Monday, 13 September 2010

Understanding Planning Decisions on Anglesey

Since setting up The Druid perhaps one topic more than any other has regularly generated substantial controversy and comment: planning decisions. Many a commenter has levelled complaints against Anglesey County Council and its Planning & Orders Committee for perceived bad decisions, alleged injustices, and sometimes even more serious transgressions.

But just how justified are these comments and allegations? Is it a case of lay people not understanding how the system works, with its complex laws, policies and procedures, and jumping to the wrong conclusions?

Perhaps, or perhaps not.

Much conjecture, and much speculation is posted, but not often anything which could be actioned in law. Most (but not all) commenters admit to not knowing much about planning law and many seem to need advice and a guiding hand through its maze of procedure.

Such advice is available of course in the market -- but at a cost. The objector to a planning application can range from a single person, say an affected neighbour, to a number of people, say a community group. The issues are often the same.

The Druid has discrete access to specialist legal advice on planning practice, planning law, policy and procedure and propose that it may be helpful to set up a dedicated page on this blog where questions may be posted, matters may be explored and many complex issues may be explained discreetly, without divulging names or addresses. Lets call them hypothetical scenarios?

So my question to you all is this: do you think there is any merit in the Druid setting up some kind of Q&A page dedicated to planning matters where my specialist will try and answer questions? If so, we could keep it open for as long as it is needed, or until the subject exhausts itself.

And to to kick off the discussion here is a second question for you all: are we all NIMBYs? Are we all obsessed with preserving our immediate orbit and environment?

Note on comments: All normal rules apply - please don't post any specific allegations against named organisations or persons.

78 comments:

caebrwyn said...

Excellent idea - go for it.

mozilla said...

Yes I think it would be a good idea. In answer to your second question, no on balance I do not think we are all NIMBY's.

Having been associated with planning matters for some time, but not directly as a planning specialist, it always surprised me that large developments could be passed without much debate (nothing wrong with that of course), but that the building of say one house could generate so much debate and hate.

Sometimes it is down to a lack of understanding, but sadly for a minority (?) it will be down to neighbourly disputes, and more importantly these are the once the press seem to like to focus on.

An Insider said...

Druid.
I think it would be a much needed service, one that is sadly lacking at the moment. As 11:14 say's. GO FOR IT.

Anonymous said...

11.40 Its often "hate thy neighbour" when he wants to build an extension that you think is too close to you....stop him at all costs.....causing a permanent falling out, and abuse over the garden fence ? We think we "own" the spatial orbit around our houses.

Anonymous said...

Human Rights Please. Without Human Rights you cannot expect anything to be open and transparent let alone honest.

Inspector said...

Druid,

It is a very good idea to have a planning section.

I hold up my hands, declare an interest, and say that I have had a refusal on the conversion of a modern (ca. 1950s) outbuilding into a dwelling, using the same footprint and height to within 5% of the existing building.

But that was a long time ago. I could then, but certainly can now, look objectively on other conversions that have taken place, and which seem to fly in the face of the arguments used to reject my application, which was on the grounds of (a) building in the open countryside (it was amongst a small cluster of 5 houses) and (b) the building would be changed to look very different (the plans demonstrated it would not).

I'm not bitter, as I'm actually glad I didn't get permission in the end, mainly as it would have meant me living in a caravan for two or more years!

So, how can we reconcile these arguments with others we see around us? Examples: Extensive barn conversions leading to huge external appearance changes near Llansadwrn, Anglesey? The huge new build on an old footprint that is massively out of keeping with what was there previously and with surrounding designs, also near Llansadwrn? The massive house built on open fields near Hebron? And the similarly large house, again on open countryside, near Rhosbeirio Farm, Bodewryd?

I'm happy that these people got planning; I think there is more than enough scope to allow developments on what is industrial agricultural land, not 'natural' green fields. But when it comes to defending the arguments used against one, when others succeed, well then it has to be down to inconsistency of application of the rules, corruption, or both.

