Broads Authority Posts

[Vaughan]

As you say, not that it matters now, but I repeat for the Nth time that Roger DID apply for planning permission, which was in accordance with the high court judgement but the BA kept batting it back. They kept deliberately refusing to accept it by need of flooding surveys, reports on trees, and all the rest of it. In the end the application was prepared by a planning consultant who is himself a retired planning inspector, and it was so concisely worded that the BA were forced to accept it.

I might add that the normal fee laid down by the profession for the submission of an application would have been £84, but the BA managed to calculate it at £1100, which Roger was forced to pay.

The application then got sat on by the BA as well as Thorpe Council, who just kept referring it to the next meeting all the time.

A disgusting example of deliberate obfuscation which resulted, surprise surprise, in the land having to be sold without planning permission.

We have discussed this before Marshman, but please, for what it is worth, could you believe me now, rather than continuing to try to suggest that Roger had his head in the sand?

[JennyMorgan]

In fairness to Marsh I do think that Roger left it rather late in the day before finally submitting an application. Anyway, that said, if Roger can be bothered at this point in his life, I firmly believe that he has a very strong case to put before the Ombudsman.

[JennyMorgan]

2 hours ago, Vaughan said:

Members may like to know that episode 4 of James Knight's report is now available on thebroadsblog.

Also worth reading his home page, and I quote this from it :

And I'll be revealing the name of the senior member who told me that blighting Roger Wood's land was a perfectly legitimate commercial aim for the BA, so that "somebody more suitable can buy the marina and turn it into a little gold mine".

 

Wow and wow again! That could really be the urrhem hitting the fan!

[Vaughan]

27 minutes ago, JennyMorgan said:

n fairness to Marsh I do think that Roger left it rather late in the day before finally submitting an application. Anyway, that said, if Roger can be bothered at this point in his life, I firmly believe that he has a very strong case to put before the Ombudsman.

Thank you for that Peter, but Roger did not delay. He put in an application not long after the final court case. The BA then took that long to keep on blocking it.

One of the planning professionals that I mentioned, has described this in a letter as the worst case of planning malpractice that he has seen in his whole career.

The BA kept announcing in the press that "Mr Wood has not submitted an application" while they kept refusing to accept his application!

[Poppy]

1 hour ago, JennyMorgan said:

Re the startling revelations, I don't for one moment see these undoing the present appeals or consents. If they come to anything it will lead to an inquiry, and they can go on for years.  Hopefully an early retirement will result but not so hopefully some serious compensation claims that will probably impact on the navigation spend.

 

Surely JM any such expenditure should, in this case come from the Planning budget !

[MauriceMynah]

A question on the law and how it relates to this situation...

If someone, say James Knight, proves that the BA blocked the planning permission, would the courts then re-think their decision on whether to pass said application. If they do so, would not the new owners benefit greatly from such a change of mind?

If it can be shown that because of previous underhanded behaviour, a re-application would be passed, would it be wrong of the new owners to re-apply as advised?

For "justice" to prevail, the new owners need prove nothing, it would be for those bringing  a corruption charge against the new owners to prove their complicity in the corruption or insider dealing.

Mr Woods has it seems been ill advised throughout this affair (that is to say he seemed to be acting on very poor advice) a fault that will end up costing him dearly. For other people to profit from his shortcomings may well be immoral but not necessarily illegal... surely?

 

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, Poppy said:

Surely JM any such expenditure should, in this case come from the Planning budget !

It should, but will it? He is the master of tenuous links when it comes to apportioning costs to the Nav Acoount! 

[Vaughan]

1 hour ago, MauriceMynah said:

For other people to profit from his shortcomings may well be immoral but not necessarily illegal... surely?

Unless it can be proved that the price of the property was deliberately driven down by what James calls "blighting" of the land. In other words, deliberate blocking of planning permission by an un-elected planning authority, so that a preferred purchaser can put in a low offer.

I was informed that when Roger decided to sell his land, he had an offer from the 2 objectors. He also had a second offer which was a bit lower, but he chose to accept it, so as not to have to sell his land to the objectors.  Roger, having no lien or financial security imposed on his land, could sell it to whom he wished, and at what price he chose. I am also informed that when this news reached the BA, certain people were livid with fury!

As it happened the lower offer eventually fell through and so Roger chose to sell to the objectors.

I am not able to prove my suspicions of complicity, preference, privileged information, altered interpretation of planning law, deliberate delay, etc., etc., but it remains to be seen whether James can.

 

[JennyMorgan]

8 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Unless it can be proved that the price of the property was deliberately driven down by what James calls "blighting" of the land. In other words, deliberate blocking of planning permission by an un-elected planning authority, so that a preferred purchaser can put in a low offer.

I was informed that when Roger decided to sell his land, he had an offer from the 2 objectors. He also had a second offer which was a bit lower, but he chose to accept it, so as not to have to sell his land to the objectors.  Roger, having no lien or financial security imposed on his land, could sell it to whom he wished, and at what price he chose. I am also informed that when this news reached the BA, certain people were livid with fury!

