Following last week's announcement that serious errors were made in the Council's air quality monitoring procedures "as the result of deliberate and systematic manipulation of data", Cheshire East Council has released the reports saying "all planning applications have been granted correctly".
Cheshire East Council monitors nitrogen dioxide levels at approximately 100 sites throughout the borough.
However, an external investigation found that serious errors were made in the Council's air quality data for 2012, 2013 and 2014 which may have impacted on Air Quality Assessments undertaken as part of the process of considering planning applications, particularly in Nantwich, Congleton, Crewe, Holmes Chapel, Sandbach and Macclesfield.
Cheshire East Council commissioned Bureau Veritas to undertake a review of those planning applications which may have been affected by the use of false data which is now available for the public to view.
Bureau Veritas identified a list of 43 planning applications for which the publication of revised air quality data may have resulted in a change to the planning decisions made. Of this list, 12 applications were flagged as high risk (due to incorrect data being used within AQAs and/or due to questionable methodologies being implemented), thirteen as medium risk, and sixteen as low risk.
The report also identified 38 applications for which Air Quality Assessments (AQAs) were not submitted but potentially should have been.
Councillor Ainsley Arnold, Cheshire East Council cabinet member for housing and planning, said: "We are pleased to confirm that we are releasing the independent review today, completed by Bureau Veritas.
"The council is keen to continue to be open and transparent in our response to these findings and that is why we are supplying the report to the media along with a full report of our own into these findings.
"This review identifies relevant planning applications that were granted planning permission during the period when errors have been identified in the council's air quality monitoring data.
"A separate report provides an analysis of the impact on those planning applications which may have been affected by these errors.
"Following this thorough analysis, we can confirm that all planning applications have been granted correctly and that no additional mitigation measures would have been required had the correct data been used at the time.
"The report does highlight, that in the case of one application, a revised air quality assessment would have been required as a result of the corrected data. For completeness, the council will commission a revised assessment and will report the results of this when it is available."
The Bureau Veritas report concludes "From the completion of the planning review, no clear relationship between the high risk planning permissions and the previously identified erroneous diffusion tube data was found. However, it is concluded that predicted pollutant concentrations and final conclusions of AQAs have likely been affected by the identified erroneous data. In a worst case scenario this may have led to a lower emphasis being placed upon the conclusions of an AQA within the overall application determination, and potentially a planning application therefore being approved when it may not have been had correct monitoring data been used for the air quality assessment purposes."
As reported on wilmslow.co.uk last week, Cheshire Police is investigating whether any crimes have been committed in relation to the Council's false air pollution figures.
A spokesperson for Cheshire Police said "We can confirm that the matter has been brought to our attention and officers will review it to establish if any criminal offences may have occurred."
Comments
Here's what readers have had to say so far. Why not add your thoughts below.
The key questions remain:
a) If the air pollution figures didn't affect planning decisions, then why doctor them? Why did they 'manipulate' the data if it didn't matter?
b) If air pollution data is irrelevant to the decisions, then why is it needed?
c) Why did the council official 'manipulate' the data? What benefit did they from their actions?
Frankly, this smells like another of many, many dodgy Cheshire East decisions.
CEC is as open as our ever diminishing countryside and as transparent as the polluted air above it.
Planning applications haven't been granted correctly or appropriately, they've been granted in accordance with a set of rules that defy any sort of logic and against overwhelming public objection. As is always the case, the councillors have no loyalty to the people who provide their income.
The separate report where CEC reckons these erroneous permissions have not had any detrimental effect appears not
to be available on the CEC web portal ....so much for transparency.
This is just the "tip of the lceberg" the Government needs to step in soon, as CEC has lost any trust it ever had.
Do we know how much the Bureau Veritas report cost to draft and publish ???
We the Council tax payers are funding this and have a right to know.
I don't believe CEC could gather 70+ applications and documentation together in a week- planning would need at leas a month for that!!!!!!
There is no mention of the airport link roads in the report nor the airport city developments that I believe CEC are involved with? This all smells like another Jones steamroller decision to get things done quickly and without an argument from the public. Anyone inow that was there and involved at the time should be fired with no pension provision!
Makes economic sense for CEC to say all is fine, however.....
Even though pollution is a killer, seems that we don't matter very much in these circumstances.
Will anyone ever be in a position to check what's going on? Police? How long until we hear about Physiogate etc? Been an age, it really has.
Good idea if WTC install their own air quality monitors and let us know.
They aren't at all expensive.
No doubt one of our "representatives " will be along shortly to explain. Or not.
"... and potentially a planning application therefore being approved when it may not have been had correct monitoring data been used for the air quality assessment purposes."
The report also states a number of tubes had had the data "deliberately changed" and other as showing "incorrect stated concentration" and more.
