A council has been accused of bias in the way it handled proposals for a £2.6million new pub and restaurant in a seaside town.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

It has been alleged that Suffolk Coastal gave more weight to a few letters supporting the JD Wetherspoon development than it did to dozens of objections urging the authority to reject the application.

Councillors approved the project to replace the old Central Surgery in Felixstowe in line with officers’ recommendations.

Gareth and Steffi Lomax, whose home in High Road West is opposite the site, have written to the council’s monitoring officer Hilary Slater to lodge a formal objection.

Mr Lomax claimed the council’s planning officers had been “at best unhelpful and at worst obstructive” during the planning process, and he felt the decision in favour of development had been “railroaded”.

He said the council’s website recorded 59 objections and only one supporting comment from all comments received.

However, 38 days after the consultation notice had expired, the planning department posted another supporting comment.

He said: “The planning officer in charge highlighted this particular document during the hearing, mentioning the reasons for the support from the member of the public.

“In my opinion, the planning officer demonstrated clear bias towards this application, particularly as we are aware of objections being held back while supporting comments (both of them!) were championed.”

A spokesman for Suffolk Coastal said the council took all complaints very seriously. He said: “All officers work to the council’s customer service standards and we will respond, if we do not meet those targets.

“All of our councillors have agreed to observe the Suffolk Code of Conduct, which lays out how they should conduct themselves.”

Complaints are dealt with by the council’s monitoring officer and an independent person appointed by the council, who will decide what further action, if any, should be taken.

Complainants are fully updated on the progress and outcome of their complaint.

16 comments

  • I am entirely neutral about the Wetherspoon's proposal as there are good cases to be argued by both sides. What bothers me in the article is the reported "However, 38 days after the consultation notice had expired, the planning department posted another supporting comment." If this is true and a complete and fair summary of the facts, this stinks of institutional bias.

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    Dai Jones

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...
iwitness24 Your news is our news Facebook Like your local paper Twitter Join the conversation Ipswich Borough Council

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT