I would like to echo the calls of Greenham Parish Council for a full review of delegated powers regarding planning applications (http://newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article.aspx?articleID=14562). Not only is there a lack of consistency between decisions made by officers at West Berkshire, but the current system is open to abuse of power by officers and allegations of corruption. If elected as a District Councillor next year, one of my first priorities will be to call for a full review of planning decisions made since the new arrangements were introduced in 2004. This is a major issue for me, with the allocation of affordable housing at the Racecourse already diluted by 5% to 30% and the LDF obligation of a minimum percentage commitment with regards to this development likely to be removed very shortly, our elected members are sitting back drinking subsidised drinks whilst unelected officers make all of the key decisions.

It's time for elected members to stand up and be counted. They get paid an allowance to represent those who vote for them. If they can't be bothered to put the leg work in, RESIGN and let someone else take your position.

Seems fair enough to me. A principled resignation was always a matter of honour. These days not sure if we've lost principles or honour - probably both! Anyway - even if I might not agree with your politics - wholly support and endorse your standards.

How much do you think a review of every planning decision in the last six years might cost the taxpayer?

Presumably you've costed how many hundreds of thousands West Berkshire residents will have to pay for it and how much Council Tax will have to increase as a result?

AIUI, the latest decision that Greenham are complaining about wouldn't cone under their purview even if such decisions were delegated to parish councils; as the matter is physically in Newbury.

The only way for WBC is change the idea that officers approve planning matters under delegated authority is for councillors to consider every application no matter how trivial or technically complicated.

Also, what is a review of the last 6 years decisions going to achieve? Will the decisions be re-visited? Will people have to demolish/change their buildings and/or usage despite having proceeded in good faith with lawful authority and invested time and money. I can see a huge amount needing to be set aside for compensation claims.

In the majority of planning matters, something that was done without planning permission and no enforcement activity for 4 years is deemed lawful (I think that it is 10 years for change of use)

I think West Berks have some key decisions to answer for. The allocation of housing at Sandleford (which was described as the least suitable site of them all to me by a planning inspector!!!), the removal of affordable housing in the Parkway scheme and the reduction of affordable housing within the Racecourse development in particular. Other smaller decisions in which councillors have intervened, there is now a cloud hanging over West Berks that needs to be addressed.

The fact is, a lot of people I speak to when canvassing seem to think that there is corruption at West Berks and that decisions are made on the basis of brown envelopes. I'm not saying it has happened, but the fact the public believe this to be the case is a damning verdict on the current administration. Perception counts for a lot, and confidence in local government must be restored. If an investigation or review is the only way to restore confidence in the administration, I for one am all for it!!!

I think what Greenham Parish Council are calling for is an independent review of the decisions that have been taken by West Berks. Although decisions will probably not be altered, if there has been corruption or misconduct then action can and must be taken against those involved. I support the calls for an investigation or review wholeheartedly, and I actually wrote in my election plan the other day that this is one of the issues I would fight my campaign on. It's not just me, or Greenham Parish Council that have doubts about the decisions which have been taken, it is pretty much the general view of most people in the area.

Where are our elected members are sitting back drinking subsidised drinks?Shouldn't your campaign be based on how best to represent the people of Thatcham, where you're proposing to stand?

Strikes me you've already got a personal agenda and you're not seeking to represent the people, but your own interests.

I would also say that here (this forum) is not the place for electioneering.

If you want support, I suggest you wear out some shoe leather and visit you prospective ward members rather than using here as a cheap way of getting your message across.

Speaking as a constituent of Newbury, and of no fixed party allegiance, I wish to say that I totally disagree with Darren.

I think this is a good place for councillors and the like to air their views; where they can come under scrutiny, but only if more of them had the balls.

Agree totally!

Absolutely.

It's a place for everyone to air their views.

User 23: With regards to Thatcham West where I am hoping to stand, I very much have a clear list of goals and things I would like to get done (elected or not) as none of the existing councillors seem to do anything (but I'm sure we will see them knocking doors in the month before the election).

