Disingenous: adj: not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.
“The Development Corporation does not understand the reticence of Thurrock Council officers to support the Enforcement Notice determined by Members of the Planning Committee after consideration of a report that recommended formal enforcement action”
Hours before a planning committee meeting where the enforcement of a stop notice in relation to the Titan lorry park site in Oliver Road, West Thurrock will be debated, documents seen by YT once again illustrate the difference of opinions between the Thurrock Thames Gateway Development Coroporation (Dc) and Thurrock Council planning officers over the lorry park.
The argument, we understand. still goes something like this. Like it or not, the DC was introduced by the Labour government: a government returned, democratically, by the electorate in 2005.
The DC were charged with regenerating the area of the Thames Gateway including Thurrock. A key part of the regeneration is the West Thurrock area. The aspiration is to transform it to an area of housing, business, schools, play areas etc sitting neatly by a regenerated Lakeside Town centre, North Grays, Stanford and Corringham etc.
In a nutshell, in the midst of all this, the DC do not understand why it appears that (the then) Mayor Joy Redsell, councillor Ben Maney and officers Bill Newman and Andrew Millard had meetings with Titan Works over the establishment (or otherwise) of a lorry park slap bang in the middle of the proposed regeneration area. They also appear to not understand because any decision made re a planning application would be made by the DC and not the council.
Following an FOI request, the details of letters are as follows:
On the 20th November last year, planning boss Bill Newman wrote to DC chief executive Niall Lindsay.
The letter stated: “As you may be aware the Council’s Planning Committee resolved that an enforcement notice be served in relation to lorry parking and ancillary development
on the above site.
The Notice was served and an appeal has now been lodged on “Ground A” (amongst other grounds). “Ground A” claims that planning permission should be granted.
Therefore, the Inspector will consider the deemed application as part of his or her deliberations. As TTGDC would have been the relevant Planning Authority for the determination of any Planning Application that may have been submitted prior to the enforcement notice being served, it seems to me to be appropriate to ask if one of your team would lead on providing evidence in relation to the appeal.
“My own position..has been to “tolerate” the use pending submission of an application to regulate and limit the use, until permanent provision of alternative facilities can be provided via the Local Development Framework.
The Officer report to the Planning Committee reflected this position, recommending “under-enforcement” and so my officers are unlikely to be able to sustain a credible witness position.
In a response by the Director of Planning and Strategy at the DC,Peter Bassett he refers back to the essence of the problem.
“The Development Corporation does not understand the reticence of Thurrock Council officers to support the Enforcement Notice determined by Members of the Planning Committee after consideration of a report that recommended formal enforcement action”
Mr Bassett goes onto make further stinging criticisms.
“The Development Corporation brought this issue to the attention of Thurrock Council in July 2007 as it was considered that the responsible local planning authority would wish to bring such a significant and blatant breach of planning law under the remit of the planning control regime.
Your statement that Thurrock Council has, “under enforced”, and had been prepared to, “tolerate”, the breach is disingenuous.
It is understood that you arranged a meeting(s) with the owners to discuss submission of a planning application. From the evidence available to the Development Corporation, it appears that Thurrock Council failed to effect enforcement action for in excess of 3 years.
In addition, the manner in which the site is operated suggests that it does not accord with the role that would be “supported” by the LDF Core strategy, the Changes to which are currently the subject of public consultation.
Mr Bassett has rejected the request for help saying:
The Development Corporation has not expressed a view on the merits of the development other than it should be subject to the same statutory requirements and controls applicable to any development requiring planning permission.
You will be aware that this was made clear when the Development Corporation was invited to comment on the draft of the report considered by Thurrock Council’s Planning Committee.
Responsibility for serving and implementing the Notice rests with Thurrock Council and it follows, therefore, that Thurrock Council is responsible for responding to any appeal against its decision.
The meeting of Thurrock Council planning committee meeting is at 7pm tonight in the Civic Offices, New Road, Grays.
Joy Redsell, Ben Maney Bill Newman and Andrew Millard
After reading this article I query why people pay taxes and also councillors we elect. Carry out the complete opposite to what we are told in the public arena these people should be made to resign
They waste the residents money no wonder they nearly went bankrupt Thurrock council should get an external body to investigate these grave issues raised in this article Cllr Kent what is your comments and also MP Jackie Doyle Price Also the police should be involved in this grave matter