AN independent, external inquiry WILL be held into the issues which led to the Local Government Ombudsman finding Warrington Borough Council guilty of maladministration over the unlawful destruction of planning records.
This has been pledged by new Labour council leader Terry O’Neill, who told fellow councillors the Ombudsman’s findings were a “serious blow” to the authority’s reputation.
Cllr O’Neill said he had called for an open and authoritative inquiry into the affair immediately after the Ombudsman’s report.
He said: “This is the only way in which public confidence can be restored in the planning process in Warrington.
“I note that the council has already conducted an independent review through the internal auditor, the findings of which are due to be considered by the all-party Audit and Governance Committee.
“However, whilst I am satisfied with this review, I am also announcing that this administration will commission an independent external inquiry into this matter. I am inviting the Audit and Governance Committee to define the scope and terms of reference for this inquiry as part of their consideration of the internal audit report.”
Cllr O’Neill’s announcement was in line with a motion put forward by Liberal Democrat Cllr Bob Barr, calling for an external inquiry – but it did nothing to stop bickering between the two parties.
Cllr O’Neill said: “It is somewhat ironic that the previous administration has recently called for an external inquiry into 
this matter. They were aware of the Ombudsman’s investigation and had ample opportunity to do this whilst in office.
“It has taken the new Labour administration to finally commit to an independent and external inquiry into the matters raised by the Ombudsman.
“All the previous ‘ConDem’ administration could manage was to resort to making unfounded allegations against the previous Labour administration.
“However, it is now evident that the planning records were actually destroyed in July 2006. This was firmly under ‘their watch’ – indeed, Cllr Barr was the responsible portfolio holder throughout.”
The Liberal Democrats welcomed the external inquiry – but accused Labour of conceding the point rather than face their motion which would have called on them to set one up anyway.
Cllr Barr said: “Conceding a public inquiry prevented the motion put by the Liberal Democrat Group from being debated.”
After the meeting, Cllr Barr said the decision to destroy planning records was taken by three senior officers, without reference to the council’s monitoring officer, chief executive or any portfolio holders, to save on the cost of storage.
As a result the “rumour mills” and conspiracy theorists had run riot, with questions of whether records had been destroyed to cover up planning impropriety.
He said: “As it happens I believe the council has nothing to hide. The destruction of the records was an example of administrative incompetence by three officers all of whom left the council soon after for unrelated reasons.
“However the serious issue is the extent to which this act has brought the council into disrepute and placed it under suspicion.
“What is also bad is that I am regularly coming across planning cases, as I am sure other members are, which require access to the original records and cannot now be resolved fairly.
“By explaining what was done, the circumstances that led to the action and explaining in plain English why this will not happen in future the council may allay much of the public concern.
“The council should also allow an independent inquiry to ask further questions that we may not have considered internally. I believe that this is essential to clear the air.”
Cllr Barr said the affair had shown up a badly managed planning application and a lack of co-ordination between transport planners, development control officers and enforcement officers dating back at least to 1993.
Pictured: Cllr O’Neill and Cllr Barr.
External plans probe pledged
4040 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.
40 Comments
Bob Barr states; “The destruction of the records was an example of administrative incompetence by three officers all of whom left the council soon after …………” and he wonders why conspiracy theories abound!!!! Furthermore, if (as the reporting of this incident suggests) the officers who have left the council have not been questioned and so cannot have either confirmed or denied that they were responsible, on whose word are we to believe that they were actually responsible? How are we to be sure that this is not just another example of misleading information?
What planet is Barr on? Terry O’Neill called for an external enquiry months ago, but the Lib Dems didn’t call one. Given that this was his first Council meeting in charge, why didn’t Barr wait to see what would be announced? This looks nothing like conceding the motion, more like doing exactly what they said they would do!
According to the Council’s own report, nobody now in planning has a clear idea what happened, and they uncovered one email referring to the cost of storage and an undated note as part of another meeting. It also states that other records were destroyed after this intial purge, including unsurprisingly one of the renewals for Marton Close.
Of course, you’d have to be a conspiracy theorist to believe that there is something wrong with this whole picture.
I wonder how “independent” this enquiry will be. Will the three Officers who left the Council be questioned? Will the Chief Officer be questioned? Will the Chief Executive Officer be questioned? Do we know what measures have been put in place to prevent this happening again? It is going to take a lot to restore faith in the Planning Department and more generally in WBC. Well done to the new Labour Group for taking this action which I hope will be carried out without delay.
