It goes as follows:
I have just looked at the papers sent to councillors re this development and they leave a lot to be desired in terms of the way they describe the objections. For example, the papers state that the Environment Agency has no objections in principle to the development. However in their letter to the authority dated 23/10/06, they clearly state that they OBJECT to the plans as the area is within a flood area and would require to see a proper flood risk assessment carried out. The Council also fail to mention what the Environment Agency say in a later letter regarding bathing quality and there not being any work to be done between May and September to mitigate the possibility of damaging the bathing water quality. THese are only two of the innaccuracies that I have picked up from one authority. How many more are there.
Perhaps now is the time for us all to write to Joe Duckworth and threaten the council with a charge of maladministration should they proceed. If such a charge is proven, then it is individual councillors who are held to be financially accountable. How many would vote in favour then?
Having read through the notes, I’ve got to say that I was rather surprised to see that they claim only 47 of the 81 letters lodged to the revised scheme were in objection. Mind you, that figure should also be added to the 53 (out of 57) letters of objection to the initial scheme.