Sha Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Warrington are having to pay costs for another planning fiasco - when is enough going to be enough? I don't for one minute blame the planning committee for this latest fiasco. The plans re the Walton garage should definitely have been refused - and probably would have been if officers had been doing their jobs properly. What the hell were planning officers thinking of in recommending this for approval in the first place? What were highways thinking of? WHO exactly was responsible for putting the evidence together to support the refusal? The case lost basically through failure to provide adequate evidence, which if provided would have most probably led to a different outcome. Why do we continue to pay salaries ...and subsequent costs...for officer's cock ups? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Presume this is the article you are relating to? http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/articles/17584/1/Costs-awarded-against-council-after-lengthy-planning-battle/Page1.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted February 4, 2014 Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 Maybe there weren't any other allowable 'material planning consideration' that they could come up with Sha As for the highways issue well I suppose the fact that the car sales place has been on the very busy Chester Road over the swing bridge for many years without a problem then what difference will a few hundred yards in the opposite direction make ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted February 5, 2014 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 noticed your wink re the 'material planning considerations'- yes Diz, in past experience the 'material' considerations used by the planners sometimes seems to be the type they weave themselves - or not. In this case, despite there being other reasons for refusal the planning committee had chosen highways issues as the sole reason for refusal but when the case was put before the inspector had not given any adequate explanation as to why. Officers are aware, or certainly should be, that detailed explanations are required - so why weren't they? Questions need to be asked, mine would be - "cock up or stitch up?" and whatever the answer the failing needs to be addressed - permanently! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.