Your questions are correct and if the answer is NO and this body has no powers to summons a person for interview then I repeat my call that the only body that can truely carry out an indepentant and unbiased investigation is CHESHIRE POLICE. Monday at Full Council gave no confidence to the wider public and to stop debate on that evening adds fuel to the flames of a cover up.
Councillor Reynolds…. have you actually got off your backside and reported this “crime” to the Police yet???… you’ve been talking about it in the papers for ages and what’s point of having you as an elected representative if you are just about words??? ….As a Councillor you must have inside knowledge so why don’t you convince the Police to carry out the investigation… or are your protestations all a show but deep down you don’t want to land your mate Cllr Bob Barr in it as he was the councillor in charge at the time.
….maybe the Police do not have the resources to investigate this “crime” because of the 500 jobs being lost by Cheshire Constabulary as a result of the massive funding cuts imposed by the LibDem-Tory government.
Have you got a ‘phone? If you believe there to be a CRIMINAL ACT then do your civic duty and call them. If not, then stop making a song and dance about it! And in case you didn’t realise, I believe that the debate was at the Mayor’s discretion – he stopped it and he’s on your side politically!
It is outrageous to expect us to believe an experienced, qualified planner did not appreciate the seriousness of destroying statutory records. Now we are being told his successor an equally experienced, qualified and well paid planning professional, was around when the records were being binned, and was much troubled by the process. But not sufficiently enough so it seems to report such a serious to higher management or register it with the person responsible for the oversight and maintenance of those records, namely the Monitoring Officer.
The first planner should have been formally reported by the Council, to his professional body (RTPI), to have him struck off. Not quietly paid off and shooed out of the door as seems to have been the case. That he was not reported requires a proper explanation. The present planning manager, by his own lamentable admission displayed the same disregard for the high ethical standards of his professional body as his predecessor. He too should be formally reported by the Council to the RTPI, with the same objective in mind. I shall certainly be informing the RTPI of this situation.
Equally troubling for the people of Warrington is the part played by the Monitoring Officer when firstly the records were being destroyed and secondly during the period of the extraordinary cover up, that is from 2006 to 2010 when the LGO’s investigation forced the admission of it from council officers. The MO certainly has some very serious questions to answer. Whether these should result in a report to the appropriate professional body may hinge on the answers given.
Cllr Reynolds… don’t listen to Swede, he’s only trying to wind you up… you don’t need to phone the Police… you can just email them from one of the 24 mega expensive iPads the LibDems bought when they were running the Town Hall.
don't forget the top planning QC they hired, was engaged to see if the Council could stick by its decisions and challenge what the Ombudsman had found. It was desperate attempt by he council, not to do anything about the Culcheth case. It back fired on them and the QC Paul Tucker states that the access from Marton Close is unlawful and must be closed. Also the private drive access is unlawful ,as it had not been widened as per the condition precedent set out in the plannig permission. That private drive is also a public footpath used frequently and a lot of the time by school kids, as a short cut to and from school. As it stands its a accident waiting happen. The QC did, however, state that the Council should be aware that the property developer, xxxxxxx, could make a plea that his human rights could be impacted if they prevented him from living in the house, the condition is clear, 'the drive must be widened before first occupancy' however the QC would not have been aware, because the Council never told him! that the developer is a commercial property developers and own a £750,000.00 house within walking distance of the new house they built, which is currently rented out. Also they own an estimated 15 large residential properties in Culcheth and the surrounding area, these are rented via one of their companies, the nature of business is '7020 Letting Of Own Property'. So no human rights issues there then, no homeless xxxxxxxxx family? This is not the picutre painted by the plea to the council letter, signed by ''the xxxxxxx family'' that is part of the agenda bundle for tomorrow night development control meeting. The xxxxxxxx family are keen to state they don't like being described as property developers! I think the game is up on that front!!
Seeing as my original post was deleted – it may be cheaper than dealing with the fallout from a failed planning department.
Is that OK? 🙂 Didn’t go into any of the detail that can be found on the Council’s own site anyway.
