DRAFT
Summary of Colin Rose’s Professional Background
Subject: Councillor Colin Rose – claims concerning architecture and structural engineering
This summary is based primarily on the email supplied by Roger Giles. It records what Colin Rose states about his own professional background and technical involvement with the Village Hall. It should not be treated as independent proof of professional qualifications or registration.
1. Direct statement by Colin Rose
In the email, Colin Rose states: “as an Architect and Structural Engineer I was asked to take a look at it”. This is a direct representation by Rose that he is, or regards himself as, an Architect and Structural Engineer.
2. His stated involvement with the Village Hall
- Rose says he was asked to examine the Village Hall.
- He says he declined because his involvement might have been perceived as “chronyism or corruption”.
- He says that, despite declining to examine the building, he passed information about “Jacks” to the then chairman. He describes this as a method becoming increasingly popular for modular buildings.
- He states that test holes would still be required to establish the load-bearing nature of the ground.
- He says he investigated the matter and questioned why the original instigators withdrew two weeks before the paperwork had to be signed.
3. Technical matters referred to in the email
Rose discusses a number of matters using architectural/structural-engineering terminology, including:
- ground bearing capacity and test holes;
- piling;
- reinforced rafts;
- modular building construction and “thin joint” construction;
- the expected life of the Hall, which he says was assumed to be 25–30 years;
- Building Control approval and a subsequent review said to have identified five points of concern.
4. What the email does and does not establish
The email is significant because Rose personally describes himself as both an Architect and Structural Engineer. It also demonstrates that he presents himself as having technical knowledge relevant to building construction and structural matters.
However, the email alone does not establish the exact qualifications, professional registrations, dates of practice, employers, firms, or professional memberships that would substantiate those titles. It therefore supports the statement that Rose has made this professional claim, but further independent verification would be required before describing him definitively as a qualified or registered architect and structural engineer.
5. Suggested wording for formal use
“Councillor Colin Rose has stated in correspondence that he is an Architect and Structural Engineer. In the same correspondence he describes being asked to look at the Village Hall and discusses a range of structural and construction matters, including ground bearing capacity, piling, reinforced rafts, modular construction and the expected life of the building. The correspondence therefore provides direct evidence of his own representation of his professional expertise. Independent evidence of his formal qualifications and professional registration would be required to verify the precise status of those qualifications.”
6. Further verification recommended
For a definitive professional-history record, the next step would be to check relevant professional registers and historical records for architectural and engineering qualifications, registrations, professional memberships and any businesses or practices associated with Colin Rose.
References to “Rose”
Extracted from: Pride Comes Before A Hall — Village Community Dispute
Page 6
Borough Councillor Rose sent an email copied to all Welney Parish Councillors referencing a failed legal action against MRC and, according to the author, directing councillors not to respond to requests for written validation from LABC and CNC regarding assurances given to B.C. Rose.
Page 6
Roger Giles wrote formally to Welney Parish Council disputing the accuracy of the 6 December 2022 minutes, which had recorded that he had retracted his allegations against B.C. Rose — a characterisation he states is false and potentially harmful.
Page 6
Roger Giles wrote formally to Welney Parish Council escalating his allegations from B.C. Rose personally to the council itself, citing four months of unacknowledged verbal and written complaints and the failure to minute his allegations until 6 December 2022.
Page 7
Public statement read at August 2022 WPC meeting citing CICAIR’s upholding of complaint under Section 2.4.2, issuing a caution against Assent Building Control, and formally rebutting Borough Councillor Rose’s claims about modular building regulations and his alleged contact with LABC and CNC.
Page 13
I can confirm that a second community member, Roger Giles, has independently written to Welney Parish Council on formal record, escalating complaints about the suppression of public contributions in council minutes and raising doubts about the truthfulness of statements made by B.C. Rose regarding MRC.
Page 13
I read this statement aloud at the August 2022 Welney Parish Council meeting during the public participation section, so it is on the record. I had already checked directly with LABC before speaking, and the person I spoke to — Rory Cullen — confirmed there was no record of Borough Councillor Rose ever making contact with them about our building.
Page 61
The minutes had recorded that he had made ‘a u-turn on his accusations against B.C. Rose,’ which he categorically denies.
Page 61
The letter states that the December 2022 Parish Council minutes recorded that ‘a parishioner has made a u turn on his accusations against B.C. Rose,’ and Roger Giles formally disputes this as ‘totally incorrect,’ clarifying that he had only made a u-turn on the specific point of taking MRC to court after learning a previous attempt had already failed, not on his underlying allegations.
Page 62
This is page 2 of a formal letter from Roger Giles to Welney Parish Council in which he clarifies and escalates his allegations. He states that his earlier complaints about B.C. Rose’s statements were never formally acknowledged or minuted until the 6 December 2022 meeting, and that his allegations have shifted from pursuing B.C. Rose directly to holding Welney Parish Council accountable for four months of ignoring his verbal and written correspondence.