As it happened the lower offer eventually fell through and so Roger chose to sell to the objectors.

I am not able to prove my suspicions of complicity, preference, privileged information, altered interpretation of planning law, deliberate delay, etc., etc., but it remains to be seen whether James can.

 

It' so very easy to jump to conclusions, and be wrong, but in this case there are a great many pointers, and not just on this forum, all suggesting pretty much the same conclusion, wrong that it might be, or even might not be. The odds are hardly even but I know where I would place my money!

[JennyMorgan]

10 minutes ago, Vaughan said:

Unless it can be proved that the price of the property was deliberately driven down by what James calls "blighting" of the land. In other words, deliberate blocking of planning permission by an un-elected planning authority, so that a preferred purchaser can put in a low offer.

 

Rather than preferred I would have written 'suitable purchaser, one that fits in with JP's 'vision'.

[MauriceMynah]

Without bias on the actual matter I have to make myself unpopular with two members I respect. Firstly Vaughan.

Sorry but the paragraph that Peter has quoted makes little sense. If you include the words "It will be illegal if" and remove the first word "unless", then it makes a little sense until you specify that the blockers were "unelected" or are you saying that had they been elected, such a tactic would be legal? In any event I'm not sure you are right. Immoral yes, but illegal?

and now Peter,

2 hours ago, JennyMorgan said:

Rather than preferred I would have written 'suitable purchaser, one that fits in with JP's 'vision'.

Would you? I would have thought that "preferred" was more damning. I see no problem with any "suitable" purchaser.

[Vaughan]

51 minutes ago, MauriceMynah said:

or are you saying that had they been elected, such a tactic would be legal? In any event I'm not sure you are right. Immoral yes, but illegal?

As usual MM, I see where you are coming from but Lana Hempsall, in her comment that I posted on here, has made the point that an elected officer (which she is) would pay for such malpractice at the ballot box when they next came up for election. So who controls the unelected officers of this quango if they fail to act in a proper manner?

Immoral or illegal? Again, I take your point. It certainly smells of malpractice within the regulations of planning law which, if proven, could result in a serious case of damages against the authority and that, presumably, would have to result in resignations as appropriate.

There is a big difference in law between a "crime" and an "offence" so I doubt if we are going that far, at least at this stage!

If, however, it can now be proven that there was indeed what I call "a nasty smell in the woodshed" then the weight of public opinion must be brought to bear, to ensure that these officers were indeed acting responsibly, without regard to "preferred" interests.

 

[Vaughan]

I know it's water under the bridge now (or maybe it isn't) but as a matter of interest I have looked up the "legal battle" thread to find the date when I posted that Roger's planning application, after the high court hearing, had been submitted.

It was the 24th of April 2016.

By that time the application had gone in, and had already bounced back for the first time.

And the BA seem to have been deliberately blocking and sitting on it ever since.

[Timbo]

Helping the kids with 'Citizenship' homework last night...

What are the NOLAN PRINCIPLES?

The seven principles of public life, government guidance published on the 31st May 1995 by the Committee on Standard in Public Life. The basis of the ethical standards expected of public office holders.

One of the documents given as background reading was published by a council for use by it's planning committee. So OK we are talking about a 'democratically elected' body but the Nolan Principles apply to everyone in government. Everyone in government signs an agreement that they will be governed by Nolan.

 

Consideration of the Nolan Principles:

 

Everyone involved in planning decisions, applicants, objectors, Officers,elected Members and the general public has the right to feel completely confident that our policies are appropriate, our system is open and effective and most importantly our judgements are honest and fair.

 

People who hold official positions in the public sector must be honest and behave in an appropriate way. All elected councillors sign up to a code of conduct. This code says that among other things, everything must be clear and open and must be seen to be clear and open.

 

Parliament has approved 10 Principles of Public Life that our Members must follow.
 

Selflessness: Members should always make decisions in the interests of the public and never to benefit themselves; their colleagues; their family or their friends
 

Honesty and Integrity: Members should not put themselves in situations where someone could question their honesty and integrity, and they must not behave in an inappropriate way.
 

Objectivity: Members should make balanced decisions including when they arrange meetings, award contracts or recommend people for rewards or benefits.

 

Accountability: Members should answer to the public for their actions and how they carry out their responsibilities. They must co-operate fully and honestly when their role is examined.
 

Openness: Members must be as open as possible about their actions and decisions, and about our actions and decisions. They should give reasons for their decisions and restrict information only when it is in the public interest to do so.

 

Duty to uphold the law: Members should uphold the law and always act according to the trust the public has the right to place in them.

 

Stewardship: Members should do whatever they can to make sure their authority uses its resources carefully and in line with the law.
 