Good grief sounds like a huge minefield. At least in this latest statement Cllr Barr has confirmed that THREE senior officers were infact involved in the destruction of the planning records in July 2006 (who then ALL allegidely left soon after for unrelated reasons) . rather than the ONE who was previously getting all the blame (and who had also left). So one… to three… and if they keep searching they may even find a few more eh 🙂 No wonder there are so many conspiracy theorists about and as for the “rumour mill'” well good job that’s active Cllr Barr or no-one would be any the wiser about what it’s all about. All these investigations could prove costly though so it would be far better if the past or present person/people involved just spoke up, owned up, pointed the finger in the right direction and/or explained etc. Maybe some of the people still working there know more about it or other oddities and could anonymously speak out too… it would save a lot of time, breath and effort. As it is it certainly keeps the local press active though and more and more people are questioning it all and taking an interest now eh.
i had my comments removed twice as I dared to mention the developers name. I am begining to see why now. This is probably why this garbage has never been publicly corrected
http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/6957/1/House-took-17-years-to-build/Page1.html
The residents affected at the time alerted the editor to the true facts ,however they never made print. I agree with grey_man all of the facts including the names of the families who have had a hell of a time bringing their complaint to the council. Also the developer who cannot be named on here!! This is democracy, the planning meeting is a public record. I suspect the developer who can’t be named on here is wearing his cell phone out, hectoring the Warrington World Wide Team!
Its too late, the truths out!!!
should read
The residents affected at the time alerted the editor to the true facts ,however they never made print. I agree with grey_man all of the facts including the names of the families who have had a hell of a time bringing their complaint to the council. Also the developer who cannot be named on here are on the planning agenda.
This is democracy, the planning meeting is a public record. I suspect the developer who can’t be named on here, is wearing his cell phone out, hectoring the Warrington World Wide Team!
Its too late, the truths out!!!
Anybody who cares can easily find all of the information on the Borough Council website. They may also care to keep an eye out for various news stories on here and the other paper about events at Marton Close, Culcheth. A long series of entirely unrelated criminal incidents that may or may not have happened there to two of the three houses on that very small road. No names. No pack drill.
Cllr O’Neill seems to be too keen to palm off the records debacle on the LibDem / Conservative administration which took control in May 2006. Yes, the destruction of records took place on our watch. However none of the officers involved saw fit to inform any portfolio holder, or senior management about what they were doing. Professionally they should have been aware that what they were doing was wrong. Less senior staff were concerned, but didn’t blow the whistle on their bosses.
As it happens I was not the portfolio holder as Cllr O’Neill states, I did not take responsibility until May 2007. However there is little a Member can do when an act such as this is carried out secretly. He goes on to state that we could have instigated an inquiry before the May elections. No, we couldn’t prejudge the Ombudsman’s report which didn’t arrive until mid April, less than three weeks before the election. We raised the issue than but Cllr O’Neill dismissed our concern as a ‘stunt’. Well he needs to start to accept responsibility for records destroyed by officers appointed under his watch, that he trusted, covering matters dealt with under a Labour administration. The more smoke he puts out the more suspicious people will be,.
Seriously Cllr Barr… you’re washing your hands of this affair by claiming portfolio holders weren’t told…why didn’t you take your head out of the sand and do the job for which you were claiming all those thousands of pounds worth of “allowances”. How can you now blame Cllr O’Neil…IT DIDN’T HAPPEN ON HIS WATCH… it happened on YOURS!!! Are you the one who is stopping Cllr Reynolds from reporting this “crime” to the police? Why don’t you do the honourable thing and just resign… after all, ignorance is no excuse in law…. and you knew full well what was happening because usually the Ombudsman tells the Council they are investigating something…why didn’t you instigate a parallel independent investigation? Why did your LIBDEM colleagues commission a jolly expensive QC barrister to defend yourselves? WHY WHY WHY WHY???
I could have sworn Bob has been claiming that it was all just a big mistake. Now that the facts are out, he starts trying to make a big deal out of the fact that the men supposedly responsible were appointed under a Labour regime. Then again, it was his Council that appointed John Groves to the role he occupied as the whole thing spiralled out of control, the man who spent four years on the Culcheth case offering recommendations on the basis of information he knew had been destroyed and has been outed by the LGO report as misleading his bosses. Frankly, the council appears completely dysfunctional on all sides.
Cllr Barr….Is it not some what irrelevant as to who’s watch this all happened under as there are councillor’s from all parties both within and running the councils departments regardless of who is in main charge as has always been the case. It beggers belief how, for almost 5 years, not one person (councillor, portfolio holder, planner, worker, case officer, any other officer, heads of planning or any other heads. cleaners or ANYONE (incase I missed anyone out) ever noticed that many many years worth of the planning records had been all been unlawfully destroyed. The excuse given was cost cutting on storage… did no-one ever think to question where the documents had all been moved to? Also in all the years past to present did not one person within the council ever question whether microfiche or safe copies of all planning documents were stored elsewhere? Contingency plans should have been in place anyway for events such as fire, flood etc especially as the council had been pulled up on its management of record keeping and the like many times by the ombudsman or whoever it was and also there is a duty to keep all records. You also say the destruction of the records was “done with secrecy”…. WHY do you say that and why was it done in secrecy…. The very word you use simply leads itself to more questions, conclusions and theories.
