesday 12th July 2005 in the Old School, Addingham at 7.00pm) FARMERS - never consulted LANDOWNERS - never consulted WILDLIFE LOVERS - never consulted[/bold] [italic]Which "Forum" members are happy to be associated with it:-[/italic] [bold]" ...... all with the exception of Councillor Scull and Councillor McLachlan have already publicly distanced themselves or resigned from Scull's Forum ...... questions questions questions ?!!!"[/bold] [bold]THE WHARFEDALE TRAIL A CORRUPT, FLAWED & HIGHLY PREDICTABLE PUBLIC CONSULTATION[/bold] [bold]"FAIR", "IMPARTIAL" & "INDEPENDENT" - what a joke !!![/bold]

" ... Jeff McQuillan, Chair of The Great Northern Trail Forum, and consultant to Sustrans. Tel. 01943 865445 or Mobile 07811 107 607 ..." (Source: SUSTRANS website) As Councillor Andy Scull would say .... "ENOUGH SAID ?!!!"

[bold]wrangle goes on[/bold] For anyone using their time to write on this blog, can I just ask you to spend your time wisely and perhaps consider writing to bodies who can really help? Please avail agencies to those facts/issues you have listed. At least make the effort as I dont honestly believe anyone is slightly interested on what goes on on here? [bold]National Park[/bold] They are in favour of the trail? Write to them and ask them why? Since when did such an organisation allow tramping over protected wildlife species? flora and fauna? wetlands. We are fortunate the the pair of [bold]Red Kites[/bold] and [bold]buzzards[/bold] enjoy the solace and peace of the old rail track. There are many other species who enjoy this unspoiled area. Why destroy this peace? I implore people to write to these misinformed organisations [bold]NOW[/bold] ? Protect the wildlife [bold]NOW.[/bold] This land is in private hands - who has the right to snatch it? There are farmers who use this land - why should it be snatched from them? Dont farmers have a hard enough time in the Dales? Some of the track is used for hardstanding/feeding in bad weather (and we get enough of it!) [bold]Write or go and see your MP[/bold] as I have done (Mind you my MP and I still await a reply from BMDC after 3 months) If you feel the consultation has been flawed and unfair as I do, write to Tony Reeves, Returning Officer Brad met. Perhaps you could also read up whether you could involve the Ombudsman, we were denied a right to speak up against this consultation, people 'voted' without any facts regarding the wildlife, flora and fauna issues? How sad is that? Shameful. It is shameful for organisations such as Ramblers and Nattional Parks to back a project withut an environmental report or feasability study being done? [bold]NOW THAT IS UNFORGIVEABLE.[/bold] [bold]So, get those letters written and dont waste your time on here - please!!!!![/bold]

Ian Burgess Access and Rights of Way Manager for NYCC let the cat out of the bag in July 2007 when he said to me “ Look here mate we know you landowners are against the Trail and that is why you haven’t been consulted.We are simply going to impose the Trail under S.26 of the Highways Act 1980 and there is nothing you can do about it” – I made careful notes of this conversation and I am perfectly willing to confirm this is a true account. Consequently the Consultation is in my opinion merely a cynical cosmetic exercise as the decision to go ahead had already been made long ago regardless of future public opinion. · A member of the Trail Forum has admitted that the vote at the April 2006 Public Meeting was rigged because cyclists were called in from outside the area and thus the undemocratically elected Forum was flawed from the start. · It is my opinion that Geoff McQuillan failed to properly declare his historical involvement with Sustrans , Bradford Council ( A promoter of the Trail)and The Great Northern Trail prior to his appointment and obviously stands to gain financially from his involvement with Sustrans · The Consultation has effectively been a propaganda exercise which excluded any contra view. In fact any peaceful objectors were ruthlessly excluded from public meetings despite the fact that they were Council Tax payers who had indirectly contributed to this Council funded Consultation through Council taxes · The Dictionary definition of Consultation is “a public open meeting for discussion”. There have been no public open meetings or discussions thus conveniently suppressing any dissent. A cause of great anger amongst objectors. · The Consultation Document is peppered with assumptions about the conduct of the anti Trail movement , unsubstantiated allegations of theft and intimidation which have no basis in fact and have been invented to suppress any dissent and smear serious objectors. Cold hard facts are needed not these assumptions which have no place in any document attempting to be taken seriously. · I have enquired actually who now sits on the Wharfedale Trail Forum and have asked to see minutes of meetings but regret I am still waiting for a reply. · I have enquired how the moneys procured from various Councils by The Wharfedale Trail Forum have been spent . I have also asked to see copies of accounts and expenditure. I regret I am still waiting for a reply. · In my opinion the Wharfedale Trail Forum appears to be operating as a secret society without any public accountability over disposal of funds or methods and tactics used.It seems uncertain as to whether some persons who are nominally members of this “Forum” have actually been invited to take part in the decision making process. I follow Sheila Hamilton's lead and beg members of the public to restrict their contributions to true , fair and reasonable comment

