Update 9th January 2021
New page & video added: "Destruction of the Diggle Valley: using our village Green Belt & Main River Floodplain as an unlicensed LANDFILL for toxic waste".
- Click on the: TOXIC DUMP link to go through to the new page & find out how you can help.
Update 10th August 2020 (also see previous article below, from 24th June 2020)
HIGHWAYS FRAUD: Oldham Council ATTEMPT to justify lies & deceit with yet more lies & deceit in a PR statment/rebuttal
In response to a leaflet [SEE HERE] distributed in Diggle, informing residents of the truth regarding the Saddleworth School Highways planning application (as outlined in the previous article & in the planning fraud section) Oldham Council have released a statement on their PR website for the New Saddleworth School development in which they attempt to justify the lies & deceit revealed by the leaflet & this website..…….. with yet more lies & deceit. They weave a tangled web. They state:
“The council is aware of inaccurate and misleading allegations, which have been published in a recently-distributed leaflet in regards to the development of the new Saddleworth School. The allegations about two consultation responses from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) being withheld from the planning committee are incorrect. TfGM’s first response from October 2017 was replaced by their second response dated 6 November 2017. Both responses were made in respect of planning application PA/337301/15 (the replacement Saddleworth School application). The quotes in the leaflet are from TfGM’s response of October 2017, which was replaced by their November response. The quotes do not appear in TfGM’s November response. The November response is referred to in considerable detail at pages 102-106 of the planning committee report of 28 February 2019. Therefore, the Planning Committee members were aware of TfGM’s views when they decided to grant planning permission. The council would like to reassure the community that the scheme is safe, as underlined in the latest guidance from TfGM. We look forward to our young people soon benefiting from this much-needed new school. Updates on the development process will continue to be provided on this webpage.” [see here for statement]
All of the statements in red are untrue.
What Oldham Council are doing is attempting to play semantics rather than answering the substantive allegations, whilst also ignoring the fact that Stephen Irvine defrauded the planning process & whilst ignoring the fact that the Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle & council executives allowed him to resign while under investigation for gross misconduct, allowing the planning permissions he de-frauded to stand despite being clearly unlawful.
Here is the simple answer to Oldham Council's deliberately misleading & manipulatively constructed false, factually incorrect and grossly misleading statement (which will have been written or approved by Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle):
- TfGM used the planning code for the main planning application (PA/337301/15) in their responses but it is quite clear from their responses that they were being consulted on: the main school application + the Highways application, ( PA/337930/15) since they were commissioned by OMBC to carry out the Traffic Modelling as part of the Highways application. TfGM are commenting on both the immediate access road to the school & the wider highways works - the modelling they carried out was for the wider highways works (not for the school entrance). So here we have a classic example of the Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle deliberately setting the scene for the bigger lie & misleading the reader into believing that TfGM were ONLY commenting on the school application – why? See next point.
- Note the only ‘allegation’ the council claim is ‘incorrect’ in the leaflet that went out to residents is that “The allegations about two consultation responses from Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) being withheld from the planning committee are incorrect”. What you need to know is that the ‘planning considerations’ for the Highways application (PA/337930/15) are dealt with in pages 382 – 418 of the Report to Planning Committee [this is the section containing all of Stephen Irvine’s falsified statements about Highways safety as described HERE ]. The ‘consultation responses’ for the Highways application are summarised in pages 107 – 113 of the same report. Anyone in the planning committee looking for information on safety issues related to the Highways application will have been told in the relevant sections that there were ‘no safety issues’ and that TfGM had not provided any response related to Highways issues (page 111 states ‘TfGM’, ‘no response received’).
- Now – Stephen Irvine buried a summary of TfGM’s response in the wrong section of his planning report – in the section that only dealt with the issues within the red line site boundary for the school build application. [However, even that was not an accurate summary of TfGM’s response as it omits the section where they complain that their data has not been used correctly & edited]! Secondly – if you watch the video of the planning committee meeting where Mr. Irvine addresses the planning committee on the Highways application – he doesn’t mention the fact that TfGM have concerns about safety – he doesn’t mention TfGM at all. He refers only to his own opinion stating, “as you can see from our report overall clearly the highways works, drop off area, residents car park, are all considered acceptable in highways terms”. He deliberately misleads the planning committee – he informs them that they have 'no powers to refuse the Highways application' because (he claims) it does not create ‘unacceptable safety issues’ and ‘does not have a severe impact on the highways’; these opinions presented as facts are patently untrue as proven by TfGM's consultation responses. Thus, the planning committee were never given the opportunity to consider Highways safety issues, because they were mislead into believing there were no safety issues & told that they had no powers to refuse on safety grounds!
