MP has 'vendetta' against planning department - Lib Dems say (From Warrington Guardian)

wa1 resident says...
8:55am Wed 6 Feb 13

Warringtons recently published Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) shows planned and targeted housing activity up until 2027, so it is understood what cllr barr is referring to when he quotes 15 years, but as he knows, even though housebuilding is far exceeding the annual 380 units required in the borough he & his pals continue to approve new applications for developers which are often accepted as not complying with current policy or needs. This again is individuals seeking to raise their profile & gain populist column inches, where their actions in a less public forum do not back up the words.

Report this post »

Reader says...
9:32am Wed 6 Feb 13

According to other reports the council EXCEEDED the 13 weeks so Mr Barr saying they wrote to satnam stating they would need UPTO 13 weeks is irrelevant.

Also there are 5 councillors (not 3) backing the MP now and calling for his resignation and one like Mr Barr is on the planning committee too.

It's not like Helen Jones is just trying to get her name in the paper any way she can as she has fought to protect Peel Hall from development for over 10 years now. (I'm not a labour supporter before anyone spouts off politically)

Report this post »

Richard65 says...
9:38am Wed 6 Feb 13

Bob Barr knows from his long standing position on the Development Management Committee, that the planning department and those solicitors aligned to it, has overseen scandal after scandal. This is firstly a cheap shot at MP Jones, but also its misleading and also totally glosses over the fact that the decision will now not go to the elected members. Its lazy and does him no favours whatsoever.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
10:22am Wed 6 Feb 13

Also seeing as Councillor Barr is a prominent member of the development management committee, it is clear that he has taken his eye off the ball on one of the most controversial application over the past few years. Why was he not inquiring into why it was on the planning committee agenda? This stands for all the elected cllrs. on that committee. That said clearly the planning department is not fit for purpose, that is obvious.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
10:42am Wed 6 Feb 13

Next we'll be hearing Bob Barr accusing Helen Jones MP of being a conspiracy theorist and then she can join the rest of us, since I doubt there anyone in this borough against whom he has not laid that charge.Bob Barr knows full well the planners should more properly called plotters, so donnig his political party mantle instead of getting to grips with the real problem is to put it bluntly pathetic. I expected him to more a man of substance.

Report this post »

Geoff Siddall says...
10:46am Wed 6 Feb 13

YOUR CHOICE

Elected councillors and Members of Parliament should put their communities, not party politics, first.

Important local and national issues should be put to binding local and national referendums and above all, councils and Members of Parliament should be there to serve their communities and work side by side with other councillors, not just spend the people’s money or play power games with each other.

Will the same councillors and Members of Parliament fighting against this development on behalf of the community also fight HS2 (High Speed railway) on behalf of the local people opposing it through Warrington?

Will the community fighting this development also fight the plight of local people who will have HS2 running through their homes, their business, the graves of their loved ones, their landscape and their lives?

I pose a question. If we oppose this develoment where will Warrington Borough Council build new homes for the 29 million fellow Europeans from Bulgaria and Romania? These people who will legally be allowed to enter the UK from January 2014 will need a place to live, a school to educate their children, a hospital when they are ill or to meet their maternity needs. They will need access to jobs and benefits while they seek work. They will need the support of all front-line council services.

Local people should perhaps not oppose new housing developments if they support the fact that the UK is a fully paid up member of the EU and have to abide by the rules. The EU control over 75% of our laws.

On the other hand the local people have a choice to fight the unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable Commissioners of the EU, the same Commissioners that this Government and the previous Government have fully supported against the will of the British people signing away more and more powers.

Soon local communities will not have any say in where developments go and no local services when they collapse under the weight of uncontrolled immigration and budget cuts to sort out the previous Governments financial mess.

It’s YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR TOWN and YOUR CHOICE

Geoff Siddall

YOUR CHOICE Elected councillors and Members of Parliament should put their communities, not party politics, first. Important local and national issues should be put to binding local and national referendums and above all, councils and Members of Parliament should be there to serve their communities and work side by side with other councillors, not just spend the people’s money or play power games with each other. Will the same councillors and Members of Parliament fighting against this development on behalf of the community also fight HS2 (High Speed railway) on behalf of the local people opposing it through Warrington? Will the community fighting this development also fight the plight of local people who will have HS2 running through their homes, their business, the graves of their loved ones, their landscape and their lives? I pose a question. If we oppose this develoment where will Warrington Borough Council build new homes for the 29 million fellow Europeans from Bulgaria and Romania? These people who will legally be allowed to enter the UK from January 2014 will need a place to live, a school to educate their children, a hospital when they are ill or to meet their maternity needs. They will need access to jobs and benefits while they seek work. They will need the support of all front-line council services. Local people should perhaps not oppose new housing developments if they support the fact that the UK is a fully paid up member of the EU and have to abide by the rules. The EU control over 75% of our laws. On the other hand the local people have a choice to fight the unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable Commissioners of the EU, the same Commissioners that this Government and the previous Government have fully supported against the will of the British people signing away more and more powers. Soon local communities will not have any say in where developments go and no local services when they collapse under the weight of uncontrolled immigration and budget cuts to sort out the previous Governments financial mess. It’s YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR TOWN and YOUR CHOICE Geoff Siddall Geoff Siddall

Report this post »

Karlar says...
10:48am Wed 6 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:
Next we'll be hearing Bob Barr accusing Helen Jones MP of being a conspiracy theorist and then she can join the rest of us, since I doubt there anyone in this borough against whom he has not laid that charge.Bob Barr knows full well the planners should more properly called plotters, so donnig his political party mantle instead of getting to grips with the real problem is to put it bluntly pathetic. I expected him to more a man of substance.

Apologies for the first attempt I spilt the coffee in surprise at Bob's offering............
.......

Next we'll be hearing Bob Barr accuse Helen Jones MP of being a conspiracy theorist and then she can join the rest of us, since I doubt there anyone in this borough against whom he has not laid that charge. Bob Barr knows full well the planners should more properly called plotters, so donning his political party mantle instead of getting to grips with the real problem is to put it bluntly pathetic. I expected him to be more a man of substance.

Report this post »

Nick Tessla says...
11:03am Wed 6 Feb 13

Geoff Siddall wrote:
YOUR CHOICE

Elected councillors and Members of Parliament should put their communities, not party politics, first.

Important local and national issues should be put to binding local and national referendums and above all, councils and Members of Parliament should be there to serve their communities and work side by side with other councillors, not just spend the people’s money or play power games with each other.

Will the same councillors and Members of Parliament fighting against this development on behalf of the community also fight HS2 (High Speed railway) on behalf of the local people opposing it through Warrington?

Will the community fighting this development also fight the plight of local people who will have HS2 running through their homes, their business, the graves of their loved ones, their landscape and their lives?