Let's see what others can come up with. I reckon that, given any one refusal and its reasons, I could go out and show a few examples of contrary decisions in a matter of an hour or two.

mozilla said...

Planning Law and Human Rights legislation shall always be a compromise. Take the right to peaceful enjoyment of someone property, and hypothetically a complaint by a neighbour that their's is being infringed by a proposed extension, whilst the applicant counter claims that the objection also infringes their peaceful enjoyment. Someone has to make a decision, someone is not going to be satisfied.

Due process yes, transparency and honesty absolutely, but that is basic common law, not just Human Rights legislation.

The Great Councillini said...

What's also clear is that the planning officers, if you do what they suggest and speak to them about proposals before submission, then they take precious little notice of what was said. OK, it's not legally-binding, but yo do expect a professional, if asked, to be able to highlight problems or even grounds for support.

What happens in practice is that the officer will say 'oh, it looks fine, just do this and this', which you do, then on submission: whallop! Suddenly, a whole new raft of objections that were completely obvious from the outset if that is what they now think.

Dicussions with officers, informal or otherwise, should be recorded and used against them when there is this sudden change of heart from out of the blue. At the moment, there is no point asking for informal opinions, because the answers are worthless. They also lead to applicants spending thousands of pounds on architects when there is no prospect of success in the end.

mozilla said...

To Anon 12:06

All application are determined on their own merits. Sometimes wrong decisions are taken, or appear contrary to other decisions.

However the old adage 'Two wrongs do not make a right' still applies, and whilst no doubt we could all draw up a list of apparent contradictions, I doubt this was the purpose of the Druids suggestion.

Lets deal with the future and not once again revisit old grounds.

Anonymous said...

"Lets deal with the future and not once again revisit old grounds."

I've heard that argument used for all sorts of situations, not least the way in which the Council has attempted to move forwards without first learning from its mistakes (and attempting to whitewash those mistakes).

I agree in principle with not raking over old coals. But, the most commonly-expressed concern I have heard over many years, is precisely what I have put forward: how come one set of rules produces such wildly different results under similar or identical conditions? Let's face it, most of Anglesey is a big green mass of grass, so the comparisons are often easy. What makes one field different from another when it comes to planning decisions? Who you know, and who is corrupt. That's what.

I politely suggest that, whilst we don't want to see arguments break out, that it is these types of inconsistency that we do need to see addressed and corrected. The people perceive planning as unfair and corrupt. If this really is just a wrong perception, I would have thought the Council would have long ago made a huge effort to demonstrate that is a mistaken view, backed by evidence. So far as I know, they have not.

mozilla said...

I totally disagree with the Great Councillini, always seek the advice of Planning Officers before and during submission of a planning application, and or to check whether you actually need planning approval in the first place. Keep rechecking that for example a amendment is still acceptable.

If the problems where obvious then the any good architect should have warned his client about them also.

The Great Councillini said...

RE: NIMBYism

Whether or not we are nimbys depends on who is asking the question, and why.

I would suggest an interesting experiment: of all senior planning personnel, how many live in big houses, relatively isolated from others? Of all planning staff making applications, how many are approved? Of all objections made by planning staff about developments near their properties, how many are heeded and supported?

I would suggest that there are basic human tendencies that form a hypothesis: that the more money and influence you have, the more likely it is that you will want to live away from others and be able to stop others from doing what they would like.

Pot, kettle, black. We keep coming back to it...

TGC said...

Mozilla,

I agree with your sentiments, and normally, I would disagree with my own advice on this matter. But in practice, officers give advice that encourages people, whereas on submission, new objections are raised. In fairness even to my rubbish architect, he did keep in contact with the officers throughout.

In a council proven to be generally poorly run, is it really so hard to accept that planning isn't working, too?

mozilla said...

To 12:28 Sorry me again

The answer is easy...where a application is a departure from local or national policies or plans then it should be refused. End of.

Of course we need a debate about affordable houses for young people in the countryside and if their is a significant need then lets change the polices. But we should not allow any decisions to be made on how good a councillor can plead on behalf of an applicant.

