I have compiled a formal account of what has happened in my village, and this is the beginning of that record. I want the full story to be seen clearly and taken seriously.
It has now been confirmed that the institution at the centre of this dispute is Welney Parish Council, and the building is the William Marshall Centre, which opened in June 2016. The report I have compiled is intended to be seen by politicians, the media, and the public — because internal attempts to raise these concerns have been dismissed and denied for six years.
It has been confirmed that the CICAIR finding described on this page is referenced in the report’s Appendix, and I understand that documentation of that finding should be retrievable and filed as separate evidence to strengthen this part of the record.
It has now been confirmed that WPC paid for a superior roof that was never installed, and also paid for kitchen appliances and layout changes that were never delivered — all of this was grant-funded money belonging to the community, not WPC’s own funds. WPC also ignored its own solicitors’ advice to investigate the foundations before opening, which, on the evidence available, may have affected the ability to hold the builder properly to account.
It has now been confirmed that the financial irregularities documented in this report are not limited to individual items — they form a pattern totalling approximately £30,000 across the project, and WPC has not placed the relevant financial records in the public domain to allow any independent verification. The record also shows that the people responsible for managing this project could not even agree among themselves who was in charge.
It has been confirmed that the missing documentation described on this page is not a minor administrative oversight — it covers regulated safety activities where records are legally required, and the absence of those records has real consequences for the people who use this building and for the public funds spent on it. The fact that WREN was apparently sent an invalid certificate when they asked about the building’s condition is something The funding bodies should therefore be made directly aware of this matter.
It has now been confirmed that WPC attempted to silence legitimate questioning through vexatious orders that were later found to be procedurally invalid and inapplicable to the questions asked. The record also indicates that the building is now being opened without the remedial works that WPC’s own solicitors and insurers said were necessary, and This constitutes a serious risk to the community, based on the matters documented.
It has been confirmed that the report I compiled references six categories of supporting documents, including two independent engineering reports and photographs of the foundations, and The record shows that these documents exist and have been cited formally. I also note that WPC itself commissioned one of those reports — from AGL Consulting — which means they had access to independent professional findings about this building.
It has been confirmed that the appendix to my report references six categories of supporting documents, and The record clearly shows that this represents only part of the total evidence I hold. Two independent engineering reports exist — one commissioned by a community member, and one commissioned by Welney Parish Council itself — and both are referenced here.
It has now been confirmed that the building was given a formal Final Certificate in June 2016, but that certificate itself states it is not conclusive proof that everything was done correctly — and in my view, the structural and specification problems we have documented show that it was not.
The available documentation now establishes how to challenge the building control certificate formally — there is a named Director at Assent Building Control and a named officer at CICAIR, and both routes are confirmed in their own documentation. This is the institution’s own procedure, and I intend to use it.
It has been confirmed that I formally requested Assent Building Control’s complaints procedure in April 2018, which shows I raised concerns about the building certificate with the certifying body directly — this is part of the record I want to be seen clearly.
It has been confirmed that I and other parishioners formally raised these foundation and certification concerns in writing with Assent Building Control in May 2018, and the record shows those concerns were never resolved to our satisfaction. The completion certificate was being used to close down scrutiny of a building that was not finished and not safe.
The record establishes that the original Action Team agreed to foundations comprising 72 jacks on concrete blocks sunk 45cm into the ground. After the Parish Council took over, the foundations were changed, and the resulting construction did not correspond with the specification agreed by the Action Team. The record also indicates that Assent was warned about this at the time and stated that it would attend to inspect the matter — but the building went up over an old concrete block that should never have been left in the ground.
The records now show that Assent Building Control did not dismiss my concerns quietly — they escalated them internally to Associate level and tried to arrange a meeting that would have included the contractor, MRC. That meeting, and what came of it, is something the record will need to account for.
