PEOPLE who want to give evidence to the independent inquiry into the unauthorised destruction of planning records held by Warrington Borough Council are being urged to come forward.
Initial representations should be sent to council solicitor John Holmes by 4pm on December 16.
A preliminary hearing has already been opened by Eric Owen, the barrister appointed by the council to conduct the inquiry.
At the hearing, Mr Owen said anyone interested in making representations to him should do so via Mr Holmes.
A number of people indicated at the preliminary hearing that they wished to make representations, including Cllr Brian Axcell (pictured), Mr Dennis Cooper, Mr Peter Haughton and a Mr Webb and a Mr Heaton.
A room has been made available at the Town Hall on January 17, 18 and 19 when Mr Owen will be able to interview people who have made representations.
He will then decide how the inquiry should proceed.
The inquiry follows criticism of the council by the Local Government Ombudsman who, in the course of investigating a complaint about a planning issue at Marton Close, Culcheth, learned that planning records which should have been retained by the council had been destroyed.
As a result, the Ombudsman found the council guilty of maladministration.
The council has already carried out an internal investigation, the results of which will be available to Mr Owen.
The remit of Mr Owen’s review includes:
(a) To examine the circumstances of the destruction of certain planning records in 2006.
(b)To identify the strengths and weaknesses in the council’s current policies regarding retention of planning records.
(c) To encourage interested parties with relevant information to present evidence to the investigator.
Any representations must be sent c/o John Holmes, by email to [email protected] or by post to him at Warrington Borough Council Legal Department, Ground Floor, New Town House, Buttermarket Street, Warrington, WA1 2NH.
Mr Owen has asked that representations be summarised on two or three sheets of types A4 paper, should summarise the points the person making the representations wishes to make, should say why those points are relevant to the investigation and finally should make representations as to how barrister, in his role as independent investigator, should conduct the investigation.
Mr Owen has stressed that further representations will be able to be made following consideration of the summaries.
Destroyed planning records: inquiry launched
99 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.
9 Comments
Well done to the Labour Council for giving the people what they wanted – an inquiry into the affair, which was denied by the Lib Dems. Let’s see what comes out, who knew what and when, and under whose watch it all happened.
The Local Government Ombudsman, according to the report, not only “found the council guilty of maladministration” because it had destroyed statutory records, also upheld all the residents’ complaintS against the Council in connection with the planning issueS. Furthermore, the Council’s internal audit found that destruction of the records was contrary to the Council’s own policy.
Reflex…..Why does everything always have to become political.. is that what the enquiry will be like ie one party just blaming the other rather than looking into the real reasons behind it. It will be interesting to see what DOES come out of it all and whether it is money well spent. Like already said the LGP has already found them guilty of maladministration but that really doesn’t answer the question why, how or by who really. The barrister has been appointed by the council themselves so is basically working for, and being paid, by them. I guess that’s normal though and being a professional he wont be biased and will remain independent in his role. What I don’t like is that it states that ALL representations and evidence submissions HAVE to be sent to the council’s own solicitor (Mr Holmes). I guess he will then pass them on to the barrister as well possibly working with the council/ departments/person/people/ named in any evidence to counteract it (as is his role). Surely if there is someone within the workforce who does know what really happened and wants to ‘say’ they are not likely to submit their ‘evidence’ in this way and put their jobs on the line are they ? Can’t they speak to the barrister in private or send their evidence straight to him? I guess not so it’s down to the public then. I wonder if the officer at the time and who allegedly made the decision (and who keeps getting mentioned as ‘no longer being employed’ ) will come forward to clear his/her name and finally be named or perhaps point the finger in another direction 😉 It will be interesting to hear but I doubt they will ever get down to the real reasons behind it all and no real action will be taken should it transpire that there was more to it….. We will just have to wait and see if any heads do roll or any finding come out into the open but at least they have shown willing I guess. Yep cynical as always 😉
I guess that is how it is in this Country with political paties running the administration! However, I am very fearful, looking at the terms of reference, that this current “expensive” enquiry will get to the bottom of things. I assume that this Barrister is working for “us” and being p[aid by “us”. The public ought to see this process as a very open and transparent one. It seems that the evidence being gathered by the Barrister, via a Council officer, is not either. Could not all questions and evidence be sent direct to the Barrister? We need to get the inside story from current staff who will not want to put their jobs on the line. Will the ex-Officer be called to give evidence to the enquiry? If not, this whole process will be an expensive waste of money. Good to see that an enquiry is taking place but what we will learn from it is questionable.
I think you will find that it is the Lib Dems who pushed for an external, public inquiry, not Labour
Dizzy you are spot on and not only for your justified cynicism in view of the Council’s long record of ducking and diving. We need to know what Mr Holmes’ previous responsibilities were before playing his part in this inquiry. If say, he was involved in offering legal advice to the planners at any time, there is a conflict of interest which should rule him out.
What is his relationship with the Monitoring Officer – who is also the Solicitor – and responsible for making sure the council complies with statutory and council obligations? I find it very hard to accept that only one or two people knew the records had been destroyed. Firstly, because it would have been a labour intensive operation.
And secondly, the destruction was hidden from the public from 2006 (allegedly) until 2011 when the Ombudsman stepped in.
You are also right it saying “Can’t they speak to the barrister in private or send their evidence straight to him?”
We all have to hope this inquiry does not become Warrington’s version of the Hutton Inquiry.
We already know what happened. We know that policies and procedure aren’t the issue. Those existed before supposedly to prevent this happening, but officers ignored them and there have been no consequences for them. Unless individual officers are held to account for breaches of policies and procedures they’ll continue to do it. If the council want to stop it happening again, they should take disciplinary action or prosecute individuals.
I doubt any heads will roll, as they surely should in this instance, because what has gone on is scandalous from which ever end of the telescope you choose to look at it. As you say grey_man we (and they) knew what the policies and procedures were, but they were wilfully ignored and not by just one or two obvious scapegoats. Therein lies the problem for “council chiefs” (whoever they are, everyone is willing to take the readies but not the responsibilities), because some pretty senior people knew the records had been shredded but kept quiet about the destruction, until they had nowhere else to go..
We can get a slew on how they aim this inquiry should turn out from their wish list, which we know is:
“1) Assurance that the Council has fully addressed the circumstances of the destruction of certain planning records in 2006.
2) Assurance that the Council’s current policies in respect of the retention of planning documents are fit for purpose.
3) Restore the integrity of the Council.
No mention here of disciplinary action is there?
Clearly you are talking tosh – the Lib Dems knew about this in 2009 and sat on it hoping it would go away! It was finally announced in May when the new Labour lot came in