I pose a question. If we oppose this develoment where will Warrington Borough Council build new homes for the 29 million fellow Europeans from Bulgaria and Romania? These people who will legally be allowed to enter the UK from January 2014 will need a place to live, a school to educate their children, a hospital when they are ill or to meet their maternity needs. They will need access to jobs and benefits while they seek work. They will need the support of all front-line council services.

Local people should perhaps not oppose new housing developments if they support the fact that the UK is a fully paid up member of the EU and have to abide by the rules. The EU control over 75% of our laws.

On the other hand the local people have a choice to fight the unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable Commissioners of the EU, the same Commissioners that this Government and the previous Government have fully supported against the will of the British people signing away more and more powers.

Soon local communities will not have any say in where developments go and no local services when they collapse under the weight of uncontrolled immigration and budget cuts to sort out the previous Governments financial mess.

It’s YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR TOWN and YOUR CHOICE

Geoff Siddall

Geoff - not everything is about Europe (you are risking becoming tiresome) - even your local party commandant seems to recognise this when he admitted that UKIP needed to find other things to rattle on about.

if you are your colleagues are f
going to try and win votes by getting on such band- waggons as HS2 then please, please tell the whole story - UKIP would spend billions on new roads- many of which would end up being built over green pockets similar culcheth linear park.

I am glad to see you believe in democracy - wjat is UKIP's position on the unelected House of Lords - a retirement plan for ex-MPs and establishment figures representing special interests.

(If Chris Huhne was a member of the house of lords he could still carry on being one even if ends up serving a prison sentence)

[quote][p][bold]Geoff Siddall[/bold] wrote: YOUR CHOICE Elected councillors and Members of Parliament should put their communities, not party politics, first. Important local and national issues should be put to binding local and national referendums and above all, councils and Members of Parliament should be there to serve their communities and work side by side with other councillors, not just spend the people’s money or play power games with each other. Will the same councillors and Members of Parliament fighting against this development on behalf of the community also fight HS2 (High Speed railway) on behalf of the local people opposing it through Warrington? Will the community fighting this development also fight the plight of local people who will have HS2 running through their homes, their business, the graves of their loved ones, their landscape and their lives? I pose a question. If we oppose this develoment where will Warrington Borough Council build new homes for the 29 million fellow Europeans from Bulgaria and Romania? These people who will legally be allowed to enter the UK from January 2014 will need a place to live, a school to educate their children, a hospital when they are ill or to meet their maternity needs. They will need access to jobs and benefits while they seek work. They will need the support of all front-line council services. Local people should perhaps not oppose new housing developments if they support the fact that the UK is a fully paid up member of the EU and have to abide by the rules. The EU control over 75% of our laws. On the other hand the local people have a choice to fight the unelected, undemocratic and unaccountable Commissioners of the EU, the same Commissioners that this Government and the previous Government have fully supported against the will of the British people signing away more and more powers. Soon local communities will not have any say in where developments go and no local services when they collapse under the weight of uncontrolled immigration and budget cuts to sort out the previous Governments financial mess. It’s YOUR COUNTRY, YOUR TOWN and YOUR CHOICE Geoff Siddall[/p][/quote]Geoff - not everything is about Europe (you are risking becoming tiresome) - even your local party commandant seems to recognise this when he admitted that UKIP needed to find other things to rattle on about. if you are your colleagues are f going to try and win votes by getting on such band- waggons as HS2 then please, please tell the whole story - UKIP would spend billions on new roads- many of which would end up being built over green pockets similar culcheth linear park. I am glad to see you believe in democracy - wjat is UKIP's position on the unelected House of Lords - a retirement plan for ex-MPs and establishment figures representing special interests. (If Chris Huhne was a member of the house of lords he could still carry on being one even if ends up serving a prison sentence) Nick Tessla

Report this post »

Nick Tessla says...
11:05am Wed 6 Feb 13

Council officers need to be prepared to take responsibility but so do elected members - it should not be seen as either or - but both.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
11:11am Wed 6 Feb 13

Come, come Geoff let’s have a sense of realism in this debate please. All that guff about “where will Warrington Borough Council build new homes for the 29 million fellow Europeans from Bulgaria and Romania?” having some sort of vague connection with Peel Hall is plain scaremongering. It does your argument no good. Let’s keep a sense of proportion and stick to the topic of party politics raising its ugly head when what is urgently called for is unity across the board from all our elected members to restore trust in our planners, their procedures and their aiders and abetters.

Report this post »

BobBarr says...
12:47pm Wed 6 Feb 13

The Annual Monitoring report that 'WAI resident' refers to is a retrospective document which shows how the Council performed against their policy of a couple of years ago. Since then the Council has submitted its new plan, the Local Development Framework (LDF) which has a target of 500 homes a year. This number can be achieved in Warrington without touching particularly sensitive sites such as Peel Hall Farm. The 380 number mentioned was a Regional Planning Strategy target (which kept going up and down for Warrington). The Coalition government has scrapped the Regional Strategies and the associated numbers.

500 homes a year is an ambitious target, more than Warrington has achieved at any time except during the New Town build. However, at a time of a national house building crisis, Warrington is well placed to do its bit, and can do so without using the most sensitive sites. That is not to say that some developments, on green land but not green belt land will not be controversial. They will and there will be deeply upset residents who don’t want building near them.

Nevertheless it is both in Warrington’s interest, to support jobs and the economy, and in the national interest, that house building should be accelerated in Warrington and we are fortunate enough to have enough brown land, white land and former New Town sites to be able to play our part in meeting the housing aspirations of the many households that cannot currently get appropriate housing.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
1:53pm Wed 6 Feb 13

cllr barr, the AMR report was put into the public domain within the last 2 month period and does quote the average annual target sum of 380 homes. It does clearly state that the Warrington UDP is policy until any local development plan has been adopted - has any submitted and amended LDP been adopted yet, if not then it is stated clearly that the UDP still holds. The Latest LDP submitted & amended is understood to quote an average figure from 2006-2027 of 500 homes as target per year, but does state that since 2006 until 1st april 2012 that 5075 homes have already been delivered - this surely equates to more than 500 per year over this period, despite you stating its never been achieved? or are you claiming this is wrong / out of date or should be ignored by the public?!. The UDP submitted / amended proposal goes on to state a remaining target of 5425 between 2012 and 2027 which it states is an annualised average of 362 dwellings, a figure as a borough we are well on course to achieve without greenfield garden grabbing or by arrangement with developers, as you say by using the vast brown land, white land and former newtown sites to help those aspiring and also financially in a position to secure appropriate housing.

Report this post »

BobBarr says...
2:28pm Wed 6 Feb 13

WA1 resident, this is a technical discussion and probably not appropriate for this forum. However, if you are the gentleman who tackled me about this following a planning meeting, I can confirm that I checked the facts with our Planning Policy Officer. She confirmed the 500 figure as being the one we should now be working to.

