A nice little stocking filler from the gift that keeps on giving. You may recall the recent bout of self doubt from Kirklees on just what it had or hadn’t decided to do. One expert said this….another said that….then a barrister said something else and then they sort of made their minds up…. or did they?
Anyway just in time for Christmas the charade is off back to committee on 13th December. The report would seem to be saying that the Council made its mind up in November 2017,changed it in October 2018, changed it back again in November 2018 and is now asking itself if that’s ok?
Path Watch has asked the council via a freedom of information request how much the consultant they’ve hired is costing and they’ve actually said the cost is not known as “the consultant may have more work to do”. I imagine most of us would keep an eye on what kind of a bill we were running up employing a consultant but of course the council is spending your money so perhaps it’s not that bothered?
Kirklees were also asked under what authority the Planning Sub Committee decision of November 2017 was changed.The Committee gave authority to make and seek confirmation of an order for bridleway but in the statement of case which has been put forward for the public inquiry the argument is for a footpath.
Remarkably Kirklees Council states in the FOI response that the committee decision has not been changed from bridleway to footpath! They also decline to provide details of the authority for making this change because..er…it didn’t happen.
This response conflicts directly with the Councils statement of case put forward to the Planning Inspectorate and it’s own report going to the Huddersfield Planning Sub Committee on 13th December 2018 which states
“emergency delegated powers were exercised by Karl Battersby to submit a case seeking the recording of Hud/231 as a footpath. Officers recognise that recording the route as a public footpath was not in line with the sub-committee decision of November 2017.”
The full report is here .
The Council is telling members of the public one thing via FOI responses whilst at the same time telling It’s own Planning Sub Committee something entirely different. They can’t both be true? Go figure.