Video: **at no point were the planning committee informed of TfGM’s safety concerns related to the wider highways work. At no point was it considered or even discussed at the meeting in this section related to Highways works or any other section (including the section which considered Application PA/337301/15 (the main school construction application) )**
An objector raised some of the same safety concerns raised by TfGM (but he was not aware of the consultation responses from TfGM – as these were withheld from the public & other consultees too). The objector was treated with contempt by some members of the planning committee who denied that there were any safety issues at all – clearly having been misled & misinformed & having believed the lies they heard from Stephen Irvine at the meeting & read in his report.
- Finally the quotes in my leaflet posted to Diggle residents that ‘our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe’ & ‘we would not support the scheme’ are indeed taken from TfGM’s October response. However, the November response is almost exactly word-for-word the same [SEE HERE FOR COMPARISION]. In the November response TfGM say ‘our primary concern is that there are some potential road safety issues’ instead of 'our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe' - so what? The substantive issues that they are concerned about have not changed - In fact if you look at the comparison of the two letters, it is very obvious why TfGM submitted a second response in November - not to withdraw their previous concerns or to say the scheme is now safe as Oldham Council would have you believe - but to to insert some extra comments & additional safety concerns (from TfGM's Highways Forecasting team ) into their previous response! In fact, in the November response they added that "TfGM has safety concerns about the access road". Thus it is plainly obvious that the purpose of the November response was to add to their list of safety concerns, not to withdraw them!
- Oldham Council must take the residents of Oldham for fools if they think that they can hoodwink us into believing that TfGM 'withdrew' their safety concerns & agreed that the scheme was now nice & safe - by focussing on a minor semantic change - when the evidence proves that TfGM not only retained the concerns they had in October, but added to them in November!
Lastly - there is this strange comment:
- “The council would like to reassure the community that the scheme is safe, as underlined in the latest guidance from TfGM”. I'd like to know where this latest guidance is & where it is 'underlined' that the scheme is safe? This is again, another blatant lie by Oldham Council. TfGM stated "our primary concern is that there are some potential road safety issues", they actually believe the scheme to be "unsafe" & "would not support" the Highways Scheme according to their October consultation response - which was not withdrawn & replaced as the council claim - TfGM have not retracted those statements much less the actual concerns behind them! Given all the evidence outlined on this website concerning Planning Fraud, Stephen Irvine’s lies and Paul Entwistle’s continued attempts to cover up fraud on safety issues – why should the Saddleworth community take assurances from Oldham Council?
The assurances of PROVEN liars, fraudsters and people who would immorally prioritise a land-swap deal with a local developer over resident's & children's safety are worthless. Oldham Council's assurances backed by notorious Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle (implicated in many repulsive cover-ups including the cover-up of Child-Sexual Exploitation in Oldham & oppression of whistle-blowers [see HERE & HERE] ) are worth absolutely nothing.
Paul Entwistle truly is the ‘Devil’s Advocate’.
Final note: it seems the leaflet has informed more people of the truth regarding safety issues: Houses on Huddersfield Road received letters [CLICK HERE] informing them that Oldham Council have received a number of objections about the Highways Scheme & have now moved the TRO Panel meeting to September 24th. So there is still time to complain to the Secretary of State & the ESFA about the fact that the planning consent was obtained by deceit regarding Highways & Flood issues, as a result of Stephen Irvine's misfeasance in public office, which has been duly covered up, denied and ignored by Oldham Council.
[see contact details at the end of the article below for details of who to complain to]
Council bosses initiate implementation of a Highways Scheme proven ‘unsafe’ by TfGM - but planning permission for the scheme was obtained by wrongful & criminal deception.
-
- Former Head of Planning Stephen Irvine lied about the outcome of Traffic and Highways Assessments and withheld facts about serious safety issues. This has resulted in a dangerous highways scheme being granted planning permission.
