Case history summaries (documented evidence of LGO deceit and cover ups)
Page contents
Planning officer grants residential development on land a developer agreed to gift to Carlisle City Council as public open space
Planning officers turn blind eye to football pitch destroyed by developer
Protected trees unlawfully felled - Tree Preservation Order sham
Council officers fail to enforce landscape planning conditions
Council officers ignore complaints procedures and conceal complaints from local councillors
Planning officers turn blind eye to unauthorised sales office
Unauthorised concrete block wall - planning officers fail to uphold Planning Agreement and landscape conditions
Cumberland News - reports of Carlisle City Council planning blunders
The following cases reveal the blunders of inept, incompetent council officers, and the shenanigans they use to cover up maladministration and corruption. Be aware that planning officers (and other council officers) do not always tell the truth. They will tell you what they want you to know, and try to conceal their mistakes and errors with lies and deceit.
The cases also disclose how the Local Government Ombudsman deliberately conceal evidence of maladministration, misrepresent the facts, manipulate the evidence, fail to rectify injustice suffered, or decline to investigate valid complaints.
Note. The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer Story Construction Ltd; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by this developer. The Director of Planning Services also had an interest in Story Construction Ltd.
Beware. Certain council officers at Carlisle City Council are known to intercept emails to local councillors. Spineless low life like these will stoop to any underhand method to cover up incompetent and corrupt council officers.
The following cases reveal the blunders of inept, incompetent council officers, and the shenanigans they use to cover up maladministration and corruption. Be aware that planning officers (and other council officers) do not always tell the truth. They will tell you what they want you to know, and try to conceal their mistakes and errors with lies and deceit.
The cases also disclose how the Local Government Ombudsman deliberately conceal evidence of maladministration, misrepresent the facts, manipulate the evidence, fail to rectify injustice suffered, or decline to investigate valid complaints.
Note. The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer Story Construction Ltd; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by this developer. The Director of Planning Services also had an interest in Story Construction Ltd.
Beware. Certain council officers at Carlisle City Council are known to intercept emails to local councillors. Spineless low life like these will stoop to any underhand method to cover up incompetent and corrupt council officers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning officer grants residential development on amenity land a developer agreed to gift to Carlisle City Council as public open space
When a developer, Story Construction Ltd, was granted outline planning approval to build 230 homes on a site identified in the Local Plan as an Area of Local Landscape Significance, subject to a Planning Agreement requiring the developer to gift to Carlisle City Council land as public open space to extend an existing avenue of trees, you might expect planning officers would ensure the open space land is transferred to the council and the avenue trees planted. Instead, bungling council officers fail to enforce the transfer of the open space land to the council.
The Development Control Manager, Alan Taylor, grants planning permission for houses and gardens on part of the open space land in breach of the outline planning permission and the terms of the Planning Agreement. The Development Control Manager did not have the delegated authority to grant planning permission under Carlisle City Council's Scheme of Delegation because the planning application was contrary to a previous decision of the Council (the outline planning permission and Planning Agreement) and should have been determined by the Development Control Committee. That was maladministration.
The Development Control Manager refers a second planning application for houses and gardens on another part of the open space land to the Development Control Committee, but fails to notify the Committee that the planning application was in breach of the outline planning permission and the developer's covenant in the Planning Agreement to transfer the land as public open space. That was maladministration.
When the planning officer's blunder is exposed, the Development Control Manager and other council officers attempt a cover up.
The Local Government Ombudsman's publication entitled Good Administrative Practice states that delegated powers should not be misinterpreted or misapplied, and specifically refers to examples where planning officers act without delegated authority.
The Local Government Ombudsman comes to the perverse, unhinged, and irrational decision that the council was not at fault.
How can the Local Government Ombudsman come to the perverse decision that the council was not at fault when residents have been denied the amenity benefit of the use and enjoyment of land that should have been gifted to the council as public open space and planted with an avenue of trees? The reason is because the Local Government Ombudsman is corrupt, peddles the lies of inept council officers, deliberately conceals incriminating evidence, and wilfully misrepresents the facts to whitewash and cover up council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When a developer, Story Construction Ltd, was granted outline planning approval to build 230 homes on a site identified in the Local Plan as an Area of Local Landscape Significance, subject to a Planning Agreement requiring the developer to gift to Carlisle City Council land as public open space to extend an existing avenue of trees, you might expect planning officers would ensure the open space land is transferred to the council and the avenue trees planted. Instead, bungling council officers fail to enforce the transfer of the open space land to the council.
