Oldham Council Planning Fraud: Evidencing the falsification of facts, abuse of power & bare-faced lies
PART 2: WRONGFUL & CRIMINAL DECEPTION: The planning boss who substituted the factual outcome of Traffic & Safety Assessments with outright lies and misled the Planning Committee
In his Planning Officer Report to Planning Committee, 28th Feb 2019 former Head of Planning Stephen Irvine:
- Set out a series of completely fabricated statements regarding highways safety; he lied about the outcome of the Traffic Simulation Models & Highways Assessments which were carried out by Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM) to test if the highways design would be safe.
- To conceal his lies - he wrote in his report (page 111) that TfGM had not provided any consultation responses in the most recent consultation round (which began in September 2017 and ran through to February 2019) - this was not true, they had in fact provided two consultation responses (in October and November 2017), but both of these responses were withheld from the committee and from the general public (i.e. were not made available on the planning register as legally required). One resident managed to get hold of these responses through FOI request - otherwise the existence of these crucial planning documents would remain unknown!
- Stephen Irvine of course failed to mention the fact that TfGM specifically stated in their consultation response that: "our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe” and that "we would not support the scheme" As a result, very serious safety issues and concerns about safety reported by professional consultants TfGM, were hidden from the planning committee & wider audience
[CLICK HERE to see Stephen Irvine's Report to Planning Committee]
[CLICK HERE and HERE to see the consultation responses from TfGM]
Image: Dangerous junction at entrance to Diggle + proposed new Highways Scheme = single-lane controlled by traffic lights for the length of the terraced houses, with a car park/turn around immediately after. TfGM specifically stated that this arrangement would be 'unsafe'
Falsified Statements
Stephen Irvine’s Planning Officer report contains a series of false statements presented as fact in which the results, outcome & conclusions of professionally commissioned Traffic Simulation Models are misrepresented. For example, in Planning Officer Report, Section 13 (page 395) the following statements are made regarding highways safety and the new Traffic Signals:
“13.82 Traffic modelling was undertaken by TfGM which ensured that the traffic signals would operate effectively with the other measures proposed. “
“13.83 Initially, it was shown that extensive queuing would take place and that traffic could potentially queue back from Huddersfield Road to block the Standedge Road / Wool Road junction. As a result, the scheme was modified to ensure that traffic waiting to access the car park did not queue back into the single lane section of carriageway and the internal layout of the car park was modified to include the express drop-off laybys.”
The sentences underlined are completely untrue –TfGM actually stated in their 2017 consultation response (their final response): "we are also concerned that the queue from the right turn into the car park will extend to the one-way section", they say that their data “indicates that the queue will extend back to the one-way section during the busiest 15 minute period, even if the car park is only used by 60% of the demand”. At no point have TfGM said that their Models ‘ensure that traffic signals would operate effectively with the other measures proposed’; the complete opposite is true! At no point has Oldham Council come up with a plan to mitigate TfGM’s concerns regarding traffic waiting to access the car park – this concern has simply been ignored!
“13.87 The subsequent modelling undertaken by TfGM showed that queuing will still occur during the concentrated periods of time when demand will be at its highest, but that it should not have a detrimental impact on highway safety”.
This is again – untrue: TfGM stated that if the exit from the one-way section is blocked “there will be excessive queuing in both directions on Huddersfield Road and the road will become less safe as there will be vehicles effectively ‘stranded’ in the one-way section”.
“13.85 Given that pedestrian access to the site will be safer and more attractive for children to use, it has now been assumed that parents are more likely to allow their children to walk along Huddersfield Road from Standedge Road / Wool Road rather than deliver them as closely as possible”.
“13.92 Overall, the introduction of the traffic signals on Huddersfield Road will have a beneficial effect on highway safety for all other users of the highway at most times during the day without causing further delay.”