Anonymous said...

11.53 has a point.
We all assume we "own" the visual orbit the title of which is legally owned by others...such as the open-ness (not necessarily views !) around and from our homes over the land of others....and woe betide anyone who wants to interfere with our accustomed orbits and build houses or extensions. Enmity !

The Great Councillini said...

But the 'point' needs to be tested by those putting forward the view.

I presume, then, that, being the title holder of Her Majesty's piece of land up to your garden fence, that you will be happy for me to erect a house that blocks your hitherto unobstructed view to the mountains?

Or maybe you won't! In my book, removing someone's cherished view is a material and significant change to their sense of place and enjoyment of where they live.

OK, people may well have to yield to the 'greater good' in letting the development go ahead. But then we're into really dangerous territory, such as the 'greater good' to society as a whole of prohibiting the making of profit on selling houses, which has resulted already in most youngsters now being unable to afford their own homes - at least without a hand-out from parents - if they are lucky enough.

So, exending the non-NIMBYism argument, we'll all be happy to accept that everybody needs an affordable home, and that, in the interest of society, we'll only ask for the buying price of our house plus inflation over the period of ownership the next time we sell. See? We won't? Maybe the term 'SLADAMism' should be invented - 'so long as it doesn't apply to me'?

This is a sensitive topic of discussion. All I know is that, if we all, myself included, have a strong view, then there is almost certainly room for other views to come into play to moderate them.

Anonymous said...

good idea druid , wasnt it in the 90s that it was discovered that the head of planning built a nice new house and didnt have the correct planning permission ( i may be wrong )think it came to light during anglesey gate

mozilla said...

To TGC

A poor Council, will have low morale and unmotivated staff. All they read about it appears is disparaging remarks, resulting in good staff leaving, and potential good recruits not applying (would you want to work for the current council?).

Remember they have human rights also. Carry out a review by an outside body certainly, but the problem will never be solved until all Councillor learn how to behave as Councillors.

Anonymous said...

It is a well established legal principle in planning that the use and development of land enures for the common good, above and beyond private and personal interests.
So private property rights are thus sidelined in favour of what is needed for the greater good, i.e.the community.
Watch out for the emerging LOCALISM law, which will give local communities the right to accept or reject local proposals.
A charter for NIMBYISM ?

TGC said...

Mozilla,

Oh, I agree. I don't mean to criticise all staff, and that's something I've said consistently ever since this blog appeared.

But, look at the evidence. Long before the internet provided us with blogs, the planning dept. at Anglesey had high staff turnover, high rates of sickness absences, well above even the Council's own high sickness record, low morale and a big backlog of work.

So, to suggest that somehow comments on this blog might bring about a collapse of the staff and the service doesn't stand up to scrutiny, I'm afraid.

Anonymous said...

It is a fact that successive planning staff at IACC have felt bunkered, abused, and unjustifiably attacked for many many years, that is why they are stressed out and overly defensive and we recall several in the past retiring or leaving on grounds of ill-health. They blame bullying Councillors, more than the disappointed public, by the way !

mozilla said...

To TGC

You miss the point, I am not just only talking about this excellent blog or the internet. I am fully aware of the problems planning have had and it goes a long long way back, even further than the current version of the Council. I remember tales of a certain Chief Planning Officer having to bang tables at planning meetings because the Councillors where going to make yet again stupid decision.

What I was strongly suggesting was that the problems with the Council will continue until we somehow can sort out the Councillors and get them to behave as Councillors. Any suggestions?

Anonymous said...

If we read the daily revelations on ynysmon.com it appears that nothing less than a public inquiry will suffice which must involve planning scams by Officers and Councillor, past and present.

Anonymous said...

Oh no! We're back to Councillors and what we can do about them!

I thought it was going to be that simple, but then we entered the Bowles Zone, where things have become even worse than they were before.

Suggestions for improvement? I see nothing much left other than a revolution of some sort!

James D said...

Are the decisions just stupid, or are we in a North Cornwall in the early 1990s situation? (You may well be amused by the paragraph of the minister's reply beginning "I note that my right hon. Friend".)

