Rebel councillor hits out over "secret" gypsy sites

WARRINGTON’S rebel councillor Kevin Bennett claims he is being denied access to a list of potential gypsy transit sites across the borough because he refuses to sign an agreement to keep it secret.
He says some Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors have been given the list – but he has been refused it unless he signs the agreement not to discuss its contents with anyone.
He said: “”I find this outrageous. The people of Warrington are entitled to know what is being discussed at the Town Hall.
“I will not sign any pledge to keep secrets from the people of Warrington. I am currently taking legal advice on whether officers have broken the law in trying to persuade me to do so. Even if I am a lone
voice I will keep fighting for the truth to come out. I will not keep secrets from people in Fairfield and Howley.”
Cllr Bennett, a former Labour councillor who quit the party and joined TUSC, the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition, said the current Labour leadership had promised an “open and transparent” council.
But they were now sayi8ng that sites being considered for the gypsy transit site would not be revealed for 12 months – after next May’s elections.
He considered this a disgrace. The list should be published so people could see which sites were being considered.
Council chiefs say the document contains commercially sensitive material and wider disclosure of the location of potential sites might have an adverse impact on the value of those sites, causing loss to land owners.

Sha on 5th November 2015 11:47 am 11:47 am

When has Warrington ever had an “open and transparent” council”?
The last LibCon council must have been about the worst. The best examples by them being the attempted sell off of Walton Hall and Gardens to a hotel company and the bragging by Bob Barr that the i’s had been dotted and the t’s had been crossed on the Town Centre Regeneration Project when they were in power – all long before the so called ‘Public Consultation’.
I was hoping that the present party in power would have proved to be better but Kevin has a point, openness and transparency do not seem high on their agenda either.
Recently plans for the Market area Regeneration were passed by the planning committee just after which a so called ‘public Consultation’ was held. What’s the point of consulting when the deals already been done?
Perhaps Kevin and any other Councillors with any respect for democracy could look into that incident?

With regard to the Gypsy transit site. The decision on where provision for this will be has been avoided for far too long. For absolutely years none of the political groups have wanted to make any decision as they were afraid of losing votes in elections, but this shilly shallying has led to planning permission being given for permanent Gypsy camps on sites that would never have got permission if the mandatory provision for transit sites had been in place.
The people of Warrington are not stupid, they know a site must be provided and as quickly as possible, so why not consult them openly on various alternatives? I think the Council would get better results if they behaved like civilised adults instead of sculling about the Town Hall like The Secret Seven.
As quoted above, “Council chiefs say the document contains commercially sensitive material and wider disclosure of the location of potential sites might have an adverse impact on the value of those sites, causing loss to land owners”.
1) Should they have even got to the point of discussing ‘commercially sensitive material’ without having first consulted with the Public?
2) Have they forgotten whose interests they are elected to represent? If they think there is the possibility that “wider disclosure of the location of potential sites might have an adverse impact on the value of those sites causing loss to land owners” Then they obviously realise that the same will apply to local residents. The Council are duty bound to represent the interests of the general public and not act purely for the benefit of a couple of land owners/ developers.

1 Comment

Sha on 5th November 2015 11:47 am 11:47 am

When has Warrington ever had an “open and transparent” council”?
The last LibCon council must have been about the worst. The best examples by them being the attempted sell off of Walton Hall and Gardens to a hotel company and the bragging by Bob Barr that the i’s had been dotted and the t’s had been crossed on the Town Centre Regeneration Project when they were in power – all long before the so called ‘Public Consultation’.
I was hoping that the present party in power would have proved to be better but Kevin has a point, openness and transparency do not seem high on their agenda either.
Recently plans for the Market area Regeneration were passed by the planning committee just after which a so called ‘public Consultation’ was held. What’s the point of consulting when the deals already been done?
Perhaps Kevin and any other Councillors with any respect for democracy could look into that incident?

With regard to the Gypsy transit site. The decision on where provision for this will be has been avoided for far too long. For absolutely years none of the political groups have wanted to make any decision as they were afraid of losing votes in elections, but this shilly shallying has led to planning permission being given for permanent Gypsy camps on sites that would never have got permission if the mandatory provision for transit sites had been in place.
The people of Warrington are not stupid, they know a site must be provided and as quickly as possible, so why not consult them openly on various alternatives? I think the Council would get better results if they behaved like civilised adults instead of sculling about the Town Hall like The Secret Seven.
As quoted above, “Council chiefs say the document contains commercially sensitive material and wider disclosure of the location of potential sites might have an adverse impact on the value of those sites, causing loss to land owners”.
1) Should they have even got to the point of discussing ‘commercially sensitive material’ without having first consulted with the Public?
2) Have they forgotten whose interests they are elected to represent? If they think there is the possibility that “wider disclosure of the location of potential sites might have an adverse impact on the value of those sites causing loss to land owners” Then they obviously realise that the same will apply to local residents. The Council are duty bound to represent the interests of the general public and not act purely for the benefit of a couple of land owners/ developers.