This was raised by the Planning Inspector who is reviewing our LDF Core Strategy, as a result a further explanatory note has been issued which I would be happy to get to you. Please email me at bbarr@warrington.gov
.uk, or ask a friend to do so if you wish to remain anonymous, and I will send you a copy or a link.

Report this post »

BobBarr says...
3:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

ps I owe 'WA1 resident' an apology. I was wrong and he was correct about the completion figures and the impact on future demand. We completed far more houses than I remembered during our period in office. I was consistenly briefed about the challenge of not enough new build in the pipeline and that was what caused my memory lapse.

Nevertheless the report does make it clear that some of the recent controversial decisions are included in the plan.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
3:03pm Wed 6 Feb 13

if the question is a little awkward for you in this forum which you have chosen to enter for your own good then i make no apology. in your previous post you chose to quote numbers & statements, but seemingly do not wish to substantiate. It is not a technical question or discussion, though i understand it may be a little uncomfortable in that either you or documents into the public domain are wrong. I am quite happy to leave this opportunity open for you to respond to clarify which is wrong. are you happy in your statement that 500 homes have never been achieved in a year except during new town build and as such it is the LDF core strategy submission you refer to which is incorrect in its claims, has the Warrington LDF core strategy been adopted or only submitted, where if it is only proposed/sunmitted, it is therefore the Warrington UDP that remains at this time.
For the record, I have never knowingly tackled you be that in a field of play or in any meeting but I am sure if someone did tackle you within a meeting that you and your friends would deal with it appropriately.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
3:09pm Wed 6 Feb 13

i dont think my words could do this justice, so its best to leave it to those of a person tasked with a vote & responsibility on the boroughs planning applications:-
"We completed far more houses than I remembered during our period in office. I was consistenly briefed about the challenge of not enough new build in the pipeline and that was what caused my memory lapse".

Report this post »

Gorsedd says...
4:23pm Wed 6 Feb 13

“The planning department does need improvement and all parties are working together to make sure this happens. But, the last thing they need is to have their actions to protect Peel Hall Farm undermined by the MP.” – says Cllr Barr.
Nothing is ever done to sort out the inherent problems of a department which has brought shame on the borough by being consistently unfit for purpose. Nothing is ever done to improve a department that has constantly failed to show even minimal levels of professionalism, integrity, honesty and transparency. No wonder those employed in it continue as they always have, when each time a planning scandal occurs the political parties engage in Yah boo confrontations instead of keeping their eyes on the critical events/non events which caused the scandal. Peel Hall is just another example of chasing political tails instead raising the standards. How many Ombudsman’s and District Auditor’s reports have there been criticizing planners and planning procedures? How long does it take to get to grips with what is self-evidently an inadequate service? This has been the state of affairs for over 10 years, during some of which time Bob Barr and his party were in control of the Council. It is plain no lessons have been learned as we are constantly assured by each successive flawed report. Whatever your thoughts on Helen Jones MP, her criticisms about planning in the borough have always been properly made. She is not engaged in a vendetta but she right to try and call a halt to the continual loop of planning scandal – assurance - planning scandal - assurance, year in year out, which is now an ingrained feature of this borough’s planning.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
12:06am Thu 7 Feb 13

Bob Barr?

I'd love to see him have a proper go at the people in the planning department who broke the law and then covered up for it for years while he was nominally heading the borough's planning function - not to mention offering advice on the disgraceful Marton Close episode even though they couldn't.

I'd have loved to see him criticise them in magazine interviews in the same way he laid into the people of Warrington who had the temerity to ask for something to be done.

I'd also like to hear his views on whether, when Andy Farrall was appointed, the best person to lead the scandal ridden planning team really was somebody who'd just appeared in the High Court for permitting the construction of a large industrial unit without consent or environmental certification.

Come on Bob. You're clearly a man of strong views about the people of Warrington and your political opponents. Let's see if you can summon up the same passion when it comes to the proven law breakers and liars within the council.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
10:59am Thu 7 Feb 13

The earlier ps from Cllr Barr was initially understood to be an apology to Warrington residents, not just to one person!. If you have been found to have forced data / information on the public and on fellow decision makers which has influenced votes/decisions over a period of time, but where data/information is seen and accepted as being factually incorrect, this surely in any normal walk of life calls into question both your ability to do the job you are doing and also the decisions you have taken part in, whether that be that you have deliberately misled people or have been ignorant of the information absolutely relevant and readily available to you in the role you have been appointed to. Either way, any apology cannot be to just one person, it should be to all the Warrington residents who directly or indirectly are affected by any failings, and it cannot be laughed of or responded to with any flippant memory lapse comment of someone appointed to a decision makers role. In normal life such errors, however genuine, would normally see suitable action taken against individual or persons involved, though it is felt reasonable to feel that we are clearly not dealing in any normal industry or walk of life with WBC & Planning!

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
11:54am Thu 7 Feb 13

I have a suggestion, and it is this. Perhaps there should be a campaign to bring back County Councils or to actively encourage a unitary authority based on the Grater Merseyside area and completely do away with Warrington Borough Council altogether, because it is commonly thought to be incompetent in so many areas. I thought that I would at least suggest a viable solution to the technical inexactitude that proliferate and damages the confidence of the good and faithful Community Charge and Business Charge payers of Warrington.

In the comments it has been mentioned so many times that now something needs to happen, and happen sooner rather than later and that seems to be the most common and persistent theme in the current comments stream.

Is there anyone else with a positive, viable and achievable action that will be a solution to this fiasco as I haven’t seen one, hence the reason for my considered suggestion and restore the power to the people and not the power hungry “politicians” and officers!

Report this post »

BobBarr says...
12:21pm Thu 7 Feb 13

When I took responsibility for the Planning portfolio in 2007 I made it clear that I was dissatisfied with the state of the Planning Service and wanted to see root and branch reform. I remain dissatisfied with the state of the Planning Service and still want to see reform. However, almost immediately, Council officers brought forward a proposal that they wanted to investigate a joint venture with Capita to strengthen the planning service and provide services to other authorities.

This would have brought about the reform and investment that was needed though I was neutral as to whether that was best done with a private partner, or that private partner. All soundings suggested that the majority of the planning department were in favour, but a significant minority, and the unions, implacably opposed. Labour called-in, for scrutiny, the decision to negotiate with Capita, saying there was nothing much wrong with Planning that a few minor changes and a little investment couldn’t put right. I disagreed with them then, I disagree with them now. To that extent I agree with Helen Jones MP.

In every local authority, Planning is always seen as a potentially corrupt department, it goes with the territory. What is usually missing is evidence that will stand up in court. As soon as the destruction of the planning records came to light in relation to the scandalous case of Marton Close I called for a full independent enquiry. I wanted it to deal with the specifics of the destruction of records and the wider issue of the state of the planning department.

The Barrister’s Enquiry into the Planning Records was very widely publicised, took evidence both in public and accepted written submissions. No substantiated evidence of corruption was submitted by anyone. You can’t prove a negative, but none of the people who cry corruption and cover-up in these columns came up with anything that could be substantiated when given the ideal opportunity to do so.

A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health.

Ever since the Barrister’s report, the Liberal Democrat Group has called for John Earle, the officer responsible for the destruction of the Planning Records, who refused to attend the barrister’s enquiry, to be called to account in public for his actions in front of Councillors and be investigated by the Police if appropriate. Labour have consistently voted down every effort to do this and also voted to leave a misleading statement about the affair on the record.

So be under no illusion, the Planning department does have problems and does need improvement. However in the matter of Satnam and Peel Hall Farm they are doing their best to thwart a development that is against Council Policy and against the wishes of most local residents. Attacking a weakened department over this issue and calling for heads to roll is premature and only helps Satnam. So why is the MP grandstanding in this way now?

When I took responsibility for the Planning portfolio in 2007 I made it clear that I was dissatisfied with the state of the Planning Service and wanted to see root and branch reform. I remain dissatisfied with the state of the Planning Service and still want to see reform. However, almost immediately, Council officers brought forward a proposal that they wanted to investigate a joint venture with Capita to strengthen the planning service and provide services to other authorities. This would have brought about the reform and investment that was needed though I was neutral as to whether that was best done with a private partner, or that private partner. All soundings suggested that the majority of the planning department were in favour, but a significant minority, and the unions, implacably opposed. Labour called-in, for scrutiny, the decision to negotiate with Capita, saying there was nothing much wrong with Planning that a few minor changes and a little investment couldn’t put right. I disagreed with them then, I disagree with them now. To that extent I agree with Helen Jones MP. In every local authority, Planning is always seen as a potentially corrupt department, it goes with the territory. What is usually missing is evidence that will stand up in court. As soon as the destruction of the planning records came to light in relation to the scandalous case of Marton Close I called for a full independent enquiry. I wanted it to deal with the specifics of the destruction of records and the wider issue of the state of the planning department. The Barrister’s Enquiry into the Planning Records was very widely publicised, took evidence both in public and accepted written submissions. No substantiated evidence of corruption was submitted by anyone. You can’t prove a negative, but none of the people who cry corruption and cover-up in these columns came up with anything that could be substantiated when given the ideal opportunity to do so. A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health. Ever since the Barrister’s report, the Liberal Democrat Group has called for John Earle, the officer responsible for the destruction of the Planning Records, who refused to attend the barrister’s enquiry, to be called to account in public for his actions in front of Councillors and be investigated by the Police if appropriate. Labour have consistently voted down every effort to do this and also voted to leave a misleading statement about the affair on the record. So be under no illusion, the Planning department does have problems and does need improvement. However in the matter of Satnam and Peel Hall Farm they are doing their best to thwart a development that is against Council Policy and against the wishes of most local residents. Attacking a weakened department over this issue and calling for heads to roll is premature and only helps Satnam. So why is the MP grandstanding in this way now? BobBarr

Report this post »

Karlar says...
12:38pm Thu 7 Feb 13

While we wait for tumbrils to roll and local Madame Defarges to line up knitting scarves in the Wolves' colours to bring about the changes you propose, another 20 years will elapse but the mindset of Warrington's planners and plotters will have changed not one jot. What is needed are honest local politicians who genuinely care about local issues, who owe and demonstrate now a duty of candour to the electorate and not try to palm us off with meaningless promises, platitudes or investigations, hoping we will grow tired of raising our genuine and justified concerns.There are some amongst those we have elected who know damned well what has gone and is going on. I wish they would have the courage of their convictions and act in the local interest instead of going through the tiresome and unconvincing charade of calling each other names. We put them there to act on behalf of the community not to protect continual wrong doers, deceivers.and liars.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
12:41pm Thu 7 Feb 13

So the people that are complaining, i.e., those that are members of or are either tacit or active supporters of The Labour Party. The suggestion then is that they are maliciously trying hard to cover up their Parties maladministration of Borough Council Business. Just what was suspected by some of the wise commentators had predicted in this comments stream.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
12:43pm Thu 7 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:
So the people that are complaining, i.e., those that are members of or are either tacit or active supporters of The Labour Party. The suggestion then is that they are maliciously trying hard to cover up their Parties maladministration of Borough Council Business. Just what was suspected by some of the wise commentators had predicted in this comments stream.

* and predicted in this comments stream.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
1:09pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Bob Barr says "A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health." - because just like the independent inquiry whose brief was deliberately very limited they were not invited to consider or presented with all the facts. Why is there this continual reluctance to look in depth at all the facts? Who and what are they afraid of?
We have been waiting for more than 7 to 10 years for improvements in planning. How long does it take to deal with a department that has demonstrably been and remains unfit for purpose?
I am not a Labour supporter, I take the view party politics is best kept out of local government, so I consider Helen Jones MP is not granstanding but raising matters of local concern put to her, because our local polticians of all parties have repeatedly failed to deal with them.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
1:26pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:
Bob Barr says "A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health." - because just like the independent inquiry whose brief was deliberately very limited they were not invited to consider or presented with all the facts. Why is there this continual reluctance to look in depth at all the facts? Who and what are they afraid of?
We have been waiting for more than 7 to 10 years for improvements in planning. How long does it take to deal with a department that has demonstrably been and remains unfit for purpose?
I am not a Labour supporter, I take the view party politics is best kept out of local government, so I consider Helen Jones MP is not granstanding but raising matters of local concern put to her, because our local polticians of all parties have repeatedly failed to deal with them.

I agree and absolutely respect your common sense approach, but since all the possible methods of scrutiny have been applied and still nothing positive has happened. What will actually happen to rectify the multiple incidence of incompetence that you and others have emphatically described? Otherwise we seem to be getting onto a round-a-bout and a forever spiralling debate.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
1:29pm Thu 7 Feb 13

With all due respect cllr barr, it does not go with the territory in planning or in any high profile role. In any role in life you must make yourself aware of data relevant to your job / responsibilities. If you are aware of data essential to your role and if a process is adhered to based on facts then there can be no real complaint. If you force incorrect data on people and base decisions on incorrect claims either deliberately or by ignorance you cannot then hide behind some "it goes with the territory" or "memory lapse" claim - it doesn't, and its the inability to accept this which compounds matters and alienates the public.

Report this post »

pipster123 says...
1:32pm Thu 7 Feb 13

To Councillor Barr,

You state

'Ever since the Barrister’s report, the Liberal Democrat Group has called for John Earle, the officer responsible for the destruction of the Planning Records, who refused to attend the barrister’s enquiry, to be called to account in public for his actions in front of Councillors and be investigated by the Police if appropriate. Labour have consistently voted down every effort to do this and also voted to leave a misleading statement about the affair on the record.'

Clearly you should contact the Police, along with Councillor Axcell. You two both were executive members during the destruction of records by J Earle and post the destruction when the destruction came to light. If you went to the Police they could begin their inquiries. It is in your hands. What are you waiting for?

Report this post »

grey_man says...
2:07pm Thu 7 Feb 13

SAC

I don't believe all of the possible methods of scrutiny have been applied. The investigation into the destruction had a very narrow remit, was entirely reliant on the verbal testimony of those people who had originally covered up for it - there being no records of minutes, meetings or communications referring to it (quite extraordinary in itself) - and without the ability to question the man responsible. The report was also submitted for vetting by the council before publication from what I understand.

As far as I'm concerned John Earle should have been told he was either attending the enquiry or a police interview. It's all very well Bob Barr asking for evidence of corruption but here was a clear indicator of potential corruption - people generally only destroy records for one reason - but the only people able to look into it in any detail have steadfastly refused to do so. As far as I'm aware, I'm not allowed to investigate the affairs of individuals. But employers can and so can the police.

If WBC refuse to ask difficult questions about this but carry out the equivalent of inquiries into Christmas based only on the testimonies of turkeys, what are we left to do?

I'm sick of the politics of this and the idea that it is political. All of the local parties have failed to address this, none have questioned the wisdom of the appointment of Andy Farrall to the department in the first place and none seem prepared to suggest anything that will sort this out.

What I believe is that if you employ people who ignore the law and their own systems, bringing in new systems isn't going to help is it?

The upshot is that nobody who has followed the council's inability to sort this department out trusts for one minute the idea that the planning department is opposed to the Peel Hall development.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
9:14pm Thu 7 Feb 13

A very good point raised by Pipster, why have Bob & Brian not reported it to the Police? They will both be busy this evening at the Development Management Committee, but hopefully they get change to discuss and hopefully Bob can continue the debate tomorrow.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
9:31pm Thu 7 Feb 13

Grey_man says "The report was also submitted for vetting by the council before publication from what I understand."
Before they got a look in it was given the once and twice over by people who should have had no input into it whatsoever, as I understand.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
2:33pm Fri 8 Feb 13

I return to Bob Barr’s surprising point that “A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health”, when the Ombudsman considered it to be guilty of “and extraordinary act of maladministration” with lots of other equally serious things thrown in, and the Council accepted all of it.
It depends who is doing the review. Academic peer reviews, in the main have substance and meaning, because they are more critically focussed. Peer reviews by or overseen by government or local government organisations however, are usually not worth the paper they are written on, because in virtually ever case there is a hidden agenda of blame avoidance. What better way of doing that, is there than putting the blame on the system, a whistle blower, a complaining resident or even indulge in name calling?
The sad, upsetting report of events at Mid Staffordshire hospital is one of many examples of making shielding the culpable from blame. That report has many examples of that get out of gaol card “systemic failure”, which is a feature of government and local government inquiries/peer reviews. So much so at MS the barrister conducting the inquiry seemed so bemused by contributions from the organizations (BMA, GMC, RCN and NMC) he found he could blame no one, sound familiar?
It is not the system that fails it is those who use the system wrongly or mischievously who are at fault or blameworthy. Whether Bob Barr likes it or not this has happened with planning in Warrington for over ten years. People in the council have misused or abused the system to the detriment of the residents. And politicians have let matters drift. Almost without fail residents were ignored, or fobbed off, or dismissed with misleading information, inadequate inquiries and even unfounded claims of being conspiracy theorists.
Despite all this Bob Barr now wants residents and local politicians to soft pedal on concerns over what is happening at Peel Hall, because he says we have a “weakened planning department”. I believe our local politicians have shied away for far too long from taking positive action to put right a continually failing department and process in WBC. It is time to restore trust by taking positive remedial action and not put off what should have been done years ago.

I return to Bob Barr’s surprising point that “A peer review by planners and councillors from other authorities found some weaknesses in our planning department but generally gave it a clean bill of health”, when the Ombudsman considered it to be guilty of “and extraordinary act of maladministration” with lots of other equally serious things thrown in, and the Council accepted all of it. It depends who is doing the review. Academic peer reviews, in the main have substance and meaning, because they are more critically focussed. Peer reviews by or overseen by government or local government organisations however, are usually not worth the paper they are written on, because in virtually ever case there is a hidden agenda of blame avoidance. What better way of doing that, is there than putting the blame on the system, a whistle blower, a complaining resident or even indulge in name calling? The sad, upsetting report of events at Mid Staffordshire hospital is one of many examples of making shielding the culpable from blame. That report has many examples of that get out of gaol card “systemic failure”, which is a feature of government and local government inquiries/peer reviews. So much so at MS the barrister conducting the inquiry seemed so bemused by contributions from the organizations (BMA, GMC, RCN and NMC) he found he could blame no one, sound familiar? It is not the system that fails it is those who use the system wrongly or mischievously who are at fault or blameworthy. Whether Bob Barr likes it or not this has happened with planning in Warrington for over ten years. People in the council have misused or abused the system to the detriment of the residents. And politicians have let matters drift. Almost without fail residents were ignored, or fobbed off, or dismissed with misleading information, inadequate inquiries and even unfounded claims of being conspiracy theorists. Despite all this Bob Barr now wants residents and local politicians to soft pedal on concerns over what is happening at Peel Hall, because he says we have a “weakened planning department”. I believe our local politicians have shied away for far too long from taking positive action to put right a continually failing department and process in WBC. It is time to restore trust by taking positive remedial action and not put off what should have been done years ago. Karlar

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
1:57pm Sat 9 Feb 13

It is understood that a vow of silence may have been taken to ensure any hole doesnt get deeper, so we are being asked to go quietly and accept decision makers who force incorrect statistics/data on the public, use statistics and data now accepted as being false to force through a vote and (within this exchange) feel it right and appropriate to offer an apology to just one resident but not all the others affected, and feel it legitimate to explain away failings with a "memory lapse" excuse - reasurring or insulting?
Hiding behind the facade of planning being contentious is outrageous - Follow a well documented and compliant procedure and use factual information in arriving at the end result. To offer "it goes with the territory" and "memory lapse" as a justification when you seem somewhat frustrated that the public have the temerity to call you and your decisions into question is outrageous given the failings noted and which in part are accepted. If the correct decision based on facts is to decline, then that is the decision you should reach, irrespective of fears over upsetting the developer and fears on the costs/delays of considering any appeal which may or may not follow from a disappointed developer. If you are unable to keep up to date with or correctly interpret data fundamental to your appointed role then you must accept that questions will be raised concerning your role and ability to do the job, however contentious you claim it to be or liable to memory lapse you may be. A contentious role and memory lapse are not an acceptable excuse / defence for others who make errors in their daily lives / jobs, so not sure why they are in planning?

