Council waste £11.000 of local taxpayers money in Marple Bridge

[wolfman]

Stockport must have money to throw away. Our money of course. I see that there was £70.000 wasted on a fiasco involving taxi cab licensing. What next?

[CTCREP]

In a similar vein. About 2 months ago cyclists who attend Stockport MBC's Cycle User Group were told that some money had become available to improve the Bridleway that runs between Otterspool Bridge and Bredbury Hall. We were naturally delighted about this as it is part of the Connect2 facility that in time should provide a cycle link between Marple and Stockport. Now with the current upsurge in fuel prices it has become an even greater requirement.  We realised that tarmaccing the whole route would be expensive and also may not appeal to some others, particularly horse -riders, therefore we proposed a strip of tarmac to allow cyclists to travel comfortably and without getting covered in mud etc. However the Council said they preferred to tarmac the whole width of the road from Otterspool Bridge up to the farm. We pointed out this would only benefit a few people but they decided to go ahead. In the past we have been continually told that bridleways have to cater primarily for horses and that tarmac was unsuitable, but in this instance the Council decided otherwise. Rumour has it that a rider fell off a horse at the junction with Otterspool Road claiming the tarmac was too slippery. A section of tarmac has now been dug up and replaced with cobble stones. Had the Council listened to our original request this would not have been necessary and several hundred people would have benefited instead of just the few people accessing the farm and cattery.

[sgk]

Even made it to the nationals, this story http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/06/15/eawaste115.xml

[wolfman]

This is the second time the council has cost us money!!!!
Delay means developers cash in to tune of £200k
Peter Devine
28/11/2007
From Stockport Express online

STOCKPORT Council tax payers are set to pick up a legal tab of £201,000 after planning officials were found to have delayed two development applications.

The huge bill was agreed by two Stockport developers, Satnam and Morbaine.

The developers took the Council to a three-day hearing over their proposals to site retail, hotel and/or leisure developments at Water Street, Portwood.

The hearing’s planning inspector ruled in favour of the developers, who had complained about the length of time it was taking them to resolve planning applications they had submitted to Stockport Council.

After hearing about the massive legal bill Councillor Phillip Harding, who attended the hearing, has renewed his call for a full investigation be carried out into why councillors were not made aware of the delays with the two applications, which had been delegated previously to council officers.

Coun Harding said: "Stockport Council tax payers have been left with a massive bill and the circumstances should be fully investigated by councillors."

Coun Harding said the latest settlement would see Satnam receive £125,000 while Morbaine would get £60,000, but he said the matter would not end there.

Both planning applications have since been approved.

A Stockport Council spokesman said the local authority has paid costs of £185,000 to Satnam Investments and Morbaine Ltd, and its barrister's fee was £16,000.

Both parties have agreed by Consent Order that no further proceedings will take place in the High Court.

Councillor Sue Derbyshire, executive member for Regeneration, said: "What we did, we did for very good reasons. We are sorry that we lost."

Councillor Kevin Hogg, Chair of the Planning and Highways Regulation Committee, added: "The Council was extremely surprised and disappointed with the Planning Inspector’s decisions.

"Officers followed policies set down by the Council in its Unitary Development Plan and Town Centre Strategy."

[alan@marple]

Reading items such as this, on the assumption that the information is correct really make we want to vomit at what could be the stupidity of people holding public office.
They offer themselves for election with all sorts of promises and are made to look so foolish when planning officers, committee's etc
make such decisions.

There should be some system whereby councilors and officials should be held to account and be financially responsible for such "faux pas"
and even prosecuted!. It does not make me happy when a councilor is quoted as saying " I hope such mistakes would not be repeated"

She hopes!! how about an assurance

These decisions are not made lightly by one individual, or without consultation.


Why should we the Council Tax payer have to pay for incompetence!

[wolfman]

Exclusive by Jennifer Williams
4/ 6/2008
STOCKPORT Council wasted £11,000 of local taxpayers’ money erecting a huge fence that broke its own planning rules - before tearing it down weeks later.
The authority made its blunder after police raised concerns about car crime at a car park in Marple Bridge.
In response, the Council decided to build a two metre fence around the land next to the Midland Inn on Brabyns Brow - but failed to consult its own planning department.
The fence turned out to break the Council’s own rules on building in a conservation area, so they pulled it down.
To add to the red faces, the police vehicle crime information which had prompted the fence to be built in the first place turned out to be incorrect.
In fact there had never been any need for a fence at all!
Curious Marple Bridge resident Andrew George reported the disappearing fence to his local councillor, and was stunned when he found out the story behind it.
He said: "When I went past it last weekend they were taking it down, so I emailed my councillor and she passed on my query to the Council.
"It turned out they hadn’t realised it was a conservation area and hadn’t given themselves planning permission.
"So they told themselves off and took it down.
"I thought, wow, that’s really stupid. It must have been 200 or 300 feet of shiny new green fence - what an absolute waste of our money."
Stephen Picot, a Stockport activist in the Taxpayers’ Alliance, added: "I would regard it as farcical.
"These people don’t realise they need to check the relevant legislation. We assume when they do these things that they know what they’re doing but very often they don’t."
The costly fence has now been put in storage for use at a later date, and Mr George’s councillor, Shan Alexander, said she hoped such mistakes would not be repeated.
Also responding to Mr George’s query, Stockport Council’s Head of Traffic Services, Ian Thompson, said: "It would appear that the original crime figures from the police weren’t as accurate as they should have been, and subsequent analysis of the figures for this car park were actually a lot lower and a fence should not have been recommended by them for this particular location."