To answer questions asked after notice in accordance with the provisions contained within Part 4 of the Council Rules of the Constitution on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties or which affects the District:
(a) to the Leader of the Council;
(b) to any Portfolio Holder; or
(c) to the Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.
Questions, if any, will follow if not received in time to be incorporated into the agenda.
(1) Public Question from Mr J Padfield
Tilegate Farm
The residential development of nine acres of open field Green Belt in Magdalen Laver remains a source of concern for the Residents of the Lavers. Documentation downloaded and retained by the Parish Council Clerk from the Council’s Planning Search website indicates that Officers granted a residential permission to a newly erected “stables”. The permission included the dumping of many hundreds of tons of waste material under the pretext of “landscaping”. The Parish Council notified the District Council about the dumping and queried the residential permission. The entire Application documentation was then internally removed from the Council records including from EFDC Planning Search.
The investigation undertaken by the District Councils Internal Auditors denies the veracity of the Parish Clerk’s documents copied from the Councils website, they state: “Without a proper digital forensic investigation, which would be costly to the Council, the documents you submitted as evidence of their existence cannot be verified.” No consideration has been given by the Auditor as to how and why a Parish Council Clerk would both fraudulently construct these documents and also fabricate the associated contemporaneous email trail between the Parish Council and the District Council. No explanation has been given as to why the “Stables” were built to residential standards. This issue is just one of many on the site. Yet another Application is pending. Probity in the planning system is absolutely critical to its function. Should not the Council now properly investigate this issue whatever the cost?
Minutes:
Question by Mr Jim Padfield, resident of Moreton and High Laver to Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder.
Tilegate Farm
The residential development of nine acres of open field Green Belt in Magdalen Laver remains a source of concern for the Residents of the Lavers. Documentation downloaded and retained by the Parish Council Clerk from the Council’s Planning Search website indicates that Officers granted a residential permission to a newly erected “stables”. The permission included the dumping of many hundreds of tons of waste material under the pretext of “landscaping”. The Parish Council notified the District Council about the dumping and queried the residential permission. The entire Application documentation was then internally removed from the Council records including from EFDC Planning Search.
The investigation undertaken by the District Councils Internal Auditors denies the veracity of the Parish Clerk’s documents copied from the Councils website, they state: “Without a proper digital forensic investigation, which would be costly to the Council, the documents you submitted as evidence of their existence cannot be verified.” No consideration has been given by the Auditor as to how and why a Parish Council Clerk would both fraudulently construct these documents and also fabricate the associated contemporaneous email trail between the Parish Council and the District Council. No explanation has been given as to why the “Stables” were built to residential standards. This issue is just one of many on the site. Yet another Application is pending. Probity in the planning system is absolutely critical to its function. Should not the Council now properly investigate this issue whatever the cost?
Response given by Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder.
At the request of the Chief Executive, the Chief Internal Auditor, who was independent of the Council, and the Council’s Corporate Fraud Manager examined seventeen allegations from Mr Padfield suggesting potential fraud and collusion regarding the Tilegate Development. The investigation involved interviews with relevant officers and a review of planning files as well as the documentation available to the public on the Council’s website.
On the 19 April 2022, the Chief Internal Auditor gave a detailed reply back to Mr Padfield, to each of the 17 allegations and concluded in her letter, “Our investigation has not found any evidence of fraud by Council officers. The information supplied by the applicant has been appropriately scrutinised by officers and there was no evidence of favouritism. Several officers were involved in the process and sign off / approval was granted at the appropriate levels. Unless you are able to provide new or fresh evidence of fraud, I deem this investigation to be closed.”
On 20 April 2022 Mr Padfield formally replied to the Chief Internal Auditor’s letter with further concerns regarding the residential stable conversion, with the nub of Mr Padfield’s email being the Council’s denial of the existence of an application. As with the original investigation, the relevant officers were interviewed, with a review of planning files, as well as the documentation available to the public on the Council’s website. The Chief Internal Auditor concluded “The ‘missing’ application was thoroughly investigated by officers at the time and she was content with their conclusions. Without a proper digital forensic investigation, which would be costly to the Council, the documents submitted as evidence of their existence cannot be verified. Both this allegation and the previous one was about officers colluding. As with my original investigation, this investigation has found that proper processes have been followed with adequate oversight by Senior Officers. There was no evidence of collusion between officers or the Applicant.
Regarding why “no explanation has been given as to why the ‘Stables’ were built to residential standards,” the Chief Internal Auditor was unable to comment on this, as that was down to the professional judgement, she stated that she was unqualified to do so. Instead, she ensured the Council followed the correct processes and that there was adequate evidence to corroborate this.
Supplementary question from Mr Jim Padfield to Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder
Why are you not policing more diligently the delegated powers given to officers?
Reply of Councillor J Philip, Finance Portfolio Holder
We do scrutinise very carefully the delegated decisions that are made by officers. We have been through the Constitution Working Group on many occasions looking at which decisions are delegated. A decision by members who have an application in their ward are able to call that decision in then it would go to a planning committee meeting. It is equally possible for planning and Town and Parish Councils to indicate on planning grounds why they want an application to come to committee, as long as they are willing to attend that committee meeting and speak on behalf of the Town or Parish Council. Members we have looked into this matter in great detail and there is no evidence of what Mr Padfield was alleging and he was confident, that on this occasion, the Council had followed their processes correctly.