The report of the investigation into allegations that Ann John illegally intervened in a planning application, which exonerated her has now been published and is available below.
Apart from the findings the report gives insight into the relationships within the Labour group, concern over the the way the Planning Committee operates and the conduct of the chair, and includes walk-on parts from Navin Shah AM and Barry Gardiner MP. (Read from para 4.40)
It is possible to conclude that although she was cleared of wrong-doing the report's contents did not help Ann John in her bid to retain the leadership of Brent Council.
Apart from the findings the report gives insight into the relationships within the Labour group, concern over the the way the Planning Committee operates and the conduct of the chair, and includes walk-on parts from Navin Shah AM and Barry Gardiner MP. (Read from para 4.40)
It is possible to conclude that although she was cleared of wrong-doing the report's contents did not help Ann John in her bid to retain the leadership of Brent Council.
1 comment:
This really is quite an extraordinary report - I even found myself having to check on Council website that the confidential part really had been put in the public domain Yep, It's here!. It looks forensic, and the exoneration of John seems to hinge both on the credibility of Kataria and the difficulty of corroborating a key telephone conversation which Kataria insists but John denies took place. Para 4.146 states: "Many of these disparities might be due to careless use of language or misunderstandings, but cumulatively they made me feel that Councillor Kataria’s evidence had to be treated with caution."
I wonder if the same level of scrutiny towards the autheticity of Katria's notebook entries could have been applied to other areas of the Council's administration? I am reminded of an episode in 2010 in which I and resident sought to get a key decision accurately minuted at the Area Consultative Forum. We had to resort to an FOI request which resulted in an admission that the relevant page had gone missing. Background on that here.
Post a Comment