We are very concerned at Andrew Sculls comments in this weeks Ilkley Gazette; He states that "I trust that this will finally dispel any misconceived notions that the consultation was in any way baised" The answer is NO! and these are just some of the reasons why ; The consultation paper only had all the possible benefits listed from the trail. It at no time mentions any disadvantages. How can this be a democratic process if only one view point is shared? People I am sure read the consultation and at first glance it looks like a good scheme and people may think they are getting something for nothing. But scratch the surface and this is clearly not the case. Jeff McQuillan collected the votes and counted the votes. How can this be seen as fair when this man has clear links to Sustrans and clear finanical gains to be be made for a positive outcome? This can not be seen as a deocratic process in any ones eyes. Andrew Scull has never wanted a fair and impartial consultation is has been clear from the start when cyclists from outside our village came to vote at our AGM. His web site for the trail has been very unprofessionally presented, rude, agreessive and clearly he has been a very angry man because a group of local people dare to have an oposite view to him. Andrew Scull also sent Kevin and I an e-mail threatening us with legal action if we did not remove our web site www.thewharfedaletra il.co.uk. Is this the actions of a man who wishes to have an open debate? The landowners and farmers have all been agaist this trail from the start. The landowners and farmers where never contacted even though the report states they where. How is this unbiased? "Report favours Addingham trail" this is the title given to the article in the Ilkley Gazette. If you read the 50 page report you will see this is in fact not true. The report highlights that 55% of the votes were cast before the against groups leaflets went out and the first exhibition at the memorial hall. Clearly people at this point were voting on what they had read in the consultation paper. At this point 84% were in favour and 16% against. After the exhibition and once every household had a leaflet showing a different view point the resulted showed 52% for and 48% against. As a group we could only afford to leaflet drop Addingham and not Ilkley and we were unable to fund a whole consultation paper. Funds should have been given to both groups and both groups should have had exhibitutions and after this process voting should have then taken place. Mr McQuillan admits in the report that the no's by the end of the consultation in Addingham moved to 54%. Turn out for voting overall was very poor ie 3.3% in Ilkley voted. We would also like to point out that the Addingham village design statement (2001) results showed the following ; 48.3% residence have problems parking in addingham. 72.3% stated that there is a traffic problem in addingham. 92.7% residence said that the quality of countryside around them was very important. 66% plus residence felt that wild plants, birds, animals and countryside around addingham was very important to them. 55% stated that the rural setting was most important to them. How did you come to live in Addingham? 29% love of village life and 32% love of the country life. Whilst finally this well balaced report has left out all of John Franklins research which proves that dogs, walkers, cyclists and horses is a very dangerous mix. We know that we highlighted this in detail in our response and we also know of others who did the same. John Franklin (national and international health and safety cycle adviser) has also written to Sustrans with his research evidence. We feel confident that Jeff Mcquillan is fully aware of this research and has omitted this information from his report ! Kevin and Debbie - Addingham

I fully support the statement above given by Kevin and Debbie Knabb. [bold]You have said everything I wanted to say - thank you.[/bold]

[italic]Who did Scull, McQuillan & Sustrans Consult:-[/italic] [bold]CYCLISTS - JD CYCLES were at the very first invitation only meeting held by SUSTRANS and attended by the "independent" SUSTRANS consultant Jeff McQuillan (MEETING - Tuesday 12th July 2005 in the Old School, Addingham at 7.00pm) FARMERS - never consulted LANDOWNERS - never consulted WILDLIFE LOVERS - never consulted[/bold] [italic]Prepared by:-[/italic] [bold]" ... Jeff McQuillan, Chair of The Great Northern Trail Forum, and consultant to Sustrans. Tel. 01943 865445 or Mobile 07811 107 607 ..."[/bold] (Source: SUSTRANS website) [bold]ENOUGH SAID[/bold]

