fast4truth2
Instructions and contact details link at top of Start MenuPolice Report to CPS - 1992 - With Commentary
-====================================================-
Link - Return to Start Menu to Police section
-====================================================-
Link - Police Report to CPS - 1992 - uncommented
-====================================================-
You may wish to read the uncommented version first,
before reading Tim Wilmot's commentary on Draper's report.
Tim Wilmot is preparing a more comprehensive demolition webpage,
as this commentary hangs on bones supplied by Draper -
when truth alone provides a better framework.
Of course, Tim Wilmot may be completely wrong -
you decide!
After all, police would'nt lie, would they?
-====================================================-
This is a Report to the Crown Prosecution Service
written by former Detective Inspector Colin Draper
of Devon & Cornwall Police.
Every single point dangerous to Caradon District Council is not mentioned.
Tim Wilmot is portrayed as a man living in a "pig-sty",
"parading" about with placards,
and publicly demolishing honest, hard-working local government employees.
Draper describes it as "regrettable" that Tim Wilmot's actions
are not the subject of criminal prosecutions,
but "forgets" to mention that charges were made,
and dropped by the CPS
to prevent Tim Wilmot having a platform
from which his criminal allegations against Caradon District Council
can be freely publicised by the media.
Draper finds "nothing sinister" in the fact
that the only document that would instantly prove
Tim Wilmot's allegations about the Planning Committee Minutes of 03 OCT 88
to be true or false,
was "discovered to be missing" from security archives
eleven months after Tim Wilmot first asked to see them.
Draper finds nothing strange in the fact
that Caradon District Council never sued Tim Wilmot,
immediately withdrew the only injunction they served on him
when he announced his intention to counterclaim,
and paid the sum counterclaimed
rather than try the five serious charges files.
Tim Wilmot believes Draper was ordered by superior officers
to write a cover-up report,
and Tim Wilmot believes he was unhappy about it,
as his report over-conceals Caradon's crimes.
Of course, Tim Wilmot,
and Councillors Gist, Knott, and Screech could be wrong
in their assessment of the facts at their disposal in 1991-1992.
Their facts were less than the facts at Drapers' disposal,
as Draper had most of the contents of the planning file
( less certain documents concealed by Caradon,
and others with amended or altered text ).
Tim Wilmot will pay £20 in cash
to the first person who can prove on paper
with a well-thought out factual argument
that the conclusions of Detective Inspector Draper below
are both true and honest.
If anyone who reads Drapers' report,
and cannot come up with a good argument supporting his conclusions,
wishes to pledge a further £10 to someone who can,
Tim Wilmot will add it to the pot.
-====================================================-
Useful Links
Link - Start Menu - Allegations in detail
Link - Start Menu - Police section
-====================================================-
Draper promised full liason throughout his investigation,
but none took place.
Dozens of shoddy errors and ommissions could have been easily put right.
-====================================================-
Police Report to Crown Prosecution Service.
Author: Detective Inspector Draper.
Force: Devon & Cornwall.
Subject: false verbal and written statements were made
in relation to the processing of a planning application.
Date: 08 JUN 92.
-====================================================-
The following are the two suggested offences
put forward by Detective Inspector Draper to the CPS.
Note that the suggested charges
only refer to the "processing of a planning application",
and not to the covering-up of offences.
The reader should know that both the Chief Planning Officer and Tolley
refused to be interviewed under caution.
If they had nothing whatsoever to hide,
why would they fear being interviewed under Caution?
-====================================================-
SUGGESTED OFFENCES
-====================================================-
1a. At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
1b. between 2 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,
1c. with intent to pervert the course of public justice,
1d. did a series of acts
1e. which had a tendency to pervert the cause of justice
1f. in that false verbal and written statements were made
1g. in relation to the processing of a planning application
1h. by Timothy Sparrow WILMOT.
1i. CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW
2a. At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
2b. between 02 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,
2c. being a person holding a public ofice,
2d. did wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification,
2e. neglected to perform duty
2f. you were required to perform by common law or statute.
2g. CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW
-=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-
Subject: Caradon District Council - Allegation of criminal misconduct
-=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-
-====================================================-
INTRODUCTION
-====================================================-
1.1a. This report relates to an allegation
1.1b. by Mr Timothy Sparrow WILMOT, 34 years (B.30.6.57),
1.1c. of 'The Burrows', South Hill Road, Callington, Cornwall.
1.2a. His allegations stem
1.2b. from an application of his made in late 1988
1.2c. for planning permission to develop a garden centre
1.2d. on the site of an old waste tip at Callington, Cornwall,
1.2e. known locally as 'Target Tip'.
1.3a. His application went before the Planning Committee of Caradon District Council
1.3b. on the 03 OCT 88
1.3c. when he was granted outline planning permission
1.3d. subject to him supplying a consultant's report on landfill gas.
Sounds simple, but it is not!
First, please remember that the Planners 'forgot' to convey to Tim Wilmot
the Planning Committee's decision of 03 OCT 88.
So Tim Wilmot never received a specification for a landfill gas survey -
which means that it was impossible for him to supply one.
The reader must understand The Great Gas Deception
put in place by the Chief Planning Officer.
The aim of a Landfill Gas Survey is to measure emission rates of potentially dangerous gases,
which, if allowed to concentrate in gas traps,
can cause fires or explosions.
So it is perfectly sensible to have a proper regard for dangers from gases,
but the Planning Department did two things to twist gas to their advantage:-
1. they portrayed Tim Wilmot in a way in which it appeared
that he had no proper regard for the dangers of gas.
2. they altered the purpose of the survey
to "if there is any gas at all, there shall be NO development of any kind.
1.4a. It was from hereon that matters appeared to have gone significantly wrong
1.4b. as alleged by Mr WILMOT.
1.5a. In April the following year, 1989,
1.5b. a Refusal Notice was issued by Caradon District Council
1.5c. and this stimulated a sustained and determined effort by Mr Wilmot
1.5d. to obtain his planning permission
1.5e. and have the Refusal Notice overturned.
Please remember that an outside solicitor,
brought in by Caradon District Council to mediate
while they were facing a counterclaim
to their hastily withdrawn Injunction of May 91,
recommended that Tim Wilmot should have his position restored
to that of the evening of 03 OCT 88 -
i.e. before so many 'odd' things began to happen to the application
as the inconvenient 16 to nil approval vote was removed by deceit.
1.6a. Strong resistance to this application was maintained by the Council
1.6b. and as percieved by Mr Wilmot,
1.6c. certain officers with the Council
1.6d. were instrumental in blocking the application
1.6e. or supplying vital information as to the reasoning for their objections.
Officers did everything they could to block Tim Wilmot's progress
because they knew that Tim Wilmot was determined to see heads roll
for the committing of serious criminal offences.
1.7. Mr WILMOT expressed total dissatisfaction with the following officers:-
1.7a1. a. Mr John Oliver Collins -
1.7a2. Chief Executive of Caradon District Council up to 01 OCT 90.
A minor figure, who failed to properly investigate.
1.7b1. b. Mr David John NEWELL -
1.7b2. Chief Executive of Caradon District Council since the 1st October 1990.
A former planning officer, who understood at once what was at stake.
Newell avoided Tim Wilmot by refusing to answer letters,
so Tim Wilmot walked into his office at ten past five one evening.
Discussing the application,
they got to the point where withdrawal or deferral came up.
Newell said "You told an officer you wanted to defer!"
Even Tolley had accepted neither withdrawal or deferral was an option for Tim Wilmot.
"Which officer?" asked Tim Wilmot.
"An officer will say you said that!" replied Newell.
There was a very strong emphasis on the word 'An',
indicating to Tim Wilmot that an officer would be instructed to lie.
1.7c1. c. Mr Alan HARTRIDGE -
1.7c2. Planning Officer with Caradon District Council.
The man for whom "internal manipulation of the planning system" was normal.
The man who destroyed Tim Wilmot's application, and business,
and when a district councillor actually dared to accuse him of criminal offences,
he put a bulldozer through his house.
1.7d1. d. Mr Michael Gregory TOLLEY -
1.7d2. Solicitor to the Council,
1.7d3. currently known as Director of Administration and Monitoring Officer.
A nasty, lying little shit, author of lying reports -
a man broken by three words "LIAR & PERJURER!".
A man given maximum police support throughout.
1.7e1. e. Mr Clifford Gerald PENGELLY -
1.7e2. District Councillor with Caradon District Council for the Callington area.
He knew what happened, and kept his mouth shut,
lying in his police witness statement.
-====================================================-
1.8.1a. Police enquiries were commenced into these matters in November 1991
1.8.1b. following a complaint by Mr Wilmot
1.8.1c. that he was totally dissatisfied
1.8.1d. with the continued negative response from Caradon District Council,
1.8.1e. compounded by the fact that in his view,
1.8.1f. the Police at Liskeard had failed to satisfactorily investigate
1.8.1g. his misgivings about the council earlier in 1991.
1.8.2a. This in fact refers to a limited investigation
1.8.2b. carried out by the police at Liskeard
1.8.2c. when it had quickly been established
1.8.2d. that there were no criminal offences to investigate
1.8.2e. and that there was nothing of substance in Mr WILMOT's allegations.
Local police had made it clear that they would block Tim Wilmot in all ways.
On making a complaint to force HQ,
an Inspector Weymouth arrived for a brief initial evaluation.
Well within an hour, Inspector Weymouth said
"This stinks! I will recommend to the Chief Constable that the case be reopened!"
What Weymouth immediately saw as stinking,
Draper's detective's nose failed to report -
deliberately, Tim Wilmot suggests.
-====================================================-
1.9.1a. In consequence, a full Police investigation
1.9.1b. has now been carried out by the Police
1.9.1c. with all the relevant parties having been seen.
1.9.2a. The sequence of events
1.9.2b. are discussed in detail later in the report.
-====================================================-
1.10.1a. It is only fair to report at this stage
1.10.1b. that Mr WILMOT has become obsessed
1.10.1c. with his fight with Caradon District Council
1.10.1d. and has on a number of occasions,
1.10.1e. set out to, and succeeded
1.10.1f. in embarassing Caradon District Council
1.10.1g. by parading in front of the Council Offices,
1.10.1h. at Council meetings,
1.10.1i. in the streets of Callington and Liskeard,
1.10.1j. and outside the home address of Councillor PENGELLY,
1.10.1k. with a placard alleging dishonesty and corruption
1.10.1l. against the officers named in paragraph 1.7. [ Chief Planning Officer, Pengelly & Tolley ]
There were several placards with differing texts,
each displaying the truth.
please note the use of the emotive word "parading" by Draper,
instead of the more balanced word "displaying".
Police found it so "regrettable"
that Tim Wilmot displayed truth to the public.
The very fact that Tim Wilmot was on the streets
displaying placards alleging serious criminal offences
without immediate legal action by Caradon District Council
publicly demonstrated the power and substance of what he said.
1.10.2a. He has openly admitted one of his objectives in doing this
1.10.2b. is to try and stimulate Caradon District Council
1.10.2c. into suing him for libel
1.10.2d. in the hope that he will then be afforded
1.10.2e. the opportunity to air his grievances in open court.
1.10.3a. To date, on advice,
1.10.3b. Caradon District Council have decided not to pursue this course.
-====================================================-
1.11a. As of the date of compilation of this report,
1.11b. Mr WILMOT has still not been successful
1.11c. in securing planning permission for his development
1.11d. and is in fact in further dispute with the Council
1.11e. at his home address at 'The Burrows' situated in Callington,
1.11f. which is little more than what can only be literally described as a 'pig sty',
1.11g. has been made the subject of an 'enforcement notice'
1.11h. being in breach of planning permission.
Tim Wilmot mainly lived in one large room 18 feet square,
with other large rooms used as needed.
The room had white-painted walls under a new tongued and grooved pine ceiling,
and a half-glazed antique pine front door from an Edwardian house,
with engraved cobalt blue and red glass panels.
A black cast iron Jotul 118 wood-burning stove from Norway
was connected to a stainless steel chimney,
and provided both heat and hot water.
A bottled gas cooker was installed,
together with electricity and telephone.
Furniture included desks, bookcases, and chairs, as well as a double bed.
The room was a perfectly comfortable farm dwelling -
not luxurious, but clean, tidy, and practical.
Tim Wilmot suggests Draper would only describe the room as a "pig-sty"
if he wanted to create a negative impression of the inhabitant
to the reader of his report.
The Enforcement action ( 10 APR 90 ) was valid at law,
but discontinued by Caradon District Council
to prevent Tim Wilmot publicly airing his allegations.
-====================================================-
1.12a. The aspect of the dispute regarding his home address
1.12b. is viewed as being a separate matter
1.12c. to the issues contained in this report
1.12d. and therefore will not be discussed in detail any further.
Having deliberately created a negative image of Tim Wilmot,
Draper then pretends it means nothing.
-====================================================-
1.13.1a. Caradon District Council have made it clear to the Reporting Officer
1.13.1b. that they are not prepared to exercise their discretion in favour of Mr Wilmot
1.13.1c. by granting him planning permission
1.13.1d. to develop this area of land known as 'Target Tip'
1.13.1e. without the payment of any fee.
1.13.2a. Such an option could be pursued
1.13.2b. geared towards resolving the current impasse
1.13.2c. but it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
1.13.2d. that as both parties hold strong views
1.13.2e. in support of their respective arguments
1.13.2f. that the dispute will continue for the forseeable future.
They knew Tim Wilmot was focused on the falsified Minutes.
1.14a As the attached documents show
1.14b a number of Officers involved with the Council
1.14c have become involved in this dispute
1.14d and it has clearly been a source of embarassment
1.14e not only for the Council as an organisation
1.14f but for certain individuals.
The truth can be SO embarassing!
1.15.1a. It has certainly started to affect the Solicitor to the Council, Mr TOLLEY,
1.15.1b. and he has found it neccesary
1.15.1c. to contact the local police at Liskeard on a number of occasions
1.15.1d. upon receipt of letters from Mr WILMOT
1.15.1e. as they contained inuendo of possible violence towards Mr TOLLEY
1.15.1f. and/or his family.
The letters simply asked Tolley to think
about how he might be feeling in Tim Wilmot's place,
and were designed with a court defence in mind.
Due to Tolley's actions damaging Tim Wilmot severely financially,
Tim Wilmot had just been obliged to put down his labrador dog, Sam, himself -
and Tim Wilmot merely asked how Tolley would feel if it were his son
( who had just been mentioned in the local paper ).
As police, Tolley, and the Council knew the nasty, lying little shit's lies
would fall apart under Tim Wilmot's questioning in a court,
needless to say no prosecution was likely.
And every other prosecution of Tim Wilmot
that could have got Tolley in court -
was taken by police to every possible pre-trial hearing,
and then dropped.
1.15.2a. Regrettably despite Police investigations into these allegations
1.15.2b. all have fallen short of being sufficient to support any criminal proceedings.
Tim Wilmot suggests the one word "Regrettably"
sums up the investigative integrity of Detective Inspector Draper.
-====================================================-
THE ALLEGATION
-====================================================-
2.1.1a. Mr WILMOT who describes himself as a 'gentleman adventurer'
2.1.1b. purchased 'The Burrows' on 23 NOV 86.
2.1.2a. The property consists of a number of what could ordinarilly be described as outbuildings
2.1.2b. set in an open boundaried area which has the appearance of a 'junk yard'.
2.1.3a. Mr WILMOT resides
2.1.3b. and has done so for some time in one of the buildings.
2.1.4. Normal servives associated with ordinary dwellings are somewhat limited.
Perfectly adequate - it was idyllic living there.
2.2a. In SEP 87, Mr WILMOT purchased two further properties,
2.2b. a disused shop premises and a bungalow, both in Callington.
Tim Wilmot had completed the sale of his former business property a Yealmpton, Devon,
had paid off his bank for the purchase of The Burrows, and his moving costs,
and stuffed the balance into property to offset Capital Gains Tax by rollover.
2.3.1a. In MAY 88, the bungalow was sold,
2.3.1b. the proceeds of which funded the purchase
2.3.1c. of twelve and a half acres of land known as 'Target Tip', South Hill Road, Callington.
2.3.2. This was purchased for £26,000.
2.3.3. 'Target Tip' is situated a short distance away from 'The Burrows'.
2.4a. Shortly afterwards, Mr WILMOT sold 3 of the twelve and a half acres
2.4b. but this still left him with the part of 'Target Tip' which was a former Council Tip.
The story of this sale requires telling.
A man kept coming to Tim Wilmot asking to buy the land,
but Tim Wilmot kept saying no.
To try and stop the man pestering him,
Tim Wilmot eventually said he would want £5,000 an acre,
thinking that the price would frighten him off.
The man said he would pay it.
Tim Wilmot said that he would never get planning permission for a house,
but the man still insisted that he wanted to buy.
Again, thinking to deter the man,
Tim Wilmot protected his proposed garden centre,
by saying that only very limited numbers of agricultural livestock
could be farmed on the land, with a points system.
The man insisted on buying,
so Tim Wilmot reluctantly sold.
The Chief Planning Officer sees property speculators as "ripping-off the community",
but here was a man determined to spend his money at any cost,
and Tim Wilmot had done his best to protect him from himself.
2.5.1a. During the summer of 1988,
2.5.1b. Mr WILMOT had occasion to speak with a Mr KIMBERLEY, the Area Planning Officer
2.5.1c. whose area encompassed the Callington area,
2.5.1d. concerning the use and possible development of seven acres of the 'Target Tip' land.
2.5.2a. Mr WILMOT's recollection of the conversation
2.5.2b. was such that he saw grounds for cautious optimism
2.5.2c. should he pursue his planning application in respect of this proposed development.
2.6a. On the 06 JUL 88,
2.6b. Mr WILMOT formally submitted his application for planning permission,
2.6c. though he only sought in effect outline planning permission at that stage.
2.7a. In consequence of the application,
2.7b. a site meeting was arranged for the morning of 03 OCT 88
2.7c. at which a Mr John INMAN, the Principal Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council,
2.7d. Mr Robert Douglas Boyd REID, the Waste Disposal Officer with Cornwall County Council,
2.7e. and Dr Walter Brian ANKERS, the Industrial Waste Officer, also with Cornwall County Council,
2.7f. all met with Mr WILMOT at 'Target Tip'.
