Formal complaint over Six56 planning application still under review

THE formal complaint made against Warrington Borough Council’s decision to approve the controversial Six56 logistics development on Green Belt land at Appleton Thorn is still under review.

The council is continuing to review numerous detailed matters regarding the formal complaint which has been made on procedural grounds, by Richard Buttrey and Jackie Leotardi, two members of the Stop the Warrington Council Debt Group, following the Development Management Committee meeting on 10th March which voted by a “tight margin” of 7 votes to 5 for the Six56 development to go ahead.

The complaint includes the substitution on the night of three Labour committee members by three other Labour councillors.

Raising concerns over the delay in a response to the complaint Mr Buttery said: “Seven weeks ago complaints were made about the legality of the 10th March Development Management Committee (DMC) meeting that granted the 6/56 application. The complaints are NOT about the substance of the application, they were about the Committee meeting not being in accord with the WBC’s own Constitution and DMC rules. A decision about the complaints is now well overdue.

He said: “The complaints rest on three simple grounds.

1. The rules require all DMC members to have had specialist training in order to sit on the committee. Neither Cllrs. Hill nor Carr, two substitutes at the meeting had received the relevant training. They should not have been allowed to attend and vote.
2. Three regular DMC members were absent and three substitutes, Cllrs. Bowden, Hill and Carr took their place. Contrary to the procedural rules not one of the absentees had initiated their own substitution notices, and the three substitutes should not have been allowed to attend.
Furthermore the substitution notice for Cllr Bowden was sent only four hours before the meeting by another councillor’s wife, seemingly 6000 miles away on holiday. It is completely unacceptable that the wife of a councillor should have any part in the process. Why that was felt acceptable by those officers organising the meeting is beyond understanding and requires its own investigation. Clearly the failures of governance inside the council identified by the auditors elsewhere are still happening,
3. Cllr Bowden was a late substitute and would have struggled to read all 161 pages of the meeting document pack in four hours. He has been a Director on the board of Wire Regeneration Ltd for eight years alongside John Downes, the owner of Langtree, a 6/56 applicant. Langtree are embedded in much that WBC undertake and it beggars belief that Cllr, Bowden has not built up a networking relationship with Mr Downes. He airily dismissed any concern that he might have a prejudicial interest.

“However, the crucial point is not whether Cllr. Bowden was or wasn’t prejudiced. The DMC rules are clear and say the test for whether something is a prejudicial interest is “whether it would be reasonable for a member of the public with knowledge of all the relevant facts to consider that the nature of the member’s interest was likely to affect their judgement of the public interest – i.e. affect or influence their voting intentions”.
“That is a low bar and many do have a reasonable belief that Cllr Bowden’s long association with Langtree was likely to have affected his decision. Apart from the fact that Cllr. Bowden’s substitution notice was invalid he should have declared that interest and not voted.

“For all the reasons above it’s clear that the meeting was ultra-vires and it will be a travesty if this decision is allowed to stand,” added Mr Buttrey.

A Warrington Borough Council spokesperson said: “We continue to review numerous detailed matters related to the complaint. We will respond to the complainant as soon as possible.”

Council investigating formal complaint over Six56 planning approval