The Development Control Manager, Alan Taylor, grants planning permission for houses and gardens on part of the open space land in breach of the outline planning permission and the terms of the Planning Agreement. The Development Control Manager did not have the delegated authority to grant planning permission under Carlisle City Council's Scheme of Delegation because the planning application was contrary to a previous decision of the Council (the outline planning permission and Planning Agreement) and should have been determined by the Development Control Committee. That was maladministration.
The Development Control Manager refers a second planning application for houses and gardens on another part of the open space land to the Development Control Committee, but fails to notify the Committee that the planning application was in breach of the outline planning permission and the developer's covenant in the Planning Agreement to transfer the land as public open space. That was maladministration.
When the planning officer's blunder is exposed, the Development Control Manager and other council officers attempt a cover up.
The Local Government Ombudsman's publication entitled Good Administrative Practice states that delegated powers should not be misinterpreted or misapplied, and specifically refers to examples where planning officers act without delegated authority.
The Local Government Ombudsman comes to the perverse, unhinged, and irrational decision that the council was not at fault.
How can the Local Government Ombudsman come to the perverse decision that the council was not at fault when residents have been denied the amenity benefit of the use and enjoyment of land that should have been gifted to the council as public open space and planted with an avenue of trees? The reason is because the Local Government Ombudsman is corrupt, peddles the lies of inept council officers, deliberately conceals incriminating evidence, and wilfully misrepresents the facts to whitewash and cover up council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning officers turn blind eye to football pitch destroyed by developer
When Carlisle City Council granted planning permission for residential development, subject to a Planning Agreement and condition that an adjoining football pitch is retained and transferred to the council within 12 months, you might think residents would be able enjoy the use of it. Instead, bungling council officers allow the developers (Story Construction Ltd and Senator Homes) to destroy the football pitch and use the land as a site compound and soil dump, fail to take any action until someone complains, and then permits substandard reinstatement. That was maladministration.
The Council's Local Plan Policy L10 prohibits any development which will result in the loss or encroachment upon school or private playing fields or play space. The Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy states the Council will uphold the objectives of the planning policies contained within the Development Plan (which includes the Council's Local Plan) and will take action against significant breaches of planning permissions and against development which has not been given approval.
The Local Government Ombudsman comes to the perverse, unhinged, and irrational decision that the council was not at fault.
How can the Local Government Ombudsman come to the irrational decision that the council was not at fault when council officers failed to uphold the conditions of a planning permission and legally binding Planning Agreement, and the residents were denied the benefit of the use and enjoyment of the football pitch after it had been destroyed? The reason is because the Local Government Ombudsman is corrupt, peddles the lies of inept council officers, deliberately conceals incriminating evidence, and wilfully misrepresents the facts to whitewash and cover up council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When Carlisle City Council granted planning permission for residential development, subject to a Planning Agreement and condition that an adjoining football pitch is retained and transferred to the council within 12 months, you might think residents would be able enjoy the use of it. Instead, bungling council officers allow the developers (Story Construction Ltd and Senator Homes) to destroy the football pitch and use the land as a site compound and soil dump, fail to take any action until someone complains, and then permits substandard reinstatement. That was maladministration.
The Council's Local Plan Policy L10 prohibits any development which will result in the loss or encroachment upon school or private playing fields or play space. The Council’s Planning Enforcement Policy states the Council will uphold the objectives of the planning policies contained within the Development Plan (which includes the Council's Local Plan) and will take action against significant breaches of planning permissions and against development which has not been given approval.
The Local Government Ombudsman comes to the perverse, unhinged, and irrational decision that the council was not at fault.
How can the Local Government Ombudsman come to the irrational decision that the council was not at fault when council officers failed to uphold the conditions of a planning permission and legally binding Planning Agreement, and the residents were denied the benefit of the use and enjoyment of the football pitch after it had been destroyed? The reason is because the Local Government Ombudsman is corrupt, peddles the lies of inept council officers, deliberately conceals incriminating evidence, and wilfully misrepresents the facts to whitewash and cover up council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Protected trees unlawfully felled - Tree Preservation Order sham
You might think that trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) are protected from felling. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council. If protected trees happen to be in the way of developer Story Construction Ltd, planning officers at Carlisle City Council will give approval for them to be felled. To make matters worse, the incompetent officers fail to include replanting conditions in their felling consents, and don't enforce replanting requirements.
The Garlands Hospital TPO was made in 1999. Out of the 227 protected trees 54 (24%) have been felled.
Bungling planning officers granted consent to fell the wrong protected tree, grant consent to fell a protected tree the developer had asked to crown thin, then try and cover up their blunders with lies and deceit. When the developer unlawfully fells two protected trees, the unscrupulous planning officers try to cover it up with more lies and deceit rather than take legal action to prosecute.
Policy E18 of the council's Local Plan states that trees which contribute to amenity will be protected by means of a tree preservation order... and ...particular attention will be given to trees that are on sites where there are proposals for development, to ensure not only that the significant trees are protected, but that the development works and proposed buildings do not prejudice the future of the trees.....and .... .if it is subsequently found that some trees need to be felled for the purposes of good management, the provisions of the tree preservation order can secure their replacement, if appropriate, therefore ensuring continuity of tree cover.
Planning officers failed to comply with Policy E18 and protect trees subject to a TPO or apply and enforce replanting conditions to ensure continuity of tree cover. The developer failed to comply with planning conditions to prevent damage to protected trees, and the planning officers failed to enforce the conditions.
After initially proposing to discontiue the investigation, the Local Government Ombudsman reversed their decision and found maladministration (in part) causing injustice, but covered up much of the damning evidence of maladministration and of council officer's lies and deceit.
To read the truth and full story click here.
You might think that trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) are protected from felling. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council. If protected trees happen to be in the way of developer Story Construction Ltd, planning officers at Carlisle City Council will give approval for them to be felled. To make matters worse, the incompetent officers fail to include replanting conditions in their felling consents, and don't enforce replanting requirements.
The Garlands Hospital TPO was made in 1999. Out of the 227 protected trees 54 (24%) have been felled.
Bungling planning officers granted consent to fell the wrong protected tree, grant consent to fell a protected tree the developer had asked to crown thin, then try and cover up their blunders with lies and deceit. When the developer unlawfully fells two protected trees, the unscrupulous planning officers try to cover it up with more lies and deceit rather than take legal action to prosecute.
Policy E18 of the council's Local Plan states that trees which contribute to amenity will be protected by means of a tree preservation order... and ...particular attention will be given to trees that are on sites where there are proposals for development, to ensure not only that the significant trees are protected, but that the development works and proposed buildings do not prejudice the future of the trees.....and .... .if it is subsequently found that some trees need to be felled for the purposes of good management, the provisions of the tree preservation order can secure their replacement, if appropriate, therefore ensuring continuity of tree cover.
Planning officers failed to comply with Policy E18 and protect trees subject to a TPO or apply and enforce replanting conditions to ensure continuity of tree cover. The developer failed to comply with planning conditions to prevent damage to protected trees, and the planning officers failed to enforce the conditions.
After initially proposing to discontiue the investigation, the Local Government Ombudsman reversed their decision and found maladministration (in part) causing injustice, but covered up much of the damning evidence of maladministration and of council officer's lies and deceit.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council officers fail to enforce landscape planning conditions
When planning permission was granted to build 230 homes on the periphery of Carlisle on a site identified in the Local Plan as an Area of Local Landscape Significance, you might expect planning officers would ensure that landscape planning conditions are complied with. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
Inept planning officers allow developers to start building work without an approved landscape scheme in breach of planning conditions. One developer completed the development without any approved landscape scheme, and the other developer did not submit a landscape scheme for approval until a resident complained 3 years after the development started.
Policy E19 of the Local Plan requires landscaping schemes to include the arrangements and responsibilities for maintenance of them and that development will be monitored to ensure that landscape schemes are implemented. This did not occur. That was maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman initially tries to cover up the maladministration and proposes to discontinue their investigation. Eventually they change their mind, finds maladministration (in part) causing injustice, but conceals much of the damning evidence of maladministration, and deliberately misrepresents the facts, particularly in respect of the Story Construction Ltd development.
The Local Government Ombudsman failed to follow their guidance (entitled Good Administrative Practice) and failed to recommend the council take action to remedy the breaches of the landscape planning conditions by undertaking the tree planting shown on the development plans.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When planning permission was granted to build 230 homes on the periphery of Carlisle on a site identified in the Local Plan as an Area of Local Landscape Significance, you might expect planning officers would ensure that landscape planning conditions are complied with. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
Inept planning officers allow developers to start building work without an approved landscape scheme in breach of planning conditions. One developer completed the development without any approved landscape scheme, and the other developer did not submit a landscape scheme for approval until a resident complained 3 years after the development started.
Policy E19 of the Local Plan requires landscaping schemes to include the arrangements and responsibilities for maintenance of them and that development will be monitored to ensure that landscape schemes are implemented. This did not occur. That was maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman initially tries to cover up the maladministration and proposes to discontinue their investigation. Eventually they change their mind, finds maladministration (in part) causing injustice, but conceals much of the damning evidence of maladministration, and deliberately misrepresents the facts, particularly in respect of the Story Construction Ltd development.
The Local Government Ombudsman failed to follow their guidance (entitled Good Administrative Practice) and failed to recommend the council take action to remedy the breaches of the landscape planning conditions by undertaking the tree planting shown on the development plans.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Council officers ignore complaint procedures and conceal complaints from local councillors
When a resident makes complaints to Carlisle City Council you might expect the council would abide by their complaints procedures.This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
The council's complaints procedures gives the complainant the right to put unresolved complaints before a Board of Arbitration of local councillors. But that never happens. Council officers deliberately ignored repeated requests by the resident to refer the complaints to a Board of Arbitration. Council officers do this as they know the Local Government Ombudsman will often cover up evidence of maladministration in favour of the council. The resident then has no option but to refer the complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman.
A planning officer, Alan Taylor, who investigated some of the complaints, was also the subject of the complaints, so it was not surprising the planning officer finds no fault. It is contrary to good administrative practice, the rules of natural justice, and the council's complaints procedures for a council officer to investigate a complaint made against himself. The Local Government Ombudsman did not criticise the council for this or recommend the council discontinue the practice. By these omissions, the Local Government Ombudsman condones council malpractice and maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman finds that the resident should have been given the right to put complaints before a Board of Arbitration, but fails to recommend that the council take action to enforce this right, and ensure the council's complaints procedures are followed. By this omission, the Local Government Ombudsman encourages council officers to continue to ignore complainant's requests for a Board of Arbitration, and condones council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When a resident makes complaints to Carlisle City Council you might expect the council would abide by their complaints procedures.This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
The council's complaints procedures gives the complainant the right to put unresolved complaints before a Board of Arbitration of local councillors. But that never happens. Council officers deliberately ignored repeated requests by the resident to refer the complaints to a Board of Arbitration. Council officers do this as they know the Local Government Ombudsman will often cover up evidence of maladministration in favour of the council. The resident then has no option but to refer the complaints to the Local Government Ombudsman.
A planning officer, Alan Taylor, who investigated some of the complaints, was also the subject of the complaints, so it was not surprising the planning officer finds no fault. It is contrary to good administrative practice, the rules of natural justice, and the council's complaints procedures for a council officer to investigate a complaint made against himself. The Local Government Ombudsman did not criticise the council for this or recommend the council discontinue the practice. By these omissions, the Local Government Ombudsman condones council malpractice and maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman finds that the resident should have been given the right to put complaints before a Board of Arbitration, but fails to recommend that the council take action to enforce this right, and ensure the council's complaints procedures are followed. By this omission, the Local Government Ombudsman encourages council officers to continue to ignore complainant's requests for a Board of Arbitration, and condones council maladministration.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planning officers turn blind eye to unauthorised sales office
When a house builder constructs a sales office at the entrance to a residential development site you might think it has planning permission or otherwise planning officers would take enforcement action. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
Carlisle City Council planning officers turn a blind eye to it, and then try to fool a resident into believing it doesn't require planning permission. That was maladministration.
When planning officers first became aware of the sales office they failed to request the developer remove the sales office or apply for retrospective temporary planning approval. Instead they took no action. That was maladministration.
The site of the sales office should have been planted with trees and a wall constructed in accordance with the planning permission and Planning Agreement. This was not done. That was maladministration.
