Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Hartridge - Police Witness Statement 1992

NOTE: This is the police witness statement by Hartridge,
and any half-competent investigator will at once see
the lies, half-truths, and evasions.

Paragraph 6.1 is an interesting lie -
a chief planning officer only becomes aware of a major out-of-town retail development
( in a green gap he was protective towards )
only FIVE days before the application was due to be heard?


Date:- 27 APR 92

1.1a    I am the Director of Planning Services with Caradon District Council
1.1b    and have been so employed since 21 DEC 87.

1.2a    The title of my post used to be just 'Planning Officer'
1.2b    but changed in NOV 90.

2.1a    I have been employed by Caradon District Council since 1984
2.1b    when I was appointed as Principal Assistant Planning Officer.

2.2    ( In effect, Deputy to the Planning Officer ).

2.3a    Prior to this I had 16 years experience in planning matters and legislation
2.3b    and I became a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute,
2.3c    which is a professional body, in 1975.


3.1a    I have been requested by Inspector DRAPER
3.1b    to be interviewed under caution
3.1c    regarding certain allegations made against me by a Mr Tim WILMOT of Callington.

3.2a    Having sought advice, I have not been prepared to do so
3.2b    but instead, am quite happy to state my side of events in the form of a witness statement.

The very fact that Draper was willing to interview the Chief Planning Officer
strongly suggests that Draper knew that there was a prima facie case against him.

The fact that the Chief Planning Officer was frightened to be cautioned,
strongly suggests that he has something to hide.


4a    To assist me in dealing with matters concerning Mr WILMOT's application
4b    regarding an old disused waste tip at Callington called 'Target Tip',
4c    I have had available to me documents and files relating to this particular application.

But you left vital documents out that ran contrary to your concealment.

5a    I have very little recollection of this application in the early stages
5b    but by consulting some of these documents,
5c    I am able to state the following:-

6.1a    I believe I first became aware of this particular application on 28 SEP 88,
6.1b    following a discussion with my officers concerning the 190 items of business
6.1c    due to be heard on 03 OCT 88 at a Planning Committee Meeting.

The reader is asked to believe
that the Chief Planning Officer knew nothing of a major planning application
for a seven acre out-of-town retail development,
in a green gap he was strongly supportive of,
until just five days before the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

6.2a    The purpose of this discussion
6.2b    was to appraise me of any potential problems regarding any applications
6.2c    and to enable me to give direction if necessary if appropriate.


6.3a    A similar discussion then took place on 30 SEP 88
6.3b    with the Chairman of the Planning Services Committee, Councillor BREED,
6.3c    to advise him of any controversial planning applications
6.3d    or changes in any recommendations
6.3e    that I might be making at the meeting to be held on 03 OCT 88.

6.4a    I would think that at the earlier discussion meeting
6.4b    I would have requested clarification regarding the safety problems
6.4c    regarding the use of the land as a garden centre.

The Chief Planning Officer wants you to believe
that there is a massive problem centred on landfill gas,
which cannot be easily put right,
and probably not at all.

The truth is different.

Anything can be built on any landfill site,
provided proper precautions are built into a detailed design.

The Chief Planning Officer's Great Gas Deception
cannot stand proper examination throughout.


7.1a    I have been shown by Inspector DRAPER
7.1b    a copy of the Planning Officer's report dated 03 OCT 88 (see ****).

7.2a    This document would have been prepared by Mr Neil HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant,
7.2b    and checked by the Deputy Planning Officer, Mr WALTON, his supervisor or Mr KIMBERLEY.

7.3a    This document would have been prepared on my behalf
7.3b    and I would have had sight of it prior to 03 OCT 88.

7.4a    I would have been satisfied with the content of the report and recommendations,
7.4b    based on the information available to my department at the time.

7.5a    However I would have been aware from the subject matter of the report
7.5b    that clarification needed to be sought concerning the safety issue relating to methane gas,
7.5c    causing fires or explosions
7.5d    as the proposal involved a garden centre where the public would be encouraged.


8.1a    It is the Planning Officer's job
8.1b    to advise the Committee of all relevant information which may be important
8.1c    and some of that information may well come to light
8.1d    after the preparation of the report for the Planning Committee Meeting.

8.2a    Subsequent to the preparation of the report (***)
8.2b    but prior to the meeting on 03 OCT 88,
8.2c    further information was received relating to the seriousness of the matter
8.2d    concerning the methane gas aspect relative to the use of this land.

The Chief Planning Officer is refering to the Reid and Ankers meeting, below.

8.3    This aspect would have been brought to the attention of the Committee Meeting held on 03 OCT 88.

9.1a    During the morning of 03 OCT 88, probably around lunchtime,
9.1b    I more than likely had a short meeting
9.1c    with a Mr REID and Dr ANKERS of Cornwall County Council,
9.1d    following a site meeting they had had with Mr WILMOT.