I would very much argue that the people of North Cornwall got the planning system they deserved, given the democratic wishes of the local people and the influx of outsiders (one of whom got elected to the council and started being indiscreet to journalists); but the conclusion at the time was that it was corrupt, and very senior local government officers lost their jobs over this.

I sincerely hope I am putting two and two together and making five here.

Anonymous said...

13.45 Oust them all in the 2012 Election ! Start afresh ?

Anonymous said...

Druid,
If this excellent Q&A idea is to work (and you are to be congratulated for raising it as a possibility !) it needs to be confined to true planning questions, not be used to knock Councillors ??

The Druid of Anglesey said...

I would agree with Anon 14:15 - for this to work it is best for commenters to stick to questions directly relating to the application of planning procedures and law. In that way our specialist legal advisor will be able to assist and enlighten us!

Anonymous said...

Druid
I agree, but when commentators refer to getting rid of all the Councillors and lets have a fresh start, we must remember there is only four Councillors that need getting rid of. The most important thing would be to get rid of the corrupt Officers, then we'll see real change very quickly.

Anonymous said...

Were the Bodffordd objectors campaigning against the biogas proposal NIMBY`s ? The proposal was on an industrial estate. There was a proven public need for the facility. Planning policy and guidance supported it. The officers recommended approval of it. The Planning Committee approved it. The Judge threw out the judicial challenge to the decision. NIMBYism at its best ?

Anonymous said...

Were the Bodffordd objectors campaigning against the biogas proposal NIMBY`s ? The proposal was on an industrial estate. There was a proven public need for the facility. Planning policy and guidance supported it. The officers recommended approval of it. The Planning Committee approved it. The Judge threw out the judicial challenge to the decision. NIMBYism at its best ?

mozilla said...

To Druid I have already mentioned my concerns about malicious attacks on the staff of the Council and the affect it has having on their morale.

Of course wrongdoing should not be tolerated, but neither should the making of false accusations. We are all aware of corrupt Council's from the past, one mentioned above. But much has changed since then.

So here is one question relating to planning law and procedures -

Could your specialist legal advisor please explain to us who monitors the decisions taken by the Planning Authority?

Anonymous said...

Do issues about planning law extend to building regulations and grants?

I ask as I 've had issues with building control over building regulation breaches resulting from grant works and I honesty don't know who to believe anymore (grant's, building control, planning.

If they do then I've got some specific questions I'd like to ask of your advisor.

Anonymous said...

Druid, I think that restricting the Qs and As to policy and law might alienate most of us.

If we are to delve into law, then that won't make the FAQ section any the more easy to prepare; there'll be a need to look at the specifics in each case. I suspect it might lead to lengthy discussions that will get us nowhere in the end.

The problems with Building Regs are even more convoluted. I found them utterly useless on most occasions, failing even to record in their diary when they had visited, and what they had asked or agreed. At what point do you not conclude that it's incompetence? My view is: do it yourself to a high standard and forget Building Regs. You can sell a house without a certificate and at a fraction of the cost by simply buying an insurance policy for the purchaser - just £40 one-off payment the last time I looked.

Can a FAQ section answer this:

Is the Planning Inspectorate fit for purpose, fair and unbiased, and worthy of continuation in its present form?

An interesting discussion on some of these points, plus other crucial matters relating to the non-NIMBYism advanced by some, can be found here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmenvtra/364/36411.htm

The Great Councillini said...

Most interesting, particularly:

"They [the current arrangements] do not reflect the ideals of a participative democracy of the 21st century, and they are not mirrored in the planning systems of other European or common law countries. That third party appeals could cause delay and administrative problems may be true, but is no answer to the question of a principle as to whether such a system is needed."

So it looks like Parliament - and most other EU nations - think that third party views (NIMBYs, if you insist on the term) should have a say and right of appeal on planning matters that affect them. It would be interesting to follow any legal challenges to the present system under, for example, the HRA.

ANSWER said...

15.51.
Each application is down to a case officer who will determine according to policy and guidance, and will consider any material considerations. Each decision is scrutinizes and signed by a senior officer, but he does not visit the site, normally. So there is scrutiny, of sorts.
There is also inconsistency in decision-making. Ultimately the applicant has the right of appeal.

ANSWER said...

16.10 The three are separate and unconnected in law and policy. You will find that planning is not interested in the fine detail of building regulations, less still grants. What`s the issue exactly ?

ANSWER said...

16.22
The Planning Inspectorate (PINS) is a highly efficient and professional independent entity.
Their Inspectors are knowledgable, fair and incisive, they know their law and local and national policies. They are respected.
But !
They are not independent of government, in fact they stand in the shoes of the Minister, and will uphold national policies.
They are also not always right, and their decisions may be appealed to the Court by judicial review. Fit for purpose ? Yes.

Anonymous said...

Should objectors (3rd parties) have the right to appeal planning decisions (approvals) ??

ANSWER said...

16.58
Its an idea that is growing in favour with government and some form of appeal mechanism may be enacted....watch this space.
It has not been available because its considered that objectors have sufficient bite at the application in its public and neighbour consultation stage and if material, will have been weighed by the case officer. If the right becomes law, it will seriously delay and hamper development, and that can not be a good thing if the development is something that is genuinely needed e.g. some community use or infrastructure ?
Most commenters will say it will add an unecessary further bureaucratic layer to an already overloaded system. Lets see !

mozilla said...

To Answer in reply to my question posed at 15:51 I was thinking more in terms of monotoring from external bodies

Anonymous said...

A good website to visit is:

http://www.planningaidwales.org.uk/

Anonymous said...

Any council which needs to be monitored for what ever reason from outside must be a council which cannot be trusted. In Anglesey's case it needs to be monitored constantly.

THE ANSWER said...

Mozilla 19.29.
Answer is none.....except for the appeal process which looks at the application afresh.

The Great Councillini said...

It's always seemed to me that planning policies are a one-size-fits-all attempt to bring order to the world of development.

But have these policies been successful? Look back at much of the post-WW2 period up until modern times, and you could be forgiven for concluding that planning policies have been an abject failure.

And we continue to live in a world where, despite the fact that agriculture has diminished massively as an industry, farmers and forestry workers are still allowed certain benefits over the rest of us when it comes to planning. There's nothing wrong with that, perhaps, but it's clearly ludicrous and outdated to stick to a post-war policy aimed at increasing food and timber output; those days are long gone. Yet there is no recognition that small businesses might get to benefit from slightly relaxed planning rules if they want to extend their operations a bit.

Remember that, from a local perspective, Anglesey has been one of the slowest to allow applicants to represent their application before committee; I can remember well even recently the utter denial that there was any good reason to allow this. Still, it changed in the end, when practically everyone else had changed.

Anonymous said...

TGC 08.50 Who can disagree with the logic of what you say.
On the issue of the applicant or his agent (or the objector )addressing the Planning Committee...its something, yes...but its a farce in practice.
3 minutes to present and persuade, to put over sometimes complex argument, to a committee who is bored and does not listen...and who most likely have predetermined the matter anyway ?
Cynic, yes...realist, yes ?

mozilla said...

Oh dear me, ANSWER, I'm afraid i'll have to give you a 'F' for the answer to the question who externally monitors the decisions taken by Planning Authority.

Well it's my understaning that there's the Welsh Assembly Goverment for a start, they i.e montior the statistics of all Planning Authorities for Wales to ensure they meet their achievements against agreed targets see:
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/planningstats/pisinwales/?lang=en

Also there the Welsh Audit Office who carry out random surveys of planning applications to see that the correct procedure is being followed (not sure how regular)

And there the Chief Plannning Officers Association that keeps a watching brief on the perfromance of all Planning Authorities

...need I go on....

And of course and although not really asked about, you cannot forget the public, this is why transparency is all important, as well as the development of e-planning systems.