Leadership: Members should lead in a way that promotes and supports these principles and sets a good example. They must make the public feel confident in them.

 

Predetermination and Predisposition: Members need to avoid any appearance of bias or having predetermined their views before taking a decision on a planning application. Avoidance of bias or predetermination is a principle of natural justice which the courts expect a decision maker to follow.

 

Nevertheless, Councillors will often form an initial impression or view. The Courts draw a distinction between a Member of the planning committee having clearly:

 

• Expressed an intention before a meeting to vote in a particular way (predetermination)

 

• And, a Member having expressed an initial view but making it clear that he or she is willing to listen to all material considerations presented to the committee before deciding how to vote (predisposition)

 

Councillors are elected to provide and pursue policies in a situation of democratic accountability. Accordingly, members of the Development Control Committee are entitled, by those who have elected them, to have and to express views on planning issues. They will have political allegiances and publicly known policies although Councillors must always remember that planning decisions are not political decisions.

 

It is permissible for Members of the Committee to be predisposed towards a view that is in favour of or against a planning application or development proposal. However, Members should retain an open mind as to the merits of the argument before making a final decision. Failure to do so, failure to demonstrate to applicants, objectors or interested parties that they have done so, can result in allegations of bias and/or predetermination which can lead to the validity of the decision being called into question. It is for this reason that Councillors minds must not be closed to the merits of any planning application or decision or even to appear to be closed, i.e. by giving a clear impression that they have already decided how they will vote at the meeting and that nothing will change their minds.

 

I found the above quite interesting reading. I'm also quite pleased to discover they are teaching this to the kids in schools!

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-7-principles-of-public-life

 

 

 

[grendel]

Tim, does it also apply to non elected Quango's?

[Timbo]

2 minutes ago, grendel said:

Tim, does it also apply to non elected Quango's?

It does indeed G. Anyone and everyone in a public office...

[JennyMorgan]

Thank you, Tim. Quite clearly there are those at Yare House that don't adhere to the Nolan Principle. Now, the Million Dollar Question. who does one complain to when the principle is breached? Pointless going via the Broads Authority's own complaints procedure because any complaint will end up on the desks of of the two that I would wish to complain about, namely 'Granny' & 'Grey Beard', the Chair Lady & the Chief Executive. 

[JennyMorgan]

A very small amount of research brings this answer up:

http://www.lgo.org.uk/

[Timbo]

That's the one JM. I would also contact the Ethical Standards Committee directly as according to their website, as of March 2017, they are currently involved in " undertaking a follow-up review of how the Nolan Principles are being upheld by providers of outsourced public services" and would like to meet with all interested parties to discuss relevant issues.

 

The Committee’s terms of reference were amended in 2013 to encompass ‘all those involved in the delivery of public services, not solely those appointed or elected to public office.’ We outlined this commitment to follow-up our 2014/15 research in our 2016/17 forward plan.

If you are interested in contributing to this follow-up work please contact the Committee’s Secretariat: public@public-standards.gov.uk.

[Vaughan]

I notice you have to complain within 12 months of your being aware of the issue. In Roger's case, that was 11 years ago!

1/.You have to be directly affected by what has caused your complaint.

2/.You have to have followed the authority's complaints procedure before taking your complaint further.

Interesting that both of those above would apply to James Knight.

[Timbo]

I've just spoken to someone 'in the know'. The ombudsman that is required is the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. As Vaughan has pointed out you still have to go through the complaint's procedure of the organisation you are complaining about, however, with the PHSO you can simultaneously petition them to investigate. As with all red tape, it generates more red tape. The only people who can submit a complaint to the PHSO is your MP. You can fill out the complaint form and ask your MP or their office to sign it. My contact suggested 'any and all parties will be aware of your intention and the far-reaching implications of your complaint by the expediency of addressing each and every document to all parties involved such as your MP, the department you are complaining about, the government secretary responsible for that department and of course...the press. It's amazing how fast someone moves when the document they just received landed on the same desk as the investigator, the reporter and the bloke in charge!'.

Even then...

I've booked an appointment with my local MP.

Edited to add, my 'beef' is not about any specific case. I don't agree with the tactics employed by the management of the authority or their agenda.

[Vaughan]

Episode 5 of James Knight's report is now posted on the Blogspot, if some-one would be kind enough to link it.

Maybe someone would be kind enough to tell me how to link it?

 

[Bound2Please]

There you go Vaughan

http://www.thebroadsblog.co.uk/2017/07/

[Poppy]

On 06/07/2017 at 6:21 PM, Vaughan said:

As usual MM, I see where you are coming from but Lana Hempsall, in her comment that I posted on here, has made the point that an elected officer (which she is) would pay for such malpractice at the ballot box when they next came up for election.

 

Lana Hempsall, being a Tory knows that in Norfolk  there's about as much chance of that  as....... well, YOU make up a phrase !

[Vaughan]

I am glad to see that the forum swear filter is still working!