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 supporting evidence should be directed to ABC Law.
This story 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 cabal 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 $35 million USD) bailout from central government and is currently considering taxpayer-funded redundancies. This means that every hardworking taxpayer across the UK is contributing to the activities of the cabal whose behaviour is described on these pages, and not just the hardworking taxpayers of the Wirral.
In January 2024, a Wirral resident (for our non-UK readers, the Wirral is the peninsula between the River Mersey and the City of Liverpool, and the River Dee and North Wales) made an agreement with his neighbour, Aaron Borbora, to remove a 90-foot poplar tree that was dying.
The tree stood at the corner of Mr Borbora’s boundary, and at the time it was reasonable to assume it belonged to him. Concerned that it might fall onto his house, the resident agreed to pay for its removal. A professional tree surgeon confirmed the dangerous condition of the tree verbally before work began, and then in writing on 6 February 2024, on the advice of his solicitor, to make clear that responsibility for the tree would rest with the owner if it were left standing.
A second tree report six months later, in August 2024, revealed the tree was in an even worse condition than initially thought. It was completely hollow, unable to support its own weight, and dangerously unstable, especially in high winds. Standing 90 feet tall and weighing several tonnes, it posed a serious risk to life and property.
When work first began in January 2024, some neighbours contacted local Conservative councillor Andrew Hodson, who asked for the removal to be halted while he checked ownership and the tree’s condition. A nearby resident, Lorraine Rogers, claimed the tree belonged to her, though she lived 150 feet away and provided no evidence. Later that same day, Cllr Hodson called the resident and confirmed that the tree did in fact belong to Mr Borbora, as originally thought. Mr Borbora himself also accepted ownership in a WhatsApp message (evidence of which exists) but then refused to take action, citing the wishes of neighbours who wanted the tree to remain, despite having a copy of the tree surgeon’s written report confirming it was dangerous.
On his solicitor’s advice, the tree surgeon transferred liability back to the tree’s owner. Both Cllr Hodson and Mr Borbora received the written report via WhatsApp. Cllr Hodson replied in writing that he would forward the report to the owner, further evidencing his acknowledgment of Mr Borbora’s ownership. Yet no action was taken to make the tree safe.
By August 2024, a second tree survey confirmed that the situation had deteriorated. The trunk was hollow and filled with water whenever it rained, accelerating internal decay. The tree, still towering at 90 feet, was now in an extremely hazardous condition. Given its exposed position overlooking the Dee Estuary, where high winds and heavy rain are common, the risk of collapse had greatly increased.
The resident contacted the council, urging it to act. Council staff (referred to here as “the tree people”) confirmed by email that the tree was on unregistered land at the corner of Mr Borbora’s property. This meant no individual owned it and that responsibility for public safety fell to the council. Despite this, Cllr Hodson had earlier told the resident that Mr Borbora owned the tree, raising the question: why did he misrepresent the facts in order to keep a lethal hazard standing, when as a council representative he had a duty to ensure its removal?
By misinforming the resident and failing to act, Cllr Hodson arguably endangered lives and may have committed misconduct in public office. Meanwhile, council staff accused the resident of abandoning tree removal work, indicating they too had been misinformed. Who provided them with this false account?
The resident responded with evidence, including WhatsApp messages showing Mr Borbora acknowledging ownership and refusing to act, and Cllr Hodson confirming he had passed on the tree surgeon’s report. The council staff accepted the resident’s explanation.
It is also clear from WhatsApp exchanges that Mr Borbora and Cllr Hodson acknowledged ownership, then chose not to act. Both therefore share responsibility for leaving the tree standing despite knowing it was dangerous.
The tree remained in place for a further six to seven months before finally being made safe. During this period it could have collapsed at any time, with potentially fatal consequences. The lane where it stood is a busy thoroughfare connecting Heswall to the Wirral Way, used daily by families, walkers, cyclists, horse riders, and dog walkers.
Why did Cllr Hodson misrepresent the facts to keep a dangerous 90-foot tree in place? The resident is part of a mixed-race family living in an area locally referred to as “White Wirral.” Would the councillor have acted differently if the property and lives at risk had belonged to a white family? That is for you, the reader, to decide.
The story then moves on to the resident’s planning application for an extension. All communications with Sarah Lacey, the Council’s Planning Officer, were conducted by email, with the sole exception of one site visit involving the resident and his architect. These emails are fully evidenced.
In March 2024, Ms Lacey emailed the resident to say she could not support the original application filed in December 2023. The resident responded by asking what design she would support, explaining that his requirements included a larger kitchen and an additional bedroom. Ms Lacey replied with a detailed specification and design, stating that he could build a 1.5-storey extension at the side and extend into the rear garden.
At a subsequent site visit with the resident and his architect, Ms Lacey reiterated her specification. She even paced out the proposed areas, which were then marked and measured with pegs.
