An aopology from St Modwen: From: Kathryn Edwards <KEdwards@stmodwen.co.uk> Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 5:18 PM
Subject: Response from St. Modwen To: Sally Murrer <email@example.com> - At MK Citizen published last week
Hi Sally, Please see below a response from St. Modwen in respect of your email this afternoon. This should be attributed to a spokesperson for St. Modwen.
Regards, Kathryn Edwards
Response to the Milton Keynes Citizen:St. Modwen responded to Mr Webb’s original subject access request in November 2017 and provided him with all relevant documentation. At that time, the Company wrote to Mr Webb and acknowledged that references to him in the documents were unprofessional and did not meet expected standards. The Company fully apologised to Mr Webb and the matter was addressed internally with the individuals concerned.
Welcome to Wolverton Works online. Site last updated 16 June 2018. HISTORIC ENGLAND presented their case to overturn Milron Keynes Council's decision to allow demolition of Wolverton Works was heard on 23rd May in Court 2 at The High Court.
It was the St Modwen shareholder AGM on 28 March. Please see below for shareholder questions asked at that meeting.
The Full Works is the official book published to commemorate the Works' 175th anniversary in September 2013. It is still available from the author priced £6.50 including P&P from: Mr P Marsh, 14 Milton Road, Willen Village, MK15 9AD.
War Memorial fund
Working with Dave Hilliard from Wolverton Works, Phil Marsh has donated £1000 from the anniversary book to the World War One War Memorial fund. Dave has raised several thousands of pounds working tirelessly towards the project completion.
This will commemorate each of the 213 Wolverton Works men who gave their lives in this conflict. For some reason, the LNWR did not erect a War memorial to them. and we resolved to rectify this omission.
Dave Hilliard, supported by Knorr-Bremse, has raised the required amount and the memorial stone will be unveiled once Planning Consent has been obtained. But curiously Knorr-Bremse and St Modwen will not respond to questions about the project. Local MP Mark Lancaster has tried to get things moving without success.
Interested in the Royal Train? Visit; www.royaltrain.co.uk Visit the Milton Keynes Miniature Railway at Caldecotte Lake here - www.caldecotteminiaturerailway.co.uk
Historic England stated its case at the Judicial Review against MK Council's rationale for its planning decision on 23 May in the High Court. St Modwen and MK Council's arguement was that so long as railway work carried on at the site, that carried on the historical railway link. They cited Coventry Cathedral as a precedent but Judge Love suggested that the Germans had not applied for Planning Consent to demolish the old cathedral when the bombed it in WW2.
St Modwen have been found wanting in their treatment of objectors as detailed in the MK Citizen paper with claims of social media hacking not rebutted. They did say that they would not comment of the potential Judicial Review as it was a matter for Milton Keynes Council. MK Council has been asked to comment on the Judicial Review decision but they said they would not be making any comment.
Above. What was and what is. The new shop which has been built inside the Conservation Area. Another historic view gone.
Questions asked at the St Modwen Annual General Meeting in Longbridge (Birmingham) on 28 March by Phil Marsh
Mr Chairman, I have four questions to ask on the annual report.
1.Pages 15 and 17 discuss community engagement. Why then is St Modwen deliberately blocking the erection of a Word War 1 memorial to the 213 Wolverton Works men who gave their lives a century ago.
St Modwen has even brushed off requests from the local MP, the Minister for Armed Forces and Veterans to remedy the situation.
Is this deliberate policy to alienate the local community or pure incompetence?
2.Page 51 looks at St Modwen’s Risk Management Framework while Page 56 states the use of high quality professionals mitigates risk.
St Modwen’s strategic communications partner is G L Hearn. They authored a report for the Wolverton Works planning application entitled Employment Assumptions. This has been proven to be factually incorrect by rail industry experts and defies the laws of physics as the siding and shunting arrangements do not permit longer trains to access the Works.
SUBSEQUENTLY Phillip Webb has had a written apology from St Modwen who now admit their contractors did not behave as they should have done.
Following Freedom of Information and Subject Access Requests made to Milton Keynes Council, yourselves, Knorr-Bremse and G. L. Hearn, a string of internal emails ridiculing several objector’s including a family situation and domestic life have emerged.
What action does St Modwen plan to take on this lack of ethics and moral values taking the risk mitigation statement at face value?
Did St Modwen operationally approve such actions and what level of oversight is undertaken with other Parties?
3.Page 74 makes much of media briefings. The St Modwen and G. L. Hearn media offices have refused to answer media requests from FOUR different railway trade press outlets over the last year.
The Wolverton planning fiasco and upcoming Judicial Review is not mentioned on page 167 in the subsequent events section and continues to cause ongoing media interest and associated growing reputational damage to St Modwen, not helped by the illegal demolition of a building and lack of local community consultation.
Why is the railway trade press being ignored?
4.Finally, why does slide 8 in the annual presentation show Wolverton project as offering 325 dwellings as opposed to the 375 detailed in the planning application and what is the resultant reduction in anticipated profit?
Mr Chairman, you are leading a shambolic double standards organisation.
Is all this really acceptable to you and your shareholders?
Changing places. Creating better futures? Not in Wolverton or elsewhere.
The response from the Chairman and Chief Executive was a rehearsed statement which as shareholders after the meeting said to me, did not answer the questions.
The 325 dwelling number given out was admitted to be a mistake and the omission question was ignored.