These pages are part of a pre-launch website and are not publicly available. Access is limited to authorised web administrators and content editors. Any unauthorised sharing, distribution, or use of this link is strictly prohibited.
Disclaimer
This sequence of pages has been independently validated and evidenced by ABC Law. Full credit for the title and legal framing is attributed to them. Any questions or concerns regarding the legality of the factual content or the supporting evidence should be directed to ABC Law.
This account is not intended to reflect Wirral Council as a whole, nor the many dedicated staff who serve the borough. It highlights the actions of a small group of individuals. We trust that appropriate legal and institutional processes will now take their course.
For context, Wirral Council is a UK local authority which, as of Q1 2025, received a £28 million (approximately US$35 million) bailout from central government and is currently considering taxpayer-funded redundancies. As a result, taxpayers across the UK are contributing to the actions described and evidenced on these pages, not solely those residing in the Wirral.
In January 2024, a Wirral resident (for non-UK readers, the Wirral is the peninsula between the River Mersey, including the City of Liverpool, and the River Dee, bordering North Wales) reached an agreement with a neighbour, Aaron Borbora, to cut down a dying 90-foot poplar tree.
The tree was positioned on the corner of Mr Borbora’s boundary. At the time, it was therefore reasonable to assume that it belonged to Mr Borbora. The resident, concerned that the tree could fall on his house, agreed to pay for its removal.
The condition of the tree was initially supported by a verbal report from a professional tree surgeon at the outset of the work. On the advice of his solicitor, this was followed a week later by a written report dated 6 February 2024. This was obtained so that the tree surgeon could be relieved of liability in the event that the tree fell and caused death or damage.
A second tree report, issued seven months later in August 2024, showed that the tree was in a far more dangerous condition than detailed initially. It was completely hollow and could not support its own weight, particularly when bending in light winds, let alone strong ones. The tree stood approximately 90 ft high and was estimated to weigh several tonnes.
Once work to make the tree safe (i.e. to cut it down) was underway, other neighbours contacted local Reform councillor Andrew Hodson. He asked for the work to be halted while he checked with council personnel to establish ownership and assess the tree’s condition.
We use the term “ownership” because a woman named Lorraine Rogers, who lives over 100 metres away, claimed that the tree belonged to her. It later transpired that she did not own the tree. She provided no evidence over a four-day period to support her claim, and given her distance from the tree, it was never expected that she would.
Later that day, Cllr Hodson called the resident and confirmed that the tree was owned by Mr Borbora, as originally believed. Mr Borbora also accepted ownership via WhatsApp, which is evidenced. He then stated that he would not take action to make the tree safe. He cited strong sentiment from other neighbours who wanted the tree to remain, despite having been provided with a copy of the tree surgeon’s written report. That report confirmed the tree was dangerous and could fall at any moment.
To reiterate the seriousness of the tree’s condition, the tree surgeon, acting on the advice of his solicitor, passed liability and responsibility back to the owner and to those who had decided not to make the tree safe. Both Cllr Hodson and Mr Borbora were sent the report via WhatsApp, which evidences this point.
Cllr Hodson replied via WhatsApp, stating that he would forward the report to the owner. This further supported his verbal confirmation that the tree belonged to Mr Borbora. However, neither Cllr Hodson nor Mr Borbora took any action at that time, in early February 2024, to make the tree safe. In doing so, they placed both lives and property at serious risk.
A second tree survey conducted in August 2024 concluded that the tree was in a much worse condition than previously described. The report stated that the trunk was hollow and filled with water whenever it rained, accelerating internal rot with each rainfall. The tree, still standing at approximately 90 ft high, was now in an extremely dangerous condition. It overlooked the Dee Estuary, where high winds are common, and rainfall is heavy.
Upon receiving this report, the resident contacted the council and urged them to compel the owner to remove the tree on the grounds of imminent public safety.
Council staff (referred to hereafter as “the tree people”) confirmed by email that the tree was located on “unregistered land” at the corner of Mr Borbora’s property. This meant that no one officially owned the land or the tree, and that responsibility for making it safe therefore rested with the council.
This raises the question of why Cllr Hodson misrepresented the tree’s ownership, thereby allowing a 90 ft-high, lethal, and potentially fatal hazard to remain in place. As a council representative, he had a public duty to ensure that the danger was addressed.