It has been confirmed that by August 2018 I had reached the stage of arranging a direct meeting with the building control officer at Assent, Edward Phillips, and The venue was organised at the Lamb and Flag at the Lamb and Flag — this was not an informal conversation but a structured step in pursuing my formal complaint about the William Marshall Centre.
It has been confirmed that a formal meeting took place in August 2018 at which the building control inspector was told directly about the foundation failures, the broken slabs, the fire doors, and the structural engineer’s report — and he did not deny any of it. He said he would inspect the building and report back within four weeks, and There is no record presently identified confirming that this inspection took place.
It should be noted that Assent’s letter was addressed to the Parish Council — the very body whose conduct is under scrutiny — rather than to the community members who raised the concerns. This raises a question in my mind about whose interests were being served by that response.
The evidence now shows that Assent Building Control have formally concluded there were no regulatory breaches and have framed the entire dispute as a disagreement between the Parish Council and our focus group — as if our concerns are merely political rather than technical and financial. What they have not addressed is that an independent structural engineer, commissioned separately, found the foundations were not fit for purpose, and that report has still not been properly engaged with.
It has been confirmed that the concerns raised with Assent Building Control were shared and agreed by multiple named members of our group — this was not one person’s complaint, and the draft letter shows we carefully checked the facts together before sending anything. The ICO’s response about the GDPR excuse being ‘spurious’ was something we reported accurately, and it matters because it shows we were not being obstructive — we were being stonewalled.
It has been confirmed that by November 2018 I had exhausted Assent’s internal complaints process without resolution, and I formally put them on notice that I was escalating to CICAIR and that our MP, Elizabeth Truss, had been kept informed throughout. I also placed on record that an Assent representative told us at a meeting in Welney that Building Regulations were only guidelines — which I knew then and know now to be wrong.
The record shows that when Assent Building Control carried out their survey and told me there were no defects, Welney Parish Council was still their paying client. The inspection was not considered independent because Welney Parish Council remained the paying client, and the complaint was therefore referred to CICAIR.
Assent Building Control was placed on formal notice on 8 October 2018 that I would refer this matter to CICAIR and inform Elizabeth Truss MP if answers were not forthcoming within the week — and This was done because six months of correspondence had produced nothing except their own complaints procedure and a report sent to the very body I was complaining about. I had also consulted the Information Commissioner, who confirmed that sending the report to the parish council rather than to me was not a legitimate use of data protection.
The escalation to CICAIR was made by post rather than email when escalating to CICAIR because I was concerned that emails might not reach the right people, and The record shows that I offered to provide every email from April onward so that nothing could later be said to be missing from the complaint trail.
It has now been confirmed that when I questioned the Information Commissioner’s Office about Assent’s refusal to share the inspection report on GDPR grounds, they told me that use of GDPR in that way was ‘spurious’ and suggested someone was trying to hide something that should be in the public domain. The record also shows that at our meeting in Welney in August 2018, Edward Phillips of Assent Building Control told us — following persistent questioning by my colleague Roger Giles — that Building Regulations were ‘only guidelines’, which is inconsistent with the applicable Building Regulations framework.
The record shows that at no point did Assent Building Control ever deny that the foundations do not conform — and this was stated plainly in the letter. I made sure that letter went directly to the directors by recorded delivery so that its receipt could be formally evidenced.
In November 2018 I received a letter from Assent Building Control responding to my detailed complaint of 30 October 2018. Rather than addressing my structural concerns directly, the letter disputed my observations about panel buckling, claimed only two panels had been replaced, and continued to assert that Welney Parish Council’s permission was needed before any information could be shared with me — despite the ICO having already told me that Assent’s use of GDPR to withhold the report was spurious. The correspondence gives the appearance of a pattern of obstruction rather than genuine engagement with the concerns raised.
It has now been confirmed that Assent’s own letter acknowledges that Tim Bennett raised concerns about the foundations as early as February 2016 — before any of us knew about the regulations — and that the slabs cracked within days of work continuing. This is not something I have alleged; it is something Assent themselves have put in writing.
