Cllr A: Short Appraisal

Three main concerns about the Council’s response to my complaint against Councillor Anglin.

  1. no feed back reference number (FBR);
  2. rewriting of complaint to so that it does not have to be addressed;
  3. addition of misinformation/misrepresentation which is later repeated as evidence.

The first enables the second and third points, the second is self explanatory and the third lies at the heart of the corrupt complaints procedure and is almost impossible to correct as they will be presented as facts to the Local Government Ombudsman.
View response to complaint.

Editing (rewriting) the core out of the complaint or in plain English:

The Councillor promised to find out if the shed was taller than planned and we were told at the meeting that followed that the shed was neither too high nor too wide. Authorised or approved plans show otherwise and the Council knew this two months before the meeting.  Edited to:

You complain that Councillor Anglin has:
• failed to “obtain clarity’ concerning a planning application submitted by UK Docks relating to development on River Drive during a meeting at the Town Hall on 25 November 2013;
• misled or otherwise allowed the Local Government Ombudsman investigator to be misled as to the height and width of the development against the submitted plans and whether the differences in the height and width are “material” or “non-material” for the purpose of determining whether to commence enforcement proceedings.

The main misrepresentations regarding the shed occur in paragraphs 5 (the width) and 7 (the height) and are appraised in paragraph 11.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.