You yourself also now point the finger (yet again) back at Labour and no doubt they too will point it back again… But my reply is to you as YOU as you now state that the records were destroyed by officers appointed under Labour’s watch who they trusted… but why do you forget to mention that some of these are the very same officers that your party continued to use and which you also took and still take advice from too… I presume as such that you also trust/trusted them too otherwise they would not have retained their position. The Ombudsams report states that Mr Groves (current head of planning and officer both under Labours and Libs control days) is quoted as stating that he knew the records were being destroyed but as a less senior staff? felt he could say nothing (or blow the whistle as you put it). WHY ? Although he is made to appear to be lower down in the planning food chain at the time he was actually quite high and took on a lot of major planning applications pre/post-2006 including some which raised a lot of public concern and were very detailed. He seemed very knowleagable about planning regulations and law and as such advised/corrected many accordingly including the various committees and yet it is accepted that he felt he could not mention the unlawful destruction of the planning records as it was happening. Maybe he couldn’t for whatever reason although that doesn’t really wash with many but WHY did he also never think to draw it to anyone’s attention later or as he progressed further up his career path to the position he is at now ?
In the actual NEWS report you also state that “”What is also bad is that I am regularly coming across planning cases, as I am sure other members are, which require access to the original records and cannot now be resolved fairly.” So Cllr Barr as you took over the portfolio position in May 2007 and it is now June 2011 (a period of 4 years) HOW COME YOU HAVE NEVER in all of those 4 years ‘regularly’ required access to planning records which are no longer available but you are now? Maybe you are just looking for them because you now know they don’t exist or maybe you looked before but never thought to question the fact earlier either.
Anyway if it hadn’t been for the Marston Close residents querying a planning application and then going to the ombudsman and the report showing serious maladministration on the councils part then how long would it have been until someone actually noticed (or more like mentioned) the fact that all the records had been destroyed and would the councils past and present ‘not so loyal public’ have ever have been told ???
Anyway thanks Cllr Barr as you are certainly fuelling the conspiracy theorists with all your comments and there’s certainly no need to read between the lines of your comments eh….10/10 for that
Next round a Labour news statement no doubt 🙂 round and round in circles on the playground !!
I doubt it Dewberry…. only my own view BUT as the developer has not actually been accused of doing anything illegal or untowards other than to apply for various planning permissions and allegidely to have not followed certain conditions and certain other ‘matters’… then to name him/her/them and comment on certain areas in a public domain could be classed as lible ‘if’ it is not provable to be true… and as such the owner of any online website/forum/paper etc etc would be held responsible and liable should a case be made. Same for naming third parties and families involved… their permission may be needed to allow their names in print. on a news comments/forum page. As it currenly stands the council is in the hot seat as they are the ones who have some very serious questions to answer over their failings with this planning application and also the destruction of many years worth planning records. To name the developer in the ombudsams report and subsequent council reports would not be libelous due to the content and also investigation. Maybe after tomorrows meeting things will change though and names can be freely reported or mentioned 😉 Anyway like I said… just my view as I din’t actually see what you put that was deleted but a very possible explanation.
Further to the article that you have highlighted Dewberry, I noted the following comment within it: “The obvious route for the Marton Close residents was to pursue the matter with the Local Government Ombudsman. The council had pointed this out to them but no such action had been taken”. I’m just wondering if the council now regret giving that advice, which was taken up, given the outcome, or that actually it is evidence that the council felt that they had nothing to hide. Must admit 17 years to build a house does seem a long time.
And the storm is still not at its peak. Yet to come – the decision on enforcement action for the house at the centre of the core dispute later this week. What's the betting they'll foul that up too?