- The council (particularly Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle and Chief Executive Carolyn Wilkins) have willfully ignored and refused to investigate complaints about the fraudulent planning officer report which secured planning permission for the scheme in February 2019 and are now attempting to rush through a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to begin the imposition of the unsafe scheme on residents.
It also has to be said that the Council have used the Covid-19 crises to their advantage, to go on a ‘planning binge’ to try and avoid proper consultation and scrutiny of plans – including this one. Council officers appear to be under the impression that once the scheme is in place – that they can no longer be held accountable for fraud, or be subject to any legal action.
Stephen Irvine’s Planning Officer Report: wrongful and criminal deception
In February 2019 Oldham Council Planning Committee voted through the four Saddleworth School planning applications including Application D (PA/337930/15) for the controversial highways scheme. However, planning permission was predicated on false information: the factual outcomes of Traffic Modelling and Safety Assessments were substituted for outright lies in the Planning Officer Report to Planning Committee and therefore the Committee and a wider audience were falsely informed regarding traffic and safety issues. Former Head of Planning Stephen Irvine led the planning committee to believe that the highways scheme design had passed all safety assessments and would operate safely, when in fact the complete opposite was true! Irvine managed to pull off this utter lie by withholding the two most recent consultation responses received from the professional consultants TfGM (Transport for Greater Manchester) who carried out the traffic modelling exercise and by lying about what their conclusions were. Following their assessments, TfGM came to the conclusion that the scheme was unsafe; they state ‘our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe’ and 'we would not support this scheme' [CLICK HERE for page 2 of response] . Thus, a scheme shown to be dangerous by TfGM’s assessments was made out to have passed all the safety tests so that it could be pushed through planning ‘on the nod’.
CLICK HERE For the full details of how Stephen Irvine altered his report, including falsified statements
Elderly resident Duncan Anderson presents his objections against the Proposed Saddleworth School Highways scheme at OMBC planning committee meeting on 28th Feb 2019.
“I certainly wouldn’t like to answer for that in the future –….It’s not illegal to be stupid, it’s not illegal to be incompetent, it’s not illegal to obfuscate to achieve your objective, but what is illegal is the consequences of actual damage being done to people because of your actions – then you are liable….”
Stephen Irvine obviously did not act alone – he was brought in from Tower Hamlets Council - where he had built a reputation for manipulating the planning process, pushing through controversial developments and for having said that it was an "urban myth" that all new developments required planning permission! [CLICK HERE for another 'eye opener' into Irvine's dishonest past]! Tower Hamlets council have been embroiled in numerous controversies in recent years concerning fraudulent activities - perhaps it can be considered Oldham's 'twin town' in the south. Obviously someone from within Oldham Council identified Mr. Irvine as the man to get the job done, by whatever means necessary! The Leader of the Council at the time of Irvine's recruitment in 2015 was Jim McMahon (Now MP for Oldham West & Royton and ironically, as of April 2020 Shadow Secretary of State for Transport).
Political cabal obsessed with 'land-swap deal'
Stephen Irvine was able to operate unchallenged because he told elected members what they wanted to hear - not the difficult truth. As you can see in the video above, the established order at Oldham Council do not like to be challenged; elected members are seen attempting to bully the elderly resident into a corner (NOTE: what a disgusting way to treat an elderly gentleman who has come to present at a meeting)! Resident Duncan Anderson makes exactly the same point about safety made by the professional team at TfGM i.e. that the combination of having a turn-around (that also doubles as a car-park) at the exit to a signal-controlled single-lane traffic system is ‘unsafe’, an accident waiting to happen, and that children may end up under a bus. The inappropriate response from Cllr John Hudson to the resident's genuine concerns (shared by professional’s TfGM) beggars’ belief!
It is also apparent from watching the video - that the planning committee don't actually review any of the planning documents - they rely entirely on what they are told by the Planning Officer, either through his report or by what is said in the meeting. Therefore a corrupt planning officer can easily 'mislead' a planning committee just by lying about what reports say, 'altering facts' and omitting inconvenient facts and consultation responses- as Stephen Irvine did.