By misrepresenting the facts and failing to act, Cllr Hodson endangered lives and may also have committed misconduct in public office. The council’s “tree people” also accused the resident by email of beginning the tree removal and then abandoning it. This clearly indicated that they had been misinformed. The question, therefore, arises: who provided them with this false information?
The resident responded by email, explaining what had actually occurred and supplying evidence via WhatsApp messages. These included a message in which the “owner” stated that he would not take action, and another in which Cllr Hodson confirmed that he had passed the tree report to the owner. The “tree people” accepted the resident’s explanation. The resident also stated that it was now clear to him that Cllr Hodson had been dishonest.
WhatsApp messages (see below links) between Mr Borbora and the resident and Reform Cllr Hodson and the resident, evidence that Mr Borbora and Reform Cllr Hodson acknowledged that the tree belonged to Mr Borbora. Both had the first tree surgeon’s written report and neither did anything to make it safe. You will also read in the links the email from the Council’s Woodland Dept confirming that the tree was on unregistered land. Both, therefore, share responsibility for leaving the tree in place while knowingly endangering lives.
The tree remained dangerously unstable for a further six to seven months, from February 2024 until it was finally made safe by the Council Woodland Dept, at the expense of the Wirral Council and UK taxpayer. We state UK taxpayer as the Council has recently been bailed out to the tune of £25M at the British taxpayers expense, and appears to be looking for another bailout. During that time, it could have fallen and killed one or more people at any moment. The lane where the tree stood is a well-used route connecting the upper parts of Heswall to the Wirral Way. On some days, hundreds of people use the path, including families, walkers, horse riders, and dog walkers.
Why did Cllr Hodson misrepresent the facts to keep a dangerous, 90 ft-high, potentially fatal tree in place? The resident is part of a mixed-race family living in an area known locally as “White Wirral.” Would the councillor have responded differently if the property and the people at risk had been white? That is for the reader to decide.
Whatsapp message exchange between resident / applicant over tree incident incl. his ownership claim
The story then moves on to the same resident’s planning application for an extension. With the exception of a single site visit involving the resident and his architect, all communications with Sarah Lacey, the Council’s Planning Officer, took place via email and are therefore evidenced.
In March 2024, the Planning Officer emailed the resident to state that she could not support the original application submitted in December 2023. The resident replied by asking what would be acceptable, explaining that his requirements included a larger kitchen, an additional bedroom, and other necessary space.
Sarah Lacey responded by email with a clear plan, design, and specification. She proposed a 1.5-storey side extension and that the extension could project into the rear garden.
She later met the resident and his architect on site, where she reiterated her own specification and design. During the visit, the resident and Ms Lacey paced out the proposed areas together and marked and measured them using pegs.
Over the following seven months, Sarah Lacey confirmed by email on 10 documented occasions that the plans would be submitted to the Planning Committee. As previously stated, all communication was conducted via email and is therefore fully documented and evidenced. At no point did she offer any alternative route to a decision other than the Planning Committee. It is also important to note that these designs, specifications, and plans were her own.
The complete email exchange between the resident and Sarah Lacey is included in the links below. As you will see, it is indisputable that these were the Planning Officer’s specification and design.
In the final hours of the day before her own plans were due to be submitted to the Planning Committee, she emailed the resident to advise that the design was about to be rejected before it even reached the committee. Coincidentally, or perhaps not, Councillor Andrew Hodson appeared as an objector to the application in the Planning Officer’s Final report. As a result, the plans were blocked before they reached the Planning Committee for a decision.
You will read, and see the evidence, of the Planning Officer emailing the applicant on the 10th September 2024 stating “we’ll take the application to November Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval”. Then you will read the applicant’s email to the Planning Officer in the last week of October 2024, as he understood from neighbours that the plans were going to the Planning Committee in November, and he was asking exactly when and where the meeting was, and would he get an opportunity to speak?. To this email, he received an out of office reply asking for email senders to contact Wirral Council’s Planning Group email address (as she was on holiday) which he did and they replied stating that the application had a status of delegated and their emailed specified that “the application would be decided by the Planning Officer”. So that’s right – the planning officer’s own design and specification would now be decided by herself.
Then you will read the email sent by Cllr Hodson on Sunday 3rd November at 17:22 (received from a FOI request) , interfering with the due planning process, even stating in his email that he had been told that the plans had an approval rating. But then the plans were rejected. No explanation has ever been received despite numerous FOI requests and emails to Paul Satoor , the Council’s CEO at the time as to who made the decision as to why the planning route was corrupted , and what legal authority they had to do that. You will read all about that, and much more, in the section below.