The Great Gas Deception begins here.
Dr Ankers, the scientist, categorically stated
that gases issue from a landfill site for 35 years from end of tipping,
with the first 10 years the most active.
The Planning Department wanted Tim Wilmot to withdraw his application,
and get what seemed like a very long and expensive survey
( as he was kept in the dark about specifications ).
Tim Wilmot explained
that there was no point spending time and money on a survey
if the Planning Committee's answer to the geographical site location question
was "No!"
What he wanted was an answer to the geographical location suitability question that day,
with any gas issues dealt with at detailed planning stage.
The three environmental officers made it clear that they were advisory only to planning,
but they said that Tim Wilmot's position satisfied theirs.
This evaporated by the time of the police investigation,
as they "closed ranks" to help protect Caradon.
This is provable by the way Dr Ankers alters science in his police witness statement.
2.8a. At the conclusion of the site meeting
2.8b. all then returned to Luxstowe House, the offices of Caradon District Council, Liskeard,
2.8c. where the Planning Committee Meeting was to be held
2.8d. at which the Planning Application by Mr WILMOT would be considered.
2.9.1a. Mr WILMOT entered the Council Chamber and listened to other applications,
2.9.1b. waiting for his to come up.
2.9.2a. Prior to his application being heard,
2.9.2b. the Committee adjourned for a tea break,
2.9.2c. into a room adjacent to the Chamber.
2.9.3a. As was normal practice,
2.9.3b. there were conversations between Officers of the Council and applicants,
2.9.3c. all very informal.
2.10a. It was during this break
2.10b. that whilst Mr WILMOT had been talking to a local Councillor, Mr Gerald PENGELLY,
2.10c. the opportunity arose for Mr PENGELLY
2.10d. to introduce Mr WILMOT to the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge.
2.11a. Mr WILMOT alleges that during a conversation with Mr HARTRIDGE,
2.11b. he, Mr HARTRIDGE told Mr WILMOT
2.11c. that he must withdraw his application
2.11d. and obtain a survey concerning the landfill gas
2.11e. and return the application to the Committee at a later stage.
2.12.1a. Mr WILMOT, displeased with this,
2.12.1b. told Mr HARTRIDGE that he wanted a decision that day, 03 OCT 88.
Tim Wilmot was not 'displeased' -
he merely politely said
that what he wanted
was an answer to the geographical location suitability question that day,
with any gas issues dealt with at detailed planning stage.
2.12.2a. Mr WILMOT further alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE lost his temper at this point,
2.12.2b. in front of Councillor PENGELLY.
Tim Wilmot will never forget it.
Nor will the Chief Planning Officer.
2.12.3a. Mr WILMOT was of the opinion
2.12.3b. that the Environmental Health Officer, Mr Inman,
2.12.3c. was in some way in support of Mr WILMOT's application
2.12.3d. and that Mr HARTRIDGE was clearly against the application.
Inman had supported the proposition that gas be dealt with at detailed stage,
while stressing that he was "advisory only to planners".
2.13a. At the conclusion of the tea break
2.13b. the business of the Planning Committee Meeting was resumed
2.13c. and when Mr WILMOT's application came up for consideration,
2.13d. he alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE addressed the members of the Committee
2.13e. stating that Mr WILMOT wished to withdraw his application.
Exactly what the Chief Planning Officer said!
And why the Minutes were falsified.
2.14.1a. Mr WILMOT went on to allege on this point
2.14.1b. that he was taken by surprise by this comment by Mr HARTRIDGE
2.14.1c. as it was completely at odds with what he wanted
2.14.1d. and had advised Mr HARTRIDGE during the tea break.
It was blatant misrepresentation.
2.14.2. It is alleged that Councillor PENGELLY similarly found Mr HARTRIDGE's comments odd.
"Odd" enough for Pengelly
to spin around to Tim Wilmot "like a scalded cat",
with his eyes popping out on stalks,
and hugely magnified by his glasses,
as he registered shock / horror.
Who would forget such a sight?
Tim Wilmot suggests
that this is the kind of detail that only the truth has.
2.15.1a. Regardless of the alleged comment by Mr HARTRIDGE
2.15.1b. it was proposed by a Councillor PEARCE
2.15.1c. and seconded by a Councillor SMALE
2.15.1d. that permission should be granted.
Misrepresentation is not something to dismiss lightly,
as it is evidence of a state of mind held by the Chief Planning Officer.
Nor should it be forgotten to ask the qustion
"Why was the application not instantly withdrawn or deferred?"
The man who continued speaking -
and therefore opened the way to the 16 to nil approval vote -
was the Chief Planning Officer.
The only reason he would continue speaking -
and lower his demands -
is if he feared Councillor Pengelly exposing his misrepresentation.
2.15.2a. This was after Councillor PENGELLY,
2.15.2b. the Local District Councillor for the Callington area,
2.15.2c. had spoken in favour of the application by Mr WILMOT.
Pengelly failed to mention the misrepresentation,
but did speak in favour,
and asked for deferral,
because he saw it as better than the Withdrawal stated by the Chief Planning Officer.
2.16.1a. Mr WILMOT recalls how his application was put to the vote
2.16.1b. and by a unaminous verdict of 16 to nil,
2.16.1c. his application was approved.
2.16.2a. Mr WILMOT further stated that his clear impression
2.16.2b. was one of the Committee wishing to see immediate granting of the consent.
2.16.3a. Mr WILMOT is not able to satisfactorily conclude however
2.16.3b. how he became to be under that impression.
Untrue. Tim Wilmot had explained to Draper the unusual sequence of events on 03 OCT 88.
Tim Wilmot had also showed Draper his letter to Tolley dated 21 SEP 90
Tim Wilmot had explained to Draper that the seconder, Councillor Smale,
had told him that he had voted for the immediate issuing of a Consent Notice -
and continued:-
"How else can you go to your bank, except with a piece of paper in your hand?"
2.17.1a. The aspect of whether or not 'consent' had been granted
2.17.1b. at this particular Planning Committee Meeting
2.17.1c. is a crucial factor in this case.
If the Chief Planning Officer really believed
that the intention of the proposal was not the issuing of a Consent Notice,
why falsify the minutes,
why block all but the most basic communications on a major planning application,
why move it swiftly back to Committee to secure a refusal vote
before Tim Wilmot could submit his detailed planning application?
And regardless of the Committee vote, and decision,
the point in time when a Consent Notice becomes valid at law,
is when a Chief Planning Officer signs it.
So at all times, the Chief Planning Officer held power over it,
and had no intention of signing it at any cost.
2.17.2a. Mr WILMOT maintained that he was under the clear impression
2.17.2b. that his application had been approved
2.17.2c. and that the aspect of landfill gas would have to be examined at some stage
2.17.2d. between the 03 OCT 88 and the detailed planning stage on a date in the future.
2.17.3. As far as Mr WILMOT was concerned, he had been successful in his planning application.
Again, Draper misses the point on validation by signing.
2.18a. Mr WILMOT, expectant of the issuing of a 'Consent Notice'
2.18b. started to become concerned some 2 months thereafter
2.18c. when he failed to recieve any such written notification of the Committee's decision
2.18d. and inconsequence he wrote to a Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant and Case Officer.
The lack of any form of communication is evidence
that a major planning application was being mishandled.
Note that the 29 NOV 88 phone call with Harvey is not mentioned,
nor is Harvey's vital File Note.
2.19a. Contained in this letter was a reference by Mr WILMOT
2.19b. to being under the impression that he had obtained outline planning permission
2.19c. and was asking for a consultation with the Planning Department.
The letter simply confirmed what had been agreed with Harvey.
It was clear to Tim Wilmot from this moment on that consultations were not exactly helpful.
2.20.1a. On 21 DEC 88, Mr WILMOT attended Luxstowe House, Liskeard,
2.20.1b. and had a meeting with a Mr Kimberley of the Planning Department.
A "meeting" lasting a few minutes,
with the most senior planning officer for the Easter Area,
in which three properties were discussed extremely briefly.
Consultations were a joke.
2.20.2a. Mr WILMOT was reminded by Mr KIMBERLEY that he was not the Case Officer
2.20.2b. but that a Mr Neil HARVEY was,
2.20.2c. and that Mr WILMOT's comments would be passed on to Mr HARVEY.
2.20.3a. Mr KIMBERLEY was able to advise Mr WILMOT
2.20.3b. that the Planning Assistant was waiting for Mr WILMOT's report on the landfill gas survey.
Completely untrue.
Harvey had agreed to wait for a detailed application -
as recorded in his File Note.
Tim Wilmot is 100 percent certain
that Kimberley never asked for a landfill gas survey report.
If he had,
Tim Wilmot would have refered him to the letter
confirming the 29 NOV 88 agreement with Harvey.
2.20.4a. Mr WILMOT in turn, stated that he was waiting for his 'Consent Notice'
2.20.4b. and a specification for the landfill gas survey.
Again untrue.
Tim Wilmot had realised that the landfill gas survey
was a red herring designed to delay and obstruct him,
and no specification was likely to be forthcoming.
By agreeing to submit a detailed planning application,
where the central design concept was the avoidance of any possible gas trappage,
Tim Wilmot had demonstrated that gas was foremost in his mind,
and sought consultations on that subject -
which were consistently blocked for over two years.
2.20.5a. It appeared as though a clear cut decision failed to emanate
2.20.5b. from this brief encounter between the two,
2.20.5c. and Mr WILMOT left Luxstowe House not having satisfactorily achieved anything.
2.21a. 1989 came and still nothing in writing from Caradon District Council
2.21b. until early APR 89
2.21c. when Mr WILMOT recieved a Refusal Notice in the post signed by Mr HARTRIDGE.
2.22a. It was in consequence of recieving this document
2.22b. that Mr WILMOT embarked on a series of attempts
2.22c. geared towards establishing what he percieved to be the true sequence of events
2.22d. as he was firmly convinced by this time
2.22e. that something had gone drastically wrong with his planning application.
2.23.1a. One of the first steps he took was to attend Luxstowe House
2.23.1b. and examine the official minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
2.23.2a. He identified an entry in the minutes (ASE1) viz:-
2.23.2b. "The Senior Planning Assistant said that the applicant had asked for deferral
2.23.2c. for further information to be submitted.
Tim Wilmot has consistently maintained for over 20 years
that Neil Harvey, the Senior Planning Assistant never spoke on his application on 03 OCT 88.
Caradon District Council have no evidence whatsoever that Harvey spoke,
barring the Planning Committee Minutes of 03 OCT 88 -
for which the original Clerk's notes are conveniently "missing".
However, let us say that the Minutes were correct,
and Harvey did say the Tim Wilmot wished to defer -
even Tolley had accepted that neither withdrawal or deferral was an option for Tim Wilmot.
So on that basis, BOTH withdrawal or deferral are evidence of misrepresentation.
2.23.3a. However, he maintained his recommendation of refusal
2.23.3b. as the proposal represented substantial development in the countryside.'
2.24a. The Planning Officer explained
2.24b. that the Waste Disposal Officer of the Cornwall County Council
2.24c. had expressed concern regarding the possibility of landfill gases escaping from the site
2.24d. and said that if members were minded to grant WILMOT planning permission,
2.24e. it should be subject to satisfactory results of investigations into this matter
2.24f. in accordance with Government advice in Circular 21/87.
Please note that the Chief Planning Officer
has specifically said "if members were minded to grant planning permission".
Please note that this is not "minded to approve"
as in "to have approval in mind" sometime in the future,
but to actually grant NOW.
But surely to GRANT consent
was EXACTLY what the Chief Planning Officer was opposed to!
Tim Wilmot suggests that this conclusion is inescapable.
2.25.1a. Mr WILMOT found this to be totally inconsistent
2.25.1b. with his own recollection of what had taken place on 03 OCT 88.
Draper gets it wrong again!
The only thing Tim Wilmot questioned was "the Senior Planning Assistant said the applicant wished to defer".
2.25.2a. He then asked if he could examine the original handwritten minutes
2.25.2b. but had been refused on the basis they were official Council property.
Refused by the lady
who would have been on a criminal charge,
had Tim Wilmot
a. seen that they confirmed his suspicion, and
b. could get the evidence to someone in authority who was honest enough to act on it.
2.25.3a. It is believed that the person Mr WILMOT saw on this occasion
2.25.3b. and from whom he was seeking this information
2.25.3c. was a Mrs Cynthia Muriel JEWELL,
2.25.3d. a Minutes Clerk then employed by Caradon District Council.
2.26a. Mr WILMOT then made the point
2.26b. that he thought the Minutes had been falsified.
This point was made BEFORE asking to see the notes.
2.27.1a. Another aspect that had been of particular concern to Mr WILMOT
2.27.1b. was the absence of any advance notification to him
2.27.1c. that it was intended to recommend refusal of his application
2.27.1d. at a Planning Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89.
What? Lay on an ambush, and give advance notice?
2.27.2. He was therefore not afforded the opportunity to prepare his case at that meeting.
2.28.1a. Clearly Mr WILMOT felt aggrieved
2.28.1b. as he had established from documents that the Council's view concerning landfill gas
2.28.1c. was that Mr WILMOT was not going to have a report prepared.
The Planning Department was fully aware
of Neil Harvey's File Note of 29 NOV 88 recording the agreement.
This is why they moved so swiftly to overturn it,
why it is never mentioned in any official report,
why it was stripped from the planning file when Tim Wilmot asked to see it,
and why it was witheld from police.
2.28.2a. Mr WILMOT viewed this as totally incorrect
2.28.2b. as he maintained he was waiting for consultation with the Council
2.28.2c. to give him guidance before such a report could be prepared.
Again untrue.
The Planning Department was perfectly aware of Neil Harvey's agreement,
found it highly inconvenient,
and was using internal manipulation of the planning process
to secure by deceit the application's refusal
before a detailed application arrived.
2.29a. Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT became involved in protracted correspondence with the Council,
2.29b. including writing to the Chief Executive,
2.29c. but much of this was passed on to Mr HARTRIDGE to deal [with],
2.29d. the very person whom in Mr WILMOT's view was losing credibility by the week.
Draper inaccurate again. There was only one letter to the Chief Executive at this time.
2.30.1a. Mr WILMOT did not exercise his right of appeal to the Secretary of State
2.30.1b. as he had decided to try and resolve the matter
2.30.1c. by bringing his complaint to the attention of the Chief Executive,
2.30.1d. but this failed to secure any satisfactory action.
2.30.2a. He was aware the Appeals Option was open to him
2.30.2b. but he was intent to resolve the matter on a more local basis.
Again not true - he was repelled by Caradon's lies,
and determined not to submit to such shits.
2.31.1a. On 10 APR 90, Mr WILMOT appeared at Liskeard Magistrates Court
2.31.1a. in response to an Enforcement Summons concerning his home address at 'The Burrows'.
2.31.2a. He was given a Conditional Discharge
2.31.2b. and Mr WILMOT alleged that concern of Caradon's handling of his application concerning 'Target Tip'
2.31.2c. was expressed by the Chairman of the Bench.
The allegations were serious enough to cause a Conditional Discharge -
a rare result for such an enforcement action.
And Caradon District Council never dared continue the action -
it just quietly vanished.
2.31.3a. As this particular hearing was effectively concerned with 'The Burrows',
2.31.3b. Mr WILMOT's home address,
2.31.3c. he was not allowed to refer to non-related matters,
2.31.3d. such as his dispute with the Council over "Target Tip".
But, Detective Inspector Draper,
that is exactly what Tim Wilmot had done -
resulting in the Conditional Discharge.
2.32.1a. On 26 APR 90 Mr WILMOT had a meeting at Luxstowe House
2.32.1b. with Mr Michael TOLLEY, the solicitor to Caradon District Council.
Not just any old meeting -
the first of two four hour meetings
for allegations said to be totally untrue!
2.32.2. This meeting was at the request of Mr WILMOT.
The meeting was suggested by Tolley,
at the Magistrates Court on 10 APR 90,
because Tolley expressed considerable surprise at what Tim Wilmot had told the Court.
2.33.0a. Mr WILMOT alleges
2.33.0b that a number of salient points were aired at this meeting
2.33.0c and he specfically recalled areas of concern:-
2.33.1a a. that Mr TOLLEY would produce a preliminary report within 14 days.
2.33.2a. b. that if Mr WILMOT's allegations were true,
2.33.2b. Caradon would shortly have a new Planning OFFICER.
Tolley admits saying this unguarded statement.
Tim Wilmot suggests that Tolley knew the allegation of falsification was true,
and intended to write a draft report within 14 days -
but someone changed his mind.
2.33.3a. c. that Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant,
2.33.3b. had been frequently incompetent
2.33.3c. and that the Council would be better off without him.
A scapegoat - how convenient!
2.33.4a. d. that Mr TOLLEY had been unable to locate the original handwritten notes
2.33.4b. taken of the meeting held on 03 OCT 88.
How convenient that the only document
that would instantly prove Tim Wilmot's allegation was true,
was 'discovered to be missing' in a charade by Tolley.
Tim Wilmot believes that Tolley concealed the truth
because he was aware that Tim Wilmot was in contact with the press,
and wanted to reveal the truth in his own way in his report.
2.34a. Mr WILMOT left this meeting under the impression
2.34b. that he would recieve a copy of this preliminary report within 14 days
2.34c. but instead, he recieved a full report on 08 SEP 90,
2.34d. much of the content of which he rejected as being inadequate.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations -
falsification of minutes -
14 days seems a reasonable time for an urgent draft report.
Tim Wilmot is adamant that Tolley said 14 days.
What Draper "forgets" to record,
is that Tim Wilmot was fobbed off with excuse after excuse,
until Tim Wilmot gave his secretary an ultimatum
that he was going to the press.
"Don't do anything hasty, Mr Wilmot!" she said "The report is in the post."
In other words, it was being held unless and until Tim Wilmot shouted loud enough,
and could be released on the authority of a secretary.
Draper had been told by Tim Wilmot
of the extraordinarilly long phone conversation between himself and Tolley,
when Tim Wilmot lambasted Tolley's report as "totally inadequate",
and how Tolley kept coming back with
"There are encouraging noises from the Planning Department on your application!"
