Council publishes redacted version of independent Lyme Green report

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? 

Tags:
Cheshire East Council, Lyme Green
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Comments

Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.

Pete Taylor
Saturday 21st December 2013 at 3:37 pm
Presumably CEC thinks that Christmas is a good time to bury bad news.
The amount of censorship which has been applied to this reports renders it useless, with page after page either partially or completely blanked out. The people who paid for this report are no nearer to finding out who did what.
As an example, in Appx VII, "List of Participants/Witnesses Who Gave Evidence To Investigation" there are 28 names, every single one (with the exception of Council Leader Michael Jones) has been obliterated!
All the allegations are completely blanked out, so we can not see what the allegations were, or who it was that they refer to.
This is an insult to the Council Tax Payers. Any claim that this Council makes with regards to transparency is now laughable.
Graham Jackson
Saturday 21st December 2013 at 5:38 pm
Although the report makes it very difficult to identify those responsible, the actual scale of shockingly poor corporate governance, project management, financial control, senior management control, planning for requirement, risk assessment, due diligence etc. - the failure is breathtaking in its total mismanagement. To attempt to plough on with a project (construction) whilst attempting to gain planning shows total contempt for process.

Why anybody could possibly be employed in a procurement role and not understand the requirements of EU tender process is simply short of total failure.

Every element of the project is flawed and shows the utter contempt and/or ignorance of all involved. Councillors, officers and staff involved have just blown the best part of £2 million -but what the heck, they have either resigned, stood down from post or just moved on with full contractual obligations paid. In any other walk of live they'd have been fired on the spot. The report clearly states that the council has been severely damaged by the allegations - how true. No wonder the council did everything it could to stop the reports issue.
DELETED ACCOUNT
Saturday 21st December 2013 at 6:47 pm
Section 5.2 says it all. An investigation and a room put aside to store documents and they are moved by someone. They couldn't even get the basics of the investigation right.
Graham Jackson
Saturday 21st December 2013 at 8:14 pm
@Jackie
It highlights simple basic management instruction failure at one of two levels.

Senior Management either failed to instruct staff or the staff choose not to act on the instruction. The bottom line, sworn and private declarations were moved and left in an unsecured area.

Yet the Council argued against the release of the report because of data protection and the release of confidential information lol.
Nick Jones
Saturday 21st December 2013 at 8:52 pm
Such a heavily redacted document I'm sure would not be in the spirit of the Information Commissioners expectation....

The Orwellian principles of "Doublethink and Newsspeak " appear to continue from The Ministry of Truth.... or should that now be CEC. ........History repeating itself once more ???
Peter Yates
Tuesday 24th December 2013 at 2:25 pm
As the person who exposed the actions of several senior officers, following a Freedom of Information request in relation to Lyme Green over 2 years ago, and having been interviewed by the Independent Investigator, it was with some interest and optimism that I approached the redacted Report.

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?
Vic Barlow
Tuesday 24th December 2013 at 4:58 pm
So, do we now have to examine the precise instruction from the ICO to verify this wholesale redaction?
Or do we just take it on trust?
Mmm... let me think.
Oliver Romain
Thursday 26th December 2013 at 7:29 am
The Information Commission would not instruct the council how to redact the report. It's beyond their powers. This is a deeply cynical move designed to yet again blame data protection and bury bad news over Christmas. Do they think we are stupid? Shameful.
Julian Barlow
Friday 27th December 2013 at 10:57 am
In their ignorance, CEC have forgotten who provides the finances for their inept decision making, loss of vital services and lucrative pay packages. We, the public, are dictated to by a small number of supercilious buffoons. It's time we reminded them that they, of their own free will, took on the job of public servant and that we provide the means for them to carry out that role. If we collectively stopped paying our council taxes, they would be forced to listen to the people they claim to represent.
Nick Jones
Friday 27th December 2013 at 12:37 pm
Some interesting observatiions on this topic at alderleyedge.com http://bit.ly/1caIM5q

Transparency my foot !!! ........ Its almost as if the voters dont really matter........ and its just a continuing game of deceit and deception at tax payers expense........... ????

This is a democracy isnt it ? Now what are those elected people called that shake your hand before and election and your confidence thereafter........... Answers on a post card please...
Mark Goldsmith
Monday 30th December 2013 at 5:03 pm
So the report says CE's procurement department is totally inept.

I would have thought was pretty self-evident given they also paid £225,000 for this report. At £2,250 per page, I shudder to think what else the CE "procurement" dept have wasted OUR money on too.

That they now want to protect the guilty just rubs salt into our wounds.
Pete Taylor
Tuesday 4th February 2014 at 12:09 am
Please remind me when the local government elections are.