It has been confirmed that after Assent Building Control rejected my complaint, I formally refused to accept that response and asked CICAIR to investigate further — and CICAIR agreed to escalate the matter to an independent review panel. This letter shows my complaint was taken seriously enough to move beyond Assent’s own internal process and into independent scrutiny.
A detailed timeline was submitted to CICAIR showing exactly what Assent did and did not do over six months — the delays, the meeting that led nowhere, the report they sent to the Parish Council but refused to send to me, and the final letter that told me nothing. The Information Commissioner confirmed that the reason Assent gave for withholding their report from me was spurious, and this has also been recorded.
It has now been confirmed that two entirely independent structural engineering sources have both looked at the William Marshall Centre and reached the same conclusion: the foundations are wrong, the building has already moved, and it is likely to keep moving. This is not just my opinion — it is the professional judgement of qualified engineers who visited the site.
Five witnesses have now been formally named: five witnesses — John Loveday, Peter Cox, Nigel Fleming, Ray Gilbert, and myself — who attended meetings with the contractor at which the 72-block foundation specification was agreed. I have also documented that at the Parish Council meeting of 17 March 2016, the contractor’s representative Chris Neill of MRC stated the existing slab would be levelled with concrete blocks, which was never done.
It has now been confirmed that the regulatory body responsible for overseeing Approved Inspectors — CICAIR — formally found in writing that the foundation system used in the William Marshall Centre was not properly checked, not inspected before erection, and not rigorously appraised. This is not my opinion: it is the conclusion of the panel appointed to investigate my complaint.
It has now been confirmed that the independent regulatory panel found that the Approved Inspector did not demonstrate the required level of professional competence in either assessing the plans or carrying out inspections — this is not my opinion, it is the official finding of the government-established body responsible for regulating building control inspectors. That finding, combined with the earlier upheld complaints about the Final Certificate and compliance failures, means that three separate regulatory conclusions now support what our community has been saying for years.
It has now been confirmed that CICAIR found the pads used in the foundations were broken and irregular, and that there is no evidence inspections were ever carried out to check how many pads had actually been installed. This is exactly what I and others in the community observed and reported from the beginning.
It has now been confirmed that the independent regulatory body CICAIR has upheld my complaint against Assent Building Control Ltd and issued a formal caution — vindicating what the community has said from the beginning about the failures of oversight at the William Marshall Centre. This is an official finding, not just our word against theirs.
The end of CICAIR’s own complaints process. The letter makes clear that if I believe CICAIR itself did not act properly or fairly in handling my complaint, I can take that concern to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman — and that route is still open to me.
The record now includes CICAIR’s final closing letter, which confirms that their internal process is complete and sets out my right to refer CICAIR’s own handling of my complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman if I believe they did not act properly or fairly. I am preserving this letter as part of the formal record because it marks the end of the regulatory complaints process and opens the next escalation pathway.
It has now been confirmed that an independent structural engineering report was commissioned from John Watson & Partners in November 2017, roughly eighteen months after the building opened. This report has always been one of the most important pieces of evidence, and it is now formally part of the record.
It has now been confirmed that an independent structural engineer visited the site and found exactly what our community had been raising concerns about — paving slabs sitting directly on soft fenland ground, cracked and already being replaced, with very soft clays and peat extending well below the surface. This is not opinion; it is a professional engineer’s written record made in November 2017.
It has been confirmed that the independent structural engineer’s report was commissioned and completed in November 2017, roughly 18 months after the building opened, and it formally documented how the building’s floors and foundations are constructed — information that goes directly to the heart of my concerns about whether the foundations were ever adequate for this site.
It has now been confirmed that the structural engineer’s own conclusions, set out in Section 4 of the JWP report, state in plain terms that the foundations do not comply with the most basic requirements of Building Regulations — this is not my interpretation, it is the written professional opinion of a qualified structural engineer retained independently of the Parish Council. That conclusion, combined with the CICAIR decision upholding the complaint against the approved inspector, means two separate professional bodies have now agreed that something went seriously wrong with how this building was checked and certified.