Tolley tried, and failed, to bribe Tim Wilmot on self-interest over upholding the law.
2.35.1a. Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT continued to write
2.35.1b. to various officers of Caradon District Council
2.35.1c. but it became apparent to him
2.35.1d. that all of his letters were being passed to Mr TOLLEY.
2.35.2a. Mr David NEWELL, the Chief Executive
2.35.2b. who had taken up post in OCT 90,
2.35.2c. was one of the Officers Mr WILMOT wrote to,
2.35.2d. but again he was advised matters were being dealt with by Mr TOLLEY.
2.36.1a. On 1 NOV 90 Mr WILMOT held a public meeting at Callington Town Hall.
2.36.1b. Caradon District Council had been invited to attend but declined to do so.
2.36.2a. At this meeting Mr WILMOT was left feeling
2.36.2b. that he had support for his grounds for concern over the handling of his planning application.
2.36.3a. It is only fair to point out here
2.36.3b. that this meeting was arranged and chaired by Mr WILMOT
2.36.3c. and was only formalised by the procedure of the meeting.
2.36.4. There were no persons holding official offices present.
2.37.1a. On 22 NOV 90, a meeting of the Planning Services Committee
2.37.1b. was held to discuss Mr WILMOT's allegations.
2.37.2a. A report prepared by Mr TOLLEY (TSW/13 & MGT2) was presented to the meeting
2.37.2b. and a copy of this report was subsequently forwarded to Mr WILMOT.
2.38.1a. The report contained in paragraph 5 of this document
2.38.1b. an aspect which Mr WILMOT considered to be a 'blatant lie',
2.38.1c. referring to the part containing
2.38.1d. 'the Planning Officer not having taken any action himself in relation to the application'.
So blatantly obvious is it a lie,
Councillors Screech and Gist, acting in the Public Interest,
were willing to privately prosecute Tolley
on the basis of that one statement.
Strange that Draper fails to mention that!
2.38.2a. Clearly Mr WILMOT felt that this was untrue
2.38.2b. as he recalled Mr HARTRIDGE speaking at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,
2.38.2c. when he made reference to the possibility of landfill gas escaping from the site (ASE/1 refers).
But the killer is Dr Ankers' police witness statement,
which details the briefing on the 03 OCT 88 site meeting,
at which the Chief Planning Officer "had other, stronger reasons" for wanting refusal than landfill gas!
2.39.1a. A letter was later recieved by Mr WILMOT (TSW/14) from Mr TOLLEY,
2.39.1b. expressing full confidence in Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer.
The Meeting was chaired by Councillor Pengelly -
who knew perfectly well what the truth was -
and therefore that Tolley's reports were a pack of lies.
2.39.2a. This, clearly, was unacceptable to Mr WILMOT
2.39.2b. and so in the early part of 1991,
2.39.2c. Mr WILMOT had Councillor SCREECH,
2.39.2d. a Cornwall County Councillor and Callington Town Councillor,
2.39.2e. call on Mr WILMOT at his home address
2.39.2f. and discuss the planning application.
He was a sterling quality councillor - albeit not on Caradon
who understood immediately that something serious was wrong.
2.39.3a. In consequence of this,
2.39.3b. though some time later on 18 JUL 91,
2.39.3c. a meeting was arranged at Luxstowe House
2.39.3d. which was attended by Councillor Screech, Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE, and Mr WILMOT.
2.40.1a. What struck Mr WILMOT as significant at this meeting
2.40.1b. was that Mr HARTRIDGE admitted that he had spoken at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,
2.40.1c. and that he might have misrepresented Mr WILMOT.
2.40.2. This meeting was minuted and a copy of the minutes (MGT/3) were sent to Mr WILMOT.
Draper 'forgets' to mention
that Councillor Screech as well as Tim Wilmot
heard the Chief Planning Officer's admission.
Nor does he mention that Screech formally wrote to Caradon District Council
to record the alteration in meaning
between what the Chief Planning Officer had actually said,
and what Tolley actually recorded.
Nor does Draper mention that
Councillor Screech had specifically warned Caradon Chief Executive, David Newell,
against more alterations in text by executive officers.
In addition, Draper 'did not notice'
that the File Note Caradon gave him,
and the one given to both Wilmot and Screech,
had significant differences in text -
and that the differences focused once again on what was said.
2.40.3a. Nothing particularly fruitful emanated from this meeting,
2.40.3b. and Mr WILMOT felt as though he had secured little progress.
On the contrary, Tim Wilmot and Councillor Screech
had concrete evidence of lying, and document tampering by Caradon.
2.41.1a. Prior to this meeting,
2.41.1b. Mr WILMOT had served on him on 2 MAY 91
2.41.1c. a County Court Injunction
2.41.1d. whilst he had been parading in Callingtton Town Square
2.41.1e. with a placard
2.41.1f. accusing Councillor PENGELLY, Mr TOLLEY, and Mr HARTRIDGE
2.41.1g. of serious planning offences.
2.41.2a. This date ( 02 MAY 91 ) was Local Government Election day,
2.41.2b. and Councillor PENGELLY had been standing for re-election
2.41.2c. and so it had been viewed by the Council
2.41.2d. to be potentially harmful to Mr PENGELLY to have such a placard on public display.
Draper 'forgets' to mention Caradon's withdrawal of their injunction,
which the District Judge described himself as "less than happy with the way in which it was done".
2.42.1a. Mr WILMOT still intent on seeking some form of justice,
2.42.1b. filed charges against officers of Caradon District Council
2.42.1c. regarding his planning application
2.42.1d. with Bodmin Crown Court.
See charges here - click 'back'
2.42.2a. In consequence of this, Mr Wilmot was awarded the nominal sum of One Pound,
2.42.2b. as claimed by Mr WILMOT.
Tim Wilmot was foolish to offer Caradon an escape route,
but Caradon failed to defend it's public reputation.
2.42.3a. This was paid by Caradon District Council
2.42.3b. without admitting any form of liability (TSW/16).
Surprise, surprise!
2.43a. Mr WILMOT has consistently claimed
2.43b. that his grievances have never been properly aired by Caradon District Council
2.43c. and felt, and in fact continues to feel, particularly aggrieved
2.43d. by what he sees as a negative, unhelpful response to his allegations.
Once Caradon embarked upon a criminal conspiracy of concealment,
they had no option but to prevent at all costs strengthening Tim Wilmot in any way.
2.44.0a. As the last page of his statement discloses,
2.44.0b. his allegations are in effect threefold:-
2.44.1a. 1. Falsification of official records -
2.44.1b. referring to the inaccurate recording of the minutes
2.44.1c. of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
2.44.2a. 2. Conspiracy to conceal the inaccurracy by a sustained effort
2.44.2b. employed in particular by
2.44.2c. the Chief Executives of Caradon District Council, Mr COLLINS and Mr NEWWELL,
2.44.2d. Mr Michael TOLLEY the Director of Administration,
2.44.2e. Mr Alan HARTRIDGE the Director of Planning Services,
2.44.2f. and Councillor PENGELLY, a District Councillor for the town of Callington.
2.44.3.1a. 3. The uttering of an Affidavit dated 02 MAY 91
2.44.3.1b. prepared by Mr TOLLEY (JLB/1).
2.44.3.2a. This Affidavit refers to the document prepared by Mr TOLLEY
2.44.3.2b. in order for him to secure a County Court Injunction
2.44.3.2c. prohibiting Mr WILMOT from parading in Callington Town Centre
2.44.3.2d. with a placard on Local Government Election day ( 02 MAY 91).
The injunction Caradon dared not allow to Court!
Note "parading", rather than the more balanced "displaying".
2.45a. In short, Officers of Caradon District Council have told lies
2.45b. concerning Mr WILMOT's application
2.45c. and then conspired together to conceal those lies,
2.45d. all emanting from the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
Brilliant summing up, Draper!
2.46a. Mr WILMOT has developed his desires
2.46b. to seek what he sees as the truth regarding his application,
2.46c. into a determined onslaught
2.46d. geared towards securing the expulsion from office of the senior officers concerned
2.46e. and substantial compensation as a direct result of loss of potential revenue
2.46f. which he maintains he would have secured
2.46g. had he been able to develop his site at Target Tip.
Are criminals really the kind of people we want governing us?
-====================================================-
THE INVESTIGATION
-====================================================-
3.1a. Despite Mr WILMOT's allegations of criminal conduct and improper conduct
3.1b. by senior officers within Caradon District Council,
3.1c. it soon became apparent
3.1d. that the two main persons responsible for his dissatisfaction
3.1e. in the handling of his planning application
3.1f. was the Planning Officer, Mr Alan HARTRIDGE
3.1g. and the Solicitor to the Council, Mr Michael Tolley.
3.2a. Though his allegations were also aimed at the former Chief Executive, Mr John Oliver COLINS,
3.2a. and the current Chief Executive, Mr David James Newell,
3.2a. and Councillor Cliifford Gerald PENGELLY,
3.2a. it was decided on the evidence presented at an early stage,
3.2a. that these three persons would be treated as witnesses,
3.2a. leaving TOLLEY and HARTRIDGE as suspected offenders.
3.3a. The investigation was commenced with a detailed statement from Mr WILMOT
3.3b. which formed the basis of his complaint
3.3c. and the taking posession of a number of documents.
Although Draper promised to liase with Tim Wilmot during the investigation,
Draper never asked so much as a single supplementary or clarification question.
3.4.1a. Mr WILMOT had, during the time of dispute with Caradon District Council,
3.4.1b. collected a considerable volume of documents
3.4.1c. and geared towards restricting this file to the salient points,
3.4.1d. only limited copy documentation has been seized by police.
3.4.2. These are shown in the exhibits bundle.
-====================================================-
3.5a. As much of what Mr WILMOT was alleging
3.5b. centred on the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
3.5c. efforts were made to recover the original hand-written notes
3.5d. as taken down by the Minutes Clerk, a Cynthia Muriel Jewell.
3.6.1a. Despite determined efforts it was not possible to find these
3.6.1b. nor in fact many other books containing hand-written notes of other meetings.
3.6.2a. As there was no legal requirement to retain such documents
3.6.2b. there did not appear to be anything sinister in this.
Nothing sinister!
Surely 'losing' the Clerk's notebook is a classic defensive tactic
when you know that they confirm the allegation?
3.7a. The procedures adopted by the Minutes Clerks
3.7b. when recording proceedings at the various Committee Meetings
3.7c. was to record in their own long or shorthand, details of the proceedings
3.7d. and then subsequently arrange to have the minutes typed up
3.7e. which would be ratified at a subsequent Committee Meeting.
3.8a. As the statement of a Mr Andrew ELLIS shows,
3.8b. efforts to locate the original book containing the handwritten notes of Mrs JEWELL
3.8c. revealed that a considerable number of Minute Books were in fact missing,
3.8d. which was contrary to the impression that Mr WILMOT had,
3.8e. being that he thought
3.8f. only the book containing the original minutes of 03 OCT 88 had gone missing.
Tim Wilmot realises that the charade played out in Tolley's office on 24 APR 90,
was Tim Wilmot being manipulated by Mr Tolley.
There may or may not have been only the notebook covering 03 OCT 88 missing then,
but that is what he clearly remembers being told by Mr Tolley,
who expressed himself very unhappy about it.
As the police investigation began,
no doubt someone realised that having only the very notebook sought being missing,
was not very believable.
The strongest indication that Caradon District Council were lying
is to be found in theChief Planning Officer's Affidavit of 1993.
Note that, although a document is refered to, it is not exhibited -
very sloppy legal work.
-====================================================-
3.9a. Examination of a copy of the typed minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88
3.9b. disclosed that both the Senior Planning Assistant, a Mr Neil HARVEY,
3.9c. and the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge, had spoken.
Tim Wilmot is adamant Harvey did not speak.
Harvey never confirmed speaking,
except to say "If it is in the minutes, it must be true!"
ADD TOLLEY Q&A - "he may have spoken".
3.10.1a. The Planning Officer in addressing the Committee,
3.10.1b. had made reference to the implications of landfill gas
3.10.1c. and made reference to Government Circular 21/87
3.10.1d. ( copy included in the exhibits bundle ).
3.10.2a. This circular concerned the development of land
3.10.2b. where landfill gas was likely to be present
3.10.2c. and the precautions needed to be taken.
You can build a petrol station on a former landfill site,
provided you put in place proper precautions, such as impervious membranes.
So ANY amount of gas emmission can be made safe.
3.10.3a. As the minutes (ASE/1) showed,
3.10.3b. Councillor PEARCE proposed that the application for development be granted
3.10.3c. and this was seconded by Councillor SMALE.
Para 3.11 is missing, or Tim Wilmot miscount in 2005.
3.12.1a. Councillor PENGELLY, the Local Councilor for the Callington area
3.12.1b. in which Target Tip was situated,
3.12.1c. spoke in favour of the application.
3.12.2a. This seems a strange way of expressing an opposition
3.12.2b. to the scheme as inferred by Mr WILMOT.
Draper fouls up yet again!
Pengelly was fully in favour on 03 OCT 88,
but as soon as things went wrong,
he refused to ask any of the obvious questions that needed asking,
and was at all times a puppet of the executive officers,
even chairing the secret meeting that exonerated the Chief Planning Officer.
3.13. The minutes show that it was resolved viz:- 'that
-====================================================-
Note: I cannot find pages 23 & 24 of the report, but will add later, as we have full documention stored in four locations, just in case this house should catch fire - LOL.
-====================================================-
3.20.1a. [ assuming sentence 1 ]. /cont:- blah blah Target Tip.
3.20.2a. In consequence of unequivocal advice from Mr John INMAN,
3.20.2b. the Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council (TSW/7),
3.20.2c. Mr HARVEY was clearly not satisfied
3.20.2d. that the application for development could go ahead
3.20.2e. until the next Planning Committee Meeting due to be held on 06 FEB 89.
Mr Harvey had had his balls kicked by the Chief Planning Officer
for agreeing to await a detailed planning application.
All that was now needed,
was a scare report on gas from Inman ( about to retire within the month ),
pretend that Tim Wilmot was ignoring the dangers of gas,
and to it to a committee for refusal,
having failed to inform Tim Wilmot of your ambush.
3.20.3a. At the meeting Mr HARVEY advised the Committee
3.20.3b. that permission should not be granted,
3.20.3c. based on the advice for the Environmental Health Officer, Mr INMAN.
3.21.1a. Mr WILMOT's application was refused at this Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89,
3.21.1b. and he was notified of this in writing,
3.21.1c. but not until 25 MAR 89 (TSW/5).
So many strange delays on this application!
3.21.2a. This document would have been prepared by Mr HARVEY
3.21.2b. and passed to Mr HARTRIDGE for signature.
3.22a. As Mr WILMOT proceeded to make contact
3.22b. with a variety of people connected with the Council,
3.22c. the current investigation conducted by the Police
3.22d. was confined to those persons
3.22e. more closely associated with the application and its subsequent processing.
3.23.1a. As the various statements disclose,
3.23.1b. all the persons involved with the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88
3.23.1c. were satisfied that Mr WILMOT had only been granted outline planning permission,
3.23.1d. subject to him producing a report on landfill gas,
3.23.1e. in effect - a deferred permission.
Remember Smale being adamant!
Then let us assume that this sentence (3.23.1 ) is true, and not false.
The simple fact is that Tim Wilmot was never asked for a landfill gas survey
in a way in which it ewas possible to supply one.
The fault lies at Caradon.
If Caradon had ever REALLY wanted a landfill gas survey done,
you can bet that they would have supplied a specification -
see this letter containing proof - then click 'back'.
3.23.2a. Mr WILMOT clearly contends
3.23.2b. that he had in actual fact obtained his permission
3.23.2c. and was awaiting guidance as to the nature of the report required -
3.23.2d. a clear and significant conflict of interpretation of events.
So strange that the Planning Department never set out in writing it's position!
3.24.1a. As the investigation unfolded
3.24.1b. it was clear that there was a complete absence
3.24.1c. of any evidence in support of Mr WILMOT's allegations.
That is why, Draper, after two solid days with Tim Wilmot,
when you had showed by the way you questioned him
that you believed his story,
as you left, you stood by the door and said
"When I get to Caradon, that is when the lying will start!"
No-one lies without good reason.
3.24.2a. No doubt percieved differently,
3.24.2b. Mr WILMOT embarked upon a series of efforts to substantiate his allegations,
3.24.2c. and when his efforts failed to produce results conducive to his own interpretation of events,
3.24.2d. he resorted to behaviour
3.24.2e. which was designed to stimulate some form of response
3.24.2f. from certain Officers with Caradon District Council,
3.24.2g. resulting in a Court appearance
3.24.2h. which would give Mr WILMOT a forum to air his grievances.
3.25a. Such efforts included parading outside the Council Offices at Liskeard
3.25b. and in the streets
3.25c. with a placard accusing named Officers,
3.25d. i.e. Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor PENGELLY, Mr COLLINS, and Mr NEWELL
3.25e. of such offences as corruption and of being liars.
Is 'parading', rather than 'displaying', a police 'signal-word'?
Surely honorable men would sue?
3.26a. It was hoped by Mr WILMOT that he may be sued for libel
3.26b. which would give him that opportunity in open court
3.26c. to voice his interpretation of the sequence of events.
Draper was told by Tim Wilmot
that by 1991, he had realised his position was unassailable by Caradon,
and that he could say whatever he liked.
He therefore tested this to the limit,
to the point where police would arrest him, confiscate the sign, but not charge him.
3.27. On advice, no members of the Council pursued any action against Mr WILMOT.
3.28a. No doubt out of frustration, on 14 NOV 91,
3.28b. a letter was recieved by the Chairman of Caradon District Council, Mr DISTIN,
3.28c. from Mr WILMOT.
3.29a. In short the letter contained threats
3.29a. which could have been interpreted as threats to kill certain Officers of the Council
3.29a. and demanding £150,000 as compensation for loss he had suffered since 1988.
3.30.1a. This matter was investigated by the Police at Liskeard
3.30.1b. which included the arrest of Mr WILMOT.