Page 62
The document states that Roger Giles’s allegations against Welney Parish Council were not minuted until 6 December 2022, that other whistle-blowers have raised doubts about B.C. Rose’s claim of a failed legal action against MRC, and that Roger Giles’s principal goal was to hold the WMC builder or insurers accountable for structural remediation costs rather than the village.
Page 63
The author alleges that Borough Councillor Rose, in a November 2022 email, referenced a failed legal action against MRC and directed other councillors not to engage with requests for written validation from LABC and CNC.
Page 63
The document states that CICAIR’s complaints panel found under Clause 2.1.1 that no inspection was carried out before the building was erected on jacks placed on newly laid paving slabs and part of a former building’s foundation slab, that differential settlement could occur, and that the ability to adjust the jacks was not considered satisfactory; and under Clause 2.3.1 that Cicair again overruled their own Inspector’s Assent; and that Borough Councillor Rose, in an email dated 29 November 2022 copied to all Welney Parish Councillors, advised councillors not to respond to a request for written validation from LABC and CNC.
Page 64
This document records a formal public statement delivered at the August 2022 Welney Parish Council meeting. It cites CICAIR’s finding under Section 2.4.2 that the Approved Inspector demonstrated insufficient competence regarding foundation oversight, with a caution issued against Assent Building Control. It also directly challenges two statements attributed to Borough Councillor Rose in previous WPC minutes — one about modular construction regulations being unsettled, and one claiming he had sought advice from LABC and CNC — the latter contradicted by a named LABC representative who confirmed no contact record exists.
Page 64
CICAIR found under Section 2.4.2 that the Approved Inspector showed insufficient competence regarding foundation oversight and applied a caution against Assent Building Control; Borough Councillor Rose is recorded in WPC minutes as stating that modular construction regulations were still being established by BRE and that he had sought advice from LABC and CNC; Rory Cullen of LABC confirmed in direct contact with the document’s author that no record exists of Borough Councillor Rose contacting LABC or receiving advice regarding the WMC building at Hern Drive, Welney.
Page 64
OBTAIN and preserve the full original text of Borough Councillor Rose’s email dated 29 November 2022, copied to all Welney Parish Councillors — this remains the single most urgent outstanding document, as it may evidence the nature of communications following the public challenge to his statements at the August 2022 meeting.
Page 64
SECURE written confirmation from Rory Cullen (LABC) that no record exists of Borough Councillor Rose contacting LABC regarding the WMC — ideally in the form of a signed letter or formal email on headed paper, dated and addressed to you.
Page 64
SUBMIT a formal Subject Access Request (SAR) to Welney Parish Council under UK GDPR for all correspondence, minutes, and records relating to (a) Borough Councillor Rose’s contact with LABC and CNC, (b) the August 2022 public meeting, and (c) any internal communications following your public statement.
Page 65
CONSIDER submitting a formal complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSWO) regarding the accuracy of assurances given to parishioners by Borough Councillor Rose.
Page 65
Can Borough Councillor Rose produce documentary evidence that he contacted LABC and CNC, as he stated in WPC minutes, given that LABC has confirmed no such record exists?
Page 66
Obtain written confirmation from Rory Cullen at LABC, on headed paper, formally stating that no record exists of Borough Councillor Rose contacting LABC regarding the WMC — and lodge this as a signed witness statement in the dossier.
Page 66
Welney Parish Council and Borough Councillor Rose could argue that the LABC contact may have occurred informally or verbally in a way that was not logged on LABC’s systems, and that the absence of a record does not conclusively prove no contact occurred.
Page 66
Can Borough Councillor Rose produce any documentary evidence — emails, letters, notes, or call records — showing he actually contacted LABC or CNC about the WMC building, given that LABC has confirmed no such record exists on their side?
Page 66
Following the public challenge at the August 2022 meeting, did Welney Parish Council or Borough Councillor Rose take any formal steps to verify or correct the claims made in previous minutes — and if not, why not?
Note: These are extracted passages from the supplied PDF containing the name “Rose”. They are presented as text from the document and are not independently verified factual findings.
Other Findings
This case concerns a dispute at Welney Parish Council over the construction of the William Marshall Centre. A parishioner, John Loveday, alleges that Councillor Rose made statements to the Council that were factually incorrect, and that those statements directly influenced the Council to drop a solicitor and court route in relation to construction issues. A written response from Ian Smith, Surveyor at CNC Building Control, contradicts the account attributed to Rose regarding CNC’s involvement and his own role. This is the opening piece of evidence and further documentation — including the original minutes, the solicitor correspondence, and additional statement evidence referred to by Loveday — will be needed to build a complete picture.