Warrington councillors clash over destruction of planning documents

3:56pm Tuesday 11th September 2012 in News

Clr Bob Barr Clr Bob Barr

COUNCILLORS clashed over whether the council should take responsibility for the destruction of planning documents.

The conflict came as the independent inquiry by barrister Eric Owen was discussed at full council on Monday evening at the Town Hall.

The report had looking into how most planning documents pre 1996 were destroyed in 2006.

It only came to light that the documents were no longer available after an ombudsman report into a planning issue highlighted the problem. But opposition members took issue with the report saying the council made the decision.

Clr Brian Axcell (LD - Appleton) said: “People will think the council decided on the destruction and they didn’t, one officer decided.”

And Clr Bob Barr (LD - Lymm) added: “What we do know is the decision was taken by senior officers against legal advice by officers. They knew what they were doing was unlawful.

“Our officers taking decisions as serious as that brought the council into disrepute. You are trying to re-write history with this report.”

But Clr Chris Fitzsimmons (LAB - Birchwood) said the council should own up to the problem. He said: “We must take responsibility of the decision of an officer. We do have to accept corporate responsibility even though we didn’t make the decision. It pains me to have to say that. “People will be asking was it a cock up or conspiracy? “I think people in public should stand up and accept responsibility for what went on. We have to say sorry, it was a cock up.” On a vote to accept the report Labour councillors voted in favour, Liberal Democrats voted against it and Conservative councillors abstained.

Comments(16)

grey_man says...
4:29pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Two things.

1. If planning officers knew it was unlawful and if they knew for a fact it was against council policy, it wasn't a **** up. The fact there is no record of the decision to do this - not even a minute or a memo supports that conclusion.

2. It wasn't the act of one person. The whole department took part and then senior officers covered up for the destruction over a period of years.

Apologies are no good. Individuals need to take responsibility and if that includes the police looking into it, including the actions and financial circumstances of the conveniently retired bad apple we are all supposed to believe was solely responsible.

Report this post »

Cleopatra says...
4:45pm Tue 11 Sep 12

They knew what they were doing was unlawful and if councillors know that then why have charges not been brought against them? Why are you all still flaffing about over the issue?
Sorry Chris Fitzsimmons you don't have to say sorry, it was a **** up. You have to come clean and say it was a conspiracy and you have to have the balls to do something positive about it.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
4:49pm Tue 11 Sep 12

What is most positive about this is to see Bob Barr standing up. He was possibly the person most misled by the council employees responsible.

Report this post »

hectorshouse123 says...
4:50pm Tue 11 Sep 12

You beat me to it, time for someone from the Council to pick up the phone to the Police. Follow the money, its very very simple. Also check out which applications benefited because of the destroyed records. Check those applicants and look for connections to the bad apples. The clues are all out there.

Report this post »

Cleopatra says...
4:57pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Through the keyhole? lmao

Report this post »

Billie Dyke says...
5:15pm Tue 11 Sep 12

Its a cover up, the report into the destruction of records was released to council in a draft version, it got watered down and passed back. How can that be an indepedent enquiry? How can we go from the LGO report stating it was an unexusable act of maladministration, so severe it was all over the main news, on radio 4 etc, to the final reports findings that it was a muddle headed mistake.

Shocking.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
5:33pm Tue 11 Sep 12

The inquiry was also flawed by not questioning every aspect of what went on, including events after the destruction. Records relating to the application that started this ball rolling went missing after the destruction of records.

If the council are expecting this to blow over and for its integrity to be restored, it won't happen while certain people evade being held to account for what they did. And that includes putting Warrington residents physically at risk and ignoring the advice of police.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
7:55pm Tue 11 Sep 12

grey_man wrote:
The inquiry was also flawed by not questioning every aspect of what went on, including events after the destruction. Records relating to the application that started this ball rolling went missing after the destruction of records.

If the council are expecting this to blow over and for its integrity to be restored, it won't happen while certain people evade being held to account for what they did. And that includes putting Warrington residents physically at risk and ignoring the advice of police.
The Inquiry was flawed because it was deliberately limited to the destruction of records from 1996 and earlier. But the Ombudsman's report pointed to documents later than 1996 being tampered with. The Inquiry made no comment on what happened to the later documents, why not? They were statutory documents as well and should not have been meddled with, as they obviously were. It is as plain as the nose on a Councillor’s face that a decision was taken to restrict the scope of the Inquiry. What better way is there to avoid further investigation into wrong doing than readily to admit to a ****-up and so put a stop to further in-depth investigation of more serious matters involving more people? As Billie D says how come the Ombudsman said there was inexcusable maladministration but the costly barrister, after he had read the Ombudsman’s report could only come up with a muddle headed mistake? What has the Inquiry cost the people of Warrington? It seems they have been short changed. Did the Council make a mistake in setting up such an expensive Inquiry which told us little we did not already know? Or did the barrister say more but that too has been tampered with?