3.30.2a. It was subsequently decided following consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service at Plymouth
3.30.2b. that no further action would be taken in this matter.
Police knew Tim Wilmot would shred Caradon.
-====================================================-
3.31.1a. Such was the onslaught of verbal and written allegations against Mr TOLLEY in particular,
3.31.1b. that on 06 DEC 91, an incident occurred
3.31.1c. when Mr TOLLEY saw Mr WILMOT parading around Liskeard Town Centre
3.31.1d. with a placard naming Mr TOLLEY
3.31.1e. and accusing him of corrupt proceedings.
Draper fails to tell the true story - again!
Police had previously arrested Tim Wilmot under the Public Order Act,
and used every Court Hearing as a delaying tactic,
before offering no evidence at the last moment.
Strange! Tim Wilmot was publicly accusing Tolley with these placarded words:-
CARADON SOLICITOR TOLLEY.
LIAR & PERJURER!
SUE ME,
AND PROVE TO THE PEOPLE
YOU CLAIM TO SERVE,
THAT IT IS NOT TRUE!"
Surely simple to prove that Tolley was an honest solicitor,
and Tim Wilmot a scurrilous criminal?
3.31.2a. Such was the frustration felt by Mr TOLLEY
3.31.2b. that he endeavoured to spray the placard using a can of aerosol paint
3.31.2c. and threw a hat worn by Mr WILMOT into the road.
Tolley - a man trained in the weapons of law - chose violence.
As Tim Wilmot put it during his prosecution of Tolley,
"I was amazed to see a Man of Law reduced to the level of a common lout!"
And all because of these carefully chosen true words:-
"CARADON SOLICITOR TOLLEY.
LIAR & PERJURER!
POLICE KNOW IT'S TRUE!"
Is not aerosol paint a cover-up just like Tolley's reports?
Draper also forgets that Tolley twice threw Tim Wilmot's hat
into a main road just 20 feet from a roundabout during heavy rush hour trafic,
and that there were two aerosol paint attacks
( Tolley forgot to shake the can - so he bought a second, larger one ).
Draper fails to mention
that Tim Wilmot could have also laid the more serious charge of assault,
but he prefered to use the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5(1) -
the very same one that police had withdrawn on him!
3.31.3a. Despite being reported to the Police by Mr WILMOT,
3.31.3b. this incident was not investigated or proceeded with.
Again Draper gets it wrong.
Tim Wilmot knew that he had broken Tolley by simply displaying the truth,
and therefore knew that he could do it again whenever needed.
So Tim Wilmot had no need for Tolley to be charged -
all he required was a formal record of the event,
assuming Tolley admitted his actions.
Tim Wilmot negotiated with the Desk Sergeant at Liskeard Police Station,
and it was agreed that Tolley would be brought in,
and if he admitted the four events,
a formal record would be made,
but he would not be charged.
Tim Wilmot suggests that this was a rather lenient attitude on his part!
The police failed to honour this agreement,
with Chief Inspector Bisset driving 22 miles to Tolley's home,
where he gave Tolley a verbal warning -
which is not formally recorded.
This translates as:-
"Well, you HAVE been a naughty boy,
but you are One of Us,
and that Wilmot is an outsider!
So here is a slap on the wrist -
don't do it again!
Nice whisky you have here -
another?
Don't mind if I do!"
This is why Tim Wilmot privately prosecuted Tolley himself.
3.32a. Mr WILMOT subsequently took out a private prosecution against Mr TOLLEY
3.32b. and on 26 FEB 92, at Liskeard Magistrates Court,
3.32c. Mr TOLLEY was found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
3.32d. and was given a Conditional Discharge.
Although present in Court,
again Draper fails to tell the full story,
Tolley, while admitting that four events had taken place,
had the cheek to plead Not Guilty, on the basis that
"it was a prank between consenting adults that did not warrant a criminal conviction!"
Consenting adults?
Would Tim Wilmot's feet have touched the ground,
if he had appeared anywhere near Tolley with aerosol cans of paint?
And would Tim Wilmot have got off with a Conditional Discharge
for wasting the court's time with such a weak defence?
-====================================================-
3.33.1a. Subsequent to this,
3.33.1b. Mr WILMOT has sought sanction from the Crown Prosecution Service
3.33.1c. to pursue a private prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
3.33.1d. against Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE and Councillor Pengelly.
Tim Wilmot was acquiring a taste for sorting out dishonest council officers!
3.33.2a. Proceedings were discontinued by Liskeard Magistrates
3.33.2b. on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence.
It was clear to both Tim Wilmot, and Councillors Screech and Gist
that Tim Wilmot was being 'blocked' by Liskeard Magistrates.
To get past this,
Councillors Screech and Gist put their names to specimen prosecutions of Tolley
that each focused on a single lying line in his reports,
which could be shown as a lie with ease.
The idea was that the Magistrates would issue summons,
but the Councillors would not serve them -
allowing Tim Wilmot to seek identical summons -
which could not be reasonably refused.
The Court merely refused to answer the councillors in any way.
That's justice!
-====================================================-
3.34.1a. When the enquiry reached the stage of formally interviewing Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE,
3.34.1b. both sought legal advice
3.34.1c. and thereafter declined to be interviewed under caution.
The innocent have something to hide?
3.34.2a. The evidence did not justify the arrest of the two persons
3.34.2b. and so, following consultation with the Crown Prosecution at Plymouth,
3.34.2c. it was decided to obtain witness statements from Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE
3.34.2d. which was in fact done.
3.35a. Both persons spoke full and frankly to the Reporting Officer
3.35b. and were only too anxious to tender their version of events.
-====================================================-
3.36a. To assist in this enquiry,
3.36b. exhibited copy documents were confined to what was considered the relevant ones,
3.36c. but a copy has been made of the full planning file
3.36d. and as a source of reference
3.36e. this copy file is included in the Exhibits bundle.
Draper wrong again.
It was NOT the full planning file - Caradon cherry-picked.
Harvey's File Note by itself would have blown Caradon's lies out of the water!
And police refuse to consider the File Note,
or anything else that damages this "pervert the course of justice" report.
-====================================================-
3.37.1a. It will be noted in the Exhibits bundle
3.37.1b. that there appears to be a duplication of a number of exhibits.
3.37.2a. This is due to the desire of the Senior Officers with Caradon District Council
3.37.2b. wishing only to refer to documents in their possession,
3.37.2c. and not relying upon documents produced by Mr WILMOT.
3.38a. Having said that, by comparing these copy documents
3.38b. it can be seen that there were no discrepancies
3.38c. between the copies held by the Council
3.38d. and those forwarded to Mr WILMOT.
Once again, Draper has got it wrong.
Had he been willing to liase with Tim Wilmot as promised,
he might have realised that Tolley's File Note dated 18 JUL 91
was in two versions,
with the differences centred
on what the Chief Planning Officer did or did not say on 03 OCT 88 - as usual.
-====================================================-
3.39a. Whilst other persons connected with this matter could arguably be interviewed,
3.39b. it is the contention of the Reporting Officer
3.39c. that those persons already seen
3.39d. are sufficient to establish the Council's version of events,
3.39e. and it is not proposed therefore at this stage,
3.39f. to extend the investigation.
Draper's task was"to establish the Council's version of events
by concealing every single point of danger to the council."
-====================================================-
CONCLUSION
-====================================================-
4.1a. Right at the onset of this allegation,
4.1b. Mr WILMOT made it clear
4.1c. that he considered there had been criminal offences committed.
Tim Wilmot publicly supported by Councillors Screech, Gist and Knott.
4.2a. It appeared to the Reporting Officer
4.2b. that as other avenues of seeking some form of redress had been explored,
4.2c. that his only remaining option was a Police investigation,
4.2d. and he clearly sought this as a way of achieving his objectives.
Police complaints initial evaluation officer, Inspector Weymouth, saw that it stank!
An HONEST police investigation would have helped, Draper!
4.3a. He had complained to various Officers within Caradon District Council
4.3b. and had failed to secure what he considered to be
4.3c. a full, fair and unbiased internal investigation.
4.4a. He interpreted any conclusions, not conducive to his own,
4.4b. as tantamount to criminal concealment.
It was.
4.5a. Considerable time and effort has now been spent on this investigation
4.5b. and it is the contention of the Reporting Officer
4.5c. that there has been no evidence revealed
4.5d. in support of the commission of any criminal offences
4.5e. by anyone connected with Caradon District Council.
4.6a. What has been identified
4.6b. are areas of minor maladministration
4.6c. and these can best be summed up as follows:-
Minor maladministration!
Truth is, someone, somewhere said:-
"There is no way Wilmot is going to be allowed to prove
that Caradon District Council have committed a string of criminal offences!"
4.6d. a. Following the decision of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
4.6e. Mr WILMOT was not advised in writing of their decision.
4.6f. Had this been done
4.6g. then no doubt the contentious issue
4.6h. of whether or not Mr WILMOT had secured his planning permission
4.6i. would have been clarified.
4.6j. b. That Mr WILMOT was not given or offered the guidance and help
4.6k. with regard to the type and extent of report required concerning landfill gas.
4.6l. This simply would have been good practice.
4.6m. c. Failure to notify Mr WILMOT in writing in advance
4.6n. of the intended recommedation of refusal
4.6o. to be heard at the Planning Committee Meeting on 6 FEB 89.
4.6p. d. The unneccessary delay in the issue of the Refusal Notice
4.6q. following the Planning Committee Meeting of 06 FEB 89
4.6r. ( Notice dated 29 MAR 89 ).
4.7.1a. In support of the above points,
4.7.1b. a copy of the Audit Commissioner's report dated JAN 92,
4.7.1c. on Development Control Audit Guide was obtained
4.7.1d. and at Para. 161, the document states under a sub-heading of 'Decisions':-
4.7.1e. 'Once a decision has been made
4.7.1f. it is essential that is is conveyed in writing to the applicant as soon as possible.
4.7.2a. In delegated cases this should present no great problem
4.7.2b. with decisions issued on a continuous basis,
4.7.2c. but, with some Committee cases there is potential for delay.
4.7.3a. It is usually praticable, with a computerised system,
4.7.3b. to pre-print decision notices based on Officer's recommendations
4.7.3c. with a view to dispatch after signature ( often rubber stamped ) the following day.
4.7.4a. For those cases where the decision has been changed
4.7.4b. or conditions added or altered
4.7.4c. a new decision notice will be neccessary
4.7.4d. but such cases rarely exceed 20% of an agenda.
4.7.5a. The pre-printed notices was quite common,
4.7.5b. it has been generally dropped in favour of preparation and dispatch in the days following.
4.7.6a. In one authority, Council Standing Orders contain a provision
4.7.6b. that within 48 hours any committee decision may be referred to a higher level
4.7.6c. ( i.e. parent committee or Council )
4.7.6d. at the request of four members.
4.7.7. This automatically delays the dispatch of decision notices.
4.7.8a. Pre-printing is not essential
4.7.8b. but speed of dispatch of decion notices is critical.
4.7.8c. The Audit Commission Survey showed a range from half a day to 10 working days
4.7.8d. with the average for 53 authorities of just under 3 days.
4.7.9a. But unless there are reasons such as those quoted above,
4.7.9b. notices should be in the post at the very most within two days,
4.7.9c. if not 24 hours.
Just coincidence that Tim Wilmot had received nothing after 03 OCT 88 for 57 days
( causing him to contact Neil Harvey, the Senior Planning Assistant ),
and after the 06 FEB 89 refusal vote, it took 51 days for the Refusal Notice to be signed.
4.7.10a. There is variable practice
4.7.10b. as to returning a set of approved plans with the decision notice.
4.7.11. It is percieved as good practice to ensure that the correct plans are implemented.'
4.8a. Though this Audit Commission document is dated some considerable time after 1988,
4.8b. the gist of the content of Para. 161 is in line with good practice
4.8c. which would have been exercised at the time in 1988.
4.9.1a. Failure to comply with such good practice however
4.9.1b. does not constitute a criminal offence.
4.9.2a. Procedures have since been changed within Caradon District Council
4.9.2b. to accomodate these best practices ( Exhibit AH/1 refers ).
4.10.1a. Following the Refusal Notice having been issued,
4.10.1b. Mr WILMOT's best course of action
4.10.1c. would have been to appeal to the Secretary of State, the normal appeals route,
4.10.1d. but he failed to do so.
4.10.2a. He offered no explantion as to why he failed to do so
4.10.2b. other than that he was devastated
4.10.2c. at the response by Caradon District Council to his complaints.
If a council is unable to put it's own house in order
when made aware of blatant and serious criminal offences,
there is something very, very wrong.
4.11.1a. What he did pursue was a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman in DEC 90
4.11.1b. about the actions of Caradon District Council
4.11.1c. regarding his planning application for development of land
4.11.1d. at his home address at The Burrows.
4.11.2. He did not pursue the complaint regarding his proposed development at Target Tip.
4.12a. It is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
4.12b. that, whilst difference of opinion exists over what the Planning Officer, Mr HARTRIDGE,
4.12c. did or did not say at the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
4.12d. that it mattered not,
4.12e. as the Committee exercised their right to vote against the Planning Department's recommendation
4.12f. and granted Mr WILMOT permission,
4.12g. but all the evidence points to the fact
4.12h. that this permission was conditional
4.12i. upon Mr WILMOT supplying a report on landfill gas.
4.13.1a. This stance taken by the Council was particularly significant
4.13.1b. as earlier in 1988,
4.13.1c. a dispute had been publicised involving Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
4.13.1d. and residents living close to a former landfill site.
4.13.2a. The potential danger of landfill gas was exposed
4.13.2b. and in this case claims for compensation were being considered.
4.14.1a. Caradon District Council acted in good faith in opposing carte blanche
4.14.1b. permission for this development at Target Tip,
4.14.1c. and clearly had public safety in mind.
opposing carte blanche!
Remember that Tolley had told Tim Wilmot
that "No survey, no consent" was unreasonable!
4.14.2a. Mr WILMOT had expressed a view
4.14.2b. that he knew sufficient about the implications of landfill gas
4.14.2c. and in consequence,
4.14.2d. saw little point in incurring heavy expensesin having a report prepared.
Designing your detailed application around landfill gas is not avoiding responsibility!
4.14.3a. This was construed by the Planning Department
4.14.3b. to be a refusal or reluctance by Mr WILMOT to fulfill his obligations.
4.14.4. Accordingly the recommendation to the Planning Committee of 6 FEB 89 was for a refusal.
4.15a. In short - Caradon District Council have acted properly
4.15b. in the manner with which they have dealt with this application
4.15c. as far as satisfying proper criteria in the public interest.
4.16a. Where errors have occurred,
4.16b. they have been confined to administrative errors
4.16c. and the apparent lack of urgency in dealing with his application.
4.17.1a. The individual who appeared to have failed
4.17.1b. to properly and efficiently expedite Mr WILMOT's application
4.17.1c. was Mr Neil HARVEY, Senior Planning Assistant, in 1988/89.
Scapegoat.
4.17.2a. He would have conducted most of the work on behalf of Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer,
4.17.2b. who would have been expected to have maintained proper communication with Mr WILMOT.
4.18a. As the evidence shows,
4.18b. there has been non-secured to support any criminal proceedings against any individual
4.18c. and it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
4.18d. that no further Police action be taken in this matter
4.18e. and that Mr Wilmot be formally notified in writing accordingly.
-====================================================-
Note by Tim Wilmot:
This report demonstrates an almost total inability by Detective Inspector Draper
to understand the planning process -
and my conclusion is that police are incompetent to deal with such complaints.
When allegations were made against North Cornwall District Council in the early 90's,
police gave NCDC ample advance notice of their intention to visit,
and planning officers were working until the early hours each morning shredding documents
[ source - former secretary at NCDC ].
Not surprisingly, a long investigation ended with one caution!
However, apart from Draper's obvious incompetency
( which liason with myself - as promised, but not honoured - would have remedied ),
his report ignores EVERY point dangerous to Caradon,
and at every opportunity sets out to belittle myself.
The attitude is best expressed in paragraph 1.15 by the single word 'Regrettably'.
And as Caradon District Council witheld vital documents and information from Draper,
it would have taken the tenacious Draper
( whom Tim Wilmot first met for two solid days when he took Tim Wilmot's statement )
to ferret out the truth,
but by the time he was speaking to Caradon District Council,
it is obvious that tenacity was absent.
Draper said to me as he left
"When I get to Caradon, that's when the lying will start!"
Tim Wilmot never imagined that Draper would lie himself,
but a remark about a point Tim Wilmot made to him stuck in his mind -
"That should earn you a few brownie points!"
If you examine the meaning of that sentence,
it is obvious that Draper was not referring to himself, but someone else,
and common sense suggests a more senior officer.
Such is the corruption at Devon & Cornwall Police!
If they believe that it is not true they are corrupt,
and everything is exactly as Draper says it is,
let Devon & Cornwall Police prove it now,
and make Tim Wilmot's death unneccessary.
The truth is that Tim Wilmot
was systematically and publicly demolishing senior officers of a local authority,
and within the mindset of unelected and unaccountable authority, this was unacceptable.
So Draper, either by direct order from above,
or ( less likely ) by his own decision,
wrote this cover-up report,
which anyone can see is riddled with holes, lies, and half-truths.
Why on earth would Tolley and Hartridge refuse to be interviewed under caution
unless they had something to hide?
Why on earth would Tolley attack Tim Wilmot in the street FOUR times?
Draper omits to mention that!
Tolley was reduced to covering-up Tim Wilmot's true allegation
that he is a 'Liar & Perjurer!',
when he has spent a lifetime in law,
and his opponent - who was at all times perfectly willing to speak in any court -
had hundreds of thousands of pounds of land and property,
no cash, and therefore no lawyer -
so all Tim Wilmot had was the truth and his wits -
any lawyers dream target ( provided their case has merit ).
If Tim Wilmot dies, please make sure all of this evidence comes before the Inquest,
because both Caradon District Council and Devon & Cornwall Police
have had ample opportunity to right the wrong,
and have consistently slammed the door in his face.
-====================================================-
Link - Return to top of this webpage
-====================================================-
Link -Return to Start Menu to Police section
-====================================================-
Link - Police Report to CPS - 1992 - uncommented
-===============================================================================-
Click "back" to your last webpage location
[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
-===============================================================================-
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
and would welcome professional assistance.
-===============================================================================-
-===============================================================================-
-====================================================-
-====================================================-
You may wish to read the uncommented version first,
before reading Tim Wilmot's commentary on Draper's report.
Tim Wilmot is preparing a more comprehensive demolition webpage,
as this commentary hangs on bones supplied by Draper -
when truth alone provides a better framework.
Of course, Tim Wilmot may be completely wrong -
you decide!
After all, police would'nt lie, would they?
-====================================================-
This is a Report to the Crown Prosecution Service
written by former Detective Inspector Colin Draper
of Devon & Cornwall Police.
Every single point dangerous to Caradon District Council is not mentioned.
Tim Wilmot is portrayed as a man living in a "pig-sty",
"parading" about with placards,
and publicly demolishing honest, hard-working local government employees.
Draper describes it as "regrettable" that Tim Wilmot's actions
are not the subject of criminal prosecutions,
but "forgets" to mention that charges were made,
and dropped by the CPS
to prevent Tim Wilmot having a platform
from which his criminal allegations against Caradon District Council
can be freely publicised by the media.
Draper finds "nothing sinister" in the fact
that the only document that would instantly prove
Tim Wilmot's allegations about the Planning Committee Minutes of 03 OCT 88
to be true or false,
was "discovered to be missing" from security archives
eleven months after Tim Wilmot first asked to see them.
Draper finds nothing strange in the fact
that Caradon District Council never sued Tim Wilmot,
immediately withdrew the only injunction they served on him
when he announced his intention to counterclaim,
and paid the sum counterclaimed
rather than try the five serious charges files.
Tim Wilmot believes Draper was ordered by superior officers
to write a cover-up report,
and Tim Wilmot believes he was unhappy about it,
as his report over-conceals Caradon's crimes.
Of course, Tim Wilmot,
and Councillors Gist, Knott, and Screech could be wrong
in their assessment of the facts at their disposal in 1991-1992.
Their facts were less than the facts at Drapers' disposal,
as Draper had most of the contents of the planning file
( less certain documents concealed by Caradon,
and others with amended or altered text ).
Tim Wilmot will pay £20 in cash
to the first person who can prove on paper
with a well-thought out factual argument
that the conclusions of Detective Inspector Draper below
are both true and honest.
If anyone who reads Drapers' report,
and cannot come up with a good argument supporting his conclusions,
wishes to pledge a further £10 to someone who can,
Tim Wilmot will add it to the pot.
-====================================================-
Useful Links
-====================================================-
Draper promised full liason throughout his investigation,
but none took place.
Dozens of shoddy errors and ommissions could have been easily put right.
-====================================================-
Police Report to Crown Prosecution Service.
Author: Detective Inspector Draper.
Force: Devon & Cornwall.
Subject: false verbal and written statements were made
in relation to the processing of a planning application.
Date: 08 JUN 92.
-====================================================-
The following are the two suggested offences
put forward by Detective Inspector Draper to the CPS.
Note that the suggested charges
only refer to the "processing of a planning application",
and not to the covering-up of offences.
The reader should know that both the Chief Planning Officer and Tolley
refused to be interviewed under caution.
If they had nothing whatsoever to hide,
why would they fear being interviewed under Caution?
-====================================================-
SUGGESTED OFFENCES
-====================================================-
1a. At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
1b. between 2 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,
1c. with intent to pervert the course of public justice,
1d. did a series of acts
1e. which had a tendency to pervert the cause of justice
1f. in that false verbal and written statements were made
1g. in relation to the processing of a planning application
1h. by Timothy Sparrow WILMOT.
1i. CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW
2a. At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
2b. between 02 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,
2c. being a person holding a public ofice,
2d. did wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification,
2e. neglected to perform duty
2f. you were required to perform by common law or statute.
2g. CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW
-=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-
Subject: Caradon District Council - Allegation of criminal misconduct
-=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=-
-====================================================-
INTRODUCTION
-====================================================-
1.1a. This report relates to an allegation
1.1b. by Mr Timothy Sparrow WILMOT, 34 years (B.30.6.57),
1.1c. of 'The Burrows', South Hill Road, Callington, Cornwall.
1.2a. His allegations stem
1.2b. from an application of his made in late 1988
1.2c. for planning permission to develop a garden centre
1.2d. on the site of an old waste tip at Callington, Cornwall,
1.2e. known locally as 'Target Tip'.
1.3a. His application went before the Planning Committee of Caradon District Council
1.3b. on the 03 OCT 88
1.3c. when he was granted outline planning permission
1.3d. subject to him supplying a consultant's report on landfill gas.
Sounds simple, but it is not!
First, please remember that the Planners 'forgot' to convey to Tim Wilmot
the Planning Committee's decision of 03 OCT 88.
So Tim Wilmot never received a specification for a landfill gas survey -
which means that it was impossible for him to supply one.
The reader must understand The Great Gas Deception
put in place by the Chief Planning Officer.
The aim of a Landfill Gas Survey is to measure emission rates of potentially dangerous gases,
which, if allowed to concentrate in gas traps,
can cause fires or explosions.
So it is perfectly sensible to have a proper regard for dangers from gases,
but the Planning Department did two things to twist gas to their advantage:-
1. they portrayed Tim Wilmot in a way in which it appeared
that he had no proper regard for the dangers of gas.
2. they altered the purpose of the survey
to "if there is any gas at all, there shall be NO development of any kind.
1.4a. It was from hereon that matters appeared to have gone significantly wrong
1.4b. as alleged by Mr WILMOT.
1.5a. In April the following year, 1989,
1.5b. a Refusal Notice was issued by Caradon District Council
1.5c. and this stimulated a sustained and determined effort by Mr Wilmot
1.5d. to obtain his planning permission
1.5e. and have the Refusal Notice overturned.
Please remember that an outside solicitor,
brought in by Caradon District Council to mediate
while they were facing a counterclaim
to their hastily withdrawn Injunction of May 91,
recommended that Tim Wilmot should have his position restored
to that of the evening of 03 OCT 88 -
i.e. before so many 'odd' things began to happen to the application
as the inconvenient 16 to nil approval vote was removed by deceit.
1.6a. Strong resistance to this application was maintained by the Council
1.6b. and as percieved by Mr Wilmot,
1.6c. certain officers with the Council
1.6d. were instrumental in blocking the application
1.6e. or supplying vital information as to the reasoning for their objections.
Officers did everything they could to block Tim Wilmot's progress
because they knew that Tim Wilmot was determined to see heads roll
for the committing of serious criminal offences.
1.7. Mr WILMOT expressed total dissatisfaction with the following officers:-
1.7a1. a. Mr John Oliver Collins -
1.7a2. Chief Executive of Caradon District Council up to 01 OCT 90.
A minor figure, who failed to properly investigate.
1.7b1. b. Mr David John NEWELL -
1.7b2. Chief Executive of Caradon District Council since the 1st October 1990.
A former planning officer, who understood at once what was at stake.
Newell avoided Tim Wilmot by refusing to answer letters,
so Tim Wilmot walked into his office at ten past five one evening.
Discussing the application,
they got to the point where withdrawal or deferral came up.
Newell said "You told an officer you wanted to defer!"
Even Tolley had accepted neither withdrawal or deferral was an option for Tim Wilmot.
"Which officer?" asked Tim Wilmot.
"An officer will say you said that!" replied Newell.
There was a very strong emphasis on the word 'An',
indicating to Tim Wilmot that an officer would be instructed to lie.
1.7c1. c. Mr Alan HARTRIDGE -
1.7c2. Planning Officer with Caradon District Council.
The man for whom "internal manipulation of the planning system" was normal.
The man who destroyed Tim Wilmot's application, and business,
and when a district councillor actually dared to accuse him of criminal offences,
he put a bulldozer through his house.
1.7d1. d. Mr Michael Gregory TOLLEY -
1.7d2. Solicitor to the Council,
1.7d3. currently known as Director of Administration and Monitoring Officer.
A nasty, lying little shit, author of lying reports -
a man broken by three words "LIAR & PERJURER!".
A man given maximum police support throughout.
1.7e1. e. Mr Clifford Gerald PENGELLY -
1.7e2. District Councillor with Caradon District Council for the Callington area.
He knew what happened, and kept his mouth shut,
lying in his police witness statement.
-====================================================-
1.8.1a. Police enquiries were commenced into these matters in November 1991
1.8.1b. following a complaint by Mr Wilmot
1.8.1c. that he was totally dissatisfied
1.8.1d. with the continued negative response from Caradon District Council,
1.8.1e. compounded by the fact that in his view,
1.8.1f. the Police at Liskeard had failed to satisfactorily investigate
1.8.1g. his misgivings about the council earlier in 1991.
1.8.2a. This in fact refers to a limited investigation
1.8.2b. carried out by the police at Liskeard
1.8.2c. when it had quickly been established
1.8.2d. that there were no criminal offences to investigate
1.8.2e. and that there was nothing of substance in Mr WILMOT's allegations.
Local police had made it clear that they would block Tim Wilmot in all ways.
On making a complaint to force HQ,
an Inspector Weymouth arrived for a brief initial evaluation.
Well within an hour, Inspector Weymouth said
"This stinks! I will recommend to the Chief Constable that the case be reopened!"
What Weymouth immediately saw as stinking,
Draper's detective's nose failed to report -
deliberately, Tim Wilmot suggests.
-====================================================-
1.9.1a. In consequence, a full Police investigation
1.9.1b. has now been carried out by the Police
1.9.1c. with all the relevant parties having been seen.
1.9.2a. The sequence of events
1.9.2b. are discussed in detail later in the report.
-====================================================-
1.10.1a. It is only fair to report at this stage
1.10.1b. that Mr WILMOT has become obsessed
1.10.1c. with his fight with Caradon District Council
1.10.1d. and has on a number of occasions,
1.10.1e. set out to, and succeeded
1.10.1f. in embarassing Caradon District Council
1.10.1g. by parading in front of the Council Offices,
1.10.1h. at Council meetings,
1.10.1i. in the streets of Callington and Liskeard,
1.10.1j. and outside the home address of Councillor PENGELLY,
1.10.1k. with a placard alleging dishonesty and corruption
1.10.1l. against the officers named in paragraph 1.7. [ Chief Planning Officer, Pengelly & Tolley ]
There were several placards with differing texts,
each displaying the truth.
please note the use of the emotive word "parading" by Draper,
instead of the more balanced word "displaying".
Police found it so "regrettable"
that Tim Wilmot displayed truth to the public.
The very fact that Tim Wilmot was on the streets
displaying placards alleging serious criminal offences
without immediate legal action by Caradon District Council
publicly demonstrated the power and substance of what he said.
1.10.2a. He has openly admitted one of his objectives in doing this
1.10.2b. is to try and stimulate Caradon District Council
1.10.2c. into suing him for libel
1.10.2d. in the hope that he will then be afforded
1.10.2e. the opportunity to air his grievances in open court.
1.10.3a. To date, on advice,
1.10.3b. Caradon District Council have decided not to pursue this course.
-====================================================-
1.11a. As of the date of compilation of this report,
1.11b. Mr WILMOT has still not been successful
1.11c. in securing planning permission for his development
1.11d. and is in fact in further dispute with the Council
1.11e. at his home address at 'The Burrows' situated in Callington,
1.11f. which is little more than what can only be literally described as a 'pig sty',
1.11g. has been made the subject of an 'enforcement notice'
1.11h. being in breach of planning permission.
Tim Wilmot mainly lived in one large room 18 feet square,
with other large rooms used as needed.
The room had white-painted walls under a new tongued and grooved pine ceiling,
and a half-glazed antique pine front door from an Edwardian house,
with engraved cobalt blue and red glass panels.
A black cast iron Jotul 118 wood-burning stove from Norway
was connected to a stainless steel chimney,
and provided both heat and hot water.
A bottled gas cooker was installed,
together with electricity and telephone.
Furniture included desks, bookcases, and chairs, as well as a double bed.
The room was a perfectly comfortable farm dwelling -
not luxurious, but clean, tidy, and practical.
Tim Wilmot suggests Draper would only describe the room as a "pig-sty"
if he wanted to create a negative impression of the inhabitant
to the reader of his report.
The Enforcement action ( 10 APR 90 ) was valid at law,
but discontinued by Caradon District Council
to prevent Tim Wilmot publicly airing his allegations.
-====================================================-
1.12a. The aspect of the dispute regarding his home address
1.12b. is viewed as being a separate matter
1.12c. to the issues contained in this report
1.12d. and therefore will not be discussed in detail any further.
Having deliberately created a negative image of Tim Wilmot,
Draper then pretends it means nothing.
-====================================================-
1.13.1a. Caradon District Council have made it clear to the Reporting Officer
1.13.1b. that they are not prepared to exercise their discretion in favour of Mr Wilmot
1.13.1c. by granting him planning permission
1.13.1d. to develop this area of land known as 'Target Tip'
1.13.1e. without the payment of any fee.
1.13.2a. Such an option could be pursued
1.13.2b. geared towards resolving the current impasse
1.13.2c. but it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
1.13.2d. that as both parties hold strong views
1.13.2e. in support of their respective arguments
1.13.2f. that the dispute will continue for the forseeable future.
They knew Tim Wilmot was focused on the falsified Minutes.
1.14a As the attached documents show
1.14b a number of Officers involved with the Council
1.14c have become involved in this dispute
1.14d and it has clearly been a source of embarassment
1.14e not only for the Council as an organisation
1.14f but for certain individuals.
The truth can be SO embarassing!
1.15.1a. It has certainly started to affect the Solicitor to the Council, Mr TOLLEY,
1.15.1b. and he has found it neccesary
1.15.1c. to contact the local police at Liskeard on a number of occasions
1.15.1d. upon receipt of letters from Mr WILMOT
1.15.1e. as they contained inuendo of possible violence towards Mr TOLLEY
1.15.1f. and/or his family.
The letters simply asked Tolley to think
about how he might be feeling in Tim Wilmot's place,
and were designed with a court defence in mind.
Due to Tolley's actions damaging Tim Wilmot severely financially,
Tim Wilmot had just been obliged to put down his labrador dog, Sam, himself -
and Tim Wilmot merely asked how Tolley would feel if it were his son
( who had just been mentioned in the local paper ).
As police, Tolley, and the Council knew the nasty, lying little shit's lies
would fall apart under Tim Wilmot's questioning in a court,
needless to say no prosecution was likely.
And every other prosecution of Tim Wilmot
that could have got Tolley in court -
was taken by police to every possible pre-trial hearing,
and then dropped.
1.15.2a. Regrettably despite Police investigations into these allegations
1.15.2b. all have fallen short of being sufficient to support any criminal proceedings.
Tim Wilmot suggests the one word "Regrettably"
sums up the investigative integrity of Detective Inspector Draper.
-====================================================-
THE ALLEGATION
-====================================================-
2.1.1a. Mr WILMOT who describes himself as a 'gentleman adventurer'
2.1.1b. purchased 'The Burrows' on 23 NOV 86.
2.1.2a. The property consists of a number of what could ordinarilly be described as outbuildings
2.1.2b. set in an open boundaried area which has the appearance of a 'junk yard'.
2.1.3a. Mr WILMOT resides
2.1.3b. and has done so for some time in one of the buildings.
2.1.4. Normal servives associated with ordinary dwellings are somewhat limited.
Perfectly adequate - it was idyllic living there.
2.2a. In SEP 87, Mr WILMOT purchased two further properties,
2.2b. a disused shop premises and a bungalow, both in Callington.
Tim Wilmot had completed the sale of his former business property a Yealmpton, Devon,
had paid off his bank for the purchase of The Burrows, and his moving costs,
and stuffed the balance into property to offset Capital Gains Tax by rollover.
2.3.1a. In MAY 88, the bungalow was sold,
2.3.1b. the proceeds of which funded the purchase
2.3.1c. of twelve and a half acres of land known as 'Target Tip', South Hill Road, Callington.
2.3.2. This was purchased for £26,000.
2.3.3. 'Target Tip' is situated a short distance away from 'The Burrows'.
2.4a. Shortly afterwards, Mr WILMOT sold 3 of the twelve and a half acres
2.4b. but this still left him with the part of 'Target Tip' which was a former Council Tip.
The story of this sale requires telling.
A man kept coming to Tim Wilmot asking to buy the land,
but Tim Wilmot kept saying no.
To try and stop the man pestering him,
Tim Wilmot eventually said he would want £5,000 an acre,
thinking that the price would frighten him off.
The man said he would pay it.
Tim Wilmot said that he would never get planning permission for a house,
but the man still insisted that he wanted to buy.
Again, thinking to deter the man,
Tim Wilmot protected his proposed garden centre,
by saying that only very limited numbers of agricultural livestock
could be farmed on the land, with a points system.
The man insisted on buying,
so Tim Wilmot reluctantly sold.
The Chief Planning Officer sees property speculators as "ripping-off the community",
but here was a man determined to spend his money at any cost,
and Tim Wilmot had done his best to protect him from himself.
2.5.1a. During the summer of 1988,
2.5.1b. Mr WILMOT had occasion to speak with a Mr KIMBERLEY, the Area Planning Officer
2.5.1c. whose area encompassed the Callington area,
2.5.1d. concerning the use and possible development of seven acres of the 'Target Tip' land.
2.5.2a. Mr WILMOT's recollection of the conversation
2.5.2b. was such that he saw grounds for cautious optimism
2.5.2c. should he pursue his planning application in respect of this proposed development.
2.6a. On the 06 JUL 88,
2.6b. Mr WILMOT formally submitted his application for planning permission,
2.6c. though he only sought in effect outline planning permission at that stage.
2.7a. In consequence of the application,
2.7b. a site meeting was arranged for the morning of 03 OCT 88
2.7c. at which a Mr John INMAN, the Principal Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council,
2.7d. Mr Robert Douglas Boyd REID, the Waste Disposal Officer with Cornwall County Council,
2.7e. and Dr Walter Brian ANKERS, the Industrial Waste Officer, also with Cornwall County Council,
2.7f. all met with Mr WILMOT at 'Target Tip'.
The Great Gas Deception begins here.
Dr Ankers, the scientist, categorically stated
that gases issue from a landfill site for 35 years from end of tipping,
with the first 10 years the most active.
The Planning Department wanted Tim Wilmot to withdraw his application,
and get what seemed like a very long and expensive survey
( as he was kept in the dark about specifications ).
Tim Wilmot explained
that there was no point spending time and money on a survey
if the Planning Committee's answer to the geographical site location question
was "No!"
What he wanted was an answer to the geographical location suitability question that day,
with any gas issues dealt with at detailed planning stage.
The three environmental officers made it clear that they were advisory only to planning,
but they said that Tim Wilmot's position satisfied theirs.
This evaporated by the time of the police investigation,
as they "closed ranks" to help protect Caradon.
This is provable by the way Dr Ankers alters science in his police witness statement.
2.8a. At the conclusion of the site meeting
2.8b. all then returned to Luxstowe House, the offices of Caradon District Council, Liskeard,
2.8c. where the Planning Committee Meeting was to be held
2.8d. at which the Planning Application by Mr WILMOT would be considered.
2.9.1a. Mr WILMOT entered the Council Chamber and listened to other applications,
2.9.1b. waiting for his to come up.
2.9.2a. Prior to his application being heard,
2.9.2b. the Committee adjourned for a tea break,
2.9.2c. into a room adjacent to the Chamber.
2.9.3a. As was normal practice,
2.9.3b. there were conversations between Officers of the Council and applicants,
2.9.3c. all very informal.
2.10a. It was during this break
2.10b. that whilst Mr WILMOT had been talking to a local Councillor, Mr Gerald PENGELLY,
2.10c. the opportunity arose for Mr PENGELLY
2.10d. to introduce Mr WILMOT to the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge.
2.11a. Mr WILMOT alleges that during a conversation with Mr HARTRIDGE,
2.11b. he, Mr HARTRIDGE told Mr WILMOT
2.11c. that he must withdraw his application
2.11d. and obtain a survey concerning the landfill gas
2.11e. and return the application to the Committee at a later stage.
2.12.1a. Mr WILMOT, displeased with this,
2.12.1b. told Mr HARTRIDGE that he wanted a decision that day, 03 OCT 88.
Tim Wilmot was not 'displeased' -
he merely politely said
that what he wanted
was an answer to the geographical location suitability question that day,
with any gas issues dealt with at detailed planning stage.
2.12.2a. Mr WILMOT further alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE lost his temper at this point,
2.12.2b. in front of Councillor PENGELLY.
Tim Wilmot will never forget it.
Nor will the Chief Planning Officer.
2.12.3a. Mr WILMOT was of the opinion
2.12.3b. that the Environmental Health Officer, Mr Inman,
2.12.3c. was in some way in support of Mr WILMOT's application
2.12.3d. and that Mr HARTRIDGE was clearly against the application.
Inman had supported the proposition that gas be dealt with at detailed stage,
while stressing that he was "advisory only to planners".
2.13a. At the conclusion of the tea break
2.13b. the business of the Planning Committee Meeting was resumed
2.13c. and when Mr WILMOT's application came up for consideration,
2.13d. he alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE addressed the members of the Committee
2.13e. stating that Mr WILMOT wished to withdraw his application.
Exactly what the Chief Planning Officer said!
And why the Minutes were falsified.
2.14.1a. Mr WILMOT went on to allege on this point
2.14.1b. that he was taken by surprise by this comment by Mr HARTRIDGE
2.14.1c. as it was completely at odds with what he wanted
2.14.1d. and had advised Mr HARTRIDGE during the tea break.
It was blatant misrepresentation.
2.14.2. It is alleged that Councillor PENGELLY similarly found Mr HARTRIDGE's comments odd.
"Odd" enough for Pengelly
to spin around to Tim Wilmot "like a scalded cat",
with his eyes popping out on stalks,
and hugely magnified by his glasses,
as he registered shock / horror.
Who would forget such a sight?
Tim Wilmot suggests
that this is the kind of detail that only the truth has.
2.15.1a. Regardless of the alleged comment by Mr HARTRIDGE
2.15.1b. it was proposed by a Councillor PEARCE
2.15.1c. and seconded by a Councillor SMALE
2.15.1d. that permission should be granted.
Misrepresentation is not something to dismiss lightly,
as it is evidence of a state of mind held by the Chief Planning Officer.
Nor should it be forgotten to ask the qustion
"Why was the application not instantly withdrawn or deferred?"
The man who continued speaking -
and therefore opened the way to the 16 to nil approval vote -
was the Chief Planning Officer.
The only reason he would continue speaking -
and lower his demands -
is if he feared Councillor Pengelly exposing his misrepresentation.
2.15.2a. This was after Councillor PENGELLY,
2.15.2b. the Local District Councillor for the Callington area,
2.15.2c. had spoken in favour of the application by Mr WILMOT.
Pengelly failed to mention the misrepresentation,
but did speak in favour,
and asked for deferral,
because he saw it as better than the Withdrawal stated by the Chief Planning Officer.
2.16.1a. Mr WILMOT recalls how his application was put to the vote
2.16.1b. and by a unaminous verdict of 16 to nil,
2.16.1c. his application was approved.
2.16.2a. Mr WILMOT further stated that his clear impression
2.16.2b. was one of the Committee wishing to see immediate granting of the consent.
2.16.3a. Mr WILMOT is not able to satisfactorily conclude however
2.16.3b. how he became to be under that impression.
Untrue. Tim Wilmot had explained to Draper the unusual sequence of events on 03 OCT 88.
Tim Wilmot had also showed Draper his
Tim Wilmot had explained to Draper that the seconder, Councillor Smale,
had told him that he had voted for the immediate issuing of a Consent Notice -
and continued:-
"How else can you go to your bank, except with a piece of paper in your hand?"
2.17.1a. The aspect of whether or not 'consent' had been granted
2.17.1b. at this particular Planning Committee Meeting
2.17.1c. is a crucial factor in this case.
If the Chief Planning Officer really believed
that the intention of the proposal was not the issuing of a Consent Notice,
why falsify the minutes,
why block all but the most basic communications on a major planning application,
why move it swiftly back to Committee to secure a refusal vote
before Tim Wilmot could submit his detailed planning application?
And regardless of the Committee vote, and decision,
the point in time when a Consent Notice becomes valid at law,
is when a Chief Planning Officer signs it.
So at all times, the Chief Planning Officer held power over it,
and had no intention of signing it at any cost.
2.17.2a. Mr WILMOT maintained that he was under the clear impression
2.17.2b. that his application had been approved
2.17.2c. and that the aspect of landfill gas would have to be examined at some stage
2.17.2d. between the 03 OCT 88 and the detailed planning stage on a date in the future.
2.17.3. As far as Mr WILMOT was concerned, he had been successful in his planning application.
Again, Draper misses the point on validation by signing.
2.18a. Mr WILMOT, expectant of the issuing of a 'Consent Notice'
2.18b. started to become concerned some 2 months thereafter
2.18c. when he failed to recieve any such written notification of the Committee's decision
2.18d. and inconsequence he wrote to a Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant and Case Officer.
The lack of any form of communication is evidence
that a major planning application was being mishandled.
Note that the 29 NOV 88 phone call with Harvey is not mentioned,
nor is Harvey's vital File Note.
2.19a. Contained in this letter was a reference by Mr WILMOT
2.19b. to being under the impression that he had obtained outline planning permission
2.19c. and was asking for a consultation with the Planning Department.
The letter simply confirmed what had been agreed with Harvey.
It was clear to Tim Wilmot from this moment on that consultations were not exactly helpful.
2.20.1a. On 21 DEC 88, Mr WILMOT attended Luxstowe House, Liskeard,
2.20.1b. and had a meeting with a Mr Kimberley of the Planning Department.
A "meeting" lasting a few minutes,
with the most senior planning officer for the Easter Area,
in which three properties were discussed extremely briefly.
Consultations were a joke.
2.20.2a. Mr WILMOT was reminded by Mr KIMBERLEY that he was not the Case Officer
2.20.2b. but that a Mr Neil HARVEY was,
2.20.2c. and that Mr WILMOT's comments would be passed on to Mr HARVEY.
2.20.3a. Mr KIMBERLEY was able to advise Mr WILMOT
2.20.3b. that the Planning Assistant was waiting for Mr WILMOT's report on the landfill gas survey.
Completely untrue.
Harvey had agreed to wait for a detailed application -
as recorded in his File Note.
Tim Wilmot is 100 percent certain
that Kimberley never asked for a landfill gas survey report.
If he had,
Tim Wilmot would have refered him to the letter
confirming the 29 NOV 88 agreement with Harvey.
2.20.4a. Mr WILMOT in turn, stated that he was waiting for his 'Consent Notice'
2.20.4b. and a specification for the landfill gas survey.
Again untrue.
Tim Wilmot had realised that the landfill gas survey
was a red herring designed to delay and obstruct him,
and no specification was likely to be forthcoming.
By agreeing to submit a detailed planning application,
where the central design concept was the avoidance of any possible gas trappage,
Tim Wilmot had demonstrated that gas was foremost in his mind,
and sought consultations on that subject -
which were consistently blocked for over two years.
2.20.5a. It appeared as though a clear cut decision failed to emanate
2.20.5b. from this brief encounter between the two,
2.20.5c. and Mr WILMOT left Luxstowe House not having satisfactorily achieved anything.
2.21a. 1989 came and still nothing in writing from Caradon District Council
2.21b. until early APR 89
2.21c. when Mr WILMOT recieved a Refusal Notice in the post signed by Mr HARTRIDGE.
2.22a. It was in consequence of recieving this document
2.22b. that Mr WILMOT embarked on a series of attempts
2.22c. geared towards establishing what he percieved to be the true sequence of events
2.22d. as he was firmly convinced by this time
2.22e. that something had gone drastically wrong with his planning application.
2.23.1a. One of the first steps he took was to attend Luxstowe House
2.23.1b. and examine the official minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
2.23.2a. He identified an entry in the minutes (ASE1) viz:-
2.23.2b. "The Senior Planning Assistant said that the applicant had asked for deferral
2.23.2c. for further information to be submitted.
Tim Wilmot has consistently maintained for over 20 years
that Neil Harvey, the Senior Planning Assistant never spoke on his application on 03 OCT 88.
Caradon District Council have no evidence whatsoever that Harvey spoke,
barring the Planning Committee Minutes of 03 OCT 88 -
for which the original Clerk's notes are conveniently "missing".
However, let us say that the Minutes were correct,
and Harvey did say the Tim Wilmot wished to defer -
even Tolley had accepted that neither withdrawal or deferral was an option for Tim Wilmot.
So on that basis, BOTH withdrawal or deferral are evidence of misrepresentation.
2.23.3a. However, he maintained his recommendation of refusal
2.23.3b. as the proposal represented substantial development in the countryside.'
2.24a. The Planning Officer explained
2.24b. that the Waste Disposal Officer of the Cornwall County Council
2.24c. had expressed concern regarding the possibility of landfill gases escaping from the site
2.24d. and said that if members were minded to grant WILMOT planning permission,
2.24e. it should be subject to satisfactory results of investigations into this matter
2.24f. in accordance with Government advice in Circular 21/87.
Please note that the Chief Planning Officer
has specifically said "if members were minded to grant planning permission".
Please note that this is not "minded to approve"
as in "to have approval in mind" sometime in the future,
but to actually grant NOW.
But surely to GRANT consent
was EXACTLY what the Chief Planning Officer was opposed to!
Tim Wilmot suggests that this conclusion is inescapable.
2.25.1a. Mr WILMOT found this to be totally inconsistent
2.25.1b. with his own recollection of what had taken place on 03 OCT 88.
Draper gets it wrong again!
The only thing Tim Wilmot questioned was "the Senior Planning Assistant said the applicant wished to defer".
2.25.2a. He then asked if he could examine the original handwritten minutes
2.25.2b. but had been refused on the basis they were official Council property.
Refused by the lady
who would have been on a criminal charge,
had Tim Wilmot
a. seen that they confirmed his suspicion, and
b. could get the evidence to someone in authority who was honest enough to act on it.
2.25.3a. It is believed that the person Mr WILMOT saw on this occasion
2.25.3b. and from whom he was seeking this information
2.25.3c. was a Mrs Cynthia Muriel JEWELL,
2.25.3d. a Minutes Clerk then employed by Caradon District Council.
2.26a. Mr WILMOT then made the point
2.26b. that he thought the Minutes had been falsified.
This point was made BEFORE asking to see the notes.
2.27.1a. Another aspect that had been of particular concern to Mr WILMOT
2.27.1b. was the absence of any advance notification to him
2.27.1c. that it was intended to recommend refusal of his application
2.27.1d. at a Planning Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89.
What? Lay on an ambush, and give advance notice?
2.27.2. He was therefore not afforded the opportunity to prepare his case at that meeting.
2.28.1a. Clearly Mr WILMOT felt aggrieved
2.28.1b. as he had established from documents that the Council's view concerning landfill gas
2.28.1c. was that Mr WILMOT was not going to have a report prepared.
The Planning Department was fully aware
of Neil Harvey's File Note of 29 NOV 88 recording the agreement.
This is why they moved so swiftly to overturn it,
why it is never mentioned in any official report,
why it was stripped from the planning file when Tim Wilmot asked to see it,
and why it was witheld from police.
2.28.2a. Mr WILMOT viewed this as totally incorrect
2.28.2b. as he maintained he was waiting for consultation with the Council
2.28.2c. to give him guidance before such a report could be prepared.
Again untrue.
The Planning Department was perfectly aware of Neil Harvey's agreement,
found it highly inconvenient,
and was using internal manipulation of the planning process
to secure by deceit the application's refusal
before a detailed application arrived.
2.29a. Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT became involved in protracted correspondence with the Council,
2.29b. including writing to the Chief Executive,
2.29c. but much of this was passed on to Mr HARTRIDGE to deal [with],
2.29d. the very person whom in Mr WILMOT's view was losing credibility by the week.
Draper inaccurate again. There was only one letter to the Chief Executive at this time.
2.30.1a. Mr WILMOT did not exercise his right of appeal to the Secretary of State
2.30.1b. as he had decided to try and resolve the matter
2.30.1c. by bringing his complaint to the attention of the Chief Executive,
2.30.1d. but this failed to secure any satisfactory action.
2.30.2a. He was aware the Appeals Option was open to him
2.30.2b. but he was intent to resolve the matter on a more local basis.
Again not true - he was repelled by Caradon's lies,
and determined not to submit to such shits.
2.31.1a. On 10 APR 90, Mr WILMOT appeared at Liskeard Magistrates Court
2.31.1a. in response to an Enforcement Summons concerning his home address at 'The Burrows'.
2.31.2a. He was given a Conditional Discharge
2.31.2b. and Mr WILMOT alleged that concern of Caradon's handling of his application concerning 'Target Tip'
2.31.2c. was expressed by the Chairman of the Bench.
The allegations were serious enough to cause a Conditional Discharge -
a rare result for such an enforcement action.
And Caradon District Council never dared continue the action -
it just quietly vanished.
2.31.3a. As this particular hearing was effectively concerned with 'The Burrows',
2.31.3b. Mr WILMOT's home address,
2.31.3c. he was not allowed to refer to non-related matters,
2.31.3d. such as his dispute with the Council over "Target Tip".
But, Detective Inspector Draper,
that is exactly what Tim Wilmot had done -
resulting in the Conditional Discharge.
2.32.1a. On 26 APR 90 Mr WILMOT had a meeting at Luxstowe House
2.32.1b. with Mr Michael TOLLEY, the solicitor to Caradon District Council.
Not just any old meeting -
the first of two four hour meetings
for allegations said to be totally untrue!
2.32.2. This meeting was at the request of Mr WILMOT.
The meeting was suggested by Tolley,
at the Magistrates Court on 10 APR 90,
because Tolley expressed considerable surprise at what Tim Wilmot had told the Court.
2.33.0a. Mr WILMOT alleges
2.33.0b that a number of salient points were aired at this meeting
2.33.0c and he specfically recalled areas of concern:-
2.33.1a a. that Mr TOLLEY would produce a preliminary report within 14 days.
2.33.2a. b. that if Mr WILMOT's allegations were true,
2.33.2b. Caradon would shortly have a new Planning OFFICER.
Tolley admits saying this unguarded statement.
Tim Wilmot suggests that Tolley knew the allegation of falsification was true,
and intended to write a draft report within 14 days -
but someone changed his mind.
2.33.3a. c. that Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant,
2.33.3b. had been frequently incompetent
2.33.3c. and that the Council would be better off without him.
A scapegoat - how convenient!
2.33.4a. d. that Mr TOLLEY had been unable to locate the original handwritten notes
2.33.4b. taken of the meeting held on 03 OCT 88.
How convenient that the only document
that would instantly prove Tim Wilmot's allegation was true,
was 'discovered to be missing' in a charade by Tolley.
Tim Wilmot believes that Tolley concealed the truth
because he was aware that Tim Wilmot was in contact with the press,
and wanted to reveal the truth in his own way in his report.
2.34a. Mr WILMOT left this meeting under the impression
2.34b. that he would recieve a copy of this preliminary report within 14 days
2.34c. but instead, he recieved a full report on 08 SEP 90,
2.34d. much of the content of which he rejected as being inadequate.
Considering the seriousness of the allegations -
falsification of minutes -
14 days seems a reasonable time for an urgent draft report.
Tim Wilmot is adamant that Tolley said 14 days.
What Draper "forgets" to record,
is that Tim Wilmot was fobbed off with excuse after excuse,
until Tim Wilmot gave his secretary an ultimatum
that he was going to the press.
"Don't do anything hasty, Mr Wilmot!" she said "The report is in the post."
In other words, it was being held unless and until Tim Wilmot shouted loud enough,
and could be released on the authority of a secretary.
Draper had been told by Tim Wilmot
of the extraordinarilly long phone conversation between himself and Tolley,
when Tim Wilmot lambasted Tolley's report as "totally inadequate",
and how Tolley kept coming back with
"There are encouraging noises from the Planning Department on your application!"
