Thursday, 24 June 2010

Beechfields: Another update

Further to my previous posts on the subject I have just identified another intriguing piece of evidence.

In response to a planning application on Beechfields the Highway Authority stated in writing on the 16th March 2009

"...Beechfields is currently unadopted but a section 228 (HA1980) Notice has been recently issued that will ensure that it becomes adopted highway in the near future...."


If that was true then why did it take until March 2010, nearly a year to place the section 228 notices they had issued prior to the 16th March 2009 at the entrance to Beechfields?

Yet in response to a Freedom of Information request regarding the adoption of Beechfields, Steve Robinson the Chief Executive of Cheshire West and Cheshire stated in July 2009 'It is not considered that there is any additional information to provide to you which is not already in your possession.'  However, he never mentioned that they had already issued a section 228 notice on Beechfields and I wasn't aware that they had. Nor did he tell me that it only takes about 10 hours of an officers time to complete the adoption of a road under a section 228 notice.

So why did Steve Robinson breach the FOI Act by not supplying information pertinent to my request, why was nothing done for over a year after they issued the section 228 notice and why has nothing happened subsequent to the expiry of the 30 day notice period?

Note: As of today Beechfields is still shown as unadopted in the Council on-line adopted road gazetteer. 9 years since the roads in question where completed to adoptable standards by the Council even though they have admitted it should only take about 10 hours to adopt after that point. Now that's what I call incompetence (or possibly something even worse?)!

I think another Freedom of Information request may be necessary in order to get to the truth.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please note all comments are moderated and will not be published unless they are relevant to the post in question and do not contain statements or links to material which could be considered defamatory.