Borough Warlords Exacerbating British Housing Crisis - Case Study Example

Borough Warlords Exacerbating British Housing Crisis Whispers of wrongdoing growing into a chorus of dissent The "whispers of wrongdoing", coming from property developers and insiders alike, are being ignored by certain local councilors and local Government planning officers bent on consolidating their private fiefdoms under rules and regulations designed to simplify and expedite planning applications rather than to create planning warlords whom violate rules and regulations with impunity. One might upon experiencing this Byzantine labyrinth feel that they are dealing with local warlords in Afghanistan or Mafiosa in Sicily rather than elected governmental officials in the United Kingdom. And dealing is the correct word because rules are violated, commercial norms are ignored, and the councillors rule over this application process like patrons demanding some sort of recompense, be it monetary or otherwise. These councillors and planning officers are not royal patrons free to dispense with public goods at their discretion or whim to favored constituents; quite the contrary, they are public servants bound to comply with the rule of law, Sadly, they do not feel bound to comply with their statutory and ethical obligations. Patrons and warlords they are, the borough their private fiefdom, and public goods their currency in trade. This is a story of the dangers of decentralization, how decentralization is functioning as an incentive for local councilors to treat planning decisions as a sort of patronage-oriented gift, and how Britain's housing crisis is being exacerbated in the process. Such allegations are not new, they have been around for ages, but the negligent councilors seems to wait until the latest scandal is distant to the public's ear before they begin plying their nefarious trade in public trust and public approvals again; indeed, just barely six years ago, the Telegraph reported: ONE of the most comprehensive police investigations into council fraud ever carried out saw two senior Labour councillors and a property developer sentenced to a total of 11 years in jail yesterday. The seam of corruption running through Doncaster council was laid bare with the convictions of five people including Peter Birks, the council's head of planning, and the former mayor and council deputy leader, Raymond Stockhill, who took lavish bribes to process a planning application. Others, including John Dainty, the leader of the Tory group, who was cleared of corruption in this case, face further allegations. What began more than four years ago with a "whisper of wrongdoing", said a police source, had grown into a vast investigation; 74 arrests were made, 23 Labour councillors have so far been convicted for expenses fraud and more than 2,000 people have been questioned. But the case of Birks and Stockhill exposed the worst incidence of corruption within the Labour-dominated council. In the instant case, the councillors are acting alone to deny otherwise valid planning applications; all the while they are using deceptive practices, they are flaunting and violating applicable rules and regulations, and they honestly believe that they are both above the law and beyond the reach of the law. When will this type of behaviour stop This case is much more important than a single person or a couple of property developers; to be sure, this type of story has implications for borough councils throughout the kingdom, for individuals and businesses struggling with the worsening housing crisis, and for public policy officials wondering why there well-considered decentralization programmes are not working to expedite planning approvals or to alleviate housing shortages. Many of the answers can be found right here in this story. The audience ought to be vast: people unable to afford or find affordable flats for their families; insiders working for local borough offices whom have been told to remain silent despite breaches of relevant laws and constitutional procedures; members of the local business community whom have been compelled into a form of self-censorship lest the powers-that-be find some flaw or defect in their own planning applications; governmental officials whom delegated through decentralization processes greater decision-making powers to local councillors only to discover that their trust in the local councillors has been misplaced; and, Anyone else considered with government inefficiency, how decentralization is creating rather than solving problems, and why Britain's housing crisis is being exacerbated by bureaucratic bottlenecks and pretentious, self-serving councillors. A property developer's story This story demands telling; the property developer at issue seeks neither compensation nor recompense of any sort. The public needs protection so as not to have their personal and financial vulnerabilities exploited by unethical governmental officials in a time of growing economic insecurity and commercial risk. I have personally lost some Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds as a direct result of the lies, incompetence, and frauds perpetrated by the aforementioned officials. Many property developers are today facing bankruptcy because of similar problems with local councillors and governmental planning officers; absent media coverage and public action, many more will face the same fate if these problems are not addressed quickly, honestly, and for the public benefit rather than for