Darren, I hardly believe that calling for a review is electioneering. I am passionate about the inclusion of affordable housing within developments (I would actually keep the commitments after planning consent, not dilute it or remove it altogether like the current administration) and I also believe that developments need to be much better planned. If you look into the housing allocation process in more detail, you will realise that there are some pretty big legal challenges on the way from the sites that lost out. If the process had been carried out in a more competent manner, West Berks might of achieved the same results without the prospect of expensive litigation. For the record, I'm pleased that housing was not permitted at Shaw and I will fight every step of the way to protect the northern gateway of Newbury from what would an inappropriate use of the site. I believe there are much more suitable options that were never even examined by West Berks. That is my interest in this User 23, nothing more. (and I can't see any of the current members doing anything regarding housing allocations)

I support the Greenham Parish Council call for a review into decisions made by West Berks, as there are some questions that need to be answered. I'm not an eco-warrior opposed to development, I just feel that the public need answers before they can put their trust into local politics again. As I said before, this is a damning verdict of ALL the current members, regardless of party.

As for future development here in West Berks, more affordable housing is needed in the future, especially now that the allocation at the Racecourse is already down at least 5% and the allocation at Parkway is completely gone. We have a very real problem where there is no chance of younger people and key workers getting onto the ladder, and these people have already started migrating to other areas for housing which means a loss of tax revenue to the District. As the average age rises dramatically over the next ten years or so, there is a danger that as a local authority West Berks will be paying out a lot more in care and bringing in even less through revenue. It doesn't take much intelligence to work out what that will mean for other local services.

That's you view and you are entitled to it, as am I to mine.

The correct place for councillors to air their views in the council chamber and not on a forum where anyone can set up an account in any name and mis-represent someone's view.

How do we know that this Richard Garvie is the real Richard Garvie? I could set up an account in the name of Richard Benyon and post whatever I want with no regard to the consequences.

The scrutiny comes at election time, and considering in the 2008 Thatcham elections only 25-34% of the eligible electorate voted, it would appear they are not particularly bothered.

You didn't answer the question, where are our elected members are sitting back drinking subsidised drinks?

Like all politicians

User 23, you work at the council (supposedly). I've not had the pleasure of discussing issues with members over a drink in the members suite (2nd floor at Market Street) so I'm not sure if it is a fully stocked bar that you would find in a pub, but alcohol IS served. (does it have a licence though?)

Now back to the main issues of this thread User23 / Darren. I think that you obviously can't fight the calls for an independent review of the planning decisions made since 2004, so you try to distort the discussion with the lesser points.

The reason turnout was low in the last local elections is because people don't see the point in voting. All they get is the same old, same old. Dodgy planning decisions leading to poorly thought out developments. Who can blame people for losing interest when their view is so serious that they believe there is corruption and misconduct. Surely the only way to re-engage with these people is by having an independent inquiry, even if it is to clear the current administration of wrongdoing???

Neither of the current parties seem interested enough to change the state of things at West Berks. Maybe it's time to vote for people who want to make a difference, not just be part of the "old boys club" culture that exists at present. If that culture didn't exist at West Berkshire, maybe there would be no need for reviews or investigations.

I can fight it quite easily.

1. How much will it cost the review to go back over nearly 7 years worth of planning decisions. Surely that money would be better spent in maintaining vital public services that are already under pressure due to cuts.

2. If the review finds any anomalies in the decisions, what will happen? Require all those decisions be reversed? Houses have been built and occupied, businesses created, relocated into new buildings. Throw them out on the street pending a new decision? Put them in limbo not knowing whether their home could be demolished because it was incorrectly approved?

Throughout all your posts here and on Newbury.net you keep hinting at corruption being behind the decisions. You then hid behind semantics and Weasel Words to avoid being libellous. An example of which is:



By you repeating this, it makes you just as guilty. If you have evidence of any corruption, take it to the proper authorities for it to be investigated rather than sling mud on local forums. In other words, as you put it, "Man up"

The fact is, I don't have evidence of it, it is just what people tell me when I am canvassing. Remember that, that is when you go out and speak to local people to seek there views about the area where we live and tell them your ideas on how to improve it. Maybe elected members should try it sometime. How can you fix the perceptions of corruption and misconduct without a review??? I want to go into politics to represent the views of people who live here and do my bit to improve the local area. If the existing members want to pretend that everything is wonderful and people are not fed up with the same old attitude of discussing the small issues over and over again (instead of dealing with the bigger issues head on), that is up to them. If elected, I for one won't shy away from taking difficult decisions.