Report this post »

Karlar says...
8:03pm Tue 11 Sep 12

"On a vote to accept the report Labour councillors voted in favour, Liberal Democrats voted against it and Conservative councillors abstained." Those in favour was only to be expected but the abstentions are worrying in view of the seriousness of this matter.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
8:16am Wed 12 Sep 12

All that proves is that councillors believe that politics is more important than truth.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
8:57am Wed 12 Sep 12

Yep, politics being played out, whilst the culprits of what appears to be corruption remain safe from prosecution. Labour want to blame it on a cxck up, because they were not in control, so its the previous Conservative & Liberal Dem who will be blamed. It really is not good enough. The focus should be on the officers from the Planning Department & Legal Services. Yes some of them have left, but many of those still in post were involved and have actively covered up the destruction of records. They did so from 2006 until 2010. For 4 years they lied to the residents who complained about a development and withheld the truth that they had destroyed the planning register. Yet those very same officers were involved in enquiry into the destruction of records, how can that be? Its still going onto day, the cover up is there for all to see. As an earlier poster stated on this link, how can the LGO findings, which the Council accepted, be watered down to a muddle headed mistake?

I think a FOI for all the information surrounding the drafting of the report is in order.

Report this post »

Karlar says...
1:40pm Wed 12 Sep 12

grey_man wrote:
All that proves is that councillors believe that politics is more important than truth.
'We do have to accept corporate responsibility even though we didn’t make the decision. It pains me to have to say that. “People will be asking was it a **** up or conspiracy? “I think people in public should stand up and accept responsibility for what went on. We have to say sorry, it was a **** up.' - so said Cllr Fitsimmons.
The bald facts are that our 'people in public' are not standing up and or accepting responsibility for what went on. They are paying lip service to a sanitized version of events, instead of the dealing responsibly with a very serious situation factually reported on by the LGO, in the hope that by dragging things out we will all go away and forget about it. It is a corporate conspiracy not to investigate the all facts or deal responsibly with the consequences. They could have delved in to and put right all that is wrong with the borough’s planners and their advisers. Instead they chose – all those who voted in favour or abstained – to make a cxxk up into a cop out.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
2:02pm Wed 12 Sep 12

The Cllrs are all scared to death of the officers; they are in essence being bullied. Not one of them has the courage to stand up and demand that action is taken. They won't do it for fear of being marginalized by counter claims by the officers that they 'conspiracy theorists, or don't have sufficient evidence, or don't have the understanding of a very complexed matter. All of which is typical civil servant clap trap. The same thing happens to members of the public when they raise concerns with these officers, they also receive the bully boy tactics, they are told they need to take legal advice, they are threatened with drawn out costly legal battles, if it’s a planning issue, they are concerned about they are labeled as NIMBY’s , or if it’s a neighboring property the whole thing is called a neighbour dispute and the council refuse to deal with it.

Your all scared to death Cllrs and you are letting the public of this town down. Shame on you all.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
4:06pm Wed 12 Sep 12

I should have added there is another dimension, in that officers when given an instruction that they disagree with, will ensure that they fail to get the required result. The enquiry into the destruction of records, which is a 20k plus worthless excerise, the failure to take enforcement action, the recycling plant in Lymm is a good example of that, the failure to protect green belt. It goes on and on.

Report this post »

grey_man says...
4:13pm Wed 12 Sep 12

If Councillors need a definition of gross misconduct for reference it is:

"Gross misconduct is conduct that strikes at the root of the employment relationship and that any reasonable person would consider makes continuation of the relationship between employer and the employee untenable."

I should think that would cover: lying for a period of four years to councillors; offering advice on an issue over that time knowing you didn't have the information needed to offer that advice because you had helped to destroy it; covering up for an unlawful act that was carried out against legal advice; ignoring council policy on the legal needs of your job; taking part in an illegal act; and ignoring police advice to do something about a situation that was spiralling out of control involving threats and attacks on property.

And those are just the things we know from the Ombudsman's report. Of course we're now all expected to trust these people because they've 'learned their lesson'. Well I don't bloody well think so.

Report this post »

Samantha1000 says...
5:36pm Wed 12 Sep 12

Totally agree, & the role of Legal Services can't be overlooked, they are solicitors to the Council, if certain solicitors, told the planners not too destroy the register then watched them do it, and then said nothing for 4 years, they are clearly guilty of gross misconduct. Yet we can see from the report into the destruction of records, which was supposed to be external! That the head of legal services was assisting the lawyer who carried out the investigation!!!

''10 During this investigation I have been assisted considerably by Mr John Holmes Team Manager Legal Services with the Council. I am very grateful to him for his very efficient and helpful assistance in relation to the administration of this investigation.''

& surprise surprise the reports states,

140 It is absolutely clear that the Legal Department acted with the utmost propriety at all times, and, in stark contrast to the behaviour of the Planning Department, the Legal department retained relevant documents after the documents were removed from New Town House.

So that's ok then!"!!

The report is a whitewash and it appears to have been produced with editorial control of Legal Services

Report this post »

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree