📢 What’s Going Wrong at @BracknellForest Council? Bracknell Forest’s governance is under serious procedural strain, and the public has a right to know. Documents shared with us raise concerns about a May 2023 Planning Committee restructure led by Labour that: 👉 Removed representation from three Bracknell Forest wards from the Planning Committee, depriving residents of a voice in planning decisions 👉 Proposed by Labours Cllr Mary Temperton, Leader of the Council (@BracknellLabour), and adopted at Annual Council in May 2023 👉 Justified internally on the basis that Labour and @BracknellLibDem groups could not fill the 15-seat model (one member per ward) proposed by officers. 👉 Went ahead without any consultation with the Conservative Group, the largest opposition party 👉 Ignored concerns raised by Conservative Councillors at the time. According to the Council’s own documents, no written political balance analysis was disclosed to justify the new structure. The report to the Annual Council declared: “Background Papers: None.” Yet internal FOI disclosures confirm that working drafts and oral briefings were used during the decision-making process, including conversations that Labour and LibDems were more conserned about not being able to fill seats. 📌 What does the law say? Under s.15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, committee membership must reflect the political composition of the Council “so far as reasonably practicable.” This normally requires: ✍️A written proportionality calculation 🔎Transparent allocation of seats 🙋A vote by Full Council to approve it 📌 What does the Constitution say? Bracknell Forest Council’s Constitution (Part 4, Section 2, Rule 2.2(b)) requires the Council to consult any Councillors likely to be affected by a decision. Yet: ❌The Conservative Group Leader confirmed they were not consulted ❌FOI responses show no record of such consultation Other groups were consulted, including @BracknellLibDem and the Greens, so why not the conservitives? This appears to be procedurally selective engagement by the Leader of Bracknell Labour, Mary Temperton, not equal consultation. 🛑 When these concerns were formally raised, Sanjay Prasher, the Council’s Monitoring Officer and Borough Solicitor, declined to issue a report under s.5 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, a section that imposes a non-discretionary legal duty to report likely unlawfulness or maladministration. This refusal was made despite documentary evidence emerging via FOI and internal disclosures that directly contradicted earlier officer statements on consultation and transparency. The Monitoring Officer has, to date, maintained that no such duty arises, even in the face of records that challenge the factual basis of that view. 🛑 The Council’s Chief Executive, Susan Halliwell, subsequently refused to refer the matter to the Governance & Audit Committee — the cross-party body of elected councillors responsible for scrutinising governance risks under the Council’s Constitution. This refusal was based on officer advice that has since been directly contradicted by FOI disclosures and internal records. Despite having been shown evidence that undermines the factual basis of that advice, the Chief Executive has, to date, refused to revisit her position. Only following sustained challenge was the matter referred instead to the Council’s external auditors, @KPMG ⚠️ Residents and councillors raising concerns are constantly being referred by the Council to the @LGOmbudsman, even when the Council has not exhausted its own internal procedures, and this raises serious questions about whether this is a strategy to delay or frustrate scrutiny, and if systemic issues at the council are being hidden by Officers from elected representiivs. 🧾 This is not about party politics. It is about: 1⃣Compliance with public law duties 2⃣Accountability for decisions that deprived multiple wards of a voice 3⃣Officers refusing to correct the record despite verified FOI disclosures Bracknell Forest residents deserve transparency, consultation, and accountable governance. #Bracknell #LocalGov #Governance #FOI #Accountability #Planning 📎 Information verified through FOI and Council records. Shared anonymously. No content here represents any council or official position. Further live complaints are sitting with the @ICOnews relating to obstruction and intimidation by senior officer aginst a member of the public involved in FOI requests. An additional complaint against that senior officer is also being considered behind closed doors at the council. @bracknellnews @GBNEWS @DailyMail @ICOnews @BracknellTory @reformparty_uk @LGOmbudsman

👀 Spotted: Community Walk in Winkfield Lovely to see parish councils supporting residents to explore and appreciate the beautiful nature around us. 🍃 Great for the mind, body, soul — and community too.🍂 🗓️ Saturday 18th October 📍 Forest Park Community Centre, 10:30 am #Winkfield #NatureMatters #CommunityWellbeing #LocalDemocracy #Bracknell

Following a series of tweets critical of Bracknell Forest Council, a senior director sent a formal letter to an individual, referencing personal information in a way that appears designed to suppress scrutiny. This raises serious concerns under FOIA, GDPR, and Article 10 ECHR, and highlights deeper systemic failures, including procedural and ethical overreach within the directorate. A chilling move from a council that should welcome accountability — not silence it. What do they have to hide? More to follow... @BracknellForest @ReformBracknell @bracknellnews @BracknellTory @BracknellLabour

Are @BracknellForest Council Officers playing with a straight bat on planning? Did the party leaders of Bracknell Labour, Liberal Democrats and the Green party make false statments to a member of the public? 1️⃣ Following my FOI request to @BracknellForest (which escalated to @ICOnews), the council eventually backed down and admitted there was no reason not to disclose the information I had requested in October 2024. 2️⃣ In their response, BFC confirmed there was no information held showing any consultation or discussion before council officers included the reduced size of the Planning Committee to the new council leader, just days after the 2023 local elections. 🏛️❌ 3️⃣ But here's the twist... In their correspondence with the ICO, BFC claimed they limited the document search to 6–16 May 2023 because officers were “working fast” to prepare post-election. ⚠️ 4️⃣ Yet in the emails BFC did release, Cllr Mary Temperton (@BracknellLabour) requested committee size info on 6 May, and by 7 May, Ann Moore (Assistant Director, Democratic Services) replied: “I have used the current number of seats on each committee apart from Planning, which I have reduced to 12 to reflect the number of wards we have now.” 🗂️📉 (There are 15 Wards in Bracknell Forest Council - the reduction by the officers to just 12 seats on Planning means not every ward is represented with a voice). 5️⃣ This means the decision was already made by 7 May. So: - Were officers discussing this before 6 May? - If so, why hide it? - Or did Ann Moore act entirely alone? 🤨 6️⃣ Either scenario is serious. - Why does BFC insist there’s no need to search before 6 May? - Who proposed or justified the change? - Did it meet constitutional rules? - Was it even lawful? 🕵️‍♂️⚖️ 7️⃣ If BFC didn’t meet its own constitutional requirements, then the Planning Committee (May 2023–May 2024) may have been illegitimate, and every planning decision during that time could be subject to challenge. So this is serious. 8️⃣ I was told in writing by leaders of the Labour, Lib Dem, and Green parties that they were consulted before the changes. If that’s now proven to be untrue, it means false statements were made - breaching the Nolan Principles and the Mayors Charter, possibly leading to sanctions on thoes individuals. 9️⃣ There’s also potential evidence that the Chief Executive, Borough Solicitor, and Director for Communities made false or misleading statements to councillors and the public, if it is true that the council did not follow its constitutional requirments. 🔟 With millions in CIL payments passing through Planning, much of it without a full audit trail, is this simply a governance failure, or something more serious? 💸❓ 📑 Both @EYnews and @KPMG have flagged governance weaknesses at BFC. Maybe this is what they meant... I’ve now submitted a fresh FOI to obtain communications prior to 6 May 2023 so we can see what the Council Officers were discussing, and who approved this reduction. When that’s disclosed, I’ll prepare a formal complaint, before escalating these governance breaches to the @LGOmbudsman. More to follow. @bracknellnews @BracknellTory @ReformBracknell @BracknellLibDem @eastberksgp

Ann Moore’s Exit Raises Eyebrows 😲 Ann Moore, Assistant Director at @BracknellForest, overseeing Democratic and Registration Services, is leaving. Her department controversially reduced the planning committee size without proper consultation with councillors, just three days after the May 2023 elections. A move that the Conservatives had previously blocked. Moore reports to Kevin Gibbs, Executive Director, who also oversees Sanjay Prasher, the Borough Solicitor and Monitoring Officer. More to follow, pending FOI disclosures agreed after the ICO got involved, again. Though, based on past conduct, I expect the Council will resist full transparency, contrary to the spirit of the Freedom of Information Act. @LGOmbudsman

Since October 2024, I have been pressing @BracknellForest to disclose why they cut planning oversight, leaving some wards without a voice on the Planning Committee and making it easier for officers to push through large developments. The council tried to block disclosure, fearing it would reveal they seized an opportunistic moment, twice rejected under @BracknellTory, to force through changes without giving @BracknellLabour or councillors the consultation they were entitled to under the council’s own constitution at the May 2023 meeting. Why are Bracknell officers so eager yet again to reduce democratic oversight on decisions that directly impact residents? After ICO pressure, I received this from the Council: “Over the last couple of weeks, the Council has been in correspondence with the ICO regarding your complaint; upon a further review of this matter, the Council has determined that, with the passage of time, the information it originally withheld under section 36 of the FOIA can now be disclosed.” This is now the second time the ICO has sided with me, raising serious questions about the Legal team, led by Borough Solicitor Sanjay Prasher, and their competence in handling FOIA requests. I await full disclosure before publishing. Watch this space.

Bad news for @BracknellForest. I have just received confirmation that the ICO is now involved in the FOI request regarding the reduction in the size of the planning committee in May 2023. This change was made by unelected council officers shortly after the last local elections, just three weeks after newly elected Labour councillors took their seats for the first time. Why would the council want to reduce oversight on planning applications? Why reduce the number of votes needed to approve developments from five to just three councillors, especially given the volume of building projects and planning approvals in Bracknell? With significant sums of planning-related money moving through the council while it faces financial struggles, the lack of transparency and consultation raises serious questions. Bracknell Forest Council refused to disclose relevant information, claiming the matter was debated during the May 2023 Full Council Meeting. However, it was not debated, and no detailed explanation was provided for why the reduction in committee size was necessary. There were also issues relating to the Councils constitution and a requirment to consult with affected members, this did not happen. Newly elected councillors simply voted through numerous changes without understanding their implications. Both KPMG and EY have previously highlighted concerns that elected representatives often do not fully understand what they are approving, creating a significant governance risk. Kevin Gibbs, the Executive Director of Bracknell Forest Council, and his department oversaw the decision to reduce the planning committee size and the scrutiny of planning decisions. Mr Gibbs also oversees the borough solicitor, Sanjay Prasher, and the Freedom of Information Team. @bracknellnews @BracknellTory @BracknellLabour @reformBracknell @GBNEWS @Telegraph

A few days ago, I received FOI feedback from @BracknellForest regarding circa £600k in potential missing taxpayer revenue from a project with W.S. Atkins on the Coral Reef leisure Centre. After my initial FOI request was blocked by the council, the ICO intervened and required them to reconsider. However, the information I have now received appears, in my opinion, to be incomplete and misleading. The ICO agreed and has asked BFC to try again. Interestingly, BFC has now acknowledged that a settlement was agreed and paid, despite previously refusing to comment. However, in my view, they have conducted only a limited internal search, seemingly designed to avoid disclosing key details, including what was agreed, by whom, and the amount paid. I have serious concerns about transparency in this matter, what does the council have to hide? FOI requests at BFC fall under the Borough Solicitor, Sanjay Prashar, and ultimately Kevin Gibbs. @bracknellnews @BracknellTory @BracknellLabour @BracknellLibDem @Reformbracknell @GBNEWS @Telegraph