Fighting a review on a cost basis is a easy thing to do, but it is neccessary to not only help towards restoring public confidence in the authority but also clearing the names of people who are being accused of acting dishonestly. Although I can't find detailed budgets online, what information I can find shows that a lot of public money is wasted. By cutting back on waste alone, you could have a number of studies!!!

I have already made it clear, it is too late to reverse decisions. But it is massively important that certain questions are answered, and if any wrongdoing is uncovered, action could and should be brought against those implicated by the review. Likewise, it could also put to bed the theory of wrongdoing for good.

I have to say, without having tangible evidence, and speaking as a constituent of no fixed political affiliation, I believe corruption and nepotism exists in the local political arena. So Richard Garvie has my vote, in this regard.

Richard, I applaud your stand. There does appear to have been some jiggery pokery if planning permission was given on the basis of 30% affordable housing and the LDF required 35%.

Of course if Greeham Parish Council want an independent review of decisions then there's nothing stopping them getting a bunch of planning applications and analysing the decisions themselves and then publishing the results. But I don't really understand why they're winging so publicly, particularly when they're imputing the professional competance and integrity of WBC planning officers. WBC have a complaints procedure and I'd have thought the best course of action was to use a little discretion and follow that, unless of course they've been fobbed off, and then I think we should know. And then again there are WBC councillors on the Greenham Parish Council, so couldn't they have raised this themselves at WBC?

I can't help feel that this is just some grubby LibDem/Con politicking. Planning really doesn't have very much to do with parish councils anyhow, and I think there's a good argument for taking parish councils out of the loop altogether. Allotments however are the duty of parish councils - actually it's the only duty on a parish council - so where are Greenham Parish Council's allotments? Maybe they should get their own house in order first.

I think in the case of Greenham Parish Council, they have exhausted every avenue and they still wish to fight the Sandleford decision and also establish if certain members / officers acted improperly. Unfortunately, we are pretty much stuck with the poor decisions of the past, what must happen now is to learn why these decisions were taken and move on, ensuring that we never again make mistakes of this scale again.

As for the Parish councils, I think the local authority should have better relationships and contact with them to avoid further public spats. I will reveal my own ideas over the coming weeks and months, but the recent stories of disputes between Hungerford and West Berks, the whole "Hydro Study" episode in Newbury and the very public row between West Berks and Thatcham Town Council regarding the Nature Discovery Centre highlight the shambolic state of working practices and level of trust within West Berks. Taxpayers fund the various town and parish councils, why not use them as an ultra local machine to feed information to West Berks to further enhance the decision making process. If not, what is the point of having them???

Which could be one reason for wanting to be part of it. Allegedly.

I'm familiar with most NTC snafus, but not this one. Do tell.

As for using the parish council as a conduit to WBC, why would you want to do that? Why interpose an additional layer of ill-informed abstraction, self-interest, and confusion. If it's a WBC issue then take it up with WBC or your WBC councillor directly. In Newbury particularly I'm not convinced there is a role for the parish council. If the park maintenance contract was managed directly by WBC then there'd be greater economy of scale, and the vic park heritage lottery application would never have been bungled. The Christmas lights shouldn't need any public money and could much more usefully be managed by the Town Centre Partnership, the market should be run at a profit by the traders themselves and not at a cost to the tax payer, the cemetaries could easily be run by WBC, and the allotments should be self-managed at no cost to the tax-payer. And although you'd think they were running the united nations if you went to a council meeting, that's pretty much all the town council do.

http://www.newburytoday.co.uk/News/Article...articleID=14103 ?

This is classic electioneering. Invent a problem that doesn't exist, in this case councillors knocking back free booze in the council bar whilst officers take bungs and then claiming you're the person to fix it all.

The real question Richard is avoiding is how much many hundreds of thousand of pounds his independent enquiry into every planning decision in the past seven or so years is going to cost us all and which services he's going to cut to pay for it.

If I was cynical I'd say he's probably got someone already lined up to do this lucrative work that could take years given the amount of applications to get through.

Oh right, the hydro-geological survey, I didn't make the connection. Indeed, yes, this has rather highlighted the cracks between the two organisations. I thought it was something to do with the hydro-electric feasibility study that NTC have been fumbling around with for some years.

It could be done by sample, rather than all applications. That's how quality systems usually work. You take samples and if something is found, you inspect more, and so-on.

As for the rest of your post, which in the main is valid, I am please that someone with interest in local politics is seemingly taking an active interested and is at least prepared to engage with the public on here. Very few have the guts to do this it seems, other than a few weeks before an election.

