19th January 2026

Council Stands by Planning Advice Despite Local Concern.

Acknowledge the Error Publicly and Formally

  • What happened: The council acknowledged there was a mathematical error but didn’t commit to further review.
  • What she should have done: Moores should have explicitly acknowledged the error in writing, explaining what the error was, how it occurred, and its potential impact on decisions.
  • Why: Transparency about mistakes is a cornerstone of the Duty of Candour and good governance. Even a minor mathematical error can undermine public confidence if left unaddressed.

2. Investigate the Scope and Impact

  • What happened: The council claimed reviewing older reports would be “disproportionate.”
  • What she should have done: Moores should have conducted a targeted investigation to assess:
    • Whether the error influenced councillors’ decisions.
    • Whether any residents, schools, or policies were affected.
    • Whether similar errors exist in related documents.
  • Why: A proportionate but meaningful investigation shows that the council takes accountability seriously, rather than using “disproportionate” as a reason to avoid scrutiny.

3. Correct the Record

  • What she should have done:
    • Issue a corrected version of the report or an official addendum noting the error and the correct figures.
    • Ensure the correction is published publicly, online or in committee minutes, so anyone relying on the document sees the accurate information.
  • Why: Leaving an incorrect report uncorrected allows the error to continue misleading councillors, residents, or other stakeholders.

4. Communicate With Stakeholders

  • What she should have done: Inform:
    • The councillors who relied on the report.
    • Any committees that discussed the report.
    • The resident who raised the complaint (you).
  • Why: This demonstrates openness and respect for those affected, reinforcing that the council responds to errors seriously.

5. Implement Learning and Prevent Future Errors

  • What she should have done:
    • Investigate why the error occurred (human error, lack of review, or system issue).
    • Implement checks to prevent similar errors in future reports.
    • Provide guidance to officers on double-checking calculations and ensuring clarity for councillors.
  • Why: Accountability isn’t just fixing the past; it’s preventing repeated mistakes.

Summary

In short, Katie Moores should have:

  1. Acknowledged the error fully in writing.
  2. Investigated its impact on decisions and stakeholders.
  3. Corrected the official record and made it publicly accessible.
  4. Communicated with councillors, committees, and the resident.
  5. Taken steps to prevent future errors in reports and advice.

Instead, the council’s response acknowledged the error but essentially closed the matter, citing the passage of time — which leaves the public and councillors uninformed and the issue unresolved.