The Council is very disappointed by the traffic site breach of confidentiality which cost taxpayers £25,000

INDEPENDENT Cllr. Neil Johnson has demanded answers over Warrington Borough Council’s claim that £25,000 of taxpayers’ money was spent on its plans to put a Gypsy Traveler transit site in Croft.

In response, the council says it is “extremely disappointed” at the traffic site’s “breach of confidentiality”, which cost £25,000 in officers and other fees.

The plans were scrapped following a campaign led by Cllr. Johnson and the local community, after the former Labor Party member leaked the proposed site at the former Kenyon Lane nursery, which the council says breached confidentiality.

In its statement announcing they were not progressing with the site on Kenyon Lane, Warrington Borough Council said: “We have spent more than £25,000 preparing the option to purchase the site.”

Cllr. Johnson said: “The public have a right to know why £25,000 of taxpayers’ money has allegedly been spent on a secret scheme they would still be unaware of had he not made the decision to bring it to their attention. Where have they gone this money?
“As far as we know, the Council of Ministers voted in favor of proceeding with the purchase of the lot, even though the due diligence for access has not been done. They only had to call the owners of the driveways and they would have found out very quickly that their plans were a no-no.
“But phone calls to Croft don’t cost £25,000. So what has our money been spent on?
“I’m calling on the Council to provide a full breakdown of this spending. We should have an open and transparent analysis of the costs, with receipts. This is taxpayers’ money wasted on a stupid plan that should never have gone ahead.
“If the Council had engaged with local residents properly then they would have known and not needed to spend any money at all. So I am asking Warrington Council to come clean and show us where the £25,000 went! If they are not resolved, the external auditors and the Department of Local Government should be involved. We don’t want any more shady loopholes!”
He also holds his fellow neighborhood councilors to the fire, accusing them of “false courage”.

Cllr. Johnson said: “My fellow ward councilors Janet Seddon and Matt Smith have suddenly come out of hiding to say they have been supporting residents affected by this proposal. We have seen no evidence of that in the community.” .
“To their credit, Councilor Smith attended the last meeting of Croft Parish Council, but Councilor Seddon was nowhere to be seen. To pretend that they are responsible for the withdrawal of this proposal is a prime example of disingenuousness . It’s a shameless stunt and we hope for better.”
“The Council’s own statement made it clear that it was the campaign I launched that finally forced them to withdraw. Councilors Smith and Seddon say they “engaged with decision-makers”, but there does not appear to be any evidence of this. The Council does not attribute its change of opinion to any of them. Obviously, they are not as effective as they would have us believe!”
“I hope that both Councilors Smith and Seddon will join me in getting to the bottom of how this £25,000 has been spent. I am sure they will agree that if public money has been wasted, their Labor colleagues they should pay back every cent from their pockets or else they should be deducted from their allowances. Come on councillors, what do you say?”

In response Cllr. Matt Smith said: “I stand by our previous statement. Residents can continue to raise their concerns with Cllr Seddon and myself, as we have been doing for the past few weeks. They can reach us on (email protected) i (email protected). We will raise any concerns through the appropriate channels to ensure residents’ voices are heard and listened to.”

A spokesman for Warrington Borough Council said: “As a member of the cross-party working group, set up specifically to identify a potential commuter transit site, Cllr Neil Johnson was fully aware of our approach and knew that they were incurring costs, including payments to agents and other commissions This is completely normal when looking to identify and buy a site There will always be costs involved in complex processes like this, and all due process was followed.
“The option to acquire the site, which itself would be subject to planning consent and independent scrutiny by the Secretary of State, would have involved extensive consultation with the local community, as part of a transparent process. We are very disappointed by the breach of confidentiality that has caused so much discomfort and undermined this process.
“We remain committed to providing a suitable transit site to support the management and reduction of unauthorized encampments in our borough, and will continue to seek an alternative suitable site.”