Corporate Lead, Hayley Johnson, maintains there is no evidence to suggest that there has been deliberate misinformation provided by Council officers to the Local Government Ombudsman. This was in spite of being advised of the shortcomings of the drawings used by the Council (it gives both ends of the slipway cover as the same height) . Only one of the statements in the lists below has to be true for the Corporate Lead’s statement to be false!
- When the Council told the Ombudsman drawings are authorised when they are not, was it deliberate?
- When the Council used an error on a drawing to say that the cover was built to the approved height, was it deliberate?
- When the Council said that a drawing was not to scale when it has in fact been clearly drawn to scale, was it deliberate?
- When Customer Advocacy had been advised three times that the structure was was 3m too high, was it deliberate that there was no mention of the height in there Stage 3 response?
- When the Ombudsman also failed to mention the height in her first draft, was that deliberate?
- When the Council sent a drawing from 1996 that has already been used deceitfully (the wrong end is claimed to be the approved height) to deceive the Ombudsman, was that deliberate?
- When the Council replace the 1996, the flaws having been pointed out to the Ombudsman, with one from from 1997, was that deliberate?
- when the Head of Development Services says the extra width is material but the Council tell the Ombudsman that it is not material is that not deliberate?
- when Council told the Ombudsman that Planners decided there was a breach in planning control when they had in fact denied it, was that deliberate?