CliveH Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Symbol Owner - 2014-02-12 4:45 PM Had Enough - 2014-02-12 4:35 PM The man is incapable of making a hypothesis without adding his own particular brand of hateful invective. That Frank, really IS a case of the: 'pot calling the kettle black'! :-> Colin. It always is Colin with Frank Pure projection The sad thing is - he has little idea................. Edit! My god! - HE has a persecution complex as well ..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The trouble is, Clive, HE has got me 'off topic' too -- which is probably what his 'scatter gun' invective was designed to do anyway -- oh dear! :$ Colin. P.S. HE has got you back into the psychological slanging stuff as well! >:-) C. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Colin - you and I disagree on a number of things - but I thank you for being a gentleman. We can agree to disagree and still be mature individuals Do not even try to debate with a fool - they wear you down and beat you with their greater experience. I know I have tried it with HE - and the only conclusion I came to was that the guy is unwell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-12 3:15 PM Peter James - 2014-02-12 3:09 PM Had Enough - 2014-02-12 11:13 AM Get some help before you go completely doolally. What an unoriginal way to evade an awkward question. You should be a politician. I don't recollect a question, just statements typical of your obsessive hatred of everything. The Royal Family, the National Trust, Conservatives, politicians, people living in the Home Counties and now it's planning committees. You poor man. It must be awful being you. Do try to get some help. It will eat you up eventually. Although I suspect that you may already be locked away somewhere. Anyone who takes inflation statistics seriously when they ignore housing costs can't be the full shilling so I will try and keep it as simple as possible. Please point out where you think I displayed an 'obsessive hatred' of 'people living in the home counties' and I will try and clarify it for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Seriously Peter - I have been more guilty than anyone I would suggest at trying to engage with Frank and to challenge his obnoxious behaviour. Normal debate rules or simple etiquette is beyond him. It doesn't seem to sink in with Frank that you can disagree with someone but still be polite and mature. Apologies - if some will think "that's rich coming from CliveH" (lol) And I would have to agree. But I suddenly realised via the adjacent post - that if Frank can be in somewhere like Morocco - and still prefer to be obnoxious on here, at the direct opportunity cost to him, of Family Time and Personal Holiday time - then he is beyond hope or any sort of redemption. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I do agree that a degree of self help makes sense as well as making sure the authorities do their bit. We have flooded to a limited degree in the past and had a number of near misses. On a personal level we have spent over a thousand pounds on our own flood defences for materials alone doing all the work ourselves mainly on robust walls that prevent the flood waters even reaching the house with back up pumps to cover if the water should overflow the walls. Other people in the village have spent more some less. In addition we set up our own flood committee who's meetings are attended by all the elevant authorities where we can exchange information and agree on measures to be taken which have to be reported on at the next meeting. The same committee provides help and advice to local residents. In some cases where elderly people have been unable to afford or carry out the work themselves we have done it for them. It's all been very successful with the exception of one place where houses have built over a ditch that used to lead to a culvert under the rail line taking the water off to low laying fields. We've worked out a route for a big pipe to deal with this and even have the funding to carry out the work but British Rail simply refuse us access to and use of the culvert to take the water away even though it still exists and is in good condition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Publish the British Rail correspondence and show via Youtube the effect their arrogance is having - It has worked well in other similar scenarios. Worth considering I would suggest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Having just seen Eric Pickles on The One Show(..Don't!.. I know.. :$ ) and as he seemed to be in "..give me your name and address after the show and I'll get it sorted for ya.." mode and was seemingly promising everything to everybody, it may be worth trying to grab hold of him! 8-) ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-12 4:50 PM This section of the forum now seems to be dominated by a small number of people whose only reason for existence is a visceral loathing of almost every institution in the UK and Peter James is the worst of them. Damn there goes my 'crown' then.....deposed damn it. :-D Oh and as for corrupt planning committees...