Reprisal for ending unlawful decision making by the Council
Section 5 of North East Lincolnshire Council's Constitution explains the powers delegated to Chief and Senior Officers of the Council including the Director of Law and Democratic Services, Rob Walsh. Rob Walsh has the power to determine and issue general guidelines to Members and Officers of the Council on legal, procedural and probity issues.
Additionally, the function and responsibilities of the Monitoring Officer role also rest with Rob Walsh as Solicitor to the Council, who undertakes to discharge his statutory responsibilities with a positive determination and in a manner that enhances the overall reputation of the Council. The Monitoring Officer’s role is also a preventative one, related to legality, avoidance of maladministration and observance of codes of conduct/practice where there is actual/potential transgression by the Council and who also gives authoritative advice and guidance on these issues which will be conducive to a culture of propriety and integrity.
The following arrangements and understandings between the Monitoring Officer, Members and Senior Officers are designed to ensure the effective discharge of the Council's business and functions. The Monitoring Officer will therefore seek to ensure:
- compliance with the requirements of the Council's Constitution;
- compliance with legislation (including any relevant Codes of Conduct);
- compliance with any general guidance issued, from time to time, by the Standards Committee and the Monitoring Officer;
- lawful and proportionate decision making; and
- generally, not taking action that would bring the Council, their Officers or professions into disrepute.
In essence, Rob Walsh's primary duty is to ensure that North East Lincolnshire Council's decision making is fair, within the law and will not give rise to any maladministration.
In a letter to the Council in respect of planning application DC/1600/04/WOL, Mr Webb enquired as to whether or not planning policies of the Council had been amended for development in the open countryside since the Council were unable to give precise reasons for granting full planning permission of this particular planning application. Consequently, due to its failure to give precise reasons, the Council had once again ( Law, what law?) transgressed Article 22(1)(a) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, as amended.
In response to Mr Webb, Rob Walsh stated, “The Council has accepted that it had failed to adopt the correct procedure with regard to Article 22(1)(a) of the GDPO.” Clearly, for over 4 years North East Lincolnshire Council completely and utterly failed to comply with the legal requirements of Article 22(1)(a) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, as amended by both The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2000 and The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) (Amendment) Order 2003, which is contrary to Article 13 of the Council's Constitution.
It must be pointed out to Rob Walsh, as Director of Law and Democratic Services and Monitoring Officer, it was he who was negligent in his duty by failing to implement the correct lawful procedure through appropriate authorative advice and guidance to Members and Officers of the Council, and not the Council collectively as he tries to infer. Unmistakably, the Council had not acted within the scope of the law and indeed the Council's Constitution for many years due solely to the fact that Rob Walsh had unlawfully allowed Members and Officers to issue the grant of planning permissions that do not include a summary of reasons for granting those planning permissions.
Clearly, Rob Walsh had failed to protect the interests of the Council. The Council have never offered any apology to Mr Webb in respect of Rob Walsh's negligent conduct. However, the Director of Law and Democratic Services stated in the latter part of his letter,“If you were to seek permission for judicial review of application DC/1600/04/WOL or any other planning decision in relation to which you are unable to establish a sufficient interest, the Council could have to oppose such application and consider seeking an order for payment of its costs.” Mr Webb has never indicated anywhere within his letter of seeking any judicial review in respect planning application DC/1600/04/WOL or indeed any other planning application. Evidently, the tone of the Director of Law and Democratic Services' letter had become explicitly confrontational and hostile.
Rob Walsh's statement is therefore made without any substance and justification whatsoever and is merely unwarranted threats, harassment and intimidation against Mr Webb. When considering the context of the whole matter, Rob Walsh's demeanour is both hypocritical and offensive since if was not for the intervention of Mr Webb bringing this issue of the transgression of law by the Council to him, as the responsible Senior Officer, then his contemptible threats and intimidation would simply be vacuous and the Council would of have continued contravening the legal requirements of Article 22(1)(a) of The Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, as amended and as of a consequence cause further maladministration. Through the inappropriate use of Council taxpayers money, Rob Walsh's gratuitous actions can only be seen as personal retribution, which has caused considerable and unnecessary alarm and distress to Mr Webb.
council complaints
CFO expelled
what law
what law: retribution
freedom of expression
what is maladministration
access to information
contact us
council corruption
nolan report
disclaimer
links
privacy policy
mud, dirt and filth
no, its a service request
£10K write off
council maladministration
misconduct news
sitemap