To state as fact that access will be ‘safer & more attractive’ – when all the available evidence indicates the opposite – is not only ridiculous but is fraudulent; no rational person in possession of all the facts regarding this Scheme would come to such a conclusion! TfGM in their 2017 consultation letter stated: "our primary concern is that the scheme is unsafe”. So why would parents and residents believe the fabricated statements of a Head of Planning (Stephen Irvine) who resigned while under investigation for gross misconduct (and later was found not to have the essential professional qualification required for his role), over the professional transport assessors at TfGM – who actually undertook the transport assessment?
It is also the case that Stephen Irvine received additional comments from TfGM's Highways Analytical Forecasting Service (HAFS unit) in October and November 2017 where they list several concerns regarding pedestrian and highways safety:
- With regards to the car park development they state that "there is no mention of the safety implications in the Transport Statement. No provision is made for the residents to cross the road to the new residents car park". They also express concerns that the junction assessments are incomplete because the impact of the two developments together (the school development + nearby car park development) has not been assessed or Modelled as part of the applicant's Transport Assessment, so the impact on the overall transport system is unknown.
- With regards to the access road leading off the main Huddersfield road to the school, across a narrow bridge over Diggle brook, they state: "TfGM have concerns about the access road" and "there is possibility for conflict between pedestrians and buses as well as cyclists and buses when going over the bridge". Yet in Stephen Irvine's Report (Section headed 'Transport, Access and Highway Safety - Access Road' Paragraphs 13. 68 - 13.70) there is no mention at all of these or any other safety concerns regarding the access bridge.
- With regards to traffic impacts, they have concerns that Oldham Council have failed to consider the impact of locating bus stops within the flow of traffic, on traffic queues and on highways & pedestrian safety. In fact - Oldham council STILL plan to locate a bus stop at the exit to the car-park turn-around.
[CLICK HERE to see the letter from TfGM's Highways Analytical Forecasting Service]
This is not just manipulation of facts - it it deliberate deletion of the facts and the truth about critical factors that would determine whether or not it is safe to build a school for 1500 pupils in this rural location with permanently limited access. It is not safe - Oldham Council have always know this & Stephen Irvine appears to have followed orders to the extreme - replacing what should be a factual document to inform the planning committee - with a work of fiction to suit the desired outcome! He may have been able to get away with this on matters such as ecology, (since the environment does not have inherent rights) but this is the safety of residents & children we are talking about - such deceit on important matters of safety is careless, reckless and immoral. Indeed, wrongful or criminal deception intended to obtain gain (planning permission in this case) is a crime - it is called fraud.
Article date: June 2020
PART 1: The resignation of planning boss Stephen Irvine whilst under investigation for Gross Misconduct.
In August 2019 it was widely reported in local newspapers that Oldham Council’s Head of Planning Stephen Irvine, had been suspended under investigation for ‘gross misconduct’ [see MEN News report here]. There was widespread speculation as to why this may be – it happened around the time when residents were making complaints to the Council & to the Secretary of State for Communities regarding two controversial planning applications overseen by Mr. Irvine for which planning permission was granted in 2019: The Saddleworth School development and another proposed development for 265 homes that would destroy yet another rural valley in nearby Lees (also in Saddleworth).
Oldham Council refused to tell local journalists ‘what went on’ and refused to answer resident’s FOI requests regarding the reasons behind the disciplinary action – they refused to ‘confirm or deny’ whether the allegations of ‘gross misconduct’ related to Mr. Irvine’s role in planning.
Quote from Stephen Irvine's LinkedIn Profile:
"[I] am a safe pair of hands who tends to be happiest getting my hands dirty in all aspects of planning work, at any level, and delivering planning permissions and allocations for all types of people"
The complaints
Several complaints were made about Stephen Irvine’s conduct & condescending attitude at a planning meeting (held on 1st July 2019) for the Lees development; several residents attended the meeting to oppose a planning application for development on land designated as open-green space (OPOL) in the local plan. Mr. Irvine was seen to goad & provoke residents with such statements as "I know you don't want to hear the experts" & “it’s all very well going out there saying 'we're going to fight this, were going to fight that', you can't fight when you have no weapons”. [see video above]
Shortly before Stephen Irvine was suspended, Debbie Abrahams MP and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, also had sight of evidence proving that Irvine had defrauded the planning process for the Saddleworth School development. Evidence was sent to the National Planning Casework Unit and to the Environmental Law Foundation – both agreed that allegations were ‘very serious’. After Irvine had resigned in August 2019, the same evidence was sent to the Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle, who also agreed that ‘allegations’ were ‘of a serious nature’ and promised an internal investigation by senior executives [See here]. However, since then he has ignored correspondence requesting an update as to the progress of said investigation.
The evidence
This is just some of the evidence proving Stephen Irvine's hand in presenting false information to the planning commitee and manipulating the planning process. Planning permission for the Saddleworth School development was finally obtained on the third attempt to pass it in February 2019; the prior two decisions in 2016 having been overturned (on both occasions because of Stephen Irvine's 'irrational' & 'unlawful' planning reports).
1. Flood Fraud: blatant lies about the Flood Risk Assessment report conclusions.
Through his Planning Officer Report to planning committee, Stephen Irvine misrepresented the conclusions of a Flood Risk Assessment report & told the planning committee that the proposed all-weather pitch (AWP) – a costly built facility – would be ‘not be affected by flooding’ - the FRA report made no such assurances – in fact it stated the opposite – it concluded that during flood events, flooding within the site would increase comparative to the current situation (as a direct result of development in the floodplain) and that river water would be 'throttled' causing water to back-up & flood sport pitches. Notwithstanding the fact that the flood model was falsified to downplay the severity of the increased flooding - it still reports that the sport pitches will flood & flood volumes on site increase:
“The development site experiences flooding at the proposed sport pitches located adjacent to the western site boundary during all modelled events including the 1% AEP event and above...…..Out-of-bank spilling on the left bank of the watercourse just upstream of the existing metal footbridge on site causes inundation of the proposed sport pitches adjacent to the western site boundary" [FRA Addendum 2 document, Technical Note page 5]
This meant that Irvine's report was again 'irrational' in law & should have been overturned by the borough solicitor Paul Entwistle - who was given the evidence after planning permission was granted & chose to ignore it & allow the decision to stand unchallenged.
2. Omitting consultee responses from the report to planning committee:
During the 2017 – 2019 consultation round, Sport England expressed concerns about the impact of the flooding on the AWP (classed as ‘built development’). Their most recent response from August 2018 was not reported in the Planning Officer report to planning committee (it was obtained by a resident via FOI request to Sport England). The FOI response shows that Sport England expressed concerns about the expense of repairing the AGP (Artificial Grass Pitch) or ‘all-weather pitch’, should it be subject to flooding. Sport England specifically requested assurance that it would be "extremely unlikely to flood". Stating that "If the proposed 3G Artificial Grass Pitch is in anyway affected by the proposed [flood] mitigation then this would be a significant issue to Sport England" [click here to see]. Again - this is a crucial fact that the planning committee were not made aware of.
3. Failing to consult Sport England as part of the original planning consultation on 2015/16 (they had to request to be consulted)..........then sending a 'bespoke' planning document to them with falsified plans & information to help them 'form an opinion'.
In February 2016 Stephen Irvine sent via e-mail a ‘bespoke’ planning report containing falsified plans (i.e. not the same plans as those submitted in the planning application) to Sport England in order to persuade them that the proposed sport pitches were outside the designated flood zone (when in fact they were not). This report was not submitted to the planning portal alongside other planning documents. Sport England even realised this & commented that it should be uploaded to the planning portal – it never was. This document therefore functioned to deliberately mislead a consultee, through provision of false information.
[Bespoke flood report to SE] [Irvine e-mail to SE]
When the planning department realised that residents had got hold of a copy of the false report from SE, a 'Flood Update Report' was produced 'with corrected map' days before the planning meeting in an attempt to cover backs. However - Sport England were not re-consulted - neither were the Environment Agency - so the deception prevailed (in breach of EIA Regulations as confirmed at the Judicial Review in 2017). [See notes on deception here]
Fake plan sent to Sport England in Feb 2016 - doctored to make it look like the AWP won't flood
Sport pitch is made narrower such that the edge is further away from river + extent of river flooding across the floodplain (blue area) is misrepresented (2/3 cut out).
4. Acting beyond his powers to lobby & bully statutory consultees on behalf of the planning applicant (in this case, the Secretary of State for Education)
In Februray 2016, when the ‘bespoke’ (falsified) report didn’t pursuade Sport England – Stephen Irvine recruited a colleague in another department to interfere in the consultation process on the council’s behalf via aggressive letters/e-mails to pressure the consultee Sport England into dropping their objection (on the day of the planning committee meeting in 2016). [Click here to read Sport England e-mails]
After the Environment Agency objected to the development for the third time, he complained to the Chairman of Saddleworth Council Planning Committee that the Environment Agency were applying too much scrutiny to the Flood Risk Assessment. There are records submitted with the planning document to indicate that Stephen Irvine's boss- Graham Dickman (Development Management Team Leader) - pressured the EA to get them to drop their legitimate objection & the council also used local press contacts to 'humiliate' the EA - accussing them of having 'stymied' the development. [report on EA objection] [EA lift objection] [Irvine e-mail]
5. Acting beyond his powers to lobby & bully statutory consultees on behalf of the planning applicant (in this case, WRT Developments)
In May 2015, Stephen Irvine as Head of Planning, wrote to Historic England after having recruited a barrister to contest their view as set out in their consultation response to the demolition planning application submitted by WRT developments. Historic England’s view was that buildings connected by the link bridge to the listed building were ‘curtilage listed’ and that Listed Building consent would be required to demolish them. The letter sent by Irvine states:
“In May 2015, Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council, in relation to development proposals concerning land at Dobcross Works, Huddersfield Road, Diggle took legal advice .......the advice we were given by Robin Green of Cornerstone Barristers was as follows…….………..In these circumstances we asked our barrister to comment on the position taken by Historic England that the building to the rear (east) of the listed building connected to it by the link bridge is deemed to form part of the listed building. For the reasons given below he respectfully considers that the view expressed in Historic England’s letter is wrong……in these circumstances the council intends to determine the application on the basis that the factory building is not listed”
[Click to see Irvine's letter to Historic England]
So, Oldham Council as so-called independent planning authority, didn't like what was written in Historic England's consultation response (bear in mind that planning offiers are supposed to be objective & impartial). So Irvine acted on behalf of the applicant & used public money to obtain a legal opinion that would favour the applicant's view - enabling him to discard the opinion of the statutory consultee. He basically told Historic England they he would consider their professional view to be 'wrong' & signed the letter himself. How arrogant can you get!
Final insult: Saddleworth residents discover that Irvine did not have the professional qualification to deemed 'essential' to the role he was performing
Following the disasterous planning meeting for the Lees development – a Lees resident complained to the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) about Steven Irvine. However, they wrote back to confirm that Irvine was not a member. In response to a FOI request, Oldham Council confirmed that having chartered status is 'essential criteria for the Head of Planning Post'. FOI request to Oldham Council September 2019 (after Irvine resigned):
Question: "Do the Council require their Heads of Planning to have Chartered Status or not? If not - why not?"
Answer: "Yes - this is essential criteria on the job description/personal specification for this post"
These are just some of the allegations levelled against Steven Irvine. He acted to manipulate the planning process on behalf of the planning applicants, lobby consultees on behalf of applicants, mislead the planning committee, misuse public funds & abuse his position in public office. He clearly breached his statutory duty to remain impartial, he abused his position & he didn't even have the mandatory qualification required for the role as Head of Planning – this constitutes gross misconduct in public office – a criminal offense.
However - he didn't act alone. His boss Graham Dickman is implicated along with Borough Solicitor Paul Entwistle and a number of Council Executives......