Report this post »

grey_man says...
6:30pm Sat 9 Feb 13

I think Bob is hiding behind 'planning is contentious' as a convenient brush-off. I'm sure planning decisions are contentious but that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about a department of people breaking the law, covering up for it, allowing residents to run the risk of physical harm against police advice, holding clandestine meetings with developers that we need a FOI request to find out about, lying to residents, destroying the statutory records they need to do their job and continuing to offer advice to councillors and residents on things they needed the records for in the first place. Not to mention now accidentally screwing up the borough's most contentious planning issue.

I think that's got nothing to do with the inherent difficulties of planning and rather the result of an institutionally corrupt and/or incompetent team of people.

What they have consistently shown is that they are not interested in the council's own rules, the law, truth and the interests and safety of the people of Warrington.

Councillors can bleat all they like about the fact we know these things, but they should be dealing with it and I don't mean by introducing new systems and practices for a department that clearly isn't interested in them.

The single most effective thing they could have done to sort all of this out is a proper investigation into the destruction of records, including an interest in the affairs of John Earle and others so that they wouldn't be able to arrogantly brush aside questions about what happened, and an open, transparent and comprehensive approach to dealing with every passing scandal.

Unless councillors deal with it properly it will continue.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
4:50pm Sun 10 Feb 13

The irony of Bob Barr calling residents “conspiracy theorists” (for years) whenever they complained of questionable planning decisions has come home to roost. Following the Ombudsman’s report in 2011 it was revealed there was after all a conspiracy, but one visited upon the residents by the council, and not as Bob would have us believe in the reverse direction. It was conspiracy of silence, secrecy and unlawful behaviour. It had been in place for some of the time Bob was a member of the planning committee. The silence and secrecy elements are still active and so is the questionable behaviour.
The council has been selective in who it will admit knew records were destroyed. It obviously has no wish to inquiry further publically, that might prove embarrassing; to whom officers or members or both? Maybe they did not all know precisely when selective shredding occurred but they knew well before the council’s grudging admission was forced from them in 2011. So collectively they all aided, abetted and participated in the serious cover up to varying degrees. None had the cojones, integrity, candour or professionalism befitting their status in or on the council to act in a responsible and lawful manner by declaring wrong had been done in a big way. Which ever way Bob Barr chooses to look at this, it was plain wrong. This is not the sign of a weak department but a deceptive one and that goes for the council as well if things continue as they have been allowed to.
Most aspects in this collective duplicity, the admissions, actions and their timings belatedly admitted to have been carefully selected as were some of the records that were destroyed. In the hope we will tire or be dissuaded from asking for further and full disclosure.
It is the public knowledge the three principal planners knew of the destruction and adopted the approach of the three wise monkeys. It is also public knowledge the former head of legal warned of the consequences and unlawfulness of destroying statutory records. How many other professionals, executives and members knew, did it include any in the legal department?
Strange isn’t it that not one person has been reported to their professional body or even disciplined for their involvement/awarenes
s of the destruction in line with council regulations? We know some have left or been allowed to leave but for reasons unrelated to the destruction or cover up. That is a sign of weakness.
Bob Barr is wrong to take comfort from this overall situation, claim Helen Hones MP is grandstanding and go onto say the planning department was given a clean bill of health? His argument is all the more untenable, because those who knew of the unlawful destruction, covered it up and acted as though no wrong doing had been done are still engaged now in administering the procedures/systems which they held in so little regard and still do. And also, I understand, in others related to the original complaint which sparked this examination into the council’s questionable behaviour.

The irony of Bob Barr calling residents “conspiracy theorists” (for years) whenever they complained of questionable planning decisions has come home to roost. Following the Ombudsman’s report in 2011 it was revealed there was after all a conspiracy, but one visited upon the residents by the council, and not as Bob would have us believe in the reverse direction. It was conspiracy of silence, secrecy and unlawful behaviour. It had been in place for some of the time Bob was a member of the planning committee. The silence and secrecy elements are still active and so is the questionable behaviour. The council has been selective in who it will admit knew records were destroyed. It obviously has no wish to inquiry further publically, that might prove embarrassing; to whom officers or members or both? Maybe they did not all know precisely when selective shredding occurred but they knew well before the council’s grudging admission was forced from them in 2011. So collectively they all aided, abetted and participated in the serious cover up to varying degrees. None had the cojones, integrity, candour or professionalism befitting their status in or on the council to act in a responsible and lawful manner by declaring wrong had been done in a big way. Which ever way Bob Barr chooses to look at this, it was plain wrong. This is not the sign of a weak department but a deceptive one and that goes for the council as well if things continue as they have been allowed to. Most aspects in this collective duplicity, the admissions, actions and their timings belatedly admitted to have been carefully selected as were some of the records that were destroyed. In the hope we will tire or be dissuaded from asking for further and full disclosure. It is the public knowledge the three principal planners knew of the destruction and adopted the approach of the three wise monkeys. It is also public knowledge the former head of legal warned of the consequences and unlawfulness of destroying statutory records. How many other professionals, executives and members knew, did it include any in the legal department? Strange isn’t it that not one person has been reported to their professional body or even disciplined for their involvement/awarenes s of the destruction in line with council regulations? We know some have left or been allowed to leave but for reasons unrelated to the destruction or cover up. That is a sign of weakness. Bob Barr is wrong to take comfort from this overall situation, claim Helen Hones MP is grandstanding and go onto say the planning department was given a clean bill of health? His argument is all the more untenable, because those who knew of the unlawful destruction, covered it up and acted as though no wrong doing had been done are still engaged now in administering the procedures/systems which they held in so little regard and still do. And also, I understand, in others related to the original complaint which sparked this examination into the council’s questionable behaviour. Karlar

Report this post »

Geoff Siddall says...
7:06pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Off course I believe in supporting what local people want, always have always will.

But off course the EU comes into the equation. The EU has exerted a direct and indirect influence on planning at local level throughout the UK. There are EU directives that influence local planning activities and research also indicates that the scope and structure of the UK planning system are being influenced by EU membership.

This is something that local councils and Governments don’t like to shout too loud about. Because the British people will become aware of the true extent of the powers given away to the EU by Labour and the Coalition Government.

Ever wondered why David Cameron has, out of the blue, launched a highly contentious and disruptive legislation about same-sex marriage. Because it’s come from the EU pulling his strings. Do some research?

As for the issue of mass immigration and saying I am scaremongering respond to me again in two to three years time.

In the meantime good luck to the residents of Peel Hall.

Report this post »

Geoff Siddall says...
7:15pm Sun 10 Feb 13

Nick Tessla wrote:
Council officers need to be prepared to take responsibility but so do elected members - it should not be seen as either or - but both.

Well said Mr Tessla.

Both Council officers and elected members should go in to the job knowing they serve the people, are accountable to the people and responsible for their actions, non actions and turning a blind eye.