I note all the previous comments on this site but what objectors must realise is that this project IS going to go ahead. It has been clearly stared that if the Local Authorities who financed this Consultation give the Consultation report the green light it will be handed to Sustrans and there will no longer be any need for the mysterious Wharfedale Trail Forum or even Councillor Andrew Scull. It is a foregone conclusion that the Councils will approve and I doubt if Addingham Parish Council will have any say in this.Sustrans will then bring in their full time staff including lawyers and Chartered Surveyors and will attempt to buy off any landowners one by one. Any landowners resisting will simply have the footpath imposed on them without any land purchase or compulsory purchase being necessary. This I am afraid is the reality.

That, Chris, is the first sensible comment on here, and the first I have heard or read from you. All this crap about who was or wasn't consulted when, or whether or not the consultant was biased is irrelevant and will fall on deaf ears - especially the way you lot are ranting on. Get real, and do what you all intended to do all along - get the best price you can for your scraggy bit of land.

[quote][bold]Observer[/bold] wrote: That, Chris, is the first sensible comment on here, and the first I have heard or read from you. All this crap about who was or wasn\'t consulted when, or whether or not the consultant was biased is irrelevant and will fall on deaf ears - especially the way you lot are ranting on. Get real, and do what you all intended to do all along - get the best price you can for your scraggy bit of land.[/quote] What a wonderfully reasoned argument "Observer" puts forward here - his intellect and moral stance are to be admired ?! "Observer" appears to acknowledge that the most important people involved were never consulted AND that the consultant was biased. THANK YOU. As for "Observer's" comment about getting the "best price you can ...... for your scraggy bit of land" - he clearly acknowledges how easily he can bought. THANK YOU. No doubt "Observer" will be volunteering his own garden for inclusion on the route for this Scull/Sustrans/McQui llan Trail AND we will be seeing his beloved Granny up for sale on Ebay befoe the week is out ?!!! "Observer" - please refrain from judging others by your own, clearly low, standards.

[bold]BATTERSBY[/bold] You really are a complete **** I for one look forward to riding past your house next year

"Observer" has misjudged the many objectors to the Trail and the various landowners affected. Under some circumstances it could be easy pickings for Sustrans to bully hard pressed farmers who may financially embarassed due to the dire state of farming in some areas. Fortunately in this case I do not detect the slightest whiff of desperation amongst the landowners.Not only are they reasonably well placed but they are also mighty resourceful people who are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder in resisting this well orchestrated but totally corrupt Consultation and land grab.It will be nice to see a bit of the Blitz spirit rekindled in deepest Wharfedale. It should be noted that Sustrans can not actually grab the land themselves they have to rely on the Local Council to do their dirty work for them. I am not entirely convinced that our elected Councillors will put up with this kind of unsavoury practice.Those Councillors who have any moral fibre will easily see through this thinly veiled scam and I suspect those who may lack moral fibre will also lack the necessary courage and resolve. The battle is not yet done !

Jamie S, It's people like you that give cyclists their often very poor reputation, you do not support the cyclists good cause in anyway by your comments above. Clearly your only contribution is to lower the tone to an aggressive, rude and childlike level. Debbie - Addingham

[quote][bold]jamie s[/bold] wrote: [bold]BATTERSBY[/bold] You really are a complete **** I for one look forward to riding past your house next year [/quote] would that be jamie shuttleworth of jd cycles fame ? nice one !

I have known and liked Jamie Shuttleworth since he was a little boy and his relatives for even longer. He is a super chap from a very good family and I am absolutely sure he has not changed one iota.It is certain that any blogs attributed to him are faked.For the record I have not asked him because I simply do not need to.

We all know who ratboy is too - Well, I do. Mass cycle into Addingham to sqew the votes at the main meeting??? Yes, I remember it well.

Share this: Digg | del.icio.us | Furl | reddit | Facebook | Yahoo! | What's this?

What are these links for?

If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.

At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.

Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.

More on Digg

More on del.icio.us

More on Furl

More on reddit

More on NowPublic/

More on Yahoo!

Archive