A LONG-running neighbour dispute which led to Warrington Borough Council being criticised by the Local Government Ombudsman for wrongly destroying records of planning applications comes before council planning chiefs on Thursday.
Members of the council’s development management committee will be recommended to take enforcement action against a Culcheth residents in respect of an access created, with permission, between a new house inTwiss Green Lane and a property in Marton Close.
The recommendation is based on advice from a top planning lawyer who has said: “I am firmly of the view that enforcement notice against the unauthorised access to Marton Close can and should be pursued.”
But a report by environment director Andy Farrall (pictured) recommends that no action be taken in respect of 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 the house in Twiss Green Lane.
Mr Farrell says although the Twiss Green Lane access is narrow and two cars cannot pass, it is clear that cars would be travelling so closely that the chances of a head-on collision are virtually nil.
There would also be a minimal risk of an accident involving pedestrian.
He adds that the new houses does not result in any significant failure to comply with the standards and guidance of the Warrington Unitary Development Plan.
Arguments between neighbours have been going on for some years over the development, resulting in police being called to the area on several occasions.
The Ombudsman, Anne Seex, was eventually called into the affair by one of the residents and says maladministration arose from the fact the council had wrongly destroyed records of planning applications.
She said she had never come across a case like it.
The records were destroyed on the authority of a senior planning officer who has since left the council.
Ms Seex has recommended that the council apologise to two residents 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.
Mr Farrall is recommending the enforcement action be taken because use of the access between Marton Close and Twiss Green Lane will result in an increase in noise and disturbance for the two residents of Marton Close.
Council urged to act over planning row
1818 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.
18 Comments
What arrogance by this Council Officer! Then, of course, we have come to expect it from him. When is the “Independent” investigation going to take place on this matter so that we can have a review of the Planning Department in the best interests of the electorate? If this access was created “with permission” who is this man to now say he has taken legal advice after the event – which calls into question his ability – and to now reverse the original advice. It’s an absolute “dogs breakfast”.
I heard that the new Labour administration announced an external inquiry at last night’s Council meeting – this should help sort this problem and establish exactly what happened and when!
Hardly suprising considering all the info and comments that are suddenly springing up on various sites about the going’s on and the failings of the council / planning dept / it’s officers etc…… rather embarrasing for the council I would imagine. So will and external inquiry get to the bottom of it all… maybe… but I doubt it 😉 Perhaps a few people may ‘change’ jobs though. I wonder what will happen at tomorrows planning meeting then as it seems there may be another complaint on it’s way to the LGO too based on Mr Farrels latest report. Oh dear, not good.
The outcome of an inquiry will clearly depend on the questions asked. If it is set up in an atempt to justify what has happened – which is the implication I drew from the way Bob Barr framed his appeal for an investigation – then it will look to ignore asking about the motives of the officers involved, the role of the monitoing officer and the failure to report the destruction of records while continuing to advise on this particular dispute. It will only get more embarrasing for the council because it is attracting interest from a broader audience.
This is what Bob Barr told Planning Magazine. It’s somewhat different to what he has said in the local press and seems to indicate he sees the inquiry as a way of setting the record straight rather than uncover what happened and why and exploring some of the wider issues, not least the way the planning officers continued to operate in Culcheth knowing they had destroyed records.
“Liberal Democrat councillor and opposition spokesman for planning and regeneration Bob Barr will make the call at a council meeting on Monday.
An administrative blunder at the authority saw all planning records dating back to 1996 destroyed when planning chiefs were faced with rising storage costs.
A report from the Local Government Ombudsman described the act as an “inexcusable” act of maladministration.
Barr told Planning that the revelations have prompted unfounded accusations of further malpractice. “The moment you start talking about the destruction of planning records every conspiracy theorist in the town jumps up and asks what is being hidden,” he said.
An independent review was needed to satisfy the public’s concerns, he said. “So far the council has investigated the issue by itself and is presenting a fairly formal and somewhat technical report to councillors.”
He said: “That’s not going to satisfy the public. My view is that the matter needs to be dealt with by having an independent inquiry.”
Barr will also call for the inquiry to look at the performance of the authority’s planning department after concerns were raised about integration between transport, environmental and enforcement teams.”
grey_man From my point of view the whole purpose of an independently chaired public enquiry is to allow allegations to be brought forward, within the limits of the law, and tested. This will allow those not satisfied with the internal audit report coming to committee tomorrow, to take matters further. I am not pre-judging anything. However, if someone wanted to cover things up, destroying all planning records more than 10 years old would be a particularly crude and probably ineffective way of doing it. If we wanted to cover up the reasons we wouldn’t be calling for an independent panel to investigate.
Cllr Barr… why have you called for an independent enquiry? Cllr Reynolds has called for a police investigation! Do you know if he has actually reported this to the police and if so did your motion prejudice the police’s enquiry? If he hasn’t reported it to the Police, why not? Is it because he has realised that the planning records were destroyed in the summer of 2006, when your LibDem colleagues were in charge?
Whittle_Hall_4_independence – I’ve discussed this with Kevin Reynolds. There is no law that punishes the destruction of records. There is a law that says the Planning Register must be kept. This leads to a strange paradox, an act can be “unlawful” i.e. no law allows such an act to take place and it shouldn’t happen, without it being “illegal” making it an act the Police could prosecute for. I am sure this distinction will be explained to me, and the rest of the Audit and Governance Committee, more fully on Wednesday by the Borough Solicitor .