Nick, perhaps we both need to get elected and show them what responsibilty is all about.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
8:41pm Sun 10 Feb 13

And perhaps we need UKIP near the council like a hole in the head

Report this post »

Karlar says...
10:51am Mon 11 Feb 13

grey_man wrote:
And perhaps we need UKIP near the council like a hole in the head

Perhaps we might get at least some elected members who would begin to keep the electorate honestly informed of what went and is continuing to go wrong. That would be a useful place to start. Someone has got to do it so it might as well be UKIP, because the more traditional parties are intent on keeping everything under wraps. I cannot recall seeing any election manifestos stating the parties would permit unlawfulness, conceal it and allow the culprits to go undisciplined, can you?

Report this post »

grey_man says...
2:23pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Yeah well good luck with that.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
3:26pm Mon 11 Feb 13

grey_man wrote:
Yeah well good luck with that.

It is just the same with the MPs expenses scandal, politics rotten from the top to the bottom.

Our local councillors certainly need to be scrutinised fully and not by their "peers".

If it is relevant facts they don't seem to know, if it is irrelevant then it is proliferated to all-and-sundry.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
7:35pm Mon 11 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:

grey_man wrote:
Yeah well good luck with that.
It is just the same with the MPs expenses scandal, politics rotten from the top to the bottom.

Our local councillors certainly need to be scrutinised fully and not by their "peers".

If it is relevant facts they don't seem to know, if it is irrelevant then it is proliferated to all-and-sundry.

It is not just the elected members who need to be scrutinized fully, others employed by the Council also need a thorough investigation into the parts they have played in the events now being questioned. In other words it's the politicians and their advisers, who should have given them best advice, but didn't.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
7:56pm Mon 11 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:

grey_man wrote:
Yeah well good luck with that.
It is just the same with the MPs expenses scandal, politics rotten from the top to the bottom.

Our local councillors certainly need to be scrutinised fully and not by their "peers".

If it is relevant facts they don't seem to know, if it is irrelevant then it is proliferated to all-and-sundry.
It is not just the elected members who need to be scrutinized fully, others employed by the Council also need a thorough investigation into the parts they have played in the events now being questioned. In other words it's the politicians and their advisers, who should have given them best advice, but didn't.

Perhaps the politicians didn't take the advice they were given as it wasn't passed by their party dictatorial masters! It is just as feasible and probable!

Report this post »

grey_man says...
9:15am Tue 12 Feb 13

Well as we can see from the news that a planning officer at the Peel Hall meeting the other night simply refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question about how and why they missed the deadline, WBC employees think they are answerable to nobody. We've seen it all before.

If an employee of mine refused to answer straightforward questions, I'd be planning their exit and it's way past time the council operated on the same basis.

The solution to this is to find a councillor or councillors with the balls to address the general issue of accountability. Otherwise this will just go on and on.

Any councillors out there prepared to stick their neck out and demand to know what went wrong? In the meantime, we can all look forward to building work starting on Peel Hall with full backing of the planning team who couldn't give two hoots what the people of Warrington want and while councillors look on like the ineffectual sops they appear to be.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
9:52am Tue 12 Feb 13

grey_man wrote:
Well as we can see from the news that a planning officer at the Peel Hall meeting the other night simply refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question about how and why they missed the deadline, WBC employees think they are answerable to nobody. We've seen it all before.

If an employee of mine refused to answer straightforward questions, I'd be planning their exit and it's way past time the council operated on the same basis.

The solution to this is to find a councillor or councillors with the balls to address the general issue of accountability. Otherwise this will just go on and on.

Any councillors out there prepared to stick their neck out and demand to know what went wrong? In the meantime, we can all look forward to building work starting on Peel Hall with full backing of the planning team who couldn't give two hoots what the people of Warrington want and while councillors look on like the ineffectual sops they appear to be.

I don't think that your knee jerk response is justification for any manager to act in such an unprofessional way. I would primarily establish the facts before any action that you have suggested. I am absolutely sure that the procedures for dismissing employees has been considered and found to be not needed in this planning fiasco that you and others so fervently describe, without any viable experience or any knowledge of the facts.

As for the councillors, then the only possible person to take some action may probably be a newly elected councillor, if one with enough courage of their convictions is elected at the next council election.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
10:16am Tue 12 Feb 13

SAC, if as is the case here earlier in this forum, a decision maker accepts as fact that they have (for whatever reason they try to claim and justify) pedalled incorrect data on the public and used this incorrect data in influencing others on the top table in their vote on a planning matter then this is not speculation or inference and is indeed fact.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
10:40am Tue 12 Feb 13

SAC

For once we do know the facts because many of them are in the public domain. They are freely available. We also know that nothing has been done about them which is why we keep seeing the same thing happening over and over again.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
11:07am Tue 12 Feb 13

grey_man wrote:
SAC

For once we do know the facts because many of them are in the public domain. They are freely available. We also know that nothing has been done about them which is why we keep seeing the same thing happening over and over again.

I agree that you seem to think that you know the facts in this issue. Although I doubt that you are or were fully apprised of all the facts, because of the confidential nature of some of the information that is certainly required for the disciplinary procedures that I am familiar with; unless you were personally involved and thus implicated. I don't deny that some general facts may have been made public but these will not be adequately sufficient to be able to conclude a council officers contract of employment. Written warning may have been issued but these undoubtedly will have been kept confidential and defiantly not have been made public.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
11:13am Tue 12 Feb 13

I understand that. I also understand that changing a culture takes time. I run a small business and I know that if I asked an employee a perfectly reasonable and straightforward question and they refused to answer, I would be considering the process of moving them on. The same if I found that they were holding meetings with people without informing me, destroying essential documents, lying to me for four years and so on. What I wouldn't be doing is looking at new work processes.

Ultimately what we agree on is that it is up to councillors to address the ongoing problems with this department. It simply looks to me as if they're letting it drag on and I'd like one or some of them to convince us that is not the case.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
11:42am Tue 12 Feb 13

It would be interesting to see what the street names would be if the development goes ahead. I wouldn't be surprised if the developers were to name some of the roads after one or more of Warrington Borough Council's "honourable" councillors!

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
12:40pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Maladministration Road, Bung Close, Councillor Apathy Crescent? Ostrich Heights?

Report this post »

Karlar says...
2:47pm Tue 12 Feb 13

The options of why formal dismissal or disciplinary proceedings have not been taken on this and the other planning related incidents are pretty obvious:
#More senior employees know the facts than have so far been admitted to.
#The seniority and positions of those who know were such that they should have blown the whistle and acted immediately but they chose not to.
#Some members as well as some senior officers know and decided to keep quiet and soldier on.
#A combination of all of the above.
From information in the public domain, what I know and have been told by some residents affected by the incidents, the last option seems the most likely.
It fits with why a few who were involved or knew what went on, have been allowed to slink away without a stain, blemish or formal sanction, and others who also knew are still doing the same jobs. It also explains why no members are prepared to do what we elected them to do; namely safeguard the interests of the people of Warrington and not shield those who engage in unlawful or questionable actions connected with planning.

