PLANNING chiefs at Warrington have resolved to take enforcement action against a householder requiring him to close an unauthorised access to his home.
They are also to add extra planning conditions requiring the householder, Mr Peter Houghton, of Twiss Green Lane, Culcheth, to remove an area of hardstanding in a neighbouring property which he also owns and replace a double gate between the properties with a single gate.
The decision follows a long-running dispute between Mr Houghton and two of his neighbours, the Heaton and Webb families, of nearby Marton Close.
Members of the borough council’s development management committee decided on enforcement action after receiving advice from a top planning lawyer who said: “I am firmly of the view that enforcement notice against the unauthorised access to Marton Close can and should be pursued.”
But the committee decided to take no action over two other issues arising from the 18-year dispute – an access from Twiss Green Lane which is alleged to be too narrow – and the construction of a new house in Twiss Green Lane.
They took the advice of the council’s director for environment and regeneration, Andy Farrall, (pictured) who said although the Twiss Green Lane access was narrow and two cars could not pass, it is clear that cars would be travelling so slowly that the chances of a head-on collision were virtually nil.
There would also be a minimal risk of an accident involving pedestrians.
He added that the new house did not result in any significant failure to comply with the standards and guidance of the Warrington Unitary Development Plan.
Mr Houghton will be able to appeal against the committee’s decision, but if he was unsuccessful would be required to close the access.
Arguments between the neighbours have been going on for some years resulting in police being called to the area on several occasions.
The Local Government Ombudsman, Anne Seex, was eventually called into the affair by one of the residents and found the council guilty of maladministration because records of planning applications had been unlawfully destroyed on the authority of a senior planning officer who had since left the council.
The Ombudsman has recommended that the council apologise to the Heaton and Webb families and pay each £5,000 in recognition of the negative impact of the development on them and for their time and trouble at having to pursue the complaint.
The committee decided enforcement action was justifiable because use of the access between Marton Close and Twiss Green Lane resulted in an increase in noise and disturbance for the two residents of Marton Close.
Council to enforce on home access
1717 Comments
Share.
About Author
Gary Skentelbery
Experienced journalist for more than 40 years. Managing Director of magazine publishing group with three in-house titles and on-line daily newspaper for Warrington. Experienced writer, photographer, PR consultant and media expert having written for local, regional and national newspapers. Specialties: PR, media, social networking, photographer, networking, advertising, sales, media crisis management. Chair of Warrington Healthwatch Director Warrington Chamber of Commerce Patron Tim Parry Johnathan Ball Foundation for Peace. Trustee Warrington Disability Partnership. Former Chairman of Warrington Town FC.
17 Comments
It's positive but it doesn't even begin to right the wrongs or tell the tale either of this case or the wider meltdown of the planning department.
The residents were originally told the access required planning permission by the planning officer. But all of that seems to have been ignored then and forgotten now.
I think there are also numerous planning breaches with this house that the council have chosen to take no action on.
Also, it does not begin to address the destruction of planning records, the way the planning department covered that up for nearly five years, the fact that the councillor in charge of the department Bob Barr knew nothing (or saye he knew nothing) about any of it for almost his entire tenure, the numerous other examples of maladministration reported by the LGO.
I expect the council will have their investigation, ask the right questions to avoid difficult answers and expect we'll forget all about it, whereas of course their failure to deal with it adequately means it will just be bubbling under the surface until the planners get caught out again by the people of this town.
It will be positive only when it happens and not before, residents would well advised to take comments from the council officers with a large pinch of salt. Why they continue to advise members needs explanation. As grey_man says the planners told and even wrote to, the residents (more than once) to say if Mr Houghton wanted to use Marton Close as an access he would have to submit a new planning application. He did not submit one, the planners stood back and let him use it, ignored their enforcement obligations and then scrambled around to find every excuse under the sun to justify his use of it, deliberately deceiving the residents in the process. So even the formal written undertakings of this lot count for zilch. I wonder Messrs Farrall, Groves, Davies and a host of others don't hang their heads in shame, they should certainly be put out to dry.
