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 US $35 million) bailout from central government and is currently considering taxpayer-funded redundancies. This means that every hard-working taxpayer across the UK is contributing to the actions of the cabal whose behaviour is described, documented and evidenced on these pages, and not just the hard-working 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)) had an agreement with a neighbour, Aaron Borbora, to cut down a 90ft poplar tree which was dying.
The tree was positioned on the corner of Mr Borbora’s boundary, so at the time, it was 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 the professional tree surgeon at the inception of cutting the tree down, and it was then supported by his written report on the advice of his solicitor a week later (dated 6th February 2024) in order that he could be relieved of his liability in the event that the tree fell and caused death or other damage. A second tree report, seven months later (August 2024), showed that the tree was in a more dangerous condition than originally detailed in the first report: it was completely hollow and couldn’t support its own weight, particularly when bending in light winds, let alone strong ones. It stood 90ft high and was estimated to weigh several tonnes.
Once the work to make it safe (i.e., cut it down) was underway, other neighbours called out local Conservative councillor Andrew Hodson, who asked for the work to be halted while he checked with council personnel to ascertain ownership and the tree’s condition. We use the word “ownership” because a woman named Lorraine Rogers, who lives in a house 100 metres away, claimed the tree belonged to her. It turned out she didn’t own it, not surprisingly. She didn’t provide any evidence over a four-day period to support her ownership, and with living over 100 metres away, it was never expected that she did.
Later that day, Cllr Hodson called the resident and confirmed that the tree was owned by Mr Borbora, as originally thought. Mr Borbora also accepted ownership (via WhatsApp, so this is evidenced), then stated he would not take action to make the tree safe, citing strong sentiment from other neighbours who wanted it to remain, despite having a copy of the tree surgeon’s written report, which confirmed the tree was dangerous and could fall at any moment. To reiterate the criticality of the health and state of the tree: it was on the advice of his solicitor that the tree surgeon passed back liability and responsibility for the tree to its owner and those who had decided not to make it safe. Both Cllr Hodson and Mr Borbora were sent the report via WhatsApp, thereby evidencing this point.
Cllr Hodson replied in a WhatsApp message saying he would forward the report to the owner, further supporting his verbal communication that the tree belonged to Mr Borbora. However, neither Cllr Hodson nor Mr Borbora took any action whatsoever to make the tree safe at that time, in early February 2024. In doing so, they put lives as well as property in danger.
A second tree survey/report in August 2024, six months later, concluded that the tree was in a much worse state than the tree surgeon had described. The second survey stated that the trunk was hollow and it filled with water every time it rained, worsening the internal rot with each rainfall. The tree, still standing at 90ft high, was now in an extremely dangerous condition. It overlooked the Dee Estuary, where high winds are common and rainfall is heavy. The resident, on receiving this report, then contacted the council, urging them to compel the owner to remove the tree for reasons of imminent public safety.
The council staff (referred to herein as “the tree people”) confirmed by email (again, evidenced) that the tree was located on “unregistered land” at the corner of Mr Borbora’s property. This meant no one officially owned the land or the tree, and that the council therefore had responsibility for making it safe. So why did Cllr Hodson lie about the tree’s ownership to keep a 90ft high, lethal, and potentially fatal hazard in place, when he, as a council representative, had a public duty to ensure it was removed?
By misrepresenting the facts and failing to act, Cllr Hodson endangered lives and likely also committed misconduct in public office. The council’s “tree people” also, via email, accused the resident of beginning the tree removal and then abandoning it, clearly indicating that they had been misinformed. Who gave them this false and deceitful information?
The resident responded by email, explaining what had actually occurred and providing evidence via WhatsApp messages, including one in which the “owner” stated he would not take action, and another in which Cllr Hodson confirmed he had passed the tree report to the owner. The “tree people” accepted the resident’s explanation. The resident also added that it was now very apparent that Cllr Hodson had been dishonest to him.
It is also apparent from WhatsApp messages between Mr Borbora and the resident that Mr Borbora and the councillor conspired to acknowledge Mr Borbora’s ownership, then took no action to remove the tree. Both therefore share responsibility for leaving the tree in place, knowingly endangering lives.
The tree remained dangerously unstable for a further six to seven months from February 2024 until it was finally made safe. 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 thoroughfare connecting the upper parts of Heswall to the Wirral Way. On some days, hundreds of people (families, walkers, horse riders, and dog walkers) use the path.
Why did Cllr Hodson lie to keep a dangerous, 90ft-high, potentially fatal tree in place? Unsurprisingly, 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 people in danger belonged to a white family and were white? That’s for you, the reader, to decide.
Then the story moves on to the same resident’s planning application for an extension. All communications with Sarah Lacey, the council’s Planning Officer, with the exception of one site visit involving the resident and his architect, are via email and are therefore evidenced.
In March 2024, the planning officer emails the resident, stating that she cannot support the original application filed in December 2023. The resident responded by asking what he can have, explaining that his requirements include a larger kitchen, an additional bedroom, and so on. Sarah Lacey replies with a clear plan and design in her email, stating that he can have a 1.5-storey extension at the side and can extend into the rear garden.
She later meets the resident and his architect on site, where she reiterates her own specification and design. The resident and Ms Lacey pace out her proposed areas, which they then mark and measure with pegs.
Over the next seven months, Sarah Lacey, the council’s Planning Officer, confirms by email on at least ten occasions that the plans will go to the Planning Committee. As mentioned earlier, all communication is via email, so this is fully documented and evidenced. At no point does she offer an alternative to the Planning Committee, and it is important to note that these are her designs, specifications, and plans. The complete email exchange between the resident and Sarah Lacey is included in the links below. As you will read, it is indisputable that these are the Planning Officer’s plans.
In the final hours of the day before her own plans are scheduled to be submitted to the Planning Committee, she emails the resident to advise that the design is about to be rejected before it even reaches the committee. Coincidentally, or is it?, Councillor Andrew Hodson appears as an objector to the application in the Planning Officer’s report, resulting in the plans being blocked before they even make it to the Planning Committee for a decision. Throughout the email exchange between the resident and the Planning Officer, you will read that on 10 separate occasions, she states that aspects of information and meeting specific criteria are needed so that the committee can make its decision. At no point does she offer any other route to a decision, yet this route to the committee was corrupted by person or persons still, as yet, unknown, despite this information being requested, including several requests under the Freedom of Information Act by an award-winning journalist. Yet this clear and indisputable documented path to the planning committee, where they can fulfil their function, was corrupted hours before they met.
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 just two properties apart.
Since receiving the email from the Planning Officer stating that her own plans were about to be rejected and that the Planning Committee was going to be deprived of fulfilling its function, the resident/applicant emailed the CEO of Wirral Council, Paul Satoor. The resident pointed out that the council was about to, at the very last minute, reject its own officer’s plans, and that the clearly documented path to the Planning Committee had been corrupted. Over eleven months later, despite numerous email exchanges, 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, and 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, reveal what appears to be a cover-up by a small cabal within the council. Specific questions raised by the resident remain unanswered. These include:
When you read the email exchanges and see the facts for yourself, it is evident that the resident has been subjected to a complete and deliberate dismissal. Legal opinion suggests that Mr Satoor and others in the council may be in breach of the 2006 Bribery and Corruption Act, as well as the 2010 Equality Act. Mr Satoor has failed to act appropriately, despite being presented not just with allegations, but with substantial evidence of corruption and racism.
When you read the section that details the Freedom of Information requests, the lack of detailed response, deliberately missing information and the bare-faced denial to provide requested information, you will start to wonder how deep the conspiracy goes.
All of this is well documented in the links below, and whilst there is much information and evidence, please remember that the two basic facts are that the design and specification were those of the Planning Officer, and that she stated on ten separate occasions that the plans were destined for the Planning Committee.
You will also find WhatsApp evidence of a conspiracy among neighbours to object to the resident’s application, and in cases inciting other residents to object to the resident’s planning permission, along with references in an email to Mr Satoor regarding alleged racist comments from one of the main neighbourhood agitators, Dave Gunter. In a Ring doorbell video, Gunter confirms his personal relationship with Cllr Hodson, with whom he is also connected on Facebook. Please note that all Facebook evidence has already been recorded, so its deletion is irrelevant. Would the resident/applicant have suffered and endured such a neighbourly onslaught if they were white? Legal opinion is that the WhatsApp evidence is inciting racism, specifically where two neighbours are actively encouraging and stimulating objections on a WhatsApp group and offering support to fill out objections. Would they have done this for applications for extensions for white people? It is highly noteworthy that the Planning Officer put significant weight behind the neighbours’ objections, but made no countering note in her report when the applicant pointed these out and included these WhatsApp messages in his response, as you will read.
In summary, in parallel to a group of neighbours inciting each other to object to the resident’s planning permission, following the previous tree incident, and a neighbour inciting others to object who has a history of racist comments using personal relationships with Cllr Hodson, a group of individuals within Wirral Council blocked the Planning Officer’s own design and corrupted her clearly documented route to the Planning Committee, as stated in ten separate emails over a seven-month period. Since the resident escalated the issue in November 2024, as detailed in the email exchanges linked below, a small cabal within the council appears to have closed ranks and engaged in a cover-up. Legal opinion suggests this may constitute breaches of two statutory laws, the Bribery and Corruption Act and the Equality Act, by council staff, led by Paul Satoor.
The last communications from Mr Satoor are also noteworthy. Following a failed attempt to alleviate himself of any responsibility to deflect this to the Council Ombudsman, he told the resident that he would appoint council officers to investigate. This was in XXX 2025 and as of the time of writing this, October 2025, unsurprisingly, nothing has been seen or heard of these.
We will post any updates on progress here. It’s inevitable there will be.
Entire Email Exchange Between the Planning Officer and the Applicant is Attached
Evidence 1: Full email exchange between the resident/applicant and Sarah Lacey, Wirral Council Planning Officer.
Evidence 2: Document from resident to Planning Officer documenting his response to objections raised. These include evidence of the tree incident and incitement WhatsApp messages from neighbours over objecting to the planning permission.
Evidence 3: 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 involved in treating the applicant’s email on the U-turn as a formal complaint. Note the final email exchanges on DATE where Paul Satoor attempts to fob off the resident by passing him onto the Ombudsman and his subsequent commitment to put council officers on the case on dd/mm/yy. X months later, they still haven’t been in touch.
Evidence 4: The Planning Officer’s final report on her own plan, design, and specification.
Evidence 5: Email Exchange Between Victim and Wirral Council Tree Dept.
Evidence 6: Letter from Mr McNeal, Wirral Council Legal Dept to applicant
Evidence 7: Second Tree Survey
Evidence 8: Freedom of Information (FOI) request submitted by award-winning journalist, documentarian, author, and filmmaker Richard Belfield: https://www.richardbelfield.com, and the council’s reply, followed by further questions and their subsequent responses. It won’t surprise you that there is more information missing than has been provided. Please take your time to read the redacted emails which include neighbours asking for extensions to object and also a specific email where the neighbour stated that ‘their son has been informally told…’. It must be nice to have back-channels into the Council Planning Committee, and note despite the FOI specifically requesting ‘all communications, both formal and informal’, no communications from many cabal members have been provided, yet Cllr Hodson is quoted on the final report as objecting to the plans, so how did he communicate this and why is it missing?
#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.