Tolley tried, and failed, to bribe Tim Wilmot on self-interest over upholding the law.
2.35.1a. Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT continued to write
2.35.1b. to various officers of Caradon District Council
2.35.1c. but it became apparent to him
2.35.1d. that all of his letters were being passed to Mr TOLLEY.
2.35.2a. Mr David NEWELL, the Chief Executive
2.35.2b. who had taken up post in OCT 90,
2.35.2c. was one of the Officers Mr WILMOT wrote to,
2.35.2d. but again he was advised matters were being dealt with by Mr TOLLEY.
2.36.1a. On 1 NOV 90 Mr WILMOT held a public meeting at Callington Town Hall.
2.36.1b. Caradon District Council had been invited to attend but declined to do so.
2.36.2a. At this meeting Mr WILMOT was left feeling
2.36.2b. that he had support for his grounds for concern over the handling of his planning application.
2.36.3a. It is only fair to point out here
2.36.3b. that this meeting was arranged and chaired by Mr WILMOT
2.36.3c. and was only formalised by the procedure of the meeting.
2.36.4. There were no persons holding official offices present.
2.37.1a. On 22 NOV 90, a meeting of the Planning Services Committee
2.37.1b. was held to discuss Mr WILMOT's allegations.
2.37.2a. A report prepared by Mr TOLLEY (TSW/13 & MGT2) was presented to the meeting
2.37.2b. and a copy of this report was subsequently forwarded to Mr WILMOT.
2.38.1a. The report contained in paragraph 5 of this document
2.38.1b. an aspect which Mr WILMOT considered to be a 'blatant lie',
2.38.1c. referring to the part containing
2.38.1d. 'the Planning Officer not having taken any action himself in relation to the application'.
So blatantly obvious is it a lie,
Councillors Screech and Gist, acting in the Public Interest,
were willing to privately prosecute Tolley
on the basis of that one statement.
Strange that Draper fails to mention that!
2.38.2a. Clearly Mr WILMOT felt that this was untrue
2.38.2b. as he recalled Mr HARTRIDGE speaking at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,
2.38.2c. when he made reference to the possibility of landfill gas escaping from the site (ASE/1 refers).
But the killer is Dr Ankers' police witness statement,
which details the briefing on the 03 OCT 88 site meeting,
at which the Chief Planning Officer "had other, stronger reasons" for wanting refusal than landfill gas!
2.39.1a. A letter was later recieved by Mr WILMOT (TSW/14) from Mr TOLLEY,
2.39.1b. expressing full confidence in Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer.
The Meeting was chaired by Councillor Pengelly -
who knew perfectly well what the truth was -
and therefore that Tolley's reports were a pack of lies.
2.39.2a. This, clearly, was unacceptable to Mr WILMOT
2.39.2b. and so in the early part of 1991,
2.39.2c. Mr WILMOT had Councillor SCREECH,
2.39.2d. a Cornwall County Councillor and Callington Town Councillor,
2.39.2e. call on Mr WILMOT at his home address
2.39.2f. and discuss the planning application.
He was a sterling quality councillor - albeit not on Caradon
who understood immediately that something serious was wrong.
2.39.3a. In consequence of this,
2.39.3b. though some time later on 18 JUL 91,
2.39.3c. a meeting was arranged at Luxstowe House
2.39.3d. which was attended by Councillor Screech, Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE, and Mr WILMOT.
2.40.1a. What struck Mr WILMOT as significant at this meeting
2.40.1b. was that Mr HARTRIDGE admitted that he had spoken at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,
2.40.1c. and that he might have misrepresented Mr WILMOT.
2.40.2. This meeting was minuted and a copy of the minutes (MGT/3) were sent to Mr WILMOT.
Draper 'forgets' to mention
that Councillor Screech as well as Tim Wilmot
heard the Chief Planning Officer's admission.
Nor does he mention that Screech formally wrote to Caradon District Council
to record the alteration in meaning
between what the Chief Planning Officer had actually said,
and what Tolley actually recorded.
Nor does Draper mention that
Councillor Screech had specifically warned Caradon Chief Executive, David Newell,
against more alterations in text by executive officers.
In addition, Draper 'did not notice'
that the File Note Caradon gave him,
and the one given to both Wilmot and Screech,
had significant differences in text -
and that the differences focused once again on what was said.
2.40.3a. Nothing particularly fruitful emanated from this meeting,
2.40.3b. and Mr WILMOT felt as though he had secured little progress.
On the contrary, Tim Wilmot and Councillor Screech
had concrete evidence of lying, and document tampering by Caradon.
2.41.1a. Prior to this meeting,
2.41.1b. Mr WILMOT had served on him on 2 MAY 91
2.41.1c. a County Court Injunction
2.41.1d. whilst he had been parading in Callingtton Town Square
2.41.1e. with a placard
2.41.1f. accusing Councillor PENGELLY, Mr TOLLEY, and Mr HARTRIDGE
2.41.1g. of serious planning offences.
2.41.2a. This date ( 02 MAY 91 ) was Local Government Election day,
2.41.2b. and Councillor PENGELLY had been standing for re-election
2.41.2c. and so it had been viewed by the Council
2.41.2d. to be potentially harmful to Mr PENGELLY to have such a placard on public display.
Draper 'forgets' to mention Caradon's withdrawal of their injunction,
which the District Judge described himself as "less than happy with the way in which it was done".
2.42.1a. Mr WILMOT still intent on seeking some form of justice,
2.42.1b. filed charges against officers of Caradon District Council
2.42.1c. regarding his planning application
2.42.1d. with Bodmin Crown Court.
2.42.2a. In consequence of this, Mr Wilmot was awarded the nominal sum of One Pound,
2.42.2b. as claimed by Mr WILMOT.
Tim Wilmot was foolish to offer Caradon an escape route,
but Caradon failed to defend it's public reputation.
2.42.3a. This was paid by Caradon District Council
2.42.3b. without admitting any form of liability (TSW/16).
Surprise, surprise!
2.43a. Mr WILMOT has consistently claimed
2.43b. that his grievances have never been properly aired by Caradon District Council
2.43c. and felt, and in fact continues to feel, particularly aggrieved
2.43d. by what he sees as a negative, unhelpful response to his allegations.
Once Caradon embarked upon a criminal conspiracy of concealment,
they had no option but to prevent at all costs strengthening Tim Wilmot in any way.
2.44.0a. As the last page of his statement discloses,
2.44.0b. his allegations are in effect threefold:-
2.44.1a. 1. Falsification of official records -
2.44.1b. referring to the inaccurate recording of the minutes
2.44.1c. of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
2.44.2a. 2. Conspiracy to conceal the inaccurracy by a sustained effort
2.44.2b. employed in particular by
2.44.2c. the Chief Executives of Caradon District Council, Mr COLLINS and Mr NEWWELL,
2.44.2d. Mr Michael TOLLEY the Director of Administration,
2.44.2e. Mr Alan HARTRIDGE the Director of Planning Services,
2.44.2f. and Councillor PENGELLY, a District Councillor for the town of Callington.
2.44.3.1a. 3. The uttering of an Affidavit dated 02 MAY 91
2.44.3.1b. prepared by Mr TOLLEY (JLB/1).
2.44.3.2a. This Affidavit refers to the document prepared by Mr TOLLEY
2.44.3.2b. in order for him to secure a County Court Injunction
2.44.3.2c. prohibiting Mr WILMOT from parading in Callington Town Centre
2.44.3.2d. with a placard on Local Government Election day ( 02 MAY 91).
The injunction Caradon dared not allow to Court!
Note "parading", rather than the more balanced "displaying".
2.45a. In short, Officers of Caradon District Council have told lies
2.45b. concerning Mr WILMOT's application
2.45c. and then conspired together to conceal those lies,
2.45d. all emanting from the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.
Brilliant summing up, Draper!
2.46a. Mr WILMOT has developed his desires
2.46b. to seek what he sees as the truth regarding his application,
2.46c. into a determined onslaught
2.46d. geared towards securing the expulsion from office of the senior officers concerned
2.46e. and substantial compensation as a direct result of loss of potential revenue
2.46f. which he maintains he would have secured
2.46g. had he been able to develop his site at Target Tip.
Are criminals really the kind of people we want governing us?
-====================================================-
THE INVESTIGATION
-====================================================-
3.1a. Despite Mr WILMOT's allegations of criminal conduct and improper conduct
3.1b. by senior officers within Caradon District Council,
3.1c. it soon became apparent
3.1d. that the two main persons responsible for his dissatisfaction
3.1e. in the handling of his planning application
3.1f. was the Planning Officer, Mr Alan HARTRIDGE
3.1g. and the Solicitor to the Council, Mr Michael Tolley.
3.2a. Though his allegations were also aimed at the former Chief Executive, Mr John Oliver COLINS,
3.2a. and the current Chief Executive, Mr David James Newell,
3.2a. and Councillor Cliifford Gerald PENGELLY,
3.2a. it was decided on the evidence presented at an early stage,
3.2a. that these three persons would be treated as witnesses,
3.2a. leaving TOLLEY and HARTRIDGE as suspected offenders.
3.3a. The investigation was commenced with a detailed statement from Mr WILMOT
3.3b. which formed the basis of his complaint
3.3c. and the taking posession of a number of documents.
Although Draper promised to liase with Tim Wilmot during the investigation,
Draper never asked so much as a single supplementary or clarification question.
3.4.1a. Mr WILMOT had, during the time of dispute with Caradon District Council,
3.4.1b. collected a considerable volume of documents
3.4.1c. and geared towards restricting this file to the salient points,
3.4.1d. only limited copy documentation has been seized by police.
3.4.2. These are shown in the exhibits bundle.
-====================================================-
3.5a. As much of what Mr WILMOT was alleging
3.5b. centred on the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
3.5c. efforts were made to recover the original hand-written notes
3.5d. as taken down by the Minutes Clerk, a Cynthia Muriel Jewell.
3.6.1a. Despite determined efforts it was not possible to find these
3.6.1b. nor in fact many other books containing hand-written notes of other meetings.
3.6.2a. As there was no legal requirement to retain such documents
3.6.2b. there did not appear to be anything sinister in this.
Nothing sinister!
Surely 'losing' the Clerk's notebook is a classic defensive tactic
when you know that they confirm the allegation?
3.7a. The procedures adopted by the Minutes Clerks
3.7b. when recording proceedings at the various Committee Meetings
3.7c. was to record in their own long or shorthand, details of the proceedings
3.7d. and then subsequently arrange to have the minutes typed up
3.7e. which would be ratified at a subsequent Committee Meeting.
3.8a. As the statement of a Mr Andrew ELLIS shows,
3.8b. efforts to locate the original book containing the handwritten notes of Mrs JEWELL
3.8c. revealed that a considerable number of Minute Books were in fact missing,
3.8d. which was contrary to the impression that Mr WILMOT had,
3.8e. being that he thought
3.8f. only the book containing the original minutes of 03 OCT 88 had gone missing.
Tim Wilmot realises that the charade played out in Tolley's office on 24 APR 90,
was Tim Wilmot being manipulated by Mr Tolley.
There may or may not have been only the notebook covering 03 OCT 88 missing then,
but that is what he clearly remembers being told by Mr Tolley,
who expressed himself very unhappy about it.
As the police investigation began,
no doubt someone realised that having only the very notebook sought being missing,
was not very believable.
The strongest indication that Caradon District Council were lying
is to be found in the
Note that, although a document is refered to, it is not exhibited -
very sloppy legal work.
-====================================================-
3.9a. Examination of a copy of the typed minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88
3.9b. disclosed that both the Senior Planning Assistant, a Mr Neil HARVEY,
3.9c. and the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge, had spoken.
Tim Wilmot is adamant Harvey did not speak.
Harvey never confirmed speaking,
except to say "If it is in the minutes, it must be true!"
ADD TOLLEY Q&A - "he may have spoken".
3.10.1a. The Planning Officer in addressing the Committee,
3.10.1b. had made reference to the implications of landfill gas
3.10.1c. and made reference to Government Circular 21/87
3.10.1d. ( copy included in the exhibits bundle ).
3.10.2a. This circular concerned the development of land
3.10.2b. where landfill gas was likely to be present
3.10.2c. and the precautions needed to be taken.
You can build a petrol station on a former landfill site,
provided you put in place proper precautions, such as impervious membranes.
So ANY amount of gas emmission can be made safe.
3.10.3a. As the minutes (ASE/1) showed,
3.10.3b. Councillor PEARCE proposed that the application for development be granted
3.10.3c. and this was seconded by Councillor SMALE.
Para 3.11 is missing, or Tim Wilmot miscount in 2005.
3.12.1a. Councillor PENGELLY, the Local Councilor for the Callington area
3.12.1b. in which Target Tip was situated,
3.12.1c. spoke in favour of the application.
3.12.2a. This seems a strange way of expressing an opposition
3.12.2b. to the scheme as inferred by Mr WILMOT.
Draper fouls up yet again!
Pengelly was fully in favour on 03 OCT 88,
but as soon as things went wrong,
he refused to ask any of the obvious questions that needed asking,
and was at all times a puppet of the executive officers,
even chairing the secret meeting that exonerated the Chief Planning Officer.
3.13. The minutes show that it was resolved viz:- 'that
-====================================================-
Note: I cannot find pages 23 & 24 of the report, but will add later, as we have full documention stored in four locations, just in case this house should catch fire - LOL.
-====================================================-
3.20.1a. [ assuming sentence 1 ]. /cont:- blah blah Target Tip.
3.20.2a. In consequence of unequivocal advice from Mr John INMAN,
3.20.2b. the Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council (TSW/7),
3.20.2c. Mr HARVEY was clearly not satisfied
3.20.2d. that the application for development could go ahead
3.20.2e. until the next Planning Committee Meeting due to be held on 06 FEB 89.
Mr Harvey had had his balls kicked by the Chief Planning Officer
for agreeing to await a detailed planning application.
All that was now needed,
was a scare report on gas from Inman ( about to retire within the month ),
pretend that Tim Wilmot was ignoring the dangers of gas,
and to it to a committee for refusal,
having failed to inform Tim Wilmot of your ambush.
3.20.3a. At the meeting Mr HARVEY advised the Committee
3.20.3b. that permission should not be granted,
3.20.3c. based on the advice for the Environmental Health Officer, Mr INMAN.
3.21.1a. Mr WILMOT's application was refused at this Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89,
3.21.1b. and he was notified of this in writing,
3.21.1c. but not until 25 MAR 89 (TSW/5).
So many strange delays on this application!
3.21.2a. This document would have been prepared by Mr HARVEY
3.21.2b. and passed to Mr HARTRIDGE for signature.
3.22a. As Mr WILMOT proceeded to make contact
3.22b. with a variety of people connected with the Council,
3.22c. the current investigation conducted by the Police
3.22d. was confined to those persons
3.22e. more closely associated with the application and its subsequent processing.
3.23.1a. As the various statements disclose,
3.23.1b. all the persons involved with the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88
3.23.1c. were satisfied that Mr WILMOT had only been granted outline planning permission,
3.23.1d. subject to him producing a report on landfill gas,
3.23.1e. in effect - a deferred permission.
Remember Smale being adamant!
Then let us assume that this sentence (3.23.1 ) is true, and not false.
The simple fact is that Tim Wilmot was never asked for a landfill gas survey
in a way in which it ewas possible to supply one.
The fault lies at Caradon.
If Caradon had ever REALLY wanted a landfill gas survey done,
you can bet that they would have supplied a specification -
see this letter containing proof - then click 'back'.
3.23.2a. Mr WILMOT clearly contends
3.23.2b. that he had in actual fact obtained his permission
3.23.2c. and was awaiting guidance as to the nature of the report required -
3.23.2d. a clear and significant conflict of interpretation of events.
So strange that the Planning Department never set out in writing it's position!
3.24.1a. As the investigation unfolded
3.24.1b. it was clear that there was a complete absence
3.24.1c. of any evidence in support of Mr WILMOT's allegations.
That is why, Draper, after two solid days with Tim Wilmot,
when you had showed by the way you questioned him
that you believed his story,
as you left, you stood by the door and said
"When I get to Caradon, that is when the lying will start!"
No-one lies without good reason.
3.24.2a. No doubt percieved differently,
3.24.2b. Mr WILMOT embarked upon a series of efforts to substantiate his allegations,
3.24.2c. and when his efforts failed to produce results conducive to his own interpretation of events,
3.24.2d. he resorted to behaviour
3.24.2e. which was designed to stimulate some form of response
3.24.2f. from certain Officers with Caradon District Council,
3.24.2g. resulting in a Court appearance
3.24.2h. which would give Mr WILMOT a forum to air his grievances.
3.25a. Such efforts included parading outside the Council Offices at Liskeard
3.25b. and in the streets
3.25c. with a placard accusing named Officers,
3.25d. i.e. Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor PENGELLY, Mr COLLINS, and Mr NEWELL
3.25e. of such offences as corruption and of being liars.
Is 'parading', rather than 'displaying', a police 'signal-word'?
Surely honorable men would sue?
3.26a. It was hoped by Mr WILMOT that he may be sued for libel
3.26b. which would give him that opportunity in open court
3.26c. to voice his interpretation of the sequence of events.
Draper was told by Tim Wilmot
that by 1991, he had realised his position was unassailable by Caradon,
and that he could say whatever he liked.
He therefore tested this to the limit,
to the point where police would arrest him, confiscate the sign, but not charge him.
3.27. On advice, no members of the Council pursued any action against Mr WILMOT.
3.28a. No doubt out of frustration, on 14 NOV 91,
3.28b. a letter was recieved by the Chairman of Caradon District Council, Mr DISTIN,
3.28c. from Mr WILMOT.
3.29a. In short the letter contained threats
3.29a. which could have been interpreted as threats to kill certain Officers of the Council
3.29a. and demanding £150,000 as compensation for loss he had suffered since 1988.
3.30.1a. This matter was investigated by the Police at Liskeard
3.30.1b. which included the arrest of Mr WILMOT.
3.30.2a. It was subsequently decided following consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service at Plymouth
3.30.2b. that no further action would be taken in this matter.