The full conclusions section of the JWP report in the dossier, and I want to be clear about what it says: four separate structural and regulatory failures, each one serious enough on its own, all present in the same building that was certified as complete and satisfactory. This is not a matter of opinion — these are measurements against published standards, and the building failed every one of them.
It has now been confirmed that the JWP report’s conclusions are even more serious than I initially understood — the structural engineer did not just identify past damage, but warned in writing that the building will continue to deteriorate without intervention. That warning was made in November 2017, and to my knowledge no remedial works have been carried out.
It has now been confirmed that the JWP report is complete in evidence, including its signed recommendations page, which makes clear that the engineers believed nothing short of a completely new piled foundation system would make the building safe and stable. This was known in November 2017, and I want the record to show clearly that this professional conclusion existed before many of the subsequent disputes with Assent Building Control and others even began.
The evidence now shows that the structural engineers’ site plan confirms a borehole was sunk right next to the building to investigate the ground — this shows that serious questions about the foundations were being examined by qualified professionals as far back as November 2017, while the building had already been open to the public since June 2016.
It has now been confirmed that the structural engineer’s own written responses to trustee questions acknowledge the building was not built to the required standards and that the only option being offered — keeping the jacks adjusted — is not a long-term solution. This is not my interpretation; it is what the engineer wrote in his own words.
It has now been confirmed that an independent structural engineer has stated in writing, in response to direct questions, that the foundations of the William Marshall Centre do not comply with multiple building standards — and that the floor slopes inside the building exceed what is considered acceptable. This is not my opinion; it is the professional judgement of a qualified structural engineer who inspected the building.
It has now been confirmed that the contractor put their explanation of the roof change in writing in August 2017, including specific figures for costs absorbed and savings deducted — this is important because those figures need to be checked against the actual invoices and the final bill we were given.
It has been confirmed that the AGL report was commissioned by Welney Playing Field Charity and carried out on 13 October 2020 — more than four years after the building opened — and that the inspector found adjustable jack supports holding up the steel beams rather than proper permanent foundations. This is the second independent professional report to raise serious concerns about the structural integrity of the William Marshall Centre.
It has been confirmed that the AGL report records precisely the falls and distortions I have observed in the building since it opened, and it shows that an independent engineer found the same structural concerns that the community has been raising for years. The borehole investigation now means there is sub-surface ground data on record that Assent Building Control never obtained before signing the building off.
It has now been confirmed that engineering drawings showing the foundation layout and the locations of ground investigation boreholes have been filed as evidence. These drawings allow anyone reviewing this case to see precisely where the ground was — and was not — investigated before construction began, and to compare that against what the structural engineers subsequently found.
It has now been confirmed that concerns about the accuracy of official Parish Council minutes are part of the formal record — a named former councillor has disputed in writing that his position was misrepresented in the December 2022 minutes. This matters because accurate minutes are the public record of what was said and decided, and if that record is wrong, accountability becomes harder to establish.
It has been confirmed 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. His account supports my own experience of the council failing to acknowledge or act on repeated written and verbal representations.
It has now been confirmed that the CICAIR findings I have referenced throughout this case are recorded in writing and are specific: the complaints panel found under Clause 2.1.1 that no inspection was carried out before the building went up on jacks, that differential settlement was a real risk, and that Cicair overruled their own Inspector’s Assent — and these findings are supported by the reproduced text in my correspondence. The record also shows that when I asked for written validation of assurances said to have been given by LABC and CNC, a Borough Councillor sent an email to all parish councillors that, in my view, was designed to prevent any response to that reasonable request.
This statement was read aloud at the August 2022 Welney Parish Council meeting during the public participation section, so it is on the record. The matter had already been checked directly with LABC before the statement was delivered, 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.