A NUMBER of councillors have today added their voices to a growing chorus calling for the resignation of Warrington Borough Council’s environment and regeneration chief.
Cllrs Billy Lines-Rowlands (Poulton North), Steve Roberts (Poplars and Hulme) and Chris Vobe (Culcheth, Glazebury and Croft) joined Warrington North MP Helen Jones in demanding the resignation of executive director 
of environment and regeneration Andy Farrall (pictured)
The common theme was fury over the controversial application by Satnam Developments for 150 homes on land at Peel Hall.
Planning chiefs have failed to deal with the application within the required time and, as a result, Satnam have appealed on the grounds of non-determination.
This means the scheme will go straight to a public inquiry without first being dealt with by the council’s development management committee.
But the council claims the application will still be dealt with in the normal way.
A spokesperson said: “We are disappointed that Satnam has lodged an appeal before the council has made a decision regarding the application.
“The council has yet to receive confirmation that the appeal is valid from the Planning Inspectorate however this makes no practical difference to the council’s position. The council has always been clear with Satnam that the proposed development is not considered necessary, and this position has not changed.
“The planning application will be considered in full by the council’s development management committee, in the normal way, on March 7 as previously planned.
“This will include councillors and members of the public being allowed to speak and reinforce their views on the proposal. The committee members will then vote as usual to determine if the planning application should be refused and the decision of the committee will be presented to an independent planning inspector, probably through a public inquiry.
“The inspector will consider the case for the applicant and the case for the council and then decide whether to allow or dismiss the proposal. The inspector will deal with the matter in exactly the same way as if Satnam had lodged an appeal after the development management committee had made a decision.”
The council’s statement did nothing to abate the fury of councillors.
In an open letter to the development management committee, Cllr Lines-Rowlands said: “Helen Jones has called for the resignation of Andy Farrall and I support her calls for his immediate exit from this authority and add my name to those requesting he resign, or be suspended, pending a full enquiry.
“Executive directors are paid significant sums of money to oversee and run council departments. Part of accepting that role, and the inflated salary that goes with it, is a duty to accept responsibility.
“The public have been let down badly, and deserve to see a line of accountability.
Cllr Roberts said: “I am simply furious. People deserve to have planning applications determined by locally elected councillors. That chance has now gone and we are in the hands of an outside inspector. This is an insult to everyone who lives in Poplars and Hulme, who have been overlooked by Town Hall officers.”
Cllr Vobe added his voice by posting on his Facebook page: “I support the calls of my colleagues for the resignation of Andy Farrall.
“The planning department has previously let down residents of Culcheth and Croft, on issues like Marton Close and HMS Gosling.
“Public trust urgently needs to be restored, and there is only one way to ensure that happens.”
Meanwhile, Helen Jones has written to more than 4,500 constituents in the vicinity of Peel Hall, setting out the latest developments.
The borough council has, repeatedly, over a period of years, stated its firm opposition to housing development at Peel Hall.
10 Comments
“The inspector will deal with the matter in exactly the same way as if Satnam had lodged an appeal after the development management committee had made a decision.” – assuming the decision was a refusal, this may well be the case. What the planners don’t seem to recognise here is the perceived impact that this failure to respond within the (13 week) timescale has on the opposition to the application. This laissez faire approach is directly at odds with the very specific hoops that both objectors and applicants have had to jump through. If, in effect, this does not serve to weaken the objectors’ case, it certainly looks like it, and this undermines any confidence residents may have left in the planning department – it makes them look like a bunch of bumbling amateurs. Quite early on in this application I voiced the opinion that if this application went through, then it would be due to either incompetence or corruption. I think I could be forgiven for now thinking that one is being used to cover up the other. We need someone from the planning department to explain: what has (or hasn’t) happened; why it has (or hasn’t) happened; what’s the likely impact of this occurrence; and what’s the best strategy for objectors to adopt.
Oh, and some kind of apology might go down well too.
Yes, lets all ask Mr Farrell nicely if he wouldn’t mind resigning.
Why has it come to this? There has already been a “so called” enquiry of the Planning Dept following the destruction of documents with no apparant action being taken to improve the service to residents. These Directors appear to be above the “elected” Councillors are can do pretty much waht they want. never mind looking after the interests of residents. An example should at long last be made of the Director responsible and he should go! has he no shame?
I said yesterday there is more than one set of fingerprints on this latest planning deception. And they are more than likely smeared over the many previous planning “mishaps”. This is not a conspiracy theory but a fair reading of those events and why there is a marked absence of an audit trail of emails, memos, notes of conversations or phone calls, which there would be if any of these were innocent mistakes or procedural lapses. If officers only were at fault, or in the frame, you can bet your bottom dollar they would have been outed by councillors by now; if only to take the heat off councillors. Have you noticed no officers have been dismissed for any planning related matters? We know a few have been allowed to leave without a stain on their CVs in connection with planning mismanagement. Why is this? Why is it difficult to dismiss officers, could it be the knowledge they have is their insurance against dismissal?
It’s obvious that the council’s teams want this to go ahead. Why else would all these ‘mistakes’ have happened. Consulting with us public is just a tick box exercise for them. They know what they want.
So that’s two concillors that work for the MP, her and her son. Not exactly a chorus of independent opposition – typical Labour spin from the lot of them! Maybe she should try working with the Council instead of aganst it?
All of those complaining are supposed to have been on the case for Peel Hall and yet they didnt notice that the clcok was ticking it sounds like all of them have got someting to hide about their own part in this. Why werent they pressing the council about the time? Not really blood on there hands but at least a good share of the guilt
Actually, Reflex, it is five councillors. Not only Chris Vobes and Billy Lines-Rowlands but also Steve Roberts, Kevin Bennett and Graham Friend.
Since it has become known that they have called for Farrell’s immediate resignation, Terry O’Neill has raised his head, calling for an inquirey into the affair.
Just seen that – don’t know either of them
I’m looking forward to the Labour leaflets defending their seat in the forthcoming council by-election “Vote for us – we can’t do anything – the officers are in charge”