Maybe my question was to vague for you, but then the answer should have been vauge also, not impressed, sorry.

ANSWER said...

The answer was perfectly correct in terms of determining the correctness and consistency or otherwise of individual planning decisions which I interpreted was your question?

mozilla said...

Oh dear me Answer, suggest you forget it and move on.

Monitor as in keep tabs on; keep an eye on; keep under surveillance

as opposed to say Verify: control; check or regulate.

You, I think answered the question:

Who externally, checks that all planning decisions taken by a local Planning Authoirty, is correct and legal.

But that's not the question I asked, basic rule never assume to know what is on the questioners mind - if in doubt clarify first answer later.

Question to Druid: Is 'The Answer' your legal expert, they lack basic legal knowledge if you ask me - still not impressed. Still I suppose it's for free, as the old adage says a lawyer, who gives advice away freely, is a poor lawyer.

Anonymous said...

mozilla.
Your playing with semantic's dear boy. The whole idea is to educate not irritate.

mozilla said...

Anon 18:14 Yes I learnt (or is that learned) semantic's as part of my education, which as one web site put's it is "essential to the study of language acquisition", seem to have missed the gramma and spelling bit though. Listen if you are happy with THE ANSWER so be it, I have reached my own conclusion, irritating as that may be to you.

Anonymous said...

Ask a specific articulate question, and one receives a specific articulate answer.
The narrower the question, the better the answer.
Job done.

mozilla said...

To Anon 18:54 LOL - articulate indeed, and narrow questions as in what is the meaning by articulate, don't answer it's not what you think.

LOL is internet slang for laugh out loud, see more education going on.

Anonymous said...

By every successive utterance, Motzilla is more ignorant than he knows. With respect !

godzilla said...

What’s occurring after every character I type I feel more ignorant. Soon I will have regressed all way back to my youth. Need to stop soon or otherwise will not be able to type…….I went fishing with my worm, and how OMG I got so many people to bite LOL.

Anonymous said...

We may wonder from his/her puerile utterances if Mozilla or whatever has anything of substance to impart, to educate anyone !
Lost interest.

Godzilla said...

Ah education, I am a coward, I do not say who I am, but I least I give you a name to attack, and you with an anon I see who's the hypocrite?

Thank you for your kind comments, have a nice day.

Y cochyn sais said...

Planning has to be one of the most obvious areas where the elected committee have misused their powers and repeatedly over turned planning department recommendations
I would also like some investigation into the council's sustainable (ecological) development policies - i believe these are now legally required and know that a number of individuals have been "evicted" from their property despite feeling they have claim under this line of development

Anonymous said...

21.18
The Planning committee has every right to not accept their officer`s recommendation...BUT they must have solid planning grounds so to do, otherwise at appeal they will be clobbered for the appellant`s costs.....which you and I as ratepayers pay !

Anonymous said...

One of the biggest issues of this Island is the planning commitees issuing enforcement notices, here, there and everywhere, and then UNABLE to produce them, but, telling PEOPLE that they have been issued, served, what sort of planning commitee does that? are they unaccountable?

Anonymous said...

very good ided Druid, the number of comments here make the point.

Anonymous said...

21:15. That's interesting. Is it the committee that issues Enforcement Notices, or the planning service? I'd be surprised if the former.

If, having cleared-up who issues these, then the matter of not being able to produce the paperwork is serious, but works in favour of the people claimed to have been served with a notice. Without evidence, the notice has not been served. They probably never have notices sent by Signed-For delivery, so will have no evidence it was sent, let alone received.

Anonymous said...

That is a good point, however if a planning commitee decide to send an enforcement notice, then fail to deliver the enforcement notice, years pass, does that mean the planning is still valid?
Or if the Planning deliberatley tell people that there was an enforcement notice when they knew there wasn't one, isn't that a little bit malicious? Isn't that the standard behaviour of the planning commitees of this Council.
Lies cost lives!

Anonymous said...

What if the Managing director had told people that there was an enforcement notice yet he KNEW there wasn't one is that malicious too?

Anonymous said...

So who is responsible for these lies?
Answer

planning commitee
planning department
managing director
council leader
councillors on planning committee
legal department

pick one or pick all.

Anonymous said...

So who is responsible for these lies?
Answer

planning commitee
planning department
managing director
council leader
councillors on planning committee
legal department

pick one or pick all.

Anonymous said...

In terms of enforcement notices people my find the following sites useful:

http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/enforcement1.htm#en

http://wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/tans/tan9?lang=en

Anonymous said...

In terms of development in Rural Communities see:

http://new.wales.gov.uk/topics/planning/policy/tans/tan6/?lang=en

Anonymous said...

Another useful site on enforcement

http://www.desktoplawyer.co.uk/dtl/index.cfm?event=base:article&node=A76061BD76474

Anonymous said...

I think none of themn will show a renedy for an enforcement notice they say was served but wasn't. None of them will be able to resolve that lie, that cover up that was created by IOACC. All of the councillors know about it, yet none ofd them know the remedy, they know it was a lie, yet they were only obeying orders is their reply. GERMANY 1945, NUREMBURG RIALS. No wonder the abuses of Human Rights on Anglesey cast a dark shadow over Llangefni.

Anonymous said...

This sounds like a terrible affair, it seems like a massive cover up has gone on for years, and the rights that you have to enjoy your life have been denied to you, because they have interferred with your property, I can see your comparison with the dark cloud of human rights abuse cast over Llangefni, it seems a never ending journey to get at the truth, or for decent people to help instead of doing nothing, where is Barrie Durkin in all this? Is he aware of the dark cloud of human rights abuse cast over Llangefni?

Anonymous said...

Isn't it strange when this Enforcement Notice lie came out no one seems to be willing to advise this blogger, are we all ashamed of this episode or totally unwilling to support this person? Or are we all jointly responsible for being weak and ineffective, all this write seeks is the truth, why doesn't anyone bother? Is it because the story sounds too incredible to be true or are we all living in a world without remorse, no wonder when he writes about the dark cloud of Human Rights abuse cast over Anglesey, it casts us all in the shadow.

Where's Peter Rogers? Where's Barrie Durkin?

Anonymous said...

Only officers make decisions on Enforcement notices at Anglesey County Council, not the Planning Committee?

It is believed that one of the main reasons for the unilateral decision taken by Clive McGregor to remove Barrie Durkin from his group, apart from Barrie's investigations into Clive McGregor's company and it's relationship with Anglesey County Council's Legal Department, was his stance on the lack of Anglesey County Council's Human Rights when dealing with many of Anglesey's the residents.
One only had to hear him as Vice Chairman of the Planning Committee with his disgust at the apparent double standards metered by the Officers.

At least the complaint to the Ombudsman by David Bowles, if sent to the Adjudication Panel for Wales, will give Barrie a stage to tell all.

mozilla said...

To Anon 21:15

Enforcement notices and procedures are for legal specialist. So I will not comment on what you claim, I do not have the specific knowledge to do so. You need expert advise and that does not come for free and definitely not available on a blog such as this, however good it is.

Anonymous said...

To Mozilla 22:01
If you do not have the specific Knowledge, why bother commenting to tell us? Or is it that you have nothing better to do with your time but to agitate?

Prometheuswrites said...

Have I missed something here?

Is this enforcement notice hypothetical or is there some reference to a specific case that is being discussed here?

I've just read back through the thread and frankly I'm lost on this one.

mozilla said...

To Prometheuswrites….

I think it is a specific case, which as I suggested they need specialist legal advice, which does not come for free, apparently this means I have nothing better to do with my time than to agitate.

Why bother I ask, especially for free and this abuse - LOL

By the way not referring to you Prometheuswrites - just pointing out the obvious. ….

Blin o Fon said...

It appears that the opportunity to be expertly briefed on this Blog on planning issues in Anglesey has, I`m afraid, been lost....thanks to the ignorance, arrogance and agitation of one or two commenters....why bother !
Off to more profitable pastures.