9.2a    I have no recollection of this meeting
9.2b    but it more than likely would have been lunchtime.

Lucky that Dr Ankers' memory was so good!

And see how the Chief Planning Officer's story changes in 1993 - then click 'back'.


9.3a.    I made a short note on my file
9.3b.    indicating that there was "anxiety re landfill gas
9.3c.    which could affect neighbouring properties -
9.3d.    would need a site investigation - Circular DoE 21/87."

Easily overcome by proper precautions.


9.4a.    I had written a additional reason for refusal on my copy of my report,
9.4b.    which read,
9.4c.    "The site is a former waste disposal site
9.4d.    and it was in use up to 12 years ago.

The first 10 years are the most active for gas emissions.

9.4e.    In the absence of a site investigation
9.4f.    it is considered that this site is likely to be generating landfill gases,
9.4g.    that could be injurious to the residential amenities of nearby properties."

"Likely to be generating landfill gas?" - DEFINITELY!

Science states clearly that gases are emitted for about 35 years fron end of tipping.

On the face of it, the reference to dangers to nearby properties is reasonable,
as under certain conditions,
gases can migrate underground before coming to the surface,
where if there are gas traps, fire and explosions can occur.

However this omits entirely one simple fact -
the tip had been at it's most active period of emissions for 12 years
without a sign of any danger.

The reason for this is simple -
the gas was in no area of the tip concentrated,
or forced to migrate,
and therefore rose to the surface, where it safely dispersed.

It is ALTERATIONS that cause potential danger, not a bare-earth site.

So if you design a site specifically to prevent gas altering WHERE it emits from,
gas cannot gather to create a danger,
as the site is still effectively a bare field -
the bare field that is safely emitting gases right now.

9.5a.    This would have formed the basis for additional reasons for refusal
9.5b.    had members accepted it at the Meeting.

The members rejected your ideas!


10a.    I had attended the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88
10b.    which had started at 10.30am and concluded at 7.30pm the same day.

11.1a.    Throughout the whole of the day, I spoke on many of the applications
11.1b.    and was present throughout the whole of the day
11.1c.    except for a 30 minute period between 6.40pm and 7.10pm
11.1d.    when uncontroversial matters were dealt with by my deputy, Mr WALTON.

11.2a.    I was at this Meeting for 7 hours
11.2b.    though I was assisted by members of my staff who attended at various stages
11.2c.    and they were present to answer questions of detail relating to particular items,
11.2d.    e.g. a case officer who would have had a site meeting with an applicant.

11.3a.    It is not uncommon for my officers to address the Committee
11.3b.    instead of myself on matters of detail,
11.3c.    including discussions with applicants or consultees.

12.1a.    After the short lunch break, the Committee resumed
12.1a.    and I would have been in the chamber.


12.2a.    During the afternoon there was a short tea break, usually 15 minutes duration,
12.2b.    and the function of the tea break
12.2c.    is not to discuss planning applications in detail with applicants,
12.2d.    but it is essentially a refreshment period
12.2e.    when the Planning Officer may have the opportunity to 'recharge his batteries'.

12.3a.    However if an applicant were to be introduced,
12.3b.    then I would have been courteous
12.3c.    but prepared only to discuss matters in principle, not in detail.

13.1a.    I have been asked if I recall
13.1b.    being introduced by a Councillor PENGELLY to Mr WILMOT during this 'tea break'.

13.2a.    I only have a very vague recollection of this meeting
13.2b.    but I accept that a 5 minute exchange of words may well have taken place,
13.2c.    without reference to any files or reports.

13.3a.    No doubt stood in a corner whilst drinking tea
13.3b.    and no doubt with my officers by my side.

Just like Napoleon!


13.4a.    It is possible that based on what information I had on the application,
13.4b.    particularly if Mr HARVEY had been present,
13.4c.    I would have sought clarification from Mr WILMOT
13.4d.    to see if he wished to withdraw his application at this late stage
13.4e.    in light of the information he had received
13.4f.    (relating to the absence of any proper site investigation).

The Chief Planning Officer knows perfectly well that Harvey was not present.

Withdrawal was at all times the Chief Planning Officer's aim.

13.5a.    If this discussion did take place,
13.5b.    I would have said to Mr WILMOT
13.5c.    that as the recommendation was one of refusal
13.5d.    and as one of the reasons was there had not been a proper site investigation,
13.5e.    it would probably be preferable for him to withdraw his application.

13.6a.    This would have enabled him to have prepared a proper site investigation
13.6b.    and submit a fresh planning application at the appropriate time.

Delay was what the Chief Planning Officer wanted.