The email that was sent by Reform Cllr Hodson on Sunday 3rd November, just days before the Planning committee was due to meet on 7th, was run through sentiment analysis software. The analysis returned “a highly coercive rating, with elevated scores for authority leveraging, entitlement posture, pressure, and guilt or moral pressure. These linguistic markers are consistent with an individual actively using perceived status and power to influence or obtain a preferred outcome, as well as to exert procedural and interpersonal pressure on decision-makers to steer results away from normal regulatory processes”
And yes, this is the same Cllr Hodson that you will have read in the first section, whom conspired with the same applicant’s neighbour Aaron Borbora to lie about the tree’s ownership and leave a potentially fatally dangerous 90ft high, and weighing several tonnes, in place despite having a report on how dangerous it was, and knowing that it was the Council’s responsibility to cut it down and make it safe. Are these two factors a coincidence?
Throughout the email correspondence between the resident and the Planning Officer, she states on several occasions that further information or specific criteria were required in order for the committee to make its decision. At no point did she offer any alternative decision-making route. Despite this, the route to the Planning Committee was corrupted by a person or persons who remain unidentified. This is despite the information being requested, including through several Freedom of Information requests submitted by an award-winning journalist. The clear and indisputable documented path to the Planning Committee, where it could properly fulfil its function, was disrupted just hours before the committee was due to meet.
This is not the first time Councillor Hodson has been involved in actions that resulted in the rejection of planning applications submitted by mixed-race families on the same road. In fact, similar applications were rejected for another property, just two doors from the applicant’s.
You also will read that much of the Planning Officer’s final report’s, (as well as stating a no, of untruthful facts, which are comprehensively responded to), an unjustifiable and very large proportion of it, relates to the neighbours’ s objections. This is also a common factor in Ms McDougall’s response. (Ms McDougall, a senior member of the Planning team was asked by P Satoor, CEO to carry out a complaint investigation. All the details of this investigation are also included in the evidence Links) On the link below you will read messages from a neighbour’s Whatsapp Group with neighbours inciting each other to object, offering support in objections, and in one case one neighbour stating “I’ll object if you want me to “. Are these real and genuine objections. The applicant, as you will read, went to the trouble of responding to the objections in a document referred throughout these pages as the “50+ page report” in the very early stages of his application and included these neighbours Whatsapp messages, so why didn’t Sarah Lacey, the Planning Officer add these facts into her report and counter balance the neighbour’s objections? Did the Planning Officer meet her statutory obligation In failing to disclose the applicant’s response and evidence to these objections, which also included the tree incident, where a large group of neighbour’s wanted to keep a dangerous, dying 90ft and potentially fatal tree to remain in place.
Since receiving the email from the Planning Officer stating that her own plans were about to be rejected and that the Planning Committee was to be denied the opportunity to fulfil its function, the applicant emailed the Chief Executive of Wirral Council, Paul Satoor. The pointed out that the council was, at the very last minute, about to reject its own officer’s plans and that the clearly documented route to the Planning Committee had been corrupted.
More than a year later, despite numerous email exchanges, a farce of an internal “complaint” process, a lack of material, clearly missing information, and heavily redacted responses to two FOI requests, the circumstances surrounding this decision remain unexplained.
There has been no investigation of any kind. No one within the council has reviewed the plans or assessed their alignment with planning policy. No explanation has been provided as to why the documented route to the Planning Committee was corrupted. Responses from the council, which can be seen in the links below, suggest what appears to be a cover-up by a small cabal within the council. Specific questions raised by the remain unanswered, including the following:
When reviewing the email exchanges and the documented facts, it is evident that the applicant has been subjected to a complete and deliberate dismissal. Legal opinion suggests that Mr Satoor and others within the council may be in breach of the Bribery and Corruption Act 2006, as well as the Equality Act 2010. Mr Satoor has failed to act appropriately, despite being presented not only with allegations but with evidence of corruption and racism.
When reading the section detailing the Freedom of Information requests, along with the lack of detailed responses, the omission of requested information, and the outright refusal to provide certain materials, it becomes reasonable to question how extensive this cover-up may be.
All of this is documented in the links below. While there is a large volume of information and evidence, the two key facts are that the design and specification were those of the Planning Officer, and that she stated on 10 occasions that the plans were intended for submission to the Planning Committee.
