Cheshire East Council has today published a redacted version of the independent report they commissioned into the Lyme Green fiasco, which cost taxpayers over £1 million.
The Council has previously refused to release the confidential report of the Designated Independent Person (DIP), into their project to build a waste transfer facility on the Lyme Green site, because it would lead to a breach of the Data Protection Act.
However, they were instructed to do so by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO), following an appeal by the Macclesfield Express, and have today released an edited version of the £225,000 report to the public.
Cllr Michael Jones told me today that the report they have published, which has a lot of text blacked out - particularly in the sections covering allegations and recommendations - "has been redacted as directed by the Information Commissioner's Office."
The redacted DIP report can now be viewed here on the Cheshire East Council website.
If you do read the 100 page redacted report please share your views via the comment box below. Does it answer all your questions and tell the public what happened?
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
Thought I would skip the introduction bits and go straight to Part 2 and see what the Seven Allegations and Recommendations were.
Possibly up to 90% of Part 2 was blacked out so we couldn't see who was to blame and what the main Recommendations were ?
Decided to go back to Part 1 and apart from the following;
"Impressive Witnesses" and other nonsense, plus;
"Some Councillors being fine examples of acting in the interests of the Local Community"
and other items, such as the "Silver Bins" information and the "DIP's Responsibilities"
and loads of other useless words and non-information that tells us absolutely zero.
In my opinion, the whole report is a Non-Report, and tells us very little indeed.
It's a total whitewash, just as I expected.
They would have been better not publishing this "Non-Report" as it's just insulting our intelligence (well, what's left of it after reading this rubbish) !
On reading the greatly abridged version of what happened I have concluded that it is of very limited value.
Most of the information has been in the public arena for well over a year.
The redacted Report is very difficult to read and interpret, as most of the important sections have been blacked out. In the light of this how can, despite the Information Commissioner’s pressure, can Cheshire East Council be regarded as being transparent?
The public are non the wiser in relation to the Report’s recommendations regarding the 7 serious allegations against the Council, and whether the Council has taken these on board. This was a real opportunity for the Council to be open and transparent…that opportunity has been missed.
What does that mean for the future?
As the Council slowly moves towards a new Local Plan, the Independent Investigator has some important advice to leading councillors relating to the importance of the independence of the planning function, and need to take on board the evidence & advice provided by the planning officers. In the Lyme Green case advice & evidence was ignored; are we in danger of facing a repeat situation in terms of the strategic sites emerging as front runners in the latest version of the Local Plan?
Your general points about the importance of the Local Plan and the need to learn lessons is well made.
Michael Jones proposed a Motion at the recent Council Meeting in Macc Town Hall, ensuring that there would be complete transparency in future.
In relation to Lyme Green, transparency would mean that the whole Council accepts that the relationship between the Senior Officers and Cabinet was dysfunctional. I find the idea that three Officers acted independently - without the knowledge of Cabinet or Senior Officers - to be laughable.
You will know much better than I, that if the Planning App had not been eloquently opposed by you, it might have snuck through. It was after all recommended for Approval.
Only when the Planning App was withdrawn did the wagons circle, protecting the many, and leaving a few outside the circle.
Transparency would go back to recognise the dysfunctional nature of decision taking at that time, and look at the new system. It is arguable that the new system focuses even more power in the hands of one person - and that should cause everyone to wonder how a new "Lyme Green" can be avoided. What happens if the Local Plan is rejected at Inquiry? Whose fault will that be?