the personal benefit of a few self-serving, spiteful public servants. The evidence, as even the solicitor's letter below will acknowledge, is absolutely damning. For the moment, pending future interviews with your representatives, this letter will refer to particular officials by initial only for purposes of identification and the chronology of the legal violations and deceptive practices. Should you decide to pursue this matter to publication, I shall provide all of the complete names, the physical evidence, and all other details that you may require. And plenty of evidence there is in the instant case; I have been diligent in making and preserving a wealth of emails, written correspondence, voice mails, and much more. I can even point you in the direction of certain insiders whose decisions have been overturned by the councillors in violation of statutory planning laws. A tale of two applications: Case one 1. The main characters: Mr. W: He serves as the head planning officer at the local borough and has been responsible for denying valid applications, for ignoring the advice of professionals under his supervision, and for treating planning applications as his own personal fiefdom. He has lied, he has constantly changed opinions and reasons, he has violated rules and regulations, he has given false information, he has mysteriously lost or misplaced important documents, and he has engaged in a pattern of unethical conduct. Mr. F: He serves as a case officer, and one of the aforementioned insiders whom has grown disillusioned and wary of Mr. W's behaviour, and he has at all times been sympathetic to my troubles. He can acknowledge certain incidents of misconduct and negligence. Miss M: Design officer at the council. Mr L: Tree/Arboculturist officer at the council. Mr. P: the property developer (myself). 2. Evidentiary caveat and personal note: I would like to confirm that everything that I hereafter state is either documented by emails, voice recordings, witness statements, legal correspondence from my team of solicitors and the council's reply letters. I will also make specific reference to how the council's governing statutory rules have been broken. For the record, I am a 31 year old property developer whom has recently suffered from multiple acts of gross misconduct from one particular Borough Council, several planning officers, and several local elected government councillors Two local councillors and several planning officers have breached and broken governmental rules, fabricated stories, lobbied unethically, and manipulated the decentralised planning system to prevent me and many other local developers from gaining planning permission for valid projects. In my case alone, this involved two sites for which I recently applied for planning permission both for flatted developments for a block of flats. 3. The chronology: Events and consequences Early 2007 I purchased several sites within this borough's jurisdiction; the reasonable justification was thereafter developing the sites into newly constructed flatted developments. We worked closely and diligently in the pre-planning stage with both the design officer (Ms. M) and planning officer (Mr. F) to get a scheme that would gain the support of all involved to get planning for both the sites. I followed their professional advice and relied upon their expertise and their assurances that everything would be fine. Nov/Dec 2007 Application for site 1 was approved and recommended for approval by the planning officer back in Nov 07; there being less than 10 objections, it was then delegated to me granted by the planning officer. Then the problems first started to arise and the source of these problems was none other than Mr. W. Pre-planning had occurred and I was granted an approval and then Mr. W decided to find some non-existent flaw. To this date, no one can say for sure why Mr. W made this decision. At any rate, Mr. W de-delegated the application to be sent to committee for another decision to be made. Not only did Mr. W not provide any reasons but Councillor W also de-delegated the application for site 1 outside of the statutory 21 day requirement and the governing deadline set out by the deputy prime minister's strict delegation rules and the council's own constitution's laws. He thus broke the law while denying a valid planning application with no valid reason. We have a copy of the councillor's de-delegation request on file by e mail, showing all the breaches above. Regardless, the planning department ignored their own guidelines and laws and unlawfully submitted the planning application for site 1 to the planning committee where, ultimately, it was refused by the local members. Please note that this particular council REFUSES all flatted and developments scheme's that are put or are de-delegated to the planning committee when the planning application is recommended for approval by the planning officers; the refusal by the local councillors on the committee is at a rate in of excess of 85%. Why This is a question you ought to explore. Are competitors being protected What did the 15% provide to the council in exchange for the approvals Wouldn't additional housing flats help to reduce the severity of housing in Britain and the housing crisis Perhaps this is why we have a huge housing shortage within the United Kingdom and a huge surge of skilled planning officers leaving the industry. Jan/Feb 2008 We, my solicitors and I, appealed the application to the planning inspectorate against the refusal of the planning committee's decision. We then resubmitted amended plans for the site for a reduced planning scheme to the borough so as not to waste time and we were recommended to do so by the planning officer, Mr F. Feb 5th 2008 The planning case officer (Mr F) recommended site 1 for approval AGAIN. The head planning officer, Mr W, decided to intervene with Mr. F's decision and made Mr. F contact us by email; he was told to inform us that while he personally still supported the planning application, he no longer had any control of the situation as Mr. W would not support the planning application where previously we had full and strong support. What happened Why did Mr. W intervene without providing any sort of legal basis or reason The reason Mr. W (head planning officer) decided to intervene was that he was concerned about why, this time, Councillor W had not raised an issue or otherwise contacted the planning department with the new smaller resubmitted application for site 1. In short, more and more people were beginning to question why we were being denied approval and Mr. W was becoming vindictive and even alienating his own subordinates and co-workers. (E Mails available) Both myself and my agents strongly objected and emailed Mr W in regards to his meddling and stated that Councillor W had the statutory deadline of 21 days set in the constitution to object to his opinion and that it had been over 50 days since the application had been registered and it would have to be assumed that Councillor W had no issues. Time had expired, by more than twice the legal deadline, and no one had objected. What was Mr. W up to That is the rub. Feb 11th 2008 Mr. W wrote back a curt email telling us not to tell him his job and that he could contact whomever he chooses and ultimately do whatever he likes being the head planning officer. He was unprofessional, angry, vindictive and threatening. Feb 18th 2008 Following Mr. W's contact with Councillor W, Councillor W decided he would again de-delegate the application for site 1, once again, to the planning committee outside of the 21 day strict deadline. They were now some 5 weeks late and outside of the deadline. PLEASE NOTE ALL COUNCILLORS AND OFFICERS HAVE TO ABIDE STRICTLY TO THE COUNCILLORS CODE OF CONDUCT AND RULES AND ARE FULLY AWARE THAT THIS RULE BREAK IS A SERIOUS BREACH AND UNLAWFUL TO IGNORE. Why did they deliberately break these rules Feb-Apr 2008 Mr. W took over the planning application due to his strong interest in the application. RARELY, IF EVER, HAS A HEAD PLANNING OFFICER TAKEN ON A PLANNING APPLICATION WITHIN THIS BOROUGH EXCEPT FOR MINE--THIS CAN BE SEEN ON THE PLANNING REGISTER. We requested a meeting with Mr. W, wherein Mr. W stated that many amendments were now suddenly needed to please him; these were issues that had no relevance to the previous applications' refusal reasons by the planning committee or by Councillor W's issues. He was making things up, violating his position of trust, and being unethical. Mr W wrote us a lengthy e mail with over 10 amendments that were requested by him, he alleged, to pleasehis design officer (Miss M) and the arboculturist officer (Mr. L) and Councillor W's issues. Please note: Mr W's letter was incorrect and full of fabricated comments; neither Councillor W nor the tree officer requested such changes and I will elaborate below. He lied in his email, he attributed his own fraud to others, and he was again giving us false information in order to further his own agenda. Several of Mr W's comments seemed illogical and we questioned them; however Mr W ignored our emails and outstanding questions for a period 2 months. We ultimately decided to contact the design officer, Miss M, for clarification. Her response took over 1 month and a combination of over 10 emails and phone calls to respond back to us. (This borough has a strict deadline and states it will reply to 100% of emails within 7 days in there guidelines rules, clearly not in this case and clearly not 100% anymore) Ultimately, Miss M stated that the design requests asked for by Mr. W in his letter were not suitable and were not needed any longer. (Clearly, a sign of unprofessional and unethical incompetence). Even the insiders were perplexed by Mr. W. Mr W, also deliberately, didn't forward his colleagues' emails to us. He hid or destroyed them. Mr. F apologised profusely for Mr W's errors and intransigence; in fact, Mr F hasapologised in 5 separate emails for his colleague's errors and conduct. When the resubmitted plans were again resubmitted , Mr. L (Tree officer), was annoyed at us for not doing the amendments as requested by Mr W. The same cycle of incompetence and delay. After checking Mr W's letter, both Mr L (tree officer) and Mr F (Case officer) both stated that the comments forwarded to us by Mr W were in fact wrong and apologised for Mr W's errors, that our time was wasted, and the plans would once again need to be amended in accordance with Mr L's .changes that were requested but were never forwarded on to us CLEARLY ALL THESE ERRORS WERE COSTLY AND DELAYED US FOR OVER 3 MONTHS. IT IS OBVIOUS MR W - THE HEAD PLANNING OFFICER WAS NOW BEING MANUPULATIVE AND IS GIVING FALSE INFORMATION AND REFUSING TO COMMUNIICATE WITH US TO HINDER OUR PLANS. Eventually we overcame all the problems and had the plan resubmitted back to the council, some 18 weeks after they asked for such changes and my agents turning around the amended plans within 24 hours, clearly showing how poorly and badly run the public and planning sector is run at this council. I took the initiative and Contacted Councillor W to see if now he was happy with the amendments and would he be willing to drop his de-delegation request, which he refused to do so. Councillor W emailed me back and decided he would object further to my plans by stating that he was not happy that I was breaching the conservation area by trying to develop inside the conservation area. Please note this in unethical of him, as firstly there is no such restriction in the UDP or government guidelines that you cannot develop in a conservation area, so again another non existent planning reason and it was never one of his reason for de-delegating the application in February. Clearly all our efforts over the last month was bearing fruitless with all the amendments request by Mr W to please the councillor and clearly Councillor W lacked in planning knowledge and I'm astounded that such a councillor can actually be on the planning committee when he has no planning knowledge or concepts. It was then decided I would legal action was needed as these breaches and misconducts could not continue. I contacted my legal team and told them the stories and them with the evidence, e mail, statutory requirements by the council and government guidelines and they decided to take the case on. Mean while the planning application was once again approved and recommended by Mr F and now was heading for the agenda for the unlawful planning committee, which was evidently obvious once again it would be refused if the councillors were to vote on my planning application My legal team wrote them a strong legal letter (Which I have provided) to all there misconducts of Both Site 1 and Site 2 and if the do not drop the unlawful de-delegation request being outside of the 21 deadline that we would take them to the high court for a judicial review, ombudsman, and would report both Councillor W and Mr W to the council monitoring officer and standard board of England to have them investigated. We had an official response from the council 24 hours before the committee night that they would not withdraw the de-delegation request, that the 21 day rule is merely for administration purposes They elaborate on, that even though it states Clearly, that a councillor MUST NOT de-delegate an planning application outside of the strict 21 day rule in there 400 page constitution of this council, that we should not read it so literally and again its just for administration purposes. Clearly it was evident that they were not going to back down to show a sign of there incompetence and rule breaking which if they admitted they were wrong, they would open themselves to be liable to every other applicant they have broken this rule with and would severely effect there councillors positions who in the past have broken this rule also. We attended the planning committee meeting the following night, only to be to on the introduction of the application by Mr W that HAS NOW WITHDRAWN HIS DE-DELEGATION REQUEST AND ACTUALLY IS HAPPY WITH THE CHANGES AND COUNCILLOR EVEN DIDN'T SHOW UP TO THE COMMITTEE (IF THE WHOLE SITUAUTION WAS NOT SO DISTRESSING FOR ME, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN LAUGHABLE) Clearly there legal department realised there implication of this serious breach of law that has been negligently been ignored for so long and backed down to my legal teams insistence and threat of legal and disciplinary action. Of all those involved Although this was not the end Mr W's unethical and negligent behaviour, he continued on with the committee meeting, he fabricates and states "ACTUALLY THE OFFICERS COMMITTEE REPORT SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT ANY OFFICER CAN DE-DELEGATE AN APPLICATION AT ANY TIME TO THE PLANNIGN COMMITTEE, (MEANING UNLIKE THE COUNCILLORS REQUIREMENT OF 21 DAY DEADLINE) AND IN FACT IT WAS PUT INTO COMMITTEE BY MR W, BUT THE REPORT IN FACT STATES THE APPLICATION WAS DE-DELEAGED BY COUNCILLOR W AND MR W SAID THAT IS HSOULD HAVE SAID HIMSELF DE-DELEGATED The chairman was outraged by this comment and quickly intervened and tried to shut Mr W up as not to make the council any more liable then they already were. Clearly myself and my agents were shocked due to the council insistence of not backing d own 24 hours before and also by Mr W fabricated reason why the application was still on the agenda. PLEASE NOTE THE COUNCIL CLEARLY FOUND A LOOPHOLE IN OUR COMPAINT AND THOUGHT THEY COULD USE THE EXCUSE OF THE PLANNING OFFICER REQUESTED THE APPLICATION UP TO COMMITTEE PLEASE NOTE THE LEGAL TEAM KNEW THROUGH ALL OUR NUMEROUS AND MOUNTAIN OF EMAILS FROM THE COUNCIL AND THE CHAIRMAN THAT THIS COULD NOT BE SUBSTAIATED AS THE OFFICAL LETTER SENT THEN LESS THEN 24 HOURS BEFORE ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY ON THE AGENDA DUE TO COUNCILLOR W DE-DELEGATION AND EVEN THE OFFICERS REPORT STATED THE SAME THING THE HIGHLY STRUNG AND INCOMPITANT MR W BEING VINDICTIVE AS USUAL DIDN'T CARE ABOUT HIS COUNCILS OR COLLEGUES REPUTATION AND THOUGHT HE WOULD CONTINUE FABRICATING STORIES AS NOT TO LOSE RESPECT AND HIS NOW DIMINSHING POWER. The chairman called my agent up to address the planning committee, where my agent had asked at my request why are we still there if Councillor W had withdrawn his de-delegation request The chairman replied due to the last minute notice of Councillor W de-delegation request being withdrawn after a conversation with Mr W earlier in the day there was no time to re-delegate the application back to officers powers to be granted and he states that this was his fault and apologised about the situation. The chairman went on to say to my agents that he believes the planning committee councillors are happy with the application and there is no need to continue with the meeting and to put it up for an immediate vote, which it was unanimously granted within seconds CLEARLY THE CHAIRMAN AND LEGAL DEPT KNEW THE IMPLICATONS TO THERE MISCONDUCTS AND WANTED THE WHOLE THING RESOLVED AND OVER WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE, CHAIRMAN OR MR W DIDN'T KNOW, THE WHOLE CONVERSATION WAS VOICE RECORDED BY ME, ALSO AVAILABLE IF REQUIRED PROVING ALL THIS. The voice recording shows the fabricated lies of Mr W stating false reasons why the application was allegedly on the agenda, the chairman's intervention of Mr W ridiculous comments and the chairman confirmation that the only reason the application was still on the agenda because it was put up to committee by Councillor W and he withdrew his request at the last minute hence ignoring Mr and refusing to acknowledge W'sfalse comments. Doing my research I saw that over 10 application in the last 18 months had been de-delegated outside of the strict 21 deadline by the boroughs councillors. I only recently realised that my first application that I was still awaiting for the planning inspectors decision was also de-delegated outside of the strict 21 day deadline by 3 days by Councillor W, so it was unlawfully refused by the council and absolutely should have been granted Clearly this council, councillors and officers have been breaching and manipulating there own constitution and government laws and having been playing with there constitutes, developers and applicants careers, money and lives 4. Approval finally granted but at what cost Please note the appeal inspector ultimately decided in my favour and granted the application this week, some 8 months later then It should have been granted As a land acquirer and developer, I would have had my planning permission in November 07 if the application was granted under the correct lawful procedures and that Councillor W and Mr W didn't break there council and government laws that they are strictly to oblige to. Shockingly the land price devaluation since November 07,, the credit crunch and lack of mortgage funding has devalued the site by approx 500.0 00 just in Land Value since that time.(Surveyors report are being prepared at the moment for the exact loss of value within the last 8 months) I have also lost approx 100.000 in legal fees, surveyors fees, planning appeal consultant fees and resubmission of the unnecessary second application architect fees and mortgage and other fees. I have also lost over 200.000 in loss of income due to the delays, in total approx 800.000 Today I face complete financial loss and bankruptcy as many other developer and large companies are facing due to the economy, collapsing housing market and the financial credit crunch. I cannot even get agents interested to market the site as the consensus in the market is that there are no buyers out there, I even considered auctioning the site of as a loss, and contacted London auctioneer's Allsop who told me not to waste my time and they wouldn't take it on as there was no funding for buyers to buy sites with planning permission already granted and I wouldn't even get a single bid for it regardless on pricing. In the pass I always hard buyers lined up before the site gained planning and certainly sold off within 6 weeks In this case, the faults solely and absolutely lies at the councils and Councillors W negligence, gross misconduct, No doubt I would have had my planning in November 2007 (the market at its strongest peak) instead I am stuck with a development site that I fought so hard for only to be rewarded with a credit crunch and a collapsed housing market that took grip within the last 4 months. My legal team is now preparing a lawsuit against this London Borough to regain my losses and we re going to be taking the strongest action against all parties involved. There's no doubt the council is liable, proof from our evidence which can be provided of the councils constitution, statements, weekly lists, which all strictly state the 21 day rules and there is no deviation to this deadline. I can provide e mails, letters, voice recording to all these misconducts stated in this letter and for my other letter. I enclose the government rules on de -delegation also and if you can please see page 11 of 32 - Section C) How a delegation scheme works; Which elaborates on councils DEADLINE As mentioned at the top of my letter I do not want any financial gain, but your support and the maximum exposure of this councils, councillors and planning officers negligence to prevent this ever happening to anyone again IN THIS BOROUGH AND ANY OTHER BOROUGH IN THE U.K. Other innocent citizens are not aware of this rule as mentioned earlier that over 10 other applications have had this rule broken by them within this borough alone and have not gained planning permission when there application were recommended for approval by the officers and unlawfully declined. Conclusion I hope this letter is taken seriously and shows how Negligent and Corrupt our planning systems, government councillors and officers have become and are deliberately preventing much needed housing set out my the government requirements and if this article is not published I can only foresee it getting worse around the U.K . Read More