Police knew Tim Wilmot would shred Caradon.
-====================================================-
3.31.1a. Such was the onslaught of verbal and written allegations against Mr TOLLEY in particular,
3.31.1b. that on 06 DEC 91, an incident occurred
3.31.1c. when Mr TOLLEY saw Mr WILMOT parading around Liskeard Town Centre
3.31.1d. with a placard naming Mr TOLLEY
3.31.1e. and accusing him of corrupt proceedings.
Draper fails to tell the true story - again!
Police had previously arrested Tim Wilmot under the Public Order Act,
and used every Court Hearing as a delaying tactic,
before offering no evidence at the last moment.
Strange! Tim Wilmot was publicly accusing Tolley with these placarded words:-
CARADON SOLICITOR TOLLEY.
LIAR & PERJURER!
SUE ME,
AND PROVE TO THE PEOPLE
YOU CLAIM TO SERVE,
THAT IT IS NOT TRUE!"
Surely simple to prove that Tolley was an honest solicitor,
and Tim Wilmot a scurrilous criminal?
3.31.2a. Such was the frustration felt by Mr TOLLEY
3.31.2b. that he endeavoured to spray the placard using a can of aerosol paint
3.31.2c. and threw a hat worn by Mr WILMOT into the road.
Tolley - a man trained in the weapons of law - chose violence.
As Tim Wilmot put it during his prosecution of Tolley,
"I was amazed to see a Man of Law reduced to the level of a common lout!"
And all because of these carefully chosen true words:-
"CARADON SOLICITOR TOLLEY.
LIAR & PERJURER!
POLICE KNOW IT'S TRUE!"
Is not aerosol paint a cover-up just like Tolley's reports?
Draper also forgets that Tolley twice threw Tim Wilmot's hat
into a main road just 20 feet from a roundabout during heavy rush hour trafic,
and that there were two aerosol paint attacks
( Tolley forgot to shake the can - so he bought a second, larger one ).
Draper fails to mention
that Tim Wilmot could have also laid the more serious charge of assault,
but he prefered to use the Public Order Act 1986, Section 5(1) -
the very same one that police had withdrawn on him!
3.31.3a. Despite being reported to the Police by Mr WILMOT,
3.31.3b. this incident was not investigated or proceeded with.
Again Draper gets it wrong.
Tim Wilmot knew that he had broken Tolley by simply displaying the truth,
and therefore knew that he could do it again whenever needed.
So Tim Wilmot had no need for Tolley to be charged -
all he required was a formal record of the event,
assuming Tolley admitted his actions.
Tim Wilmot negotiated with the Desk Sergeant at Liskeard Police Station,
and it was agreed that Tolley would be brought in,
and if he admitted the four events,
a formal record would be made,
but he would not be charged.
Tim Wilmot suggests that this was a rather lenient attitude on his part!
The police failed to honour this agreement,
with Chief Inspector Bisset driving 22 miles to Tolley's home,
where he gave Tolley a verbal warning -
which is not formally recorded.
This translates as:-
"Well, you HAVE been a naughty boy,
but you are One of Us,
and that Wilmot is an outsider!
So here is a slap on the wrist -
don't do it again!
Nice whisky you have here -
another?
Don't mind if I do!"
This is why Tim Wilmot privately prosecuted Tolley himself.
3.32a. Mr WILMOT subsequently took out a private prosecution against Mr TOLLEY
3.32b. and on 26 FEB 92, at Liskeard Magistrates Court,
3.32c. Mr TOLLEY was found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986
3.32d. and was given a Conditional Discharge.
Although present in Court,
again Draper fails to tell the full story,
Tolley, while admitting that four events had taken place,
had the cheek to plead Not Guilty, on the basis that
"it was a prank between consenting adults that did not warrant a criminal conviction!"
Consenting adults?
Would Tim Wilmot's feet have touched the ground,
if he had appeared anywhere near Tolley with aerosol cans of paint?
And would Tim Wilmot have got off with a Conditional Discharge
for wasting the court's time with such a weak defence?
-====================================================-
3.33.1a. Subsequent to this,
3.33.1b. Mr WILMOT has sought sanction from the Crown Prosecution Service
3.33.1c. to pursue a private prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
3.33.1d. against Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE and Councillor Pengelly.
Tim Wilmot was acquiring a taste for sorting out dishonest council officers!
3.33.2a. Proceedings were discontinued by Liskeard Magistrates
3.33.2b. on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence.
It was clear to both Tim Wilmot, and Councillors Screech and Gist
that Tim Wilmot was being 'blocked' by Liskeard Magistrates.
To get past this,
Councillors Screech and Gist put their names to specimen prosecutions of Tolley
that each focused on a single lying line in his reports,
which could be shown as a lie with ease.
The idea was that the Magistrates would issue summons,
but the Councillors would not serve them -
allowing Tim Wilmot to seek identical summons -
which could not be reasonably refused.
The Court merely refused to answer the councillors in any way.
That's justice!
-====================================================-
3.34.1a. When the enquiry reached the stage of formally interviewing Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE,
3.34.1b. both sought legal advice
3.34.1c. and thereafter declined to be interviewed under caution.
The innocent have something to hide?
3.34.2a. The evidence did not justify the arrest of the two persons
3.34.2b. and so, following consultation with the Crown Prosecution at Plymouth,
3.34.2c. it was decided to obtain witness statements from Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE
3.34.2d. which was in fact done.
3.35a. Both persons spoke full and frankly to the Reporting Officer
3.35b. and were only too anxious to tender their version of events.
-====================================================-
3.36a. To assist in this enquiry,
3.36b. exhibited copy documents were confined to what was considered the relevant ones,
3.36c. but a copy has been made of the full planning file
3.36d. and as a source of reference
3.36e. this copy file is included in the Exhibits bundle.
Draper wrong again.
It was NOT the full planning file - Caradon cherry-picked.
Harvey's File Note by itself would have blown Caradon's lies out of the water!
And police refuse to consider the File Note,
or anything else that damages this "pervert the course of justice" report.
-====================================================-
3.37.1a. It will be noted in the Exhibits bundle
3.37.1b. that there appears to be a duplication of a number of exhibits.
3.37.2a. This is due to the desire of the Senior Officers with Caradon District Council
3.37.2b. wishing only to refer to documents in their possession,
3.37.2c. and not relying upon documents produced by Mr WILMOT.
3.38a. Having said that, by comparing these copy documents
3.38b. it can be seen that there were no discrepancies
3.38c. between the copies held by the Council
3.38d. and those forwarded to Mr WILMOT.
Once again, Draper has got it wrong.
Had he been willing to liase with Tim Wilmot as promised,
he might have realised that Tolley's File Note dated 18 JUL 91
was in two versions,
with the differences centred
on what the Chief Planning Officer did or did not say on 03 OCT 88 - as usual.
-====================================================-
3.39a. Whilst other persons connected with this matter could arguably be interviewed,
3.39b. it is the contention of the Reporting Officer
3.39c. that those persons already seen
3.39d. are sufficient to establish the Council's version of events,
3.39e. and it is not proposed therefore at this stage,
3.39f. to extend the investigation.
Draper's task was"to establish the Council's version of events
by concealing every single point of danger to the council."
-====================================================-
CONCLUSION
-====================================================-
4.1a. Right at the onset of this allegation,
4.1b. Mr WILMOT made it clear
4.1c. that he considered there had been criminal offences committed.
Tim Wilmot publicly supported by Councillors Screech, Gist and Knott.
4.2a. It appeared to the Reporting Officer
4.2b. that as other avenues of seeking some form of redress had been explored,
4.2c. that his only remaining option was a Police investigation,
4.2d. and he clearly sought this as a way of achieving his objectives.
Police complaints initial evaluation officer, Inspector Weymouth, saw that it stank!
An HONEST police investigation would have helped, Draper!
4.3a. He had complained to various Officers within Caradon District Council
4.3b. and had failed to secure what he considered to be
4.3c. a full, fair and unbiased internal investigation.
4.4a. He interpreted any conclusions, not conducive to his own,
4.4b. as tantamount to criminal concealment.
It was.
4.5a. Considerable time and effort has now been spent on this investigation
4.5b. and it is the contention of the Reporting Officer
4.5c. that there has been no evidence revealed
4.5d. in support of the commission of any criminal offences
4.5e. by anyone connected with Caradon District Council.
4.6a. What has been identified
4.6b. are areas of minor maladministration
4.6c. and these can best be summed up as follows:-
Minor maladministration!
Truth is, someone, somewhere said:-
"There is no way Wilmot is going to be allowed to prove
that Caradon District Council have committed a string of criminal offences!"
4.6d. a. Following the decision of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
4.6e. Mr WILMOT was not advised in writing of their decision.
4.6f. Had this been done
4.6g. then no doubt the contentious issue
4.6h. of whether or not Mr WILMOT had secured his planning permission
4.6i. would have been clarified.
4.6j. b. That Mr WILMOT was not given or offered the guidance and help
4.6k. with regard to the type and extent of report required concerning landfill gas.
4.6l. This simply would have been good practice.
4.6m. c. Failure to notify Mr WILMOT in writing in advance
4.6n. of the intended recommedation of refusal
4.6o. to be heard at the Planning Committee Meeting on 6 FEB 89.
4.6p. d. The unneccessary delay in the issue of the Refusal Notice
4.6q. following the Planning Committee Meeting of 06 FEB 89
4.6r. ( Notice dated 29 MAR 89 ).
4.7.1a. In support of the above points,
4.7.1b. a copy of the Audit Commissioner's report dated JAN 92,
4.7.1c. on Development Control Audit Guide was obtained
4.7.1d. and at Para. 161, the document states under a sub-heading of 'Decisions':-
4.7.1e. 'Once a decision has been made
4.7.1f. it is essential that is is conveyed in writing to the applicant as soon as possible.
4.7.2a. In delegated cases this should present no great problem
4.7.2b. with decisions issued on a continuous basis,
4.7.2c. but, with some Committee cases there is potential for delay.
4.7.3a. It is usually praticable, with a computerised system,
4.7.3b. to pre-print decision notices based on Officer's recommendations
4.7.3c. with a view to dispatch after signature ( often rubber stamped ) the following day.
4.7.4a. For those cases where the decision has been changed
4.7.4b. or conditions added or altered
4.7.4c. a new decision notice will be neccessary
4.7.4d. but such cases rarely exceed 20% of an agenda.
4.7.5a. The pre-printed notices was quite common,
4.7.5b. it has been generally dropped in favour of preparation and dispatch in the days following.
4.7.6a. In one authority, Council Standing Orders contain a provision
4.7.6b. that within 48 hours any committee decision may be referred to a higher level
4.7.6c. ( i.e. parent committee or Council )
4.7.6d. at the request of four members.
4.7.7. This automatically delays the dispatch of decision notices.
4.7.8a. Pre-printing is not essential
4.7.8b. but speed of dispatch of decion notices is critical.
4.7.8c. The Audit Commission Survey showed a range from half a day to 10 working days
4.7.8d. with the average for 53 authorities of just under 3 days.
4.7.9a. But unless there are reasons such as those quoted above,
4.7.9b. notices should be in the post at the very most within two days,
4.7.9c. if not 24 hours.
Just coincidence that Tim Wilmot had received nothing after 03 OCT 88 for 57 days
( causing him to contact Neil Harvey, the Senior Planning Assistant ),
and after the 06 FEB 89 refusal vote, it took 51 days for the Refusal Notice to be signed.
4.7.10a. There is variable practice
4.7.10b. as to returning a set of approved plans with the decision notice.
4.7.11. It is percieved as good practice to ensure that the correct plans are implemented.'
4.8a. Though this Audit Commission document is dated some considerable time after 1988,
4.8b. the gist of the content of Para. 161 is in line with good practice
4.8c. which would have been exercised at the time in 1988.
4.9.1a. Failure to comply with such good practice however
4.9.1b. does not constitute a criminal offence.
4.9.2a. Procedures have since been changed within Caradon District Council
4.9.2b. to accomodate these best practices ( Exhibit AH/1 refers ).
4.10.1a. Following the Refusal Notice having been issued,
4.10.1b. Mr WILMOT's best course of action
4.10.1c. would have been to appeal to the Secretary of State, the normal appeals route,
4.10.1d. but he failed to do so.
4.10.2a. He offered no explantion as to why he failed to do so
4.10.2b. other than that he was devastated
4.10.2c. at the response by Caradon District Council to his complaints.
If a council is unable to put it's own house in order
when made aware of blatant and serious criminal offences,
there is something very, very wrong.
4.11.1a. What he did pursue was a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman in DEC 90
4.11.1b. about the actions of Caradon District Council
4.11.1c. regarding his planning application for development of land
4.11.1d. at his home address at The Burrows.
4.11.2. He did not pursue the complaint regarding his proposed development at Target Tip.
4.12a. It is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
4.12b. that, whilst difference of opinion exists over what the Planning Officer, Mr HARTRIDGE,
4.12c. did or did not say at the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
4.12d. that it mattered not,
4.12e. as the Committee exercised their right to vote against the Planning Department's recommendation
4.12f. and granted Mr WILMOT permission,
4.12g. but all the evidence points to the fact
4.12h. that this permission was conditional
4.12i. upon Mr WILMOT supplying a report on landfill gas.
4.13.1a. This stance taken by the Council was particularly significant
4.13.1b. as earlier in 1988,
4.13.1c. a dispute had been publicised involving Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
4.13.1d. and residents living close to a former landfill site.
4.13.2a. The potential danger of landfill gas was exposed
4.13.2b. and in this case claims for compensation were being considered.
4.14.1a. Caradon District Council acted in good faith in opposing carte blanche
4.14.1b. permission for this development at Target Tip,
4.14.1c. and clearly had public safety in mind.
opposing carte blanche!
Remember that Tolley had told Tim Wilmot
that "No survey, no consent" was unreasonable!
4.14.2a. Mr WILMOT had expressed a view
4.14.2b. that he knew sufficient about the implications of landfill gas
4.14.2c. and in consequence,
4.14.2d. saw little point in incurring heavy expensesin having a report prepared.
Designing your detailed application around landfill gas is not avoiding responsibility!
4.14.3a. This was construed by the Planning Department
4.14.3b. to be a refusal or reluctance by Mr WILMOT to fulfill his obligations.
4.14.4. Accordingly the recommendation to the Planning Committee of 6 FEB 89 was for a refusal.
4.15a. In short - Caradon District Council have acted properly
4.15b. in the manner with which they have dealt with this application
4.15c. as far as satisfying proper criteria in the public interest.
4.16a. Where errors have occurred,
4.16b. they have been confined to administrative errors
4.16c. and the apparent lack of urgency in dealing with his application.
4.17.1a. The individual who appeared to have failed
4.17.1b. to properly and efficiently expedite Mr WILMOT's application
4.17.1c. was Mr Neil HARVEY, Senior Planning Assistant, in 1988/89.
Scapegoat.
4.17.2a. He would have conducted most of the work on behalf of Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer,
4.17.2b. who would have been expected to have maintained proper communication with Mr WILMOT.
4.18a. As the evidence shows,
4.18b. there has been non-secured to support any criminal proceedings against any individual
4.18c. and it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
4.18d. that no further Police action be taken in this matter
4.18e. and that Mr Wilmot be formally notified in writing accordingly.
-====================================================-
Note by Tim Wilmot:
This report demonstrates an almost total inability by Detective Inspector Draper
to understand the planning process -
and my conclusion is that police are incompetent to deal with such complaints.
When allegations were made against North Cornwall District Council in the early 90's,
police gave NCDC ample advance notice of their intention to visit,
and planning officers were working until the early hours each morning shredding documents
[ source - former secretary at NCDC ].
Not surprisingly, a long investigation ended with one caution!
However, apart from Draper's obvious incompetency
( which liason with myself - as promised, but not honoured - would have remedied ),
his report ignores EVERY point dangerous to Caradon,
and at every opportunity sets out to belittle myself.
The attitude is best expressed in paragraph 1.15 by the single word 'Regrettably'.
And as Caradon District Council witheld vital documents and information from Draper,
it would have taken the tenacious Draper
( whom Tim Wilmot first met for two solid days when he took Tim Wilmot's statement )
to ferret out the truth,
but by the time he was speaking to Caradon District Council,
it is obvious that tenacity was absent.
Draper said to me as he left
"When I get to Caradon, that's when the lying will start!"
Tim Wilmot never imagined that Draper would lie himself,
but a remark about a point Tim Wilmot made to him stuck in his mind -
"That should earn you a few brownie points!"
If you examine the meaning of that sentence,
it is obvious that Draper was not referring to himself, but someone else,
and common sense suggests a more senior officer.
Such is the corruption at Devon & Cornwall Police!
If they believe that it is not true they are corrupt,
and everything is exactly as Draper says it is,
let Devon & Cornwall Police prove it now,
and make Tim Wilmot's death unneccessary.
The truth is that Tim Wilmot
was systematically and publicly demolishing senior officers of a local authority,
and within the mindset of unelected and unaccountable authority, this was unacceptable.
So Draper, either by direct order from above,
or ( less likely ) by his own decision,
wrote this cover-up report,
which anyone can see is riddled with holes, lies, and half-truths.
Why on earth would Tolley and Hartridge refuse to be interviewed under caution
unless they had something to hide?
Why on earth would Tolley attack Tim Wilmot in the street FOUR times?
Draper omits to mention that!
Tolley was reduced to covering-up Tim Wilmot's true allegation
that he is a 'Liar & Perjurer!',
when he has spent a lifetime in law,
and his opponent - who was at all times perfectly willing to speak in any court -
had hundreds of thousands of pounds of land and property,
no cash, and therefore no lawyer -
so all Tim Wilmot had was the truth and his wits -
any lawyers dream target ( provided their case has merit ).
If Tim Wilmot dies, please make sure all of this evidence comes before the Inquest,
because both Caradon District Council and Devon & Cornwall Police
have had ample opportunity to right the wrong,
and have consistently slammed the door in his face.
-====================================================-
Link -
-====================================================-
Link -
-====================================================-
Link -
Click "back" to your last webpage location
[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
-===============================================================================-
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
and would welcome professional assistance.
-===============================================================================-
 |
Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER |
