SENT October 2010
There has been a cover up of wrongdoing involving SHDC Planning Dept & LCC Highways for some months now with members of staff at different levels becoming aware as time passed that there was something untoward within the organisation but still the ranks closed and the ‘conspiracy theory’ has been fed.
I maintain that the building of six affordable homes in West Drove South, Gedney Hill was a precursor to a further 16 homes, “agreed” secretly, to follow on along the same parcel of horticultural land.
There are several circumstantial pieces of evidence that I draw the reader to in Appendix D. However I will now concentrate on the specific points that need to be addressed.
1. At the beginning of May paint marks were first noticed in West Drove South the positioning of which was highly significant in that it tied in perfectly with an extension of the lane’s speed limit (if that indeed was their meaning) to conveniently now include ALL of a parcel of horticultural land a small proportion of which was then being utilised to build 6 affordable homes.
There was no obvious reason as to why paint marks, indeed these specific marks, would be necessary and none has been proffered.
2. On May 17th I telephoned Highways and was told that yes the speed limit signs were to be moved and the limit would be the same. I was further told that this was ‘down as a job’ and that whilst the reason was not known the work would be done in about a month after legal requirements were sorted. This conversation contained no ambiguity, there was clear evidence that facts were being checked by the official and it is apparently clearly presented information in a transparent truthful fashion and I believe that any right thinking person would come to that conclusion. This conversation was recorded by myself.
3. On May 17th I telephoned Highways and in the guise of a potential purchaser of property in Gedney Hill sought information that a purchaser might normally seek whilst house hunting. The outcome of this conversation was pretty unsavoury in terms of confidence building regarding a house purchase in West Drove South where it’s pretty obvious that over and above those being built now more had been “agreed”. The phone call then seemed to die from the officials end as if having let the cat out of the bag and realising he had put his foot in it after being suckered he was speechless! This conversation was recorded by myself.
4. A complaint was made to SHDC without the recordings being included.
5. A complaint was made to LCC without the recordings being included.
6. SHDC denied any secret agreement to build more houses in their response to the complaint. They also, combined in the stage 2 rebuttal and a subsequent email exchange, denied there were any plans to move the speed limit signs and nor had there been.
7. LCC denied any plans to alter speed limit signs past, present or future in their response to the complaint.
8. LCC denied any plans to alter speed limit signs past, present or future in a Freedom of Information request.
9. I made a submission to the LGO who decided for reasons they will ultimately have to explain that they would not consider the recording evidence and that, as I have not been the victim of an injustice (which I dispute), they would not proceed.
10. Put into the position of seeking justice myself I made the contents of the Highways recording know to SHDC, LCC and the Mr A, Head of Planning and Development
South Holland District Council, who was seemingly quite up for a feisty email exchange previously.
11. SHDC response was ‘go tell LGO’! See the full failure to acknowledge SHDC failure in Appendix C
12. Mr A suddenly dried up and wouldn’t enter into an email exchange when I not unreasonably enquired why he misled me in his stage 2 dissertation after he was in possession of the recording. Strange that.
13. LCC was the most bizarre. If you like works of fiction then you have a budding HG Wells on your staff. I won’t dignify it with an acknowledgement. Just listen to the phone call again and read your staffer’s letter …
There are conclusions I draw from these shenanigans along the lines:
· Both SHDC & LCC complaint procedures are deeply flawed. Not fit for purpose through covering up wrongdoing or incompetence.
· When confronted with evidence of my being ‘misled’ by their staff Highways go for a nuclear stupidity option.
· If we’re to believe that staff just feed people tosh to get rid of them where does that leave council ethics and credibility? This applies to both councils and I refer here to my version of a call with SHDC not recorded earlier this year which was in my stage 2 complaint and completely rubbished by Head of Planning & Development – a resume of this is in Appendix A!
· Was the response referenced in item 13 above a calculated lie to protect the voracity of items 7 & 8 above?
· If these plans to expand the area of speed restriction are real, as I believe and the evidence suggests, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that the secret agreement to build more homes was a done deal irrespective of any planning consultation. Added to which the 6 houses currently under construction were never going to be anything other than built – so the 6 complainants wasted their time!
· Paint marks in the road? The only reference I’ve had to these are, “anyone can put paint marks on a road”! But mostly everybody is ignoring my references to them in letters and film and most notably in 13 above. Why is that? Why haven’t Highways gone the whole lying hog and absolutely denied any responsibility for them being in West Drove South at that particular location?
The fact that the road signs were not subsequently moved is irrelevant to my case. I can only assume alterations to plans were made after my interest and that’s not to say I take any credit for that.
I’m not holding my breath for satisfaction as I’m thinking both councils are in too deep to come clean now and that toughing it out continues to be plan A with probably no plan B.
I, however, have been exercising parallel planning and it is my intention to get to the bottom of these matters. In a meeting recently with other WDS residents attended by John Hayes MP there was talk of ‘corruption’ by some present so SHDC & LCC have made an impression albeit a pretty abject one. Mr Hayes was in agreement on issues like the speed limit of 40 being too high and had concerns over the proposed footpath – issues I have already raised with SHDC & LCC.
I enclose a DVD of relevant recordings and, in the event of problems with the DVD, there are Internet links in Appendix A to all of them.
Appendices follow as additional posts
No comments:
Post a Comment