Over the next seven months, Ms Lacey confirmed by email on at least ten separate occasions that her designs would proceed to the Planning Committee. All communication is documented and at no point did she suggest an alternative route. It is therefore important to note that these were her designs, specifications, and plans. The full email exchange between the resident and Ms Lacey is included in the links below, and it is indisputable that the plans were originated and advanced by the Planning Officer herself.
Yet, in the final hours of the day before her own designs were due to be submitted to the Planning Committee, Ms Lacey emailed the resident to say the application was about to be rejected before it even reached the committee. Coincidentally, Councillor Andrew Hodson appeared as an objector in her report, ensuring that the plans were blocked without any formal review by the committee.
This is not the first time Councillor Hodson has been involved in blocking planning applications submitted by mixed-race families on the same road—indeed, one such case occurred just two properties away.
Since receiving the email from the Planning Officer stating that her own plans were about to be rejected and that the Planning Committee would be prevented from fulfilling its function, the resident emailed the CEO of Wirral Council, Paul Satoor. He pointed out that the Council was preparing, at the last minute, to block its own officer’s designs and corrupt the clearly documented path to the Planning Committee. More than six months later, despite numerous email exchanges, the circumstances surrounding this decision remain unexplained.
There has been no investigation of any kind. No one in the Council has reviewed the plans, assessed their compliance with planning policy, or explained why the official route to the Planning Committee was overridden. Responses from the Council, available in the links below, suggest a cover-up by a small cabal within the authority. Key questions raised by the resident remain unanswered, including:
• Were members of the Planning Committee ever informed that they were denied the opportunity to review this application?
• Who, by name and title, decided that the plans would not proceed to Committee?
• What legal authority did that individual have to block the process, and what was their documented rationale?
• Who, by name and title, decided to reject the Planning Officer’s design and specification?
The email exchanges make clear that the resident was subjected to a deliberate dismissal. Legal opinion suggests that Mr Satoor and others may be in breach of the Bribery Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2010. Despite being presented not only with allegations but also with substantial evidence of corruption and racism, Mr Satoor has failed to act appropriately.
The cover-up extends further. Freedom of Information requests have been obstructed, with incomplete responses and refusals to release requested details. This raises the question: how deep does the conspiracy go?
The evidence is substantial, but the two basic facts are simple: the design and specification were those of the Planning Officer, and on at least ten separate occasions over a seven-month period she confirmed by email that the plans were destined for the Planning Committee. At no point was any alternative process mentioned.
Additional evidence includes WhatsApp messages showing neighbours conspiring to object to the resident’s application, including incitement by others. In one email to Mr Satoor, the resident also reported alleged racist comments by a key agitator, Dave Gunter. In a Ring doorbell video, Gunter confirmed his personal relationship with Cllr Hodson, with whom he is also connected on Facebook. All Facebook evidence has been recorded, so later deletion is irrelevant.
In summary: while neighbours conspired to block the resident’s application—using personal links to Cllr Hodson, and following on from the earlier tree dispute—a group of individuals within Wirral Council blocked the Planning Officer’s own designs and corrupted the documented route to the Planning Committee. Since the resident escalated the matter in November 2024, a small cabal within the Council appears to have closed ranks and engaged in a cover-up. Legal opinion indicates this may constitute breaches of two statutory laws: the Bribery Act 2010 and the Equality Act 2010, under the leadership of CEO Paul Satoor.
We will post updates on progress here.
Full email exchange between the resident/applicant and Sarah Lacey, Wirral Council Planning Officer.
Full email exchange with Paul Satoor, CEO of Wirral Council, regarding the U-turn on the planning application. This includes all responses and replies between the applicant and Council personnel, who treated the applicant’s email about the U-turn as a formal complaint. Note in particular the final exchange on [DATE], where Mr Satoor attempts to fob off the resident by directing him to the Ombudsman, followed by his subsequent commitment on [DATE] to put Council officers on the case. Several months later, no action has been taken and no contact has been made.
The Planning Officer’s final report on her own plan, design, and specification.
Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by award-winning journalist, documentarian, author, and filmmaker Richard Belfield, together with the Council’s reply, his follow-up questions, and their subsequent responses. Unsurprisingly, the material released contains more omissions than disclosures. Please take time to read the redacted emails, which reveal neighbours asking for extensions to object, and one in which a neighbour stated that “their son has been informally told…” — clear evidence of back-channel access into the Council Planning Committee. Despite the FOI explicitly requesting “all communications, both formal and informal,” no communications from many cabal members have been provided. Yet Cllr Hodson is quoted in the final report as objecting to the plans. How, then, did he communicate this objection, and why is that evidence missing?
We will continue to update these pages as the story unfolds. Plans are already underway for a three-part podcast, a documentary, and a dramatisation, and we will keep you informed.
Please also support our upcoming petition. Every vote counts. Our target is 100,000 UK supporters so the matter will be debated in Parliament. We are also seeking over one million international supporters. More importantly, we are pursuing every available avenue to spread the story of this injustice and the outrageous abuse of political and public office.