There is also WhatsApp evidence of neighbours actively inciting and encouraging others to object, and offering support to help each other object. In some instances, neighbours encouraged others to submit objections and offered assistance in completing them. There are also references in an email to Mr Satoor regarding alleged racist comments made by one of the neighbourhood agitators, Dave Gunter.
In a Ring doorbell video, Mr Gunter confirms his personal relationship with Councillor Hodson. He is also connected to him on Facebook. All Facebook evidence has already been preserved, rendering any subsequent deletion irrelevant.
Legal opinion suggests that the WhatsApp message evidence demonstrates the incitement of racism, particularly where neighbours actively encouraged and coordinated objections within a WhatsApp group with one applicant messaging “I’ll object if you want me to”, and another applicant verbally telling the “We don’t like your sort around here’ . It is reasonable to ask whether the applicant would have endured such a sustained neighbourly onslaught in their planning application, had the ’s family not been ethnic minority and mixed-race, particularly when the evidence shows such evidence of racism.
It is also notable that the Planning Officer placed significant weight on the neighbours’ objections but did not address or counter them in her final report, despite the highlighting these issues and submitting the WhatsApp evidence in his response, as the reader will see.
In addition to the tree incident, it is clear that neighbours coordinated objections to the applicant’s planning application. One neighbour with a history of alleged racist comments (supported by a witness statement) and with a personal relationship with Councillor Hodson, evidenced on a Ring doorbell video, actively offered help to others to object. One neighbour messaged, “I’ll object if you want me to.” This message, along with the others, was provided to the Planning Officer. Despite this, the officer did not counter these issues in her final report and instead placed significant emphasis on the 16 objections.
Since the applicant escalated the matter in November 2024, as shown in the linked email exchanges, a small group within the council appears to have closed ranks and engaged in a cover-up. Legal opinion suggests that this may constitute breaches of statutory law, including the Bribery and Corruption Act and the Equality Act, by council staff under the leadership of Paul Satoor.
Mr Satoor’s most recent communications are also noteworthy. After an unsuccessful attempt to deflect responsibility to the Local Government Ombudsman, he informed the applicant that he would appoint council officers to investigate the matter. Almost a year has now passed, and no investigation has materialised.
Any further updates will be posted here. It is inevitable that there will be some.
Evidence 1: Full email exchange between the resident/applicant and Sarah Lacey, Wirral Council Planning Officer.
Evidence 2: Email correspondence with Paul Satoor, CEO of Wirral Council, culminating in his instruction that the applicant’s enquiry be treated internally as a complaint.
Evidence 3: Email exchange between the applicant and Ms Alexandra McDougall, Principal Planning and Enforcement Team Leader at Wirral Council.
Evidence 4: Letter from Mr McNeal, Wirral Council Legal Dept to applicant.
Evidence 5: Email exchange with Paul Satoor following the applicant’s enquiry being treated as a complaint, after the completion of stages 1 and 2 of the complaints process.
Evidence 6: The Planning Officer’s final report on her own plan, design, and specification.
Evidence 7: A Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by an award-winning journalist, documentarian, author, and filmmaker, together with the council’s response, followed by further questions and subsequent replies. It will not surprise readers that more information appears to be missing than has been provided.
Readers are encouraged to take time to review the redacted emails, which include requests from neighbours for extensions to submit objections, as well as a specific email in which a neighbour stated that “their son has been informally told…”. Such statements raise questions about the existence of informal back channels into the Council Planning Committee.
Despite the FOI request explicitly seeking “all communications, both formal and informal”, no correspondence from several individuals referenced elsewhere has been disclosed. Notably, Councillor Hodson is quoted in the final report as objecting to the plans, yet nothing has been provided to show how this objection was communicated. This raises a clear question as to why no corresponding communication has been disclosed in response to the FOI request.
Evidence 8: Second Tree Survey
Evidence 9: Email Exchange Between Victim and Wirral Council Tree Dept.
We will continue to update these pages as the story unfolds, and plans for a three-part podcast, a documentary and a dramatisation are in the works, so we will keep you updated.
Please support our upcoming petition. Every vote counts. Our target for UK support is 100,000 so the issue is then debated in Parliament. We are also targeting 1 million+ supporters outside of the UK, though more importantly we are progressing other means to spread the story of this injustice and outrageous abuse of political and public office.