However, the elected members within the Committee are not blameless:
- Firstly, they have a duty to look deeper into the more controversial aspects of a planning proposal. This planning meeting took place 5 years after plans were initially put forward and so the committee members should have been aware of the aspects of the proposal that were of most concern to residents and professional consultees - yet they seemed to be totally unaware of any of the safety concerns - instead believing that the proposed Highways Scheme would make the road 'safer' for pedestrians when in fact the Traffic Simulation results have conclusively proven that the Scheme will be unsafe!
- Secondly, Councillor Hudson has made no secret of the fact that he was part of a cross-party group who were absolutely determined to push through plans to move the school to Diggle regardless of the information they received that might weigh-against the idea (some might say they would rather not see the information). It was at meetings of the full council and at two previous planning meetings in 2016, that he stood up to pat himself on the back for having participated in various back-room discussions with other party leaders, trumpeting about how great it was that they’d ‘worked together’ to bring this land-swap deal to realisation.
In fact, discussions about a land-swap deal began as far back as 2007 when WRT Developments acquired the ‘unprofitable’ site in Diggle & wanted to find a ‘profitable’ solution – what better plan for those who would feather their own nests than to effectively ‘gift’ the prime-development land that the school is currently on (public owned land), to favoured developer Phil Wiggett (of WRT Developments) for executive housing! These cross-party discussions prior to 2013 (when the idea was first put to residents) would have included leader of the Liberal Democrats Howard Sykes & the then Labour leader Jim McMahon. McMahon is on record for having said that the decision to move the school to Diggle was because he thought it was a good idea. So it appears that this project has been forced through because it is attached to Jim McMahon's ego - another of his vanity projects.
Devil’s Advocate - OMBC Solicitor Paul Entwistle
After initially promising an investigation [CLICK HERE] into complaints and evidence of planning fraud submitted to him in August 2019, (which he deemed to be of a ‘serious nature’ at the time) Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle has since ignored requests for updates on the investigation for the best part of a year - until pressed recently through an FOI request. He responded to the FOI request to say that an investigation did take place in July 2019 (a month before complaints were made) and that the planning permission was found to be ‘robust’! Had Paul Entwistle forgotten about this 'July 2019 investigation' when he promised an investigation into the 'serious' allegations specified in the letter he received in August 2019? Or, is it the case that this is just another delay tactic, because there has in fact been no investigation into these matters. An investigation is the last thing Mr. Entwistle would want, since he himself would be implicated as being complicit in cover ups, deliberate deceit and the criminal actions of others - which he has a duty (as a professional solicitor) to report.
Wilfully Ignoring Planning Fraud
The cross-party obsession with prioritizing a lucrative land-swap deal and dogmatic adherence to the 'tribal objective' of moving the school to Diggle (instead of properly considering the Uppermill site) created an environment where a corrupt planning officer could operate unchallenged and defraud the planning process. This has resulted in a proven unsafe Highway's Scheme being granted planning permission.
Despite the Council having been alerted to the fact that planning permission was obtained by deceit i.e. fraud - political group leaders, Council Executives and the Director of Legal Services Paul Entwistle continue to willfully ignore this fact. Therefore, when the first major accident happens at Diggle - these people will have serious questions (if not criminal charges) to answer. As resident Duncan Anderson said: "what is illegal is the consequences of actual damage being done to people because of your actions – then you are liable….”
The Traffic Regulation Order 'Consultation'
Notification of a public consultation with regards to the TRO was sent to only a select number of residents on Huddersfield Road in May 2020, with a cut-off date of 6th June 2020 for comments.
[CLICK HERE and HERE to see the two maps depicting the proposed TRO]
[CLICK HERE to see the consultation letter from Director of Legal Services Paul Entwistle]
However, the TRO & objections to it will be considered at a panel meeting in August or September 2020, following the compilation of a report by Senior Engineers at Unity Partnership. Therefore there is still time to send in objections to: Alister Storey, Senior Engineer at Unity Partnership ([email protected]). [......but - read next section first]
Take Action: Complain to the Secretary of State
Oldham Council & Unity Partnership are currently insisting that only objections to the TRO will be taken into account i.e. you can't object to the overall planning permission However, as evidenced in the linked article [HERE] - planning permission for the Highways Scheme was obtained by deceit - critical information on highways safety and crucial consultation responses from the professionals who undertook the Traffic Modelling were withheld from the planning committee and were not made available as part of the consultation process. Worse - Stephen Irvine did not report on the outcome of Traffic Models & Safety Assessments, or on the conclusions reported by TfGM - he instead substituted the original concluding statements with his own 'alternative truth' i.e. false statements that were contradictory to what was actually reported! Oldham Council - led by Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle - are attempting to sneak through plans without having investigated the fraudulent basis upon which the decisions were based and without following due process. Planning permission for the Highways Scheme should have been withdrawn as soon as the Borough Solicitor was informed of this deceit over one year ago - the fact that it still stands to date and nothing has been done to address this fraud is appalling.
Therefore, if you would like to complain about the deceit & illegality that has taken place, please take the time to write and express your concerns about the likely consequences to the relevant Government Ministers (responsible for funding the new school development and for overseeing Local Authorities). You can write to Debbie Abrahams MP and ask her to forward your letter to the relevant Secretary(s) of State. You can also write to the ESFA directly.
- Debbie Abrahams MP: [email protected]
- The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government: [email protected]
- The Secretary of State for Education: [email protected] (cc: Eileen Milner, Chief Executive, Education and Skills Funding Agency [email protected])
Article date: 24th June 2020
Heritage Vandalism – brought to you by WRT Developments & Oldham Council
Over the last 12 months, the stunning Grade 2 Listed clock-tower building at the heart of Diggle village has been deliberately damaged & allowed to rot – despite promises made by the council in planning documents (Feb 2019), that they would renovate it.
Photos taken December 2019: lead-flashing was 'stolen', but removed roof tiles were left piled up nearby.
As many Saddleworth residents will be aware the 125 year-old building stood resplendent & well-maintained for the first 120 years of its life – right up to 23rd May 2015, when 'vandals' broke in & bent the cog mechanism at the top of the clock tower - thereby removing the need for caretaker Maurice Brayford to go in & check on the clock every day [see article here]. The Diggle Community Association found someone who would have repaired this initial damage at no cost to the owner of the building (WRT Developments), but the offer was turned down! WRT Developments & Phil Wiggett have a history of allowing Listed buildings in their care to rot [see here] or fall victim to arson attacks [here]
Since then the building has been boarded up & allowed to fall into disrepair - but was not in the terrible state it is in now 12 months ago. This December 2019, the building was 'attacked' again - with lead flashing removed in several places & numerous roof tiles removed (& piled up neatly on the roof); a protected bat roost was also destroyed in the process. It has also since come to light that, a few weeks prior to this, the clock bell was stolen from the building – the site owner was aware of this but it was not reported in the local press (no doubt difficult questions may have been asked – how could someone get a large bell away from the site without access to the site & a vehicle)?
To many Saddleworth residents, is looks like a deliberate act of corporate vandalism with the express purpose of deliberately ruining the building – in the hope that it can eventually be deemed ‘unsafe’ & give the council a chance to demolish it.
February 2020: photos taken inside the listed building + showing further damage to roof
Council failure to uphold legal agreements & statutory duty
Owners of listed buildings are obliged to keep them in a reasonable state of repair. Local planning authorities, have powers to serve Repairs Notices (a Section 54 notice forces owners to carry out temporary repairs to make the building weathertight & secure from theft & vandalism; a Section 47/48 Notice forces long-term repairs). The Listed building is still owned by WRT Developments – consents for the landswap have not yet exchanged hands. Since December - several Parish Councillors, the Diggle Community Association & many residents have been asking Oldham Council what they intend to do to ensure that emergency repairs are carried out to make the building weather-proof & secure – unsurprisingly the council have failed provide a response to this question.........yet - In February 2019 - the council made assurances that they would look after the listed building & ensure it was renovated in time for the opening of the new school:
"10.142 Representatives of the Council, School and School’s Technical Group have been discussing the listed building for some time and it is envisaged that, upon moving, the school would assume control of it and look to utilise the building for educational purposes. They have been discussing the property with funders including Historic England, LEP’s, charities and potential sponsors all with the aim to have the building operational and available to use to coincide with completion of the new school buildings"
[Report to Planning Committee Proposed New Saddleworth School , 28 Feb 2019, page 192]
The council practically took responsibility for the building 12 months ago when planning was passed - yet since then they have permitted its deliberate neglect & are allowing it to rot - in spite of assurances made in planning documents. Having contacted Historic England – they were unaware of the site or who owns it & insist that the local authority have responsibility for it – it seems very unlikely therefore that they have been involved in 'discussions' about its future & funding - was this yet another lie in former Head of Planning Steven Irvine's planning report?
Article date 1st March 2020
EXPOSED: council chiefs lied for years about access bridge safety.
A bridge that was deemed safe, in the Saddleworth school planning application, to transport pupils daily to the school’s entrance has now been shown to be weak and unsafe – yet council chiefs knew about this in 2013.
In November/December 2019, (2 years after planning permission was obtained & 5 years after plans were first submitted for public consultation) the first ever surveys were carried out to test the safety of the road bridge into the proposed new saddleworth school site. All vehicles (cars, school buses, maintenance) must cross this single carriage bridge on a daily basis in order to access the site.
The survey results have not yet been published, but have been made known exclusively to school governors: results confirm that the bridge is far too weak to support construction vehicles. Consequently, demolition (planned to begin in January 2020) was stopped & a temporary ramp fitted in an attempt to get work vehicles on site.
The council have always claimed that moving the school to Diggle would be the cheaper option, the option that would be ‘best value for money’. To support that narrative they have systematically & deliberately ignored serious safety concerns; any safety issues that they knew would prove too costly to acknowledge, they deliberately ommitted from consideration throughout the planning process and in planning reports to planning committee.
Oldham council knew about this in 2013
After a meeting with OMBC on Thursday 29th August 2013, Jane Brighouse, Project Director at the Education Funding Agency, wrote to Darren Jones, Director of Development and Infrastructure at OMBC, outlining their reasons why the rear site option at Diggle was not suitable.
“At the eastern end of the access road is a small bridge which crosses Diggle Brook to provide access to the existing works/factory. There is no information about its current condition and we therefore have concerns about the capacity of this bridge to sustain construction traffic and about future long-term maintenance and repair, which may become a liability for the school given that they will be the only 'destination' on the site at the rear.
The solution may require the rebuilding of the existing bridge or construction a new one adjacent to the existing. Either option would be expensive (of the order of £350K - £400K) - again a cost which is outwith the EFA funding criteria”
- Oldham Council could have surveyed the bridge before the ‘site selection’ exercise was undertaken in 2014.
- The council could have surveyed the bridge before planning permission was passed (in 2016 and 2017), as part of the surveys commissioned to support the planning application.
- They could have surveyed the bridge in 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 or 2018 – but waited until demolition work was just about to start in 2019/20 to do the survey.
Oldham Council clearly did not want to acknowledge publicly what the 'current condition' of the bridge was, or that is was unsafe, nor did they want to admit that they would have to pay the costs of replacing this bridge (no doubt the ESFA's 2013 estimate of cost is a very conservative estimate). This was done deliberately to deceive, because it did not fit in with their narrative that building a school in Diggle (rather than Uppermill) would be 'cheaper' & 'safer' – thus they could continue to justify their underhanded land-swap deal with WRT Developments.
How do they keep getting away with such lies, deceit & cover-ups? It is clear for all to see that Oldham Council are not fit-for-purpose.
Article date: 9th February 2020
Petition to the Secretary of State: Grant UK residents the right to appeal against 'Inappropriate development' in Green Belt and/or within Floodplain (Floodzone 2 & 3).
Sign the petition here
The planning system is somewhat 'rigged' to enable Local Authorities to sidestep legislation, legal obligation and due process without fear of come-back: something Oldham Council love to take advantage of!
There is currently no process for UK residents to challenge erroneous & deliberate misinterpretation of planning policy and legislation by Local Planning Authorities. We need a change in legislation to allow '3rd parties' to challenge planning decisions such as this, where LPAs are audaciously breaking both the letter of and spirit of the law!
Please sign the petition to the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government requesting that he consider a change in legislation to allow 3rd party planning appeals in specific circumstances, i.e. where LPAs allow 'inappropriate development' in the Green Belt and/or within the Floodplain.
WATCH THIS SPACE: Coming soon.....
- Abuse of power: More on the unscrupulous & dubious decision-making procedures employed by Oldham Council.
- Approved planning documents - not worth the paper they're written on.
- Environmental data, flood models, information and plans - flawed & falsified.
- How the Council use their 'political arm' to 'help push (flawed) plans through' & silence consultees.