(HE's post previously).....I have heard it from a local Councillor (Independent) that he had never served on such a self serving/self interested Committee in all his life. He reckoned that if there were 'occasions' where granting planning consent was clearly not in the 'public' interest but the 'concern' was either 'big business' or 'moneyed applicants' permission was granted. It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt. For example in my area there is a planning application submission by a certain 'Lordly Estate' to build a number of houses backing, literally, onto the side boundary of a sawmills. It is a very big sawmill. If constructed the back gardens of some of these houses will end within fifty feet of the saw shop which houses and runs some of the biggest band saws you have ever seen. They run from 7.30am to 4.30pm five days a week and sometimes on Saturday mornings. Being a saw mill it generates a lot of noise and dust. It has been there for a very long time but the concern is if these houses are built it will only be a matter of time before it has to close in the face of 'new' residents complaints about the noise and dust, thereby throwing over twenty local employees out of work not to mention the loss of domestic product and exports valued in £millions every year. So as it is a 'Lordly' individual who is applying for this planning permission I will be astounded if it is refused.............and it will be to hell with the industry. Anyway...my apologies for running off topic :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Wow! Clive Hammond, whose entire life seems to be this forum, took the opportunity to have ago at me. I wasn't expecting that! He's read about a new theory on Wikipedia and for years now he'll be banging on about 'projection'. You have to laugh! (lol) I'm home now by the way Clive, I wasn't emigrating. ;-) Anyway, on reflection I think I was a bit cruel to Peter James. I've just realised that in this entire thread he managed to restrain himself from working in a vindictive attack on our 'unelected Queen', so perhaps he's trying to be less controversial? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 RogerC - 2014-02-12 8:02 PM .I have heard it from a local Councillor (Independent) that he had never served on such a self serving/self interested Committee in all his life. He reckoned that if there were 'occasions' where granting planning consent was clearly not in the 'public' interest but the 'concern' was either 'big business' or 'moneyed applicants' permission was granted. It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt.< So it must be true then, but only if you're a pessimistic conspiracy theorist who knows absolutely nothing about planning and particularly the appeals process, which I've been through, and nothing could have been more transparent and rigorous. Oh, and my appeal was upheld as are many! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-13 9:54 AMRogerC - 2014-02-12 8:02 PM.I have heard it from a local Councillor (Independent) that he had never served on such a self serving/self interested Committee in all his life. He reckoned that if there were 'occasions' where granting planning consent was clearly not in the 'public' interest but the 'concern' was either 'big business' or 'moneyed applicants' permission was granted. It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt.<So it must be true then, but only if you're a pessimistic conspiracy theorist who knows absolutely nothing about planning and particularly the appeals process, which I've been through, and nothing could have been more transparent and rigorous. Oh, and my appeal was upheld as are many! I can only apologise profusely and touch my forelock to your High Eminence...............I forgot you know so very much more than even those who have 'inside' knowledge. However as my comments posted are based on the 'first hand knowledge' of a Councillor who 'actually' served on a Planning Committee I will defer to his 'first hand knowledge' in preference to your limited experience of such matters. You only 'see' what you are allowed to see. You do not see or hear what goes on behind closed doors...........unless you're Superman of course. Regarding the success of appeals you might like to review the 'facts' below issued by Horsham District Council for example. The figures actually confirm my previous comment above but don't let that stop you from disagreeing. After all being faced with facts has never stopped you from knowing better in the past has it? Breakdown of Appeals 1/1/2005 to 19/4/2013 Appeals Dismissed 607 Appeals Allowed 279 Appeals Withdrawn 72 Appeals Part Allowed 21 Inspector Declined to Determine Appeal 2 Total Number of Appeals 981 Or West Berkshire Council: West Berkshire Council Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission 3 August 2010 Executive Report 1. Introduction Inspectorate Planning Appeal Decisions 2009 -2010: Total No. = 82 Total Dismissed 54 Total Allowed 28 Or this from The Planning Inspectorate Report 2010/2011: Success rates for planning appeals proceeding by the Written Representation procedure remained the same as last year at 30%. For appeals following the Hearing procedure success rates rose by 1% compared with last year to 40% and Inquiry appeals dropped by 5% compared with last year to 48%. So the 'facts' are distinctly at odds with your reply. Oh and since there was nothing untoward posted in my reply towards you why do you find it necessary to resort to your old hackneyed comments regarding 'pessimistic conspiracy theorist'? Is it your mission in life to 'defend' the 'indefensible' shortcomings of 'public office'? It certainly looks like it from your posts on here. Can you not carry on a debate without resorting to such comments? If you could it would be so much nicer to read your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 RogerC - 2014-02-13 11:32 AMHad Enough - 2014-02-13 9:54 AMRogerC - 2014-02-12 8:02 PM.I have heard it from a local Councillor (Independent) that he had never served on such a self serving/self interested Committee in all his life. He reckoned that if there were 'occasions' where granting planning consent was clearly not in the 'public' interest but the 'concern' was either 'big business' or 'moneyed applicants' permission was granted. It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt.<So it must be true then, but only if you're a pessimistic conspiracy theorist who knows absolutely nothing about planning and particularly the appeals process, which I've been through, and nothing could have been more transparent and rigorous. Oh, and my appeal was upheld as are many! I can only apologise profusely and touch my forelock to your High Eminence...............I forgot you know so very much more than even those who have 'inside' knowledge. However as my comments posted are based on the 'first hand knowledge' of a Councillor who 'actually' served on a Planning Committee I will defer to his 'first hand knowledge' in preference to your limited experience of such matters. You only 'see' what you are allowed to see. You do not see or hear what goes on behind closed doors...........unless you're Superman of course. Regarding the success of appeals you might like to review the 'facts' below issued by Horsham District Council for example. The figures actually confirm my previous comment above but don't let that stop you from disagreeing. After all being faced with facts has never stopped you from knowing better in the past has it? Breakdown of Appeals 1/1/2005 to 19/4/2013 Appeals Dismissed 607 Appeals Allowed 279 Appeals Withdrawn 72 Appeals Part Allowed 21 Inspector Declined to Determine Appeal 2 Total Number of Appeals 981 Or West Berkshire Council:West Berkshire Council Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission 3 August 2010 Executive Report 1. Introduction Inspectorate Planning Appeal Decisions 2009 -2010: Total No. = 82 Total Dismissed 54 Total Allowed 28 Or this from The Planning Inspectorate Report 2010/2011:Success rates for planning appeals proceeding by the Written Representation procedure remained the same as last year at 30%. For appeals following the Hearing procedure success rates rose by 1%compared with last year to 40% and Inquiry appeals dropped by 5%compared with last year to 48%.So the 'facts' are distinctly at odds with your reply. Oh and since there was nothing untoward posted in my reply towards you why do you find it necessary to resort to your old hackneyed comments regarding 'pessimistic conspiracy theorist'?Is it your mission in life to 'defend' the 'indefensible' shortcomings of 'public office'? It certainly looks like it from your posts on here. Can you not carry on a debate without resorting to such comments? If you could it would be so much nicer to read your comments. The appeals process is independent and unbiased. When the inspector visited my property she came from an office many miles away from my town and wouldn't even talk to me or accept a coffee less there was seen to be impropriety.But this is the difference between you and me, I see these figures as proof that the council planning committees get it right most of the time. You see the figures as proof that the appeals process is flawed. You have a most incredibly skewed view of everything I'm afraid and it's skewed to the worst possible scenario. But you know one possibly disgruntled independent councillor who leads you to believe that the planning processes he was involved were often corrupt. What did he do about it and where's the evidence? Or did he just keep his mouth shut but only confide in you? Mmmm, have to think about that one! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 In response to HE post above: Horsham District Council for example. Breakdown of Appeals 1/1/2005 to 19/4/2013 Appeals Dismissed 607 Appeals Allowed 279 Appeals Withdrawn 72 Appeals Part Allowed 21 Inspector Declined to Determine Appeal 2 Total Number of Appeals 981 Or West Berkshire Council: West Berkshire Council Overview and Scrutiny Management Commission 3 August 2010 Executive Report 1. Introduction Inspectorate Planning Appeal Decisions 2009 -2010: Total No. = 82 Total Dismissed 54 Total Allowed 28 Your comment regarding a possibly 'disgruntled' individual couldn't be more wrong. The individual in question is one of the most level headed, fair minded individuals I have ever met. The only thing he was 'disgruntled' over was the 'machinations' of the planning committee. I suspect he did comment on his concerns to others as well as me. However by inference, and requiring proof I take it that you are a 'doubting Thomas'. I on the other hand am able to accept conversational comment without resorting to having to see the 'proof' from individuals who I know and trust. I would like you to review my comments previously. I never questioned the 'appeals' process. I commented on the 'Planning Committee's' sometimes questionable decisions. What I did say is: It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Please note I say 'Committee felt rather secure etc' and did not attack the Appeals process. I merely stated that appeals are more often then not unsuccessful, as illustrated above (again) and can be costly. When you read in the press things such as 'Locals win appeal to stop 'xyz' supermarket chain from building yet another supermarket' it just goes to show just how money and status talks in the appeal process. If it was more common place that 'Joe public' won appeals against the 'monied and Lordly' it wouldn't be newsworthy now would it? Oh and congratulations on managing to reply without insulting anyone.....although some might think referring to my 'Councillor' friend as disgruntled was unnecessary and your 'skewed view' comments really are unnecessary. One day you might learn to carry on an online discussion/debate without casting disparaging comment on the person and stick to the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Roger Excellent post - I understand exactly what you are saying I doubt HE could ever get to first base! Like I say - put him right and he will hate you for it Whereas put an intelligent man right and he will thank you Debating with fools tho' is never a good idea because their greater experience of foolishness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-13 2:08 PM Roger Excellent post - I understand exactly what you are saying Yes of course you do! ;-) Perhaps you can explain to us what it is that you see that I can't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 To save long quotes: This is the key paragraph in RogerC's post: 'It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt.' Utter nonsense. First of all sensible people and companies do not apply for planning permission if there is absolutely no chance of winning. It's very costly to put in a planning application complete with surveys, architect's drawings etc. Consequently there are few appeals pro rata to the number of applications. I wanted a large extension at the back of my house. If my surveyor had told me that there was no chance whatsoever of getting approval, I wouldn't have gone ahead. All your figures prove is that many appeals do succeed but that generally the councils when refusing an application, got it right in the first place. But your suggestion that council planning committees, which are made up of councillors of all political parties, advised by the council's paid planning officials, would deliberately make a decision that they know is wrong because the applicant won't be bothered to appeal is utter nonsense! Do you really think that Tesco, which believes it may have a chance of winning, will just give up at the first hurdle? And I didn't win at first but I'd already spent a lot of money and the appeal cost was a fraction of the surveyor's and architect's fees so I appealed and I won my appeal. Conversely, if Tesco wins and a local people's fighting appeal has been contesting it, do you think that they'll just give up at the first hurdle as well? Of course they won't, they'll usually use every avenue they can. But I ask the question again. This friend of yours who has been party to all these decisions that you consider corrupt has said nothing. He hasn't put in any formal complaint or gone to the press. Why is that I wonder? If the success rate for appeals was much higher you would be the first person on here complaining that the councillors are either inept or corrupt or both for refusing them in the first place. But to me the success rate says one things - the council planning committees get it right the vast majority of the time. And you're not the only person who knows a councillor, I've known a few and without exception they were decent men who did the job because of a love of politics and to serve the community. Not one of them would have been browbeaten by any lord or corporation and any pressure on them would have made them even firmer in their desire to do the job fairly. Planning committees have minutes taken by council employees of varying political views. They are advised by officials also of varying political views. It's very odd that none of this vast web of corruption is publicised and that no one has blown the whistle. I remember a friend of mine who had to recuse himself from one application for a connection that was so tenuous it was unbelievable, but that is the position nowadays in this age of the whistle blower and the fear of appearing to be in the least bit shady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-13 2:51 PM CliveH - 2014-02-13 2:08 PM Roger Excellent post - I understand exactly what you are saying Yes of course you do! ;-) Perhaps you can explain to us what it is that you see that I can't? I quote Roger if I may:- I would like you to review my comments previously. I never questioned the 'appeals' process. I commented on the 'Planning Committee's' sometimes questionable decisions. What I did say is: It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Please note I say 'Committee felt rather secure etc' and did not attack the Appeals process. I merely stated that appeals are more often then not unsuccessful, as illustrated above (again) and can be costly." Now Frank - please read this carefully before you make more of an ar$e of yourself than you have already managed. I am not alone in flagging up that when it comes to your copious accusations "Pot kettle black" are words that spring to mind (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I read Rogers post and understood that he had not called into question the appeals process. You seem to have done your favourite trick and read into Rogers post what is not there - made up a bit more and then accused him of saying something that actually only occurred inside your own head. None of us can be held responsible for your increasingly bizarre interpretations of what has been said. PLEASE READ WHAT HAS BEEN SAID - Not what the voices tell you...................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RogerC Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-13 3:12 PMTo save long quotes: This is the key paragraph in RogerC's post:'It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Now I call that corrupt.'Utter nonsense. First of all sensible people and companies do not apply for planning permission if there is absolutely no chance of winning. It's very costly to put in a planning application complete with surveys, architect's drawings etc. Consequently there are few appeals pro rata to the number of applications. I wanted a large extension at the back of my house. If my surveyor had told me that there was no chance whatsoever of getting approval, I wouldn't have gone ahead.All your figures prove is that many appeals do succeed but that generally the councils when refusing an application, got it right in the first place.But your suggestion that council planning committees, which are made up of councillors of all political parties, advised by the council's paid planning officials, would deliberately make a decision that they know is wrong because the applicant won't be bothered to appeal is utter nonsense! Do you really think that Tesco, which believes it may have a chance of winning, will just give up at the first hurdle? And I didn't win at first but I'd already spent a lot of money and the appeal cost was a fraction of the surveyor's and architect's fees so I appealed and I won my appeal.Conversely, if Tesco wins and a local people's fighting appeal has been contesting it, do you think that they'll just give up at the first hurdle as well? Of course they won't, they'll usually use every avenue they can.But I ask the question again. This friend of yours who has been party to all these decisions that you consider corrupt has said nothing. He hasn't put in any formal complaint or gone to the press. Why is that I wonder?If the success rate for appeals was much higher you would be the first person on here complaining that the councillors are either inept or corrupt or both for refusing them in the first place.But to me the success rate says one things - the council planning committees get it right the vast majority of the time.And you're not the only person who knows a councillor, I've known a few and without exception they were decent men who did the job because of a love of politics and to serve the community. Not one of them would have been browbeaten by any lord or corporation and any pressure on them would have made them even firmer in their desire to do the job fairly.Planning committees have minutes taken by council employees of varying political views. They are advised by officials also of varying political views.It's very odd that none of this vast web of corruption is publicised and that no one has blown the whistle.I remember a friend of mine who had to recuse himself from one application for a connection that was so tenuous it was unbelievable, but that is the position nowadays in this age of the whistle blower and the fear of appearing to be in the least bit shady. Well apart from deeming an element of my post 'utter nonsense' I applaud you for replying without recourse to insult or other disagreeable comments. Well done. My Councillor friend, as an Independent, I presume suffered the same disillusionment as Martin Bell did whilst in Parliament as an Independent. Whilst their motives are laudable and generally altruistic their 'effect' is non existent. As an Independent he/they are usually a 'lone voice' and if, as been seen to happen over recent years they do 'blow the whistle' livelihoods and careers can be destroyed ergo much that should be 'blown wide open' simply is not through the fear of ruination. As I said previously there is a lot that goes on you/I/we/ Joe Public will never ever know about. Whilst I agree the Planning Committee meetings are minuted do you honestly think that 'meetings on the quiet' are not conducted in order to press through certain applications? So as to try and address your request for 'facts' or 'proof' as you put it here is the result of a simple 'Google search............and you'll see that even Local Gov't Ombudmans office, supposedly there to oversee and 'protect' the public interest/law is not averse to a little dubious/illegal/self interested approach. Taken from the Local Ombudsman Corruption and Cover Ups report of March 2010: Planning officer grants residential development on land a developer agreed (by legally binding Planning Agreement) to gift to council as public open space Planning officers turn blind eye to football pitch destroyed by developers otected trees unlawfully felled - Tree Preservation Order sham and planning officer blunders Planning 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 Planning officers fail to uphold Planning Agreement and landscape conditions - unauthorised concrete block wall Named and shamed (the corrupt Local Government Ombudsman fraudsters)Local Government Ombudsman Officers (York Office) Richard Corney - Investigator Chris Cobley - Assistant Ombudsman Neil Hobbs - Deputy Ombudsman (acting) Anne Seex - Local Government Ombudsman These corrupt fraudsters deliberately covered up council maladministration, concealed documented evidence of maladministration, knowingly misrepresented facts to favour incompetent council officers and whitewash mistakes, manipulated evidence, disregarded and failed to uphold their own published guidance on good administrative practice, and by their omissions condoned council malpractice. These dishonest cowards and two faced hypocrites lack the moral integrity to report the truth. Instead they deceive the public by failing to report all the facts, and conceal the truth in order to cover up the blunders and errors of incompetent council officers. These debased and immoral individuals are paid by the taxpayer to whitewash and cover up maladministration. They are unfit to carry out the duties for which they are employed. 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 Story Construction Ltd. The Director of Planning Services also had an interest in the developer, Story Construction Ltd. A family member was employed by Story Construction Ltd. When the two most senior planning officers have an interest in Story Construction Ltd (i.e. both have a member of their family employed by Story Construction Ltd) that must put into question the impartiality of the planning department and their advice to the Development Control Committee in respect of planning and development matters relating to Story Construction Ltd. Additionally I never said there was a 'vast web' of corruption. I merely stated that 'money and status' carries weight with 'some'. Although with the foregoing in mind I might have to review the breadth of my view. It certainly looks to be quite widespread doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Here you go again. Of course there will be the occasional bad apple and you can trawl the web all you like but you'll still only find a tiny percentage of councillors or officials who are corrupt. Regrettably, your mindset is such, as we've seen from your earlier pronouncements, that your first opinion of any organisation is totally negative, whereas I like to see proof. And as for these 'meetings on the quiet' even if they exist, which I doubt, the application still has to go to the full planning committee consisting of members across the political spectrum. I'd still like to know why your honourable friend is not making an official complaint about what he alleges? Very odd that. The conditions attached to councillors on planning committees are rigorous and your view that councillors are influenced by money is just silly. Labour councillors as well? Most councillors I've known would take a hard line on anyone using undue influence. But things are very different on Planet Roger, where everyone is bent, useless or on the take. Not in my world I'm afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Had Enough Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 CliveH - 2014-02-13 3:38 PM Had Enough - 2014-02-13 2:51 PM CliveH - 2014-02-13 2:08 PM Roger Excellent post - I understand exactly what you are saying Yes of course you do! ;-) Perhaps you can explain to us what it is that you see that I can't? I quote Roger if I may:- I would like you to review my comments previously. I never questioned the 'appeals' process. I commented on the 'Planning Committee's' sometimes questionable decisions. What I did say is: It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Please note I say 'Committee felt rather secure etc' and did not attack the Appeals process. I merely stated that appeals are more often then not unsuccessful, as illustrated above (again) and can be costly." Now Frank - please read this carefully before you make more of an ar$e of yourself than you have already managed. I am not alone in flagging up that when it comes to your copious accusations "Pot kettle black" are words that spring to mind (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I read Rogers post and understood that he had not called into question the appeals process. You seem to have done your favourite trick and read into Rogers post what is not there - made up a bit more and then accused him of saying something that actually only occurred inside your own head. None of us can be held responsible for your increasingly bizarre interpretations of what has been said. PLEASE READ WHAT HAS BEEN SAID - Not what the voices tell you...................... You are a sad, silly and vindictive little man. It is easily inferred from his post that he is unhappy with the appeals process as well as being unhappy with the actions of council planning committees. Once more, with you, this is no longer an argument about anything. It's just one more chance to mount yet another petty attack on me. I'll remind you again Clive of your career and mine, the voices that you claim I hear obviously advised me well. Perhaps you could have used them then you wouldn't be the pathetic failure that you are - a man who clearly craves validation from a handful of members on a tiny little forum because he certainly won't be getting it from his peers in the financial world. Now you started the insults Clive, you were warned but you're too thick to learn. Now do us all a favour, drop your petty obsession and let the grown-ups have a debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donna miller Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Oh look, yet another thread that is more about ego's than facts. *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 donna miller - 2014-02-13 5:09 PM Oh look, yet another thread that is more about ego's than facts. *-) Yeah... another thread destined to "circle the pan", that is Chatterbox.... *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Had Enough - 2014-02-13 4:22 PM CliveH - 2014-02-13 3:38 PM Had Enough - 2014-02-13 2:51 PM CliveH - 2014-02-13 2:08 PM Roger Excellent post - I understand exactly what you are saying Yes of course you do! ;-) Perhaps you can explain to us what it is that you see that I can't? I quote Roger if I may:- I would like you to review my comments previously. I never questioned the 'appeals' process. I commented on the 'Planning Committee's' sometimes questionable decisions. What I did say is: It seems appeals are rarely upheld or are rather expensive to action with any degree of success hence the Committee felt rather secure in their approvals being given and going unchallenged. Please note I say 'Committee felt rather secure etc' and did not attack the Appeals process. I merely stated that appeals are more often then not unsuccessful, as illustrated above (again) and can be costly." Now Frank - please read this carefully before you make more of an ar$e of yourself than you have already managed. I am not alone in flagging up that when it comes to your copious accusations "Pot kettle black" are words that spring to mind (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) I read Rogers post and understood that he had not called into question the appeals process. You seem to have done your favourite trick and read into Rogers post what is not there - made up a bit more and then accused him of saying something that actually only occurred inside your own head. None of us can be held responsible for your increasingly bizarre interpretations of what has been said. PLEASE READ WHAT HAS BEEN SAID - Not what the voices tell you...................... You are a sad, silly and vindictive little man. It is easily inferred from his post that he is unhappy with the appeals process as well as being unhappy with the actions of council planning committees. Once more, with you, this is no longer an argument about anything. It's just one more chance to mount yet another petty attack on me. I'll remind you again Clive of your career and mine, the voices that you claim I hear obviously advised me well. Perhaps you could have used them then you wouldn't be the pathetic failure that you are - a man who clearly craves validation from a handful of members on a tiny little forum because he certainly won't be getting it from his peers in the financial world. Now you started the insults Clive, you were warned but you're too thick to learn. Now do us all a favour, drop your petty obsession and let the grown-ups have a debate. (lol) (lol) (lol) The grown ups are quite capable of having a debate - we can even agree to disagree and act in an adult manner........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 When it comes to corruption in Local Government - the issue is discussed at length here:- http://www.transparency.org.uk/component/content/article/10-publications/747-corruption-in-uk-local-government-the-mounting-risks Edit - bad initial link - updated one above Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.