Hurrah! Stafford makes it into Guido Hall of Shame!
http://order-order.com/2015/04/29/w...or-these-dodgy-councillors/#_@/TZbkxvga-mGcxA
http://order-order.com/2015/04/29/w...or-these-dodgy-councillors/#_@/TZbkxvga-mGcxA
-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
Stafford Sleaze and Scandal
- Thread starter PPPPPP
- Start date
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
He's a twat
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
A lot of people shit in the woods too
proactive
Enjoying a drop of red.
Many bloggers are twats. But he would be a twat even if he wasn't a blogger, that's for sure.
Did the Newsletter give you permission to take photos in their office?There may be some crossover ?
captainpish
Well-Known Forumite
Whilst i think about it do county councillors or mayors with posh jags and chauffers have an exemption on parking restrictions? There were 3 parked for a good hour up the street behind the old registry office right next to a civvies bmw that had been ticketed. Made me chuckle a bit and wanted to hang around to see if a warden came by (as they patrol there frequently) and see what he did. There are clear signs saying no stopping but the chauffers didnt seem to want their boy to walk for a few yards to a car park so parked right outside the door.
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
One of the blue lot were in town today, may be related?
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
William Hague was here - he is disposable, I think, I believe that he's not standing again?
I did shout at my radio this morning when he described the possible return of 24 hour A&E cover as an "improvement".
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2015/05/01/council-messed-up-330000-staffordshire-schools-fund/
Council 'messed up' £330,000 Staffordshire schools fund
A council blunder almost cost £330,000 worth of investment into education in Staffordshire, it has emerged.
Council 'messed up' £330,000 Staffordshire schools fund
A council blunder almost cost £330,000 worth of investment into education in Staffordshire, it has emerged.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
http://www.expressandstar.com/news/...lice-chief-will-earn-more-than-140000-a-year/
The new Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police will be paid a salary of more than £141,000 a year.
The process has been delayed while Mr Ellis presided over a report into the botched Kevin Nunes murder case.
Former Chief Constable Mike Cunningham left in August and Deputy Chief Constable Jane Sawyers has been acting as Temporary Chief Constable.
Mrs Sawyers is believed to be interested in the job.
Mike Cunningham was appointed Chief Constable of Staffordshire Police in September 2009, drawing a salary of £139,931 although his pay, including pension contributions, amounted to £183,741.
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....icial-review/story-26303358-detail/story.html
Odd that Newsletter doesn't put the follow-up story saying that Colwich Parish Council is actually taking legal action against SBC planners. They might have a good case with another one that went through in January (14/21135/OUT)
Highlights include...
Planners in recommending this application ignore the values this
Committee set when it refused the Moor Family Trust application.
7
• Extremely concerned with the apparent process abuse linked to this
application
• Someone had issued a directive for the planning report to be completed
by 12 December in order that the application would be heard today
• The unusual haste related to the inside knowledge that the site will
be outside the RDB raises my anxiety
• These issues need to be examined in conjunction with the conflict of
interest associated with this application ie Councillor Heenan’s
position as an Officer of Inglewood Investments Company (the Owner of
the land) which costs less than £50,000 and his fiduciary obligations to
maximise shareholder value which conflicts with his duty to represent
the interest of his constituents
• Elected representatives have a moral obligation to look to the
interest of our constituents first until the issue of conflict is
determined.
Odd that Newsletter doesn't put the follow-up story saying that Colwich Parish Council is actually taking legal action against SBC planners. They might have a good case with another one that went through in January (14/21135/OUT)
Highlights include...
Planners in recommending this application ignore the values this
Committee set when it refused the Moor Family Trust application.
7
• Extremely concerned with the apparent process abuse linked to this
application
• Someone had issued a directive for the planning report to be completed
by 12 December in order that the application would be heard today
• The unusual haste related to the inside knowledge that the site will
be outside the RDB raises my anxiety
• These issues need to be examined in conjunction with the conflict of
interest associated with this application ie Councillor Heenan’s
position as an Officer of Inglewood Investments Company (the Owner of
the land) which costs less than £50,000 and his fiduciary obligations to
maximise shareholder value which conflicts with his duty to represent
the interest of his constituents
• Elected representatives have a moral obligation to look to the
interest of our constituents first until the issue of conflict is
determined.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
http://www.izaakwalton.org.uk/Lodge Officers.htm
Good to see our Green councillor's alternative career progressing.
Good to see our Green councillor's alternative career progressing.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Have you taken the Order of the Pug?
Display Name
A few posts under my belt
So, we have the former council leader keeping his interests in development companies secret for years, and the senior council member's rugby club plans allegedly being forced through against expert advice. What next? Rolf Harris for mayor? Stafford Place being turned into an underground missile silo?
Perhaps soon, but in the meantime consider planning app 15/21852/HOU, a scheme to enlarge a local property's floor area by 152%. As a 70% maximum increase is SBC's policy, obviously such an audacious idea would be rejected out of hand. After all, rules is rules!
We know this because SBC has made it crystal clear that people just can't get away with this sort of thing. Three years ago, when a developer was taken to court for cutting down hundreds of protected trees without permission, the BC spokesperson was quoted by the media:
"After the case Councillor Frances Beatty, planning portfolio holder for the council, said: “I hope this sends a message to any developer, no matter how big or small, that you cannot ride roughshod over planning rules without facing the prospect of court action.”
Quite right!
But what's this in the May 5th planning committee meeting minutes? Despite 15/21852/HOU more than doubling the allowable increase in floor area, permission was granted, increasing the value of the house (which had been on the market at £550,000 for some time) greatly. Why the council abandoned its policies is a mystery, but no doubt the owner, a Mrs F Beatty, considers herself very fortunate.
By complete coincidence, the recording of the meeting on the BC’s website suddenly stops a few seconds before the committee discuss the application, and there are no details in the minutes.
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....tory-20155744-detail/story.html#ixzz3f1jgJy4H
Perhaps soon, but in the meantime consider planning app 15/21852/HOU, a scheme to enlarge a local property's floor area by 152%. As a 70% maximum increase is SBC's policy, obviously such an audacious idea would be rejected out of hand. After all, rules is rules!
We know this because SBC has made it crystal clear that people just can't get away with this sort of thing. Three years ago, when a developer was taken to court for cutting down hundreds of protected trees without permission, the BC spokesperson was quoted by the media:
"After the case Councillor Frances Beatty, planning portfolio holder for the council, said: “I hope this sends a message to any developer, no matter how big or small, that you cannot ride roughshod over planning rules without facing the prospect of court action.”
Quite right!
But what's this in the May 5th planning committee meeting minutes? Despite 15/21852/HOU more than doubling the allowable increase in floor area, permission was granted, increasing the value of the house (which had been on the market at £550,000 for some time) greatly. Why the council abandoned its policies is a mystery, but no doubt the owner, a Mrs F Beatty, considers herself very fortunate.
By complete coincidence, the recording of the meeting on the BC’s website suddenly stops a few seconds before the committee discuss the application, and there are no details in the minutes.
http://www.staffordshirenewsletter....tory-20155744-detail/story.html#ixzz3f1jgJy4H
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
If it's not in the minutes it didn't happen, put in a FOI?
Yalla
Well-Known Forumite
Absolutely disgusting but looks about right from my experience of dealing with Planning issues at SBC. They are inconsistent and not happy when challenged. This case needs taking further and a formal explanation given as to why it's been accepted as it exceeds the amount in SBC Policy. However, this will only be given if a FOI request is raised as tek-monkey suggests.