1. Section 51 advice
  2. Advice in detail

Advice to Dan Bramwell

Back to list

Enquiry

From
Dan Bramwell
Date advice given
23 July 2020
Enquiry type
Email

FOA: Sarah Richards, Chief Executive, The Planning Inspectorate In the absence of an e-mail address, I should be grateful if you could forward the following e-mail to The Chief Executive and please confirm receipt. Many thanks. Dear Secretary I am writing to you in your capacity as Secretary MHCLG and apologise for using your MP address but there is no other evident way to contact you. I have very grave concerns about many aspects of the above project, some of which have already been stated in correspondence to The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers and others which are becoming evident by the day. I am extremely disappointed with all the responses I am receiving as none of The Planning Inspectorate Case Officers are taking any notice of them and are literally 'running scared' of what is being said. They are not posting s51 advice on the website and not responding to serious claims made by e-mail. Hence I have to raise these issues to the most senior level as investigative journalists are already phoning me about what appears to be 'an insider job' project and another political scandal. I have lodged an FoI request with The Planning Inspectorate concerning the initial Direction Letter categorising the project as an NSIP and various matters about the Applicant's first EIA Scoping Report, lodged November 2014. I have also asked whether or not representatives from The Inspectorate visited the proposed site to assess the veracity of the material contained therein. I am awaiting responses. Whether they did or not, they will notice that the Scoping Report and, more importantly, the Applicant's second EIA Scoping Report, submitted 17th June 2020, are both totally inaccurate and deceptive to say the least. In fact the Applicant has almost intentionally tried to avoid admitting that there are major industrial estates on part of the site which could mean the elimination of approx 140 businesses with over 1,500 jobs without much prospect of them being relocated nearby. Furthermore, I have raised this matter on many occasions with The Inspectorate as the Applicant has failed to engage fully with these businesses, the last 'constructive' meeting being OVER TWO YEARS AGO but they have failed to respond to many questions since then. More importantly, I have advised your Officer (Helen Lancaster) of these serious errors and am advised I have no right to comment on the Scoping Report - A SERIOUS PROCESS ERROR if landowners are not allowed to rectify such 'untruths'. I must request that in the interests of these businesses, the truth and full facts must be addressed urgently and immediately to prevent any further waste of civil servant time and taxpayer funds. If the Applicant can't disclose the truth to The Planning Inspectorate their credibility to front such a project must be challenged, especially as they have no funds and, according to various official and published sources, they are not to be trusted financially!

Advice given

Please see attached.

Attachments

View advice (PDF)