The council should have notified the local Valuation Office Agency of the sales office so it could be assessed for business rates. They failed to do so. These omissions led to the developer not paying any business rates on the sales office (a period of over 4 years). That was maladministration.
The bungling council officers fail to serve an enforcement notice within the 4 year statutory time limit, and just hope the developer will remove the building. That was maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman declines to investigate.
So why did the Local Government Ombudsman decide not to investigate the complaint? The reason is because they are not impartial but biased in favour of councils, do not act in the public interest, are inconsistent in their decisions, and condone Council malpractice and incompetence.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When a house builder constructs a sales office at the entrance to a residential development site you might think it has planning permission or otherwise planning officers would take enforcement action. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
Carlisle City Council planning officers turn a blind eye to it, and then try to fool a resident into believing it doesn't require planning permission. That was maladministration.
When planning officers first became aware of the sales office they failed to request the developer remove the sales office or apply for retrospective temporary planning approval. Instead they took no action. That was maladministration.
The site of the sales office should have been planted with trees and a wall constructed in accordance with the planning permission and Planning Agreement. This was not done. That was maladministration.
The council should have notified the local Valuation Office Agency of the sales office so it could be assessed for business rates. They failed to do so. These omissions led to the developer not paying any business rates on the sales office (a period of over 4 years). That was maladministration.
The bungling council officers fail to serve an enforcement notice within the 4 year statutory time limit, and just hope the developer will remove the building. That was maladministration.
The Local Government Ombudsman declines to investigate.
So why did the Local Government Ombudsman decide not to investigate the complaint? The reason is because they are not impartial but biased in favour of councils, do not act in the public interest, are inconsistent in their decisions, and condone Council malpractice and incompetence.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unauthorised concrete block wall and fence - planning officers fail to uphold Planning Agreement and landscape conditions
When a developer constructs a wall and fence adjacent a cycleway/footpath on the edge of a new housing development, you might expect it has planning permission or otherwise planning officers would take enforcement action. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
The concrete block retaining wall, which is over 2 metres high with a wood fence above, is situated on land shown as amenity tree screen planting on the approved residential development plan and Planning Agreement.
Planning officers do nothing to enforce the landscape planning conditions and Planning Agreement, or to remove the wall and fence.
The Local Government Ombudsman declines to investigate a complaint made by a resident.
So why did the Local Government Ombudsman decide not to investigate the complaint? The reason is because they are not impartial but biased in favour of councils, do not act in the public interest, are inconsistent in their decisions, and condone Council malpractice and incompetence.
To read the truth and full story click here.
When a developer constructs a wall and fence adjacent a cycleway/footpath on the edge of a new housing development, you might expect it has planning permission or otherwise planning officers would take enforcement action. This is not the case in the district of Carlisle City Council.
The concrete block retaining wall, which is over 2 metres high with a wood fence above, is situated on land shown as amenity tree screen planting on the approved residential development plan and Planning Agreement.
Planning officers do nothing to enforce the landscape planning conditions and Planning Agreement, or to remove the wall and fence.
The Local Government Ombudsman declines to investigate a complaint made by a resident.
So why did the Local Government Ombudsman decide not to investigate the complaint? The reason is because they are not impartial but biased in favour of councils, do not act in the public interest, are inconsistent in their decisions, and condone Council malpractice and incompetence.
To read the truth and full story click here.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumberland News reports of Carlisle City Council planning blunders
In 2003 planning officers failed to notify residents in Teasdale Road of a planning application for an extension to a neighbour's house. The extension was 2 metres in front of the building line and caused loss of light to the resident's house. The Local Government Ombudsman found maladministration and recommended the council pay £500 as a contribution to the resident's removal expenses and their time and trouble.
This case shows the inconsistencies of the Local Government Ombudsman's decisions. In other cases where planning permission has been granted for an extension without notifying neighbours, the LGO have recommend councils pay the reduction in the value of the house in addition to a payment for time and trouble.
This case shows the inconsistencies of the Local Government Ombudsman's decisions. In other cases where planning permission has been granted for an extension without notifying neighbours, the LGO have recommend councils pay the reduction in the value of the house in addition to a payment for time and trouble.