He is, to me, a valuable asset to this forum, even if his true ambition is not wholly altruistic. His apparent energy easily elevates him as a potential candidate above others I would vote for, given the chance.

All I'm saying is let's see a cost and a timescale for it so we know how much we'd be paying for it and for how long.

He often seems to be wrong and only have one real policy which looks like it's going to cost us taxpayers a packet should he be elected.

That is logical.


I'm not sure I've seen much evidence of him being 'often wrong' yet, but he seems to be more of a questions person, than an answers person. That being said, unless you know the facts it is hard to understand the solution.

He is uncomfortable with the housing mix at the Racecourse and it seems he is unhappy with the response. At the end of the day, when we have an issue, it is natural to utilise all resources at our disposal.

I wish there was a Newbury forum in the past when I have had certain issues. I am certain that the authorities DO keep an eye on what is posted here, and even respond to some of them on occasion (this is an assertion, not fact).

He only seems to have an issue, singular, and has had to sensationalise it in order to promote his point of view. This in my view makes for a bad politician, in it for their own ends, with interest in only one area and having to rubbish others to promote their own point.

As I said, let's see some costs and timescales for his issue of choice so we all know how much extra we'll be paying.

How has he sensationalised it? Sure he's brought it to our attention while there might be other issues remaining, but I'm unsure at the moment where the sensationalism is. Are you saying he is exaggerating the importance of issue?

Talk of corruption whilst those we elect get tanked up at our expense, I'd say that's sensationalising it a bit.

Fight an election on the many positives you can offer the electorate, not one negative, sensationalised fabrication.

OK, lots to respond to. I totally agree User 23, that a study would have to be reasonably priced and carried out in a timely manner. Unfortunately, I don't know anyone personally who could carry out such a study, but my view would be to call in a Government inspector who would charge the council accordingly. From evidence I can find of similar studies elsewhere, it could cost anything from 35,000 to 100,000 and take between six and eight months to complete. I have identified at least 1,000,000 of saving from the loose budget information I can find online. Of course, this may be less once I have seen more detailed figures or even more, I really can't say without having an accurate look at the books. Just on that note, Keith Chopping challenged David Rendel to come up with an alternative budget the other week in a council meeting. I rang Keith Chopping and said that although the Liberals were not prepared to take up the challenge, I was happy to have a look at the books and propose an alternative budget. He admitted that he knew that the Libs would not take up the gauntlet, but was not prepared to facilitate me doing an alternative budget if I was to stand against a Tory. Why make a challenge, then back away from it??? Maybe the fear of somebody with half a brain showing them up???

Did I say councillors were getting tanked up??? Did I say the council was corrupt??? I believe I said that councillors were enjoying alcohol subsidised by the taxpayer (true?) and that the public opinion was that there was corruption and wrongdoing at West Berks. If I was the leader of the council, there would be no alcohol in the members suite and I would call for a review into alledged wrongdoing to restore public confidence in the council. There is a strong case for a review, not only to establish if any wrongdoing has happened at West Berks BUT to kill the smears against certain individuals once and for all. I won't mention names, but even though one member berated me for disturbing him on the golf course, he's actually not a bad person. Do I think he could be corrupt??? Not at all. But when public gossip is undermining the local authority, somebody needs to take the tough decision to end the uncertainty.



I can assure you I have more priorities than a review into council performance. I'm not going to give away the content of my campaign, but I can promise you that NONE of the existing councillors are talking about the majority of these issues, instead preferring to discuss issues like cycling in Cheap street... Just so you know, if I was ever leader of the council, I would allow the cycling issue to be discussed one time in any four year term. Surely once something is debated and decided upon, that should be the end of it. Lets get on with discussing the real issues.



You raise some very interesting points Simon, and some I agree with 100%. I'm keeping my cards close to my chest until at least the second week of October. That is when I will know if I am to stand as an independent or for a party. I have not lied about anything or tried to mislead anyone with the various issues I've raised. I obviously can't answer the case for the defence, but I can raise questions. Hopefully when you see my campaign plan you will understand that my campaign will be fought on making West Berks a better place, rather than focussing on the many mistakes of the past. That is why I believe that it is important for an independent review to take place on those issues highlighted by the calls from Greenham Parish Council. Only a review can answer the questions that have been asked.

Are you able to substantiate this?