I bet they daren’t after everthing that’ out in the open now and what may lay instore for them 😉
An extract from a recent posting, slightly modified, from the WG matches your concerns grey_man
“The two residents in Marton Close are now being asked by the council to accept an outrageously artificial situation, which they would never have had to face if the council had been open honest and transparent (see resident’s letter) as we were led to believe before the LGO called them into question. The developer’s nominated access was a never physically viable.. So he used an unathorized access (see QC’s view on line) to build a bigger house than the one originally approved (see LGO’s report). Council officers allowed him to carry off these various sleights of hand by failing to enforce the original application, several conditions precedent, approving the developer’s obviously distorted drawings, withholding other drawings from the residents for four years until after the LGO had started, writing meaningless letters of assurance to them and then scornfully fobbing them off. Now the council wants them to go through a process in which the developer is being granted all rights they were denied (see residents’ letter) so the council can say the process is open an transparent process. It’s a bit like the recent internal auditor’s report – “yes we done wrong, but we’ve put everything right now so let’s start from here.”
there is more to follow, the tip of the iceberg has only just been sighted, there are many more FOI internal memo icebergs just below the waterline, believe me, the Marton Close outrage had better had be dealt with, in an open and transparent way, with natural justice prevailing… there are too many skeletons rattling in closets…
For anybody who has only just joined us, the story so far: In essence, when the developer who owns the disputed house on Twiss Green Lane couldn’t access the site to make a house that was twice the size of the originally approved one, he bought a neighbouring bungalow in the street that backed on – Marton Close – and literally bulldozered his way through, again against planning approval but with the ongoing and in no way questionable consent of the planning department who had managed to destroy the records of the plans at around the time the bulldozers rolled up. There’s a lot more to it than that, what with planners misleading their own bosses, amended drawings, unlawful planning procedures and the coincidental crime wave that met with the developer’s nighbours, but that’s the gist.
I understand that in trying to create his own street under the unwatchful gaze of head of planning John Groves, he broke the law and the council will decide this week what to do about it. Normal people would asume they have no choice, but this is Warrington Borough Council. Normal behaviour doesn’t apply.
Councillors are good at pointing at each other though.
It gets worse, there is a telephone memo in the planning file that reads,
”Mr xxxxx (the property developer who cannot be named on this site) called, stressed that he wanted to renew his full consent for planning permission. Seemed aggrieved that letters of notification had been sent out to neighbours, he wished avoid this”
Question? Who the hell does xxxxxxx(the property developer, who cannot be named on this site) think he his? It is clear from the way he treated the Town & Country Planning Act. Which is the Law! & those poor neighbours, who dared to complain about the obvious irregularities, from what was approved, that he feels he can do what the hell he likes, when he likes, and up to the now the Council have done absolutely nothing to curb this wilfull contempt for the laws of the land. Don’t think I need to say anymore? the memo is there, as public record for all to see, unless of course it gets MISPLACED / LOST!!!.”
While I understand that this story has aroused very strong feelings, it should be pointed out that the facility to comment on stories on this site is not intended for people with personal axes to grind to air their grievances under the cloak of anonymity. The comments which have been deleted contained allegations which, in the opinion of the editorial team, were actionable. At no time has anyone contacted us and asked for anything to be deleted.
A better place to carry on a debate of this length would be on our Readers Forum, although the same rules would apply and comments which stray into legally doubtful areas would be deleted or edited
Agreed grey_man there is an awful lot more to this sad saga than firsts meets the eye. Officers of the Council at all levels seem to be fire fighting to conceal what has been and is still going on. Read the report from the internal auditor. This shows that seven senior or relevant officers (Dev. Svs. Mgr; Intergrated Svcs. Mgr (Planning); Snr Dev Svcs Technician; Dev. Services Technician; Performance & Business Mgr Envir & Regen.; Legal Services Mgr – no mention of the Monitoring Officer) were questioned about the decision to destroy the records. Between them they could produce no formal (or rough) notes, minutes or similar of the decision to destroy the records, even though they admitted it might have been discussed at a meeting of the Directorate Management Team, about which there was an email. And attached to that email was a copy of the Council’s own guidelines on the retention of records, which clearly showed that statutory records should NOT be destroyed.
There was apparently an unsigned and undated (really professional and business like eh?) note of a meeting of the Development Control section, which confirmed “destruction of files in the basement was progressing well” under the authority of the Director and Assistant Director. We have to assume they had not read the Council’s guidelines on the retention of documents or they decided they did not apply to their own covert activities. Doesn’t fill you with reassurance about high ethical, business and professional standards does it. And this is the lot that all those Ipads were purchased for to make them more efficient. No wonder some one said when Labour queried the economic benefit of that purchase…”ask the officers if they don’t think they are useful”.