… and if the council employed borough solicitor finds fault and unlawfulness what then … will he still represent the council and/or its officers and find a way ‘out’ or will he pass it over to the relevant authority? Very tricky one eh ? Anyway whatever happens a huge amount of statutory records covering many many years have been lost for ever due to some idiot and a subsequent alleged spring cleaning and cost cutting exercise. It’s all made very good reading though in the way Libs and Labour parties have blamed each other, called for investigations, back-tracked, change tactics not to mention the saga of the one planning application that started all this and the officers reports and other info coming out….. It could make a number one TV hit. Move over Candy Cabs there’s a new local comedy spoof in the making 🙂 🙂 🙂
Not to worry though eh 🙂
Yes Bob. Their methods were so crude and ineffective, you didn’t know about it for the entire time you were head of that department. And nobody would be any the wiser now, if it weren’t for the actions of the residents of Culcheth.
Anyway, let’s suppose it was all some administrative blunder as you’ve already announced the inquiry will decide. That just leaves us with one or two issues to address:
Why did John Groves not tell anybody about his reservations about the destruction?
Where is all the paperwork and communications detailing the decision to destroy the record?
Why did John Groves not remark on the destruction of the record, especially when he was making decisions and reporting back to Council about a case that was materially affected?
Why did he continue to mislead the Council in other matters?
Why was he unaware of the most basic statutory requirements of his job?
What does the monitoring officer actually do? How did he or she miss what was happening?
Why has the Marton Close case attracted such a string of criticisms from the ombudsman?
I know I’m just a conspiracy theorist in addition to my usual role of council tax payer, but I think we need answers to those questions even before we address the potential for corruption this case highlights.
It would benefit most people in Warrington not least the two unfortunate familes who went to the Ombudsman, and seemingly suffered because they did, if the political parties put aside their inbuilt distrust for each other and collaborated in the formation of a truly independent and public inquiry into all the matters raised in the Ombudsman’s highly critical report. If this were to happen the widespread cynicism which permeates most peoples’ views of the borough’s planners might lessen, particularly if the parties demonstrated beyond doubt their firm intentions to uncover all of the facts and get to the root of the concerns, without fear or favour.
The Ombudsman’s report was critical of more than just the destruction of records. That is not to play down that element of maladministration. Too many other serious matters in the Marton Close situation, coincidentally arose from the destruction of records. And we are entitled to know how they collectively occurred, to the benefit of the developer and the detriment of the complainants, without being labelled conspiracy theorists. That label helps neither the accusers or the accused and it contibutes to little positive to the inquiry we must have. From what I have read and heard the two complainants tried to resolve their several issues with the council to no avail before taking their concerns to the Ombudsman.
And how much will this independent review cost, who will conduct it, and has anybody ascertained if employees, former or otherwise, are going to give evidence, because if not the report will be a costly waste of time.
lookingfromafar, you seem not to want this indepedent review? how can Warrington not have one? whatever the cost? have you something to hide?
I think the ‘top planning lawyer’ whose advice they have sought will probably have advised them on the cost of NOT having an independent inquiry! This fiasco was brought to light due to one planning application, how many other cases are there that may need reference to older planning applications? How many potential claims for compensation? It’s sickening to think that the Warrington Council Tax payer will ultimately have to pay for blunders and ‘inexcusable’ maladministration. What would be even worse would be to think that we might be paying to cover up some individuals criminal acts. A full investigation needs to be held to rule this possibility out. I would have thought that those involved would be more than keen to have this ruled out too.
Because of the amount of informationn in the public domain the game should be up in a number of areas. We’ll see now if the council realises it.
About time those people in Marton Close had some recognition from the council and also time that it began holding the relevant people in the planning department responsible for the countless failures this case has unearthed.
agreed, still not formal acceptance of the LGO report I see? They have to respond by the 14th July. Its pretty damn clear they have to accept it. The time for judicial review has expired, so what are they playing at? Surely the apology and compensation for the nightmare those people have endured battling the lies, would be a quick win, a public statement, the enforcement and investigation following? It is shocking to watch them do nothing and continue to harm the Council’s reputation. The council members need to start banging some heads together. What on earth is Terris wating for?
No John, what I don’t want is a yet more wasting of money, money that I understand Warrington does not have. Maybe you personally would like to foot the bill and put your money where your mouth is, alas I sense you will just be another man of straw happy to waste other people’s money. With regards to your final point, since I have had no involvement with this matter why should I have anything to hide, indeed from what I have read, there is no substantive evidence that anybody has anything to hide other than their incompetence in failing to follow rules and regulations. And if the sort of comment made by you is how an independent review will be conducted, with people throwing unsubstantiated accusations around, then I rather think it gives weight to my argument that it will prove to be a total waste of money, and only being conducted to fill a rather sad and pathetic political agenda. Has anybody asked the population of Warrington if they want their money further wasted on this matter.
It’s a complex issue though isn’t it? The police have been called out 100 times to a Close with three bunglaows in it in large part because a developer has been encouraged – intentionally or otherwise – by warrington planning department to ignore planning regulations. That is such a drain the police have written to the council to ask them to sort it out. The council has already been asked to pay £10,000 in compensation as a result and has had to waste time dealing with the matter and taking legal advice. It will be far more costly dealing with litigation if the planning department isn’t dealt with.
Then there are the rights and wrongs of this. Should a wealthy developer be allowed to ignore planning procedures with the collusion – intentional or otherwise – of the Council? A report may help to stop the planning department from behaving in the way they have again, either by exposing their incompetence or corruption depending on which of the only two possible explanations you prefer.
As it happens, I share your concern that this is a waste of time and money, but for different reasons. In my opinion, largely because it appears to be – at least according to Councillor Barr – a way of repeating what the council has already decided and this is just a way of getting people to stop asking questions for six months while it goes away.