General Discussion
Dawlish Council/Councillors-Does this look familiar?
BOB HAYES
Newquay
FINDING that Newquay Town Council planning committee had recently, and not for the first time, made approving comments on a planning application without first giving full consideration to the proposals or finding out the views of local people, many of whom had sent detailed objections to Restormel Council, I decided to go along to the full council meeting on June 4 to see if anything could be done to rectify this problem for the future.
During public question time I pointed out that information about the meetings and subject matter of the town council planning committee was not readily available, and that while Restormel wrote to interested parties for their views, the town council, which should be there to represent those views, appeared to make no similar efforts.
I fully expected to hear that the town council would look into methods of improving public participation in future.
Imagine my surprise when I was told by the mayor that it would be illegal for councillors to canvass the views of the public at all on such matters.
It seems therefore, that given the absurd interpretation given to the rules on personal interests, that the only people who are allowed to participate in decision-making are those who are totally ignorant of the subject under discussion.
When I recovered from this shock, I asked whether in the light of the fact that their decisions were at best ineffectual, and at worst contrary to the will of their electorate, councillors had considered that they might better serve the people of Newquay by standing down rather than serve an inadequate and corrupt system of government.
Choosing to interpret my words as an attack on the integrity of councillors, which they were not, rather than the system, which they were – presumably because this was an easier position to take – the mayor became quite hot under the collar and said that our councillors were all very hard working, and had to do things by the book.
What a pity that book appears to be Alice in Wonderland!
In an earlier exchange, Councillor Thompson offered one of the other councillors an advertisement for a free deaf-aid, as he seemed to have a proclivity for hearing what he wanted to hear rather than what was said.
From my experience at this particular meeting, it seems to me that they have plugged their ears quite deliberately!
looks like other Councils have been taking tips from Dawlish Town Council on how to ignore the people they SERVE
oh look......the reaction that you get from Dawlish Town Council. Are you watching your decline birdsey????!
I don't know about his sleep pattern, but he needs to be put to sleep permenantly.
Those that visit this site and defend such actions need to be ostracised.
It is not just Councillors, it is the system (network) of bent people working in all sorts of ways to corrupt, help corrupt and then cover up the corruption that is prevalent.
You can do something about it, why ignore it at your peril?
Here is another example of the corruption that is rife in Local Government.
East Devon District Council and the Local Government Ombudsman
Whistle Blowers Wanted
Driven by professional curiosity as a management system specialist, I pursued our complaint, about a development approval by the East Devon DC, to test the value of the LGO as a force for improvement of local government, rather than seeking compensation. Our experience reflected exactly the numerous similar stories that appear repeatedly on websites such as this one.
After a thorough examination of the planning procedures and case files, we spoon-fed the LGO investigator with irrefutable, documented and date-referenced, evidence of:
1. Approval of drawings that were out of scale and had been tampered with.
2. Highly significant omissions from the Planning Application Public Notices.
3. Objection letters from neighbours that had been "Lost".
4. Correspondence between Developer and the Case Officer that was outside the Council’s security stamping process.
5. Back-dating of a planning decision into a previous Planning Approval.
6. Failure to consult other relevant Council departments, despite an internal department requirement to do so.
7. Non-reporting to the Planning Committee of large dimensional changes in the building, despite an internal Code of Practice that requires all relevant changes to be reported.
8. Major inconsistencies with recent planning department decisions on similar developments at the same site.
9. Use of an illegitimate method to confirm a key measurement of building height.
10. Failure to inform us of major changes to the plans, despite an internal departmental requirement to do so.
11. Withholding of information on planning procedures from us and untruthful written responses to our complaints.
With the exception of Item 1, none of these suspicious actions were deemed by the LGO to be maladministration.
What message does this send to dysfunctional and dishonest local government departments?
What job satisfaction can the LGO’s 200+ apparatchiks find in working for such an organization?
Surely, there must be some amongst them with enough moral fibre to blow the whistle on this disgusting old boys’ club of ex-council officers at the very heart of our system of justice.
Dr. Tony Ashton (Principal Auditor, The Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment)