The Looker’s £19,000 High Street Fund application to be heard by Overview & Scrutiny on the 13 July

On the 22nd June we ran the post:

Wimble’s Looker Magazine, applies for £19,000 from Council’s High Street Fund

Since then things have moved on at pace. The amount sought by The Looker was £20,000, but it was initially awarded £18,711.60 – 58% of entire project cost – before being called in by three Cllrs.

Cllr Rebecca Shoob (Green)

Cllr Connor McConville (Lab)

Cllr Gary Fuller (Lib Dems)

At present no monies has been awarded due to the call in to the Overview & Scutiny Committee (O & SC).

It will go before O & SC on the 13 July 2022. One must remember O & SC can only recommend something happen. That is the extent of their power.

It’s clear from the Application form, the applicant was a Ms Sarah White.

Ms White was a director of The Looker Newspaper Limited between Oct 2019 and July 2020, according to Companies House. At the time of the application, Ms White had nothing to do with the company in any legal capacity, or business capacity with regards to the Companies Act 2006.

Note, the application asks if any planning consents are required, and the applicant answers – No. However, that might well be a false statement. Planning permission for putting up shop signs more than 0.3m²  is required, according to Fast Signs

Not many people are aware that when they install shop signage of more than 0.3m² on their building that they need planning permission. This is a legal requirement and crucial for safety purposes.

So will the sign be bigger than 0.3m² , well have to wait and see.

Moving on, the Committee in accordance with the constitution, must consider the decision and the reasons for call-in. The Committee may invite the decision taker and a representative of those calling in the decision to attend the meeting to provide information.

The Committee may then come to one of the following conclusions:

a) That the challenge to the decision should be taken no further and the decision may be implemented.

b) That the decision is contrary to the policy or budget framework and should therefore be referred to the Council. In such a case the committee must set out its reasoning for the Council to consider.

c) That the matter should be referred back to the decision taker for reconsideration. In such a case the committee must set out its reasoning for the decision taker to consider.

We suppose the following questions need to be asked

Can a non-business owner make a claim for and on behalf of a company, given that there is a relationship between the non-business owner and the business owner?

Did Ms White have the legal power to act for The Looker Newspaper?

If so, would the Council publish the legal powers for her to act on behalf of the owner of the Looker magazine?

She has no legal role in the Looker Magazine, as is made clear by Companies House.

Cllr Wimble, as the the owner of The Looker magazine has a legitimate right to make a claim for the monies from the High Street Fund, as long as he declared all his interests. But to ask someone else to make the claim for him, given there is and was a business relationship between himself & Ms White, smacks of subterfuge.

It will be interesting viewing and one can attend the civic Centre to watch in person, or sit back and watch it on the council’s webcast.

Finally, let’s not forget The Looker Magazine received £15,193.28 of Covid Grant money. And it is widely known that Cllr Wimble flew to  Turkey to have his teeth done, at a reputed cost of approximately £5,000. There are some sitting Cllrs who now refer to him as David “Red Rum” Wimble, with the lovely teeth he now has.

The Shepway Vox Team

Dissent is NOT a Crime