These tell a disgraceful tale. No amount of wriggling, squirming, spinning, mealy-mouthed cover ups can get away from this conclusion - planning approval may not have been granted if councillors were fully aware of the correct & true data and on the health impact on the new homes' dwellers.
It is scandalous that Cllr Arnold is attempting to put yet another CE speciality propaganda spin on yet more further damning actions by the Council, whilst he & his acquiescing Cabinet colleagues proceed in protecting the guilty officers - and this goes to the top of the "officer class". Forget gardening, just open the door and boot out all those involved & those who knew after the event, the cover-up scratch-my-back clique.
Too many scandals plaguing this council all emanating at the top due to rank poor councillor leadership. Councillors have for too long let the officers rule supreme in their own fiefdom. Officers have ruled the roost over the Local Plan, feeding councillors with dumb arguments for concreting over the Green Belt instead of redeveloping the numerous eyesore brown field sites as a first call. It is officers who gave consistently ignored local concerns, who have not tackled the creaking infrastructure as a first call prior to any development work - our roads are at breaking point, our schools are not providing for our children, our GPs are clogged full and we have little in the way of public transport.
Every organisation gets its culture from the very top and this is clearly what we see via the arrogant set of senior officers. At the present time the council leadership & its officers are not fit for purpose - to quote Oliver Cromwell "For G'ds sake, go".
Councillors should clear out their officer class, bring in new brooms, set work parameters anew and stop paying over the top salaries to what has been proven to be inadequate people.
How many fat-cats at CEC are still suspended on full pay? That's gone very quiet.
How is the Michael Jones Police investigation going? That's gone very quiet.
This procedure is, of course, recursive so it could result in a an unlimited number of protocols each one trying to cover a breach in the ones preceding it - Alice in Wonderland rewritten.
How much longer do we, the council tax payers of this rotten borough, have to endure this leadership & its hatchet men of questionable public morals all disguised as "council officers"?
There is something seriously very wrong with & at CEC. Nasty questions of a extremely serious nature are being voiced publicly.
The notoriety of ‘Cash Hamilton’ and ‘George Our Star with 6 Jobs Osborne’ both receiving sycophantic Tat-tory support.. or perhaps... Lyme Green, doctored report +Cllrs conduct /Corefit & Council Leader Michael Jones conduct referred to Law Enforcement / Auditors reportedly refusing to sign off the CEC accounts calling for an external enquiry followed by Chief Exec Michel Suarez + Bill Norman suspension / £1.3M Expenses / £3.7M spend on flawed local plan/ Cosocious (£3M +?) / Non-compliance to Govt planning policy / Ignoring the ‘exceptional circumstance’ criteria re green belt / Ignoring Brownfield development / Local Plan engagement demonstrably dismissed / Adlington “Never build on these fields” Road /Seeking electorates consultation after approving CEC’ Cllrs very own ( & not the electorates) Local Plan / Ignoring PM recently reaffirming Conservative commitment to protect green belt / Appointing disbarred directors / Documented actions not to represent resident’s wishes voting on several occasions to decimate - eradicate green belt protection, (again demonstrated at Royal London) / Public disengagement in favour of party colours / Failing to Merge East and West / Created ‘Executive Directors’ role (following on from Messrs’ Wenzel, Riley& Suarez) / Severance payments / Excessive salary to those left covering the suspended posts / PCC increases precept then appoints family friend as Deputy then funds a number of further highly paid officials / CEC re-organising into directorates at more cost to become self-funding ? / 4% Tax rise -declared as a saving ! / Individual and collective shortcomings and failures constantly swept to one side with a total absence of meaningful explanation / Deliberate and systematic failures re Pollution data / Rachel Bailey “disappointed yet again at the negative portrayal of CEC for no good cause”
I’m just a bit concerned which bit you were referring to thats all !!
I was ONLY referring to our rotten borough, its leaders, past & present, and its poor quality dept. head officers and all the questionable shenanigans they all have been involved with.
My beef is with our own council not with our previous M.Ps, but Esther McVey does appear to be listening and attempting to act upon many concerns. This is a rather new concept for Tatton where we have become inured to being cast aside.
We have enough problems to contend with emiminating from the cesspit that is in Sandbach. Your list of the "Cheshire Cheats" history is surely enough for we mere mortals to contend with?
Are you sure you haven't missed any other guilty escapade from your rather too long menu of this rotten borough's misdeeds and mismanagement costly fiascoes? To anser your question as to which bit I was referring to - answer: All of the above!
Every day in every way Cheshire East's ruling clique makes it so necessary that we kick em out in 2019 and elect independent councillors, here in Wilmslow with more Residents of Wilmslow representatives, who will put their voters first.
Guess who's paying?