AN objector at a planning meeting at Warrington has expressed his “absolute dismay and astonishment” at what he describes as a biased recommendation given by a planning officer.
Neil Higgins, of Lower Stretton, says the officer’s report could not have been more partial in favour of the applicants.
Every objection raised in more than 100 letters of objection was “completely overridden” by the planning officer’s report, he claims.
The meeting concerned an application by a family of travelling showpeople for residential and storage development on land at Stretton.
It was refused – but only because councillors ignored officers’ recommendations.
Mr Higgins voices his concerns in a letter sent to Warrington Borough Council’s chief executive, Diana Terris, Warrington South MP David Mowat, borough councillor for the Stretton area Paul Kennedy and every member of the council’s development management committee.
He says feelings were running high at the meeting.
“Surely residents deserved better from their own council?”
Mr Higgins says the planning officers dismissed all arguments against the applications but appeared to accept the testimonies of the applicants and the Showman’s Guild as “definitive evidence.”
The sheer number of conditions attached to the recommendation for a three year temporary consent made it obvious they could never be enforced and that the site was unsuitable for the development in the first place.
Mr Higgins says it was extremely heartening, on the other hand, to hear the questioning by elected members which appeared to expose disagreement between officers.
He adds: “My reason for writing this letter is to express my concern that the bias shown by the planning officer is unfair to those who live in the borough and goes beyond seeking to redress a shortcoming in borough provision of suitable sites for travellers.
“Residents’ views have been brushed aside – though thankfully not by the councillors.”
AN objector at a planning meeting at Warrington has expressed his
"absolute dismay and astonishment" at what he describes as a biased
recommendation given by a planning officer.
Objector's dismay over planning bias
44 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.
4 Comments
So what’s new! Every Department within OUR Council shows bias against its residents. OUR Council certainly does not take into account the concerns of its residents when its makes decisions. Something has got to change!!! We can live in hope that our elected Councillors get a grip of this situation and bring the paid officers into line.
Seems as though Warrington’s elected Councillors did bring their paid staff in to line in this case. My experience of the UK is that many governmental and state organisations are run, primarily, for the benefit of their employees rather than those that they should be there to serve. In a competitive environment, customers/residents would take their business elsewhere. Alas in other parts of the world, a country in its totality is run by a ruler and cronies for their sole benefit, and one just has to hope that they are benevolent, or has has been seen in recent times, an uprising to remove them, unfortunately you can end up with something equally as bad.
Even more evidence that there needs to be a thorough investigation into the actions of individuals in the planning department.
It’s that familiar refrain with the same old lines cropping up again and again like a cracked record…residents overridden and their views ignored…applicants’ views are a given come what may…official reports distort or misrepresent the facts and mislead members…repeated failures to enforce…it goes on and on.
Why has it been allowed to roll along without censure? When will this state of affairs end? Let’s hope we are beginning to see the signs of a meaningful political input. But even that should not be allowed to cloud the issue which grey_man raises. There still needs to be a comprehensive inquiry into the actions of individuals in the planning department, and I submit the actions of others who have either ignored what has gone on in the PD or has tried to conceal their wrong doings. Furthermore that inquiry should not confine itself to just the destruction of records, it must be in-depth and thorough.