BOLTON’S ruling Labour council has been accused of “breaking its promises” over the terms of an upcoming inquiry into planning processes.

Lib Dem leader, Cllr Roger Hayes, believes Labour is “backsliding” on its commitment to hold a full and transparent inquiry into the way planning matters are handled in the borough.

The enquiry was agreed upon by all sides at a council meeting in December — after a motion from Tory Cllr Norman Critchley.

But at the latest meeting of the council, opposition members accused Labour of moving the goalposts and limiting the scope of the enquiry — which will take place in October.

Labour say the original motion only called for the elected committee aspect of the planning process to be investigated but opposition groups want all areas — including the work of officers – to be looked at.

Cllr Hayes said: “There is widespread and genuine concern about how the planning process in Bolton works. It is important that a full and independent inquiry is held which can either set minds at rest or discover what problems there are so they can be corrected.

“In December, Labour appeared to be agreeing to that, but now that the local elections are safely out of the way they are talking about a far more limited investigation.”

“There is a widespread belief that decisions on planning are made for political reasons and to garner votes from certain sections of the community. It is important to consider whether or not that happens. This backsliding from Labour will only increase suspicions.”

He believes it is essential that councillors and members of the public are able to put forward any evidence they feel is relevant, and that officers can be asked to give evidence, in confidence if they wish.

Labour Cllr Nick Peel, who has spoken for his group on this matter, said members of the public will be able to give evidence, through their ward councillors, but said it would be inappropriate to investigate the work of planning officers.

He said: “I think we would have to have some really good justification to examine the work of officers in that way and there as far as I can see there is no justification for that.”

“The original motion talked about the committee and that is what it will look at — it is the opposition that is moving the goalpoasts.”

He added: “We must remember that we are not talking about any fact-based allegations that have led to this review, we have been very fair in agreeing to it.”