This is all getting out of hand. As you say Messrs Farrall, Groves Davies and others are simply not to be trusted. With this further development we will certainly not be able to trust anything that comes out of the investigation into the destruction of the Planning Departments records. Why is that the Chief Executive (as the Head of the Councils paid service) not become involved in this? She ought to be able to deal with these mavarick Officers and bring closure to this matter. She has certainl;y be found wanting since she arrived in Warrington (can’t even conduct an Election satisfactorily) and maybe its her that should be replaced to bring Officers back into line for the benefit of residents!
“They took the advice of the council’s director for environment and regeneration, Andy Farrall,…….” and one may wonder just how much that’s worth! He didn’t have much of a repution in Chester, http://thechestershe…dy-farrell.html
and he was in charge of the Walton Hall fiasco, the quoted running costs of which were amazingly circa £400,000 more than the true costs!
This report seems to perpetuate the myth with which Andy Farrall and his planners have apparently used to conceal their own apparent failings and obvious lack of professionalism. The LGO’s report and the residents’ letter to the Council says the complaints sent by the residents to the LGO all hone in on WBC’s failure to deal properly with Mr Houghton’s development and not with anything else. As far as I am aware the LGO’s powers do not extend to investigating complaints between neighbours. If there had been any tit for tat actions I doubt the LGO would have picked up the file; perhaps that is was why WBC promoted the myth in the first place? . The LGO’s report says all acts of criminal damage have been directed at the the two families whilst none were directed towards Mr Houghton, his properties, his cars or those of his tenants. The residents’ letter emphasizes their complaint to the LGO is confined to matters concerning WBC’s failings and that other matters were reported to the Police in whom they have the utmost confidence. A letter from the Police to WBC gives a clue to other unpleasant activities directed at the residents, it does not imply they took any retaliatory actions.
I regularly pass near to Marton Close each day. Anyone who does will see that it is only the two properties of the complainants that have had several security measures installed presumably as result of the criminal acts against them.
All of which points in only one direction, namely that is because Messrs Heaton and Webb took their concerns, now proven to be more than justified, about WBC’s maladministration or mismanagement of the 22 Twiss Green Lane development, they were singled out for the criminal acts by persons so far unknown and the harassment by others. All in all this alleged dispute between neighbours seems to be pretty one sided. Now let’s look at the wheelie bin for No: 22. It seems as if it is permanently positioned almost on the kerb of Marton Close at the southern end of the unauthorised access in No: 2 and well away (approx 30 m) from Mr Houghton’s new house? It’s always there when I pass at whatever time of day. To get to it members of the Houghton family would have to come out of their house, go through two sets of gates, cross the footpath and walk the length of the unauthorised access. The action of a good neighbour?
Talking of neighbours, the Guardian hasn’t even mentioned this even though it’s been miles away the most talked about story on their website for weeks.
How does the council hope to regain public trust in the planning shambles if it considers Andy Farrall or any of his motley planning crew should advise members of the development management committee, in the present climate? Mr Farrall was in charge of the ‘events’ that caused all the trouble and landed the council in an unholy mess. If he was not in charge, he knew about the unholy mess and like John Groves decided to conceal it from the very members he is now giving advice to. They weren’t the only officers who thought concealment was a better option than candour. Apparently Andy Farrall defended the planners to the hilt until the Ombudsman showed them up what for what they are.
Is it laughable or appalling, that Mr Farrall was put forward to offer advice and guidance at the committee’s last meeting? His recommendations should be treated with the utmost caution.
Bob Barr is quoted as saying “Faith in Warrington’s planning service has been seriously shaken by the recent Local Government Ombudsman’s report that highlights serious maladministration.” The appearance of Andy Farrall or any of his planners at the development management committee is a backward step in the council’s attempt to regain public trust. He may be all the council has to offer, but there are more dependable, less tainted, options.
Householders can use a national independent planning advice service if they feel their local planners are not up to much or suspect. The service includes building control, to make sure your scheme is properly built and to the right standards etc.
Perhaps it’s about time the council looked outside the borough for planning advice if it wants to start to regain public trust. It should certainly do so until the public begin to have some trust in what goes on.
Yes you get some sense of Andy Farrall’s muddled manner of dealing with things from the report he submitted to the committee. He wrote it as though the Ombudsman’s report had yet to hit the streets. For example he says in paragraph 9.1 “Should the Ombudsman conclude there has been maladministration resulting in injustice, compensation for those who have suffered such injustice can be suggested ” The Ombudsman reached that conclusion nearly three months earlier. Why is Mr Farrall suggesting otherwise, were he and his colleagues still in denial before they appeared before the committee? Or were they trying to mislead members? Or were they trying to set their stall out so that their advice was based on a different time frame? It’s certainly not real in time or meaning. In para 12.2 his report says “It is clear that an impression has been gained by those who live in the vicinity of Marton Close that a promise has been made that once construction has been completed the accessway will cease.” Why deliberately misuse the tense? The residents undoubtedly received firm written assurances from the planners the one in 2002 said that Mr Houghton would have to submit a new planning application if he wanted to use Marton Close as an access. As we all know he did no such thing nor did they ask him to, but they don’t explain why. Secondly after ignoring that undertaking the planners wrote, as the LGO says emolliently, to the the residents whilst the house was being built, stating that once the house was complete the Marton Close access would be closed off. His report fails to say why explain both promises were not honoured, it just recites a meaningless form of words. One early posting referred to it as Newspeak, but we’re well passed 1984, or are we? In paragraph 3.5 AF reports “There was no appraisal of any alternative access contained within reports on the applications for planning permission for the new house” which raises the questions why not? and since there was not, why did the council allow Mr Houghton to use Marton Close and conceal the fact it knew he would do so from the residents? why did the council not put a stop on the use of Marton Close as it had the powers to do? How can anyone take this man’s explanations, advice, guidance seriously?
It is amazing, isn’t it? Only a Council would think that when somebody spends four years lying to you and covering up for the fact that they helped to destroy all the information they needed to do their job properly, that instead of facing disciplinary action, you ask them what to do about it.
The Council’s underiying problem is still the same. The amount of information in the public domain means that their ongoing attempts to act as if there isn’t anything here that requires any sort of action just makes them look weak, spineless and corrupt. They are happy not only to employ incompetent or corrupt liars, they’ll go to them for advice. Amazing.
How long now before it all blows up in their face again?
According to this report the council’s top planning lawyer says “that enforcement notice against the unauthorised access to Marton Close can and should be pursued.” Mr Farrall has said Mr Houghton should be made “to remove an area of hardstanding in a neighbouring property which he also owns and replace a double gate between properties with a single gate.”
I have used the footpath running along the north boundaries of the three bungalows in the cul de sac for many years, and still occasionally do. Until the work on the new house started none of the bungalows had a gate on to the footpath. Not many other properties along that path do, presumably because they might invite unwanted entry.
Panels of wire fencing were put up each side of the footpath near the unauthorised roadway, soon after work on the house started. They stayed in place for a long time. When no one was on site they were bolted tight. When the Houghton family moved in to the new house the temporary panels were used as sorts of gates allowing the Houghtons and others to park in No: 2 and cross the footpath to the new house. The timber gates which eventually replaced the wire panels were put up fairly recently.
If the council really wants to enforce against the unauthorised access why allow any gates? No gates were there before the house was built. If enforcement is intended to make Mr Houghton, his family and others use the Twiss Green Lane route to get to his house the best way to do that is to have no access between No: 2 and No: 22. If that happens Marton Close might begin to regain some of the peace and quite it once enjoyed.