Dizzy is clearly very interested in this matter and will no doubt be pleased that he will have the opportunity to put his concerns to the Public Enquiry. What he, and several other correspondents, don’t seem to know is that Portfolio Holders are responsible for Policy not Operations. In fact they are specifically forbidden from attempting to influence operational matters so that they cannot be accused of attempting to influence individual cases. That is why a Portfolio Holder would not be aware that documents were missing. What is open to question is what Officers should tell Members and what Members should ask Officers. I was not aware, never told, and never had any reason to ask about missing documents until the Ombudsman’s representative raised the matter with me. Terry O’Neill suggests that an enquiry should have been called immediately at that stage. It was my view that the matter was effectively ‘sub-judice’ until the Ombudsman’s report. As soon as that report was delivered I called for an enquiry. I am pleased that the new administration has agreed and that a public enquiry will be held.
…which you’ve already announced the results of to Planning magazine.
Makes you wonder why it’s happening.
This is how you reported the objectives and results of the independent inquiry six months in advance:
“Liberal Democrat councillor and opposition spokesman for planning and regeneration Bob Barr will make the call at a council meeting on Monday.
An administrative blunder at the authority saw all planning records dating back to 1996 destroyed when planning chiefs were faced with rising storage costs.
A report from the Local Government Ombudsman described the act as an “inexcusable” act of maladministration.
Barr told Planning that the revelations have prompted unfounded accusations of further malpractice. “The moment you start talking about the destruction of planning records every conspiracy theorist in the town jumps up and asks what is being hidden,” he said.
An independent review was needed to satisfy the public’s concerns, he said. “So far the council has investigated the issue by itself and is presenting a fairly formal and somewhat technical report to councillors.”
He said: “That’s not going to satisfy the public. My view is that the matter needs to be dealt with by having an independent inquiry.”
Cllr Barr,,, thank you for your reply although you have not actually answered some of the questions I asked but not to worry. Yes ‘Dizzy’ is somewhat interested in the matter now just as many more are now becoming too. So how has that sudden interest arose you might ask. Well Cllr Barr it is because everytime I read the local news there is something on/in it about the Ombudsmans findings, the destruction of the planning records, the constant bickering and point scoring and finger pointing from both the past and present administration and/or it’s councillors and of course many many comments from both YOU and OTHERS that are added to each report. So I do appologise for now being interested, not really as its something local and something serious and something that clearly needs looking into more thoroughly than just a quick internal report that has already been circulated. I am also aware of the postition and responsibility of the ‘Portfolio Holders’. I had not pointed the finger of blame at you in that role I had simply asked ‘why’ neither you or any other person had never actually noticed over the past 5 years. You do however say that one of the Portfilio Holders responsibility is one of ‘Policy’…. well Cllr Barr surely ‘Policy’ does actually dictate that copies of all planning applications and documentation must be kept on record. So in short and again, I was not pointing the finger of blame at you personally… I was merely stating the blindingly obvious that is plain to see by anyone with half a brain cell and replying to some rather confusing comments and points that you yourself had made in your various statements,… which you have now chosen not to reply too. So nothing personal, nothing sinister, nothing other than taking a general interest in local matters and of course being open eyed and un-biased politically. By the way it’s ‘she’ not ‘he’. Have a good evening Cllr Barr and like I saif.. nothing personal 😉 If this reply is repetative then I do appologise but maybe I’m catching ot from reading to many council statements and press releases ha ha
Have you people not got anything better to do? Or is bickering a hobby?
I think you may have missed the point of a comments section. And possibly the Internet. 🙂
I don’t think he’s missed the point grey-man. Who’d read through 36 comments on a subject they were’nt interested in? I think perhaps the ‘point’ is proving somewhat too sharp for some people!!!
Yes and a little too hot for some of those in the council to handle. Maybe he’s a council officer who wants things to be forgotten before they come to light?
But it’s obvious that it’s not going to be forgotten! It might have drifted off WWW’s front news-page but the story is still active on the forum and it’s even spreading all over the internet! I doubt it will ever be forgotten, it will remain ‘hot’ news at least until it’s been fully investigated! Not sure an investigation “the scope and terms of reference” of which will be defined by the council’s own Audit and Governance Committee will satisfy the public though!
Provided none of the council officers and I do mean ANY council officers, including the Monitoring Officer and his colleagues in the legal department, have any input into the wording and scope of the terms of reference for the inquiry, we may start to get to the bottom of this tangled mess.