The Local Government Ombudsman commended the council for reviewing and amending its procedures to prevent faults and failures in the planning process reoccurring. But in 2007 the bungling planning officers repeat the same error when they failed to notify residents in Coledale Mews about a planning application for 6 flats.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In August 2007 planning permission was granted to build a 3 storey extension to a property in Coledale Mews to create 6 three bedroom flats, but incompetent planning officers had failed to notify neighbours of the planning application.
One resident reported the council to the Local Government Ombudsman. There is no published Local Government Ombudsman report of this. So has the Local Government Ombudsman hidden this case of maladministration from the public by way of a local settlement, or conned the resident into closing the case without any redress for their injustice. I think we should be told.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In January 2008 Carlisle City Council Development Control Committee granted planning permission to Story Construction Ltd for housing on 2.2 acres between Burgh Road and Moor Park Avenue. The Committee were told there had been 9 objectors to the planning application, but planning officers failed to notify the Committee of a 44 signature petition opposing the development.
Inept planning officers claim the petition was mislaid. The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by the developer.
So a petition opposing the development was not disclosed to the Development Control Committee, and the Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer. Is that a coincidence?
There is no published Local Government Ombudsman report of this case. So has the Local Government Ombudsman hidden this case of maladministration from the public by way of a local settlement, or conned the petitioners into closing the case without any redress for their injustice. I think we should be told.
Inept planning officers claim the petition was mislaid. The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by the developer.
So a petition opposing the development was not disclosed to the Development Control Committee, and the Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer. Is that a coincidence?
There is no published Local Government Ombudsman report of this case. So has the Local Government Ombudsman hidden this case of maladministration from the public by way of a local settlement, or conned the petitioners into closing the case without any redress for their injustice. I think we should be told.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle City Council Officers
Alan Taylor - Development Control Manager
Alan Eales - Head of Planning Services
Charles Bennett - Tree Officer
Chris Hardman - Local Plans & Conservation Manager
Catherine Elliot - Director of Development Services
John Nutley - Head of Customer & Information Services
The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd.; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by this developer. The Director of Planning Services also had an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd. A family member was employed by this developer.
It was not disclosed whether any brown envelopes (or the contents thereof) were passed from the developers to council officers.
Local Government Ombudsman Officers (York Office)
Richard Corney - Investigator
Chris Cobley - Assistant Ombudsman
Neil Hobbs - Deputy Ombudsman
Anne Seex - Local Government Ombudsman
These corrupt fraudsters deliberately covered up council maladministration, concealed evidence of maladministration, wilfully misrepresented facts, manipulated evidence, disregarded their own published guidance on good administrative practice, and by their omissions condoned council malpractice.
These two faced hypocrites are spineless cowards. They lack the balls to report the truth. Instead they deceive the public to cover up for incompetent and corrupt council officers.
If any statement published herein relating to any of the above named persons were untrue or incorrect, they could pursue an action for defamation. None of the named persons has done so, nor is it likely that they will do so as all statements herein relating to the above named persons are documented and known to be true.
Alan Taylor - Development Control Manager
Alan Eales - Head of Planning Services
Charles Bennett - Tree Officer
Chris Hardman - Local Plans & Conservation Manager
Catherine Elliot - Director of Development Services
John Nutley - Head of Customer & Information Services
The Head of Planning Services, Alan Eales, declared an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd.; he declared a family member (daughter) was employed by this developer. The Director of Planning Services also had an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd. A family member was employed by this developer.
It was not disclosed whether any brown envelopes (or the contents thereof) were passed from the developers to council officers.
Local Government Ombudsman Officers (York Office)
Richard Corney - Investigator
Chris Cobley - Assistant Ombudsman
Neil Hobbs - Deputy Ombudsman
Anne Seex - Local Government Ombudsman
These corrupt fraudsters deliberately covered up council maladministration, concealed evidence of maladministration, wilfully misrepresented facts, manipulated evidence, disregarded their own published guidance on good administrative practice, and by their omissions condoned council malpractice.
These two faced hypocrites are spineless cowards. They lack the balls to report the truth. Instead they deceive the public to cover up for incompetent and corrupt council officers.
If any statement published herein relating to any of the above named persons were untrue or incorrect, they could pursue an action for defamation. None of the named persons has done so, nor is it likely that they will do so as all statements herein relating to the above named persons are documented and known to be true.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