Report this post »

wa1 resident says...
5:36pm Tue 12 Feb 13

is this the start of something? - (its certainly an admission unlike cllr barr & his excuse / deflection tactic to helen jones)...as prof broomhead report states...:- http://www.warringto
nguardian.co.uk/news
/10222675.More_exper
ienced_staff_needed_
to_avoid_Peel_Hall_e
rrors___report_state
s/

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
6:18pm Tue 12 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:
The options of why formal dismissal or disciplinary proceedings have not been taken on this and the other planning related incidents are pretty obvious:
#More senior employees know the facts than have so far been admitted to.
#The seniority and positions of those who know were such that they should have blown the whistle and acted immediately but they chose not to.
#Some members as well as some senior officers know and decided to keep quiet and soldier on.
#A combination of all of the above.
From information in the public domain, what I know and have been told by some residents affected by the incidents, the last option seems the most likely.
It fits with why a few who were involved or knew what went on, have been allowed to slink away without a stain, blemish or formal sanction, and others who also knew are still doing the same jobs. It also explains why no members are prepared to do what we elected them to do; namely safeguard the interests of the people of Warrington and not shield those who engage in unlawful or questionable actions connected with planning.

In my opinion I see little point in the conjecture, asumptions and suspicions that you use in your comments, unless I am to believe that you are involved, and or are closely associated with the councill and posibly its human resources administrastion.

I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
7:30pm Tue 12 Feb 13

I think the opposite. Large organisations - and not just in the public sector - tend to react to very serious internal issues by trying to ignore them or manage them away in private. It happens routinely in far more serious issues than this and the news is currently proving how this happens. For example with the Chris Huhne affair, the Pope's involvement in the paedophile priest issue in the Catholic Church and the horsemeat scandal.

Far more serious than this but indicative of how organisations work.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
8:46pm Tue 12 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington says "I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts."
There is no question of rumour whisper about it. It is a FACT that an unlawful act was by the council. It is a FACT that the council accepted the finding without demur. It is also a FACT that the action was covered up for four years. As grey_man has alluded that this situation is being managed for damage limitation purposes. All of the FACTS are in the public domain, so there is no conjecture.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
9:33am Wed 13 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington says "I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts."
There is no question of rumour whisper about it. It is a FACT that an unlawful act was by the council. It is a FACT that the council accepted the finding without demur. It is also a FACT that the action was covered up for four years. As grey_man has alluded that this situation is being managed for damage limitation purposes. All of the FACTS are in the public domain, so there is no conjecture.

I disagree strongly, because of the evidence you present I believe your comments to be untrue! I disagree because all the facts are absolutely not in the public domain. Those that are considered private and confidential will certainly not be, as you so emphatically suggest. Even you own previous comments above actually reflect this view, because you pose so many questions in order to clarify the information, and that is a fact.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
2:27pm Wed 13 Feb 13

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:

Karlar wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington says "I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts."
There is no question of rumour whisper about it. It is a FACT that an unlawful act was by the council. It is a FACT that the council accepted the finding without demur. It is also a FACT that the action was covered up for four years. As grey_man has alluded that this situation is being managed for damage limitation purposes. All of the FACTS are in the public domain, so there is no conjecture.
I disagree strongly, because of the evidence you present I believe your comments to be untrue! I disagree because all the facts are absolutely not in the public domain. Those that are considered private and confidential will certainly not be, as you so emphatically suggest. Even you own previous comments above actually reflect this view, because you pose so many questions in order to clarify the information, and that is a fact.

You may disgree as much you wish, but the FACTS are there for all to see in the Ombudsman's and Independent Inquiry reports. I always favour the truth over distortions, because if you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.

Report this post »

SAC_in_Warrington says...
5:32pm Wed 13 Feb 13

Karlar wrote:

SAC_in_Warrington wrote:

Karlar wrote:
SAC_in_Warrington says "I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts."
There is no question of rumour whisper about it. It is a FACT that an unlawful act was by the council. It is a FACT that the council accepted the finding without demur. It is also a FACT that the action was covered up for four years. As grey_man has alluded that this situation is being managed for damage limitation purposes. All of the FACTS are in the public domain, so there is no conjecture.
I disagree strongly, because of the evidence you present I believe your comments to be untrue! I disagree because all the facts are absolutely not in the public domain. Those that are considered private and confidential will certainly not be, as you so emphatically suggest. Even you own previous comments above actually reflect this view, because you pose so many questions in order to clarify the information, and that is a fact.
You may disgree as much you wish, but the FACTS are there for all to see in the Ombudsman's and Independent Inquiry reports. I always favour the truth over distortions, because if you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.

I have neither denied nor denounced that some of the facts concerning this issue and may in fact be in the public domain, however you appear to think that the an unlawful act has been committed and that it has been compounded because you haven't seen any evidence that any discernible legal sanctions or punishment have been applied. I empathise again that all the facts will not be in the public domain and to the bench mark that you were expecting or may have possibly been hoping for.

[quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SAC_in_Warrington[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Karlar[/bold] wrote: SAC_in_Warrington says "I am sure that if there has been any unlawful action by the council, its officers or members then it would undoubtedly have been dealt with or is currently being dealt with. To hear thing by roumers and whispers is never the best source of information to be taken as facts." There is no question of rumour whisper about it. It is a FACT that an unlawful act was by the council. It is a FACT that the council accepted the finding without demur. It is also a FACT that the action was covered up for four years. As grey_man has alluded that this situation is being managed for damage limitation purposes. All of the FACTS are in the public domain, so there is no conjecture.[/p][/quote]I disagree strongly, because of the evidence you present I believe your comments to be untrue! I disagree because all the facts are absolutely not in the public domain. Those that are considered private and confidential will certainly not be, as you so emphatically suggest. Even you own previous comments above actually reflect this view, because you pose so many questions in order to clarify the information, and that is a fact.[/p][/quote]You may disgree as much you wish, but the FACTS are there for all to see in the Ombudsman's and Independent Inquiry reports. I always favour the truth over distortions, because if you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything.[/p][/quote]I have neither denied nor denounced that some of the facts concerning this issue and may in fact be in the public domain, however you appear to think that the an unlawful act has been committed and that it has been compounded because you haven't seen any evidence that any discernible legal sanctions or punishment have been applied. I empathise again that all the facts will not be in the public domain and to the bench mark that you were expecting or may have possibly been hoping for. SAC_in_Warrington

Report this post »

MP has 'vendetta' against planning department - Lib Dems say (From Warrington Guardian)

News RSS Feed Send your news, pictures & videos

MP has 'vendetta' against planning department - Lib Dems say

Related links

click2find

Jobs

Dating

Homes

Cars

About cookies