After what you posted on 5 July, with no gates in No: 2 the wheelie bin for No: 22 would be nearer to his new house and Mr Houghton would not have so far to walk to bin the family’s rubbish, if that is what he really wants to do?
it’s clear the bin permanently positioned on the kerb of Marton Close in clear view of the two neighbours, from their sitting rooms, the same neighbours who complained about the access, is there to harass them. The defintion of harassment is taking an action that is inteneded to cause alarm and distress. Clearly having some idiot position a bin 30 metres from his other bins, which requires him to walk out of his kitchen door, through both vehicular access gates, across a footpath, to put something in the bin, is not the norm. The bins are part of the harassment of the two families that has gone on since the Houghton’s began work on their plans to build a housing estate on the land locked land behind Marton Close. Currently this has stalled as the councilors can clearly see what is going on.
Why did Mr Farrall accept the suspect drawing submitted by Mr Houghton to justify his recommendation for no enforcement action to be taken on the construction of the new house or the Twiss Green Lane access, yet he apparently ignored it when giving advice, to members, on what they should decide to do about the hardstanding and the gates erected by Mr Houghton. The accepted suspect drawing shows close boarded fencing to the footpath boundaries of No: and N0: 22 and no gates on to the footpath from either property. There is also no roadway/hardstanding in the front garden of No: 2. Mr Farrall should therefore have shown some consistency when making his recommendations, it’s hardly rocket science?
probably because he is an imbecile?
We should not loose sight of the fact that most postings, including Mr Farrall’s enforcement recommendations, relate to the second and avoidable stage of a situation which the planners allowed to happen but which should never have occurred in any event. Mr Houghton was allowed, even encouraged, with the support of the planners, to use Marton Close when they could and should have prevented him from using that access to his site. The planners dubiously backed Houghton’s use of Marton Close, in the face of firm assurances given to the residents and their own very loose and false interpretation of what constituted a general permitted development order. Having worked their sleight of hand the planners decided to continue their deliberate mistake by saying it was not then expedient to enforce against Houghton to overturn their own flawed interpretation of the GPDO.
As the residents pointed out in their letter, they were denied the basic entitlement of openess and transparanecy throughout the four plus years Houghton was building his oversized house using the unathorized Marton Close access. Yet when Mr Farrall made his recent recommendations on enforcement to the DCM he was at pains to make sure Mr Houghton was afforded the benefit of openness and transparency, even to the extent Houghton was allowed to address the members of the DCM. There is no question other than the planners deliberately manipulated the planning process in order to benefit Mr Houghton. In resorting to expediency the planners had only one objective.
And that is where the issue of motive comes into it? If that isn’t addressed by the council, would that make it a whitewash?
the principal planning officer for the 2002 renewal (which we now was a full blown new application twice as big) was Michael Davis. He wrote to the residents, stating clearly that Houghton could not access the site from Marton Close, to do so he said, would require a new planning application and that the residents would be informed if one was submitted. It never was!!. Michael Davis approved an extension for 3 Marton Close (next door to the new house) 2 months before approving Houghton’s 2002 dodgy renewal. However he either failed to notice, or ignored the fact that Houghton’s plans were clearly distorted, this is fact and is accepted in the LGO report, which states
At first sight the site location
plan looks as though the proposed house has been
superimposed on an
Ordnance Survey plan of the area.
Closer examination shows this is not quite the
case. The position of Number 2 in the cul-de-sac
has been shifted slightly so that
it does not appear so close to the development
site and the size of Number 3 is
significantly reduced, making it also appear
to be further from the development
site than is in fact the case.
(The Tree Preservation Order plan on the Council’s
files, dated 1993, shows the correct size and position
of both properties.) The
effect of the distortion is that the proposed house
appears to comply with the
Council’s policy on separation distance when it does not.
How can a man of Michael Davis’s experience fail to spot the fact that plans approved were basically fraudulent?? What other conclusion can be brought? The plans were submitted by a very experienced property developer? Not someone who had made a hash of trying to produce some plans for a veranda!! Add to this, the FACT that all of the officers, right up to Diana Terris were made aware of this at the time of construction. Via recorded delivery letters!
All of this must come out in the enquiry.