Residents' Questions - 12 October 2004

	Slough Residents' Questions - 12 October 2004

	Question 4

From: Mrs M Stoklosinska, Laburnum Grove, Colnbrook

I understand that the Finance Director is trying to mislead the councillors by suggesting that if they vote for the revocation of the planning consent, which in practice means voting for a public inquiry, they are going to bankrupt the Council. This is not true because the Council cannot be made bankrupt and it is very unlikely that the Council will have to pay any compensation to Grundon as the existing legislation provides for the Secretary of State to pay for all or most of any compensation.

Why the Officers are giving misleading advice to the Councillors, the advice which is only focusing on the financial implications connected to the compensation for Grundon? The health implications are conveniently not even mentioned nor is the possible compensation for the loss of health or life. Currently the victims of contamination by asbestos and cigarettes smoking are successfully claiming compensation but sadly not in this country. Would the Leader of the Council agree that it is high time that our Councillors put the people of Slough first as according to the Code Of Conduct the Councillors have a duty to do so and vote for the revocation of the planning consent as this will facilitate the setting up of a public inquiry by the Secretary of State?

Reply: Councillor Richard Stokes

There are two issues here:

The Director of Finance (Mike Suarez) is responsible for giving professional advice to the Council on matters that affect the Council’s finances so Councillors can consider the likely impact of any actions they may take.

Based on all of the independent advice that has been provided to date, previous case law and other cases, the Director of Finance has quite properly under the law advised that if planning permission was revoked, Grundons are able to claim statutory compensation under the Town & Country Planning Act 1990. The sums involved would be more than our resources and could, in effect, bankrupt the Council.

The Director of Finance is not deliberately misleading Councillors. He is endeavouring to ensure that Councillors are fully aware of all of the facts before taking a decision on this issue.

Councillors do have a duty to act in the interests of the people of Slough but how they vote has to be a matter of individual conscience.

26 June 2006