What is absolutely certain is that he did not want the Planning Committee discussing the aplication,
let alone approving it by 16 votes to Nil.

13.7a.    Mr WILMOT would have been clearly advised that I could not recommend approval
13.7b.    but the decision ultimately was one for the Committee Members.

13.8a.    It is likely that I would have refuted any suggestion,
13.8b.    if he made it,
13.8c.    that the Environmental Health Officers were satisfied with the situation.

Tim Wilmot never said that the Environmental Health Officers were satisfied with the situation.

What Tim Wilmot said was,
that the Environmental Health Officers stressed that they were advisory only to Planners,
but their professional responsibility would be satisfied
if any gas issues were to be dealt with at the detailed stage,
and therefore leaving only the geographical location suitability question
for decision by the Planning Committee for outline planning permission.

Tim Wilmot's success with the Environmental Health Officers
clearly angered the Chief Planning Officer - see Hartridge Affidavit 1993 - then click 'back'.

13.9a.    I would have been aware of their anxiety
13.9b.    and would have shared it
13.9c.    and so advised Mr WILMOT.


13.10a.    It has been suggested that I lost my temper at this meeting with Mr WILMOT
13.10a.    but I strongly refute this,
13.10a.    though I may have pointed out to him
13.10a.    that it was pointless entering into detailed discussions
13.10a.    having heard that he insisted upon the application being heard by Committee Members that day.

Tim Wilmot knows the Chief Planning Officer lost his temper,
had about 30 minutes to regain his composure
before Tim Wilmot's application was heard,
and then deliberately misrepresented Tim Wilmot to the Committee.

Tim Wilmot suggests that there is a bit of an edge to the word insisted!


14.1a.    Following the tea break, the Meeting resumed,
14.1b.    during which Mr WILMOT's application was heard.

14.2a.    I have no recollection of his application
14.2b.    but I would have been present throughout.

14.3a.    I have no recollection of speaking
14.3b.    but it is highly likely that I would have done so
14.3c.    as there was an additional reason for refusal
14.3d.    and late information to report.

"no recollection" here, but see affidavit - then click 'back'.


14.4a.    The case officer would have given details
14.4b.    including all the details contained on the file
14.4c.    and it is likely that I would have then given direction to the members
14.4d.    upon the materiel planning considerations
14.4e.    that had to be taken into account prior to a decision.

15.1a.    I would have particularly referred
15.1a.    to the Government advice upon how to deal with such planning applications
15.1a.    where contamination is strongly suspected
15.1a.    and would adversely affect the proposed development for the community.

15.2a.    I would have referred to the Department of Environment Circular 21/87
15.2b.    that states, in effect, investigations must be carried out
15.2c.    before the application can be decided by the local Planning Authority
15.2d.    (i.e. not conditions).

15.3a.    The basis for my recommendation for refusal
15.3a.    was based on sound planning principles only
15.3a.    and furthermore, my advice for the need for the applicant
15.3a.    to obtain a thorough site investigation
15.3a.    was based again purely on professional advice.

15.4a.    I have no recollection of stating to the Committee
15.4b.    that I understood the applicant, Mr WILMOT, wished to withdraw his application.

15.5a.    I have been shown by Inspector DRAPER
15.5b.    the approved minutes of the Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88 (***)
15.5c.    in which it clearly states
15.5d.    that the Senior Planning Assistant said that the applicant had asked for a deferral.

15.6.    This assistant would have been Neil HARVEY.

15.7a.    I have no recollection of this
15.7b.    but I accept that the minutes reflect accurately what was said and by whom.

If the Chief Planning Officer had nothing to hide,
why on earth would Caradon have been so consistently sensitive
over what was or was not said by him?

Detective Inspector Draper knew perfectly well
that there was no evidence whatsoever to support the minutes.

Had the Clerk's notebook supported the minutes,
they would not have been "discovered to be missing".

15.8a.    In addition, I do not see in the minutes
15.8b.    that there is any reference to my alleged comments
15.8c.    regarding his allegation of my reference to the application being withdrawn.

Tim Wilmot suggests that there is a very simple reason for that.

The Planning Committee Minutes were falsified by the Chief Planning Officer
to conceal the reference to withdrawal behind the Senior Planning Assistant / defer smokescreen.

This is why the Clerk's Notebook had to be "missing" - it confirmed the allegation was true.

15.9a.    The application was considered by Members in the normal way,
15.9b.    following advice from the Senior Planning Assistant ( the case officer )
15.9c.    and the Planning Officer
15.9d.    and I referred to information from consultees,
15.9e.    i.e. Waste Disposal Officer of Cornwall County Council.

Tim Wilmot is adamant that the Senior Planning Assistant did not speak -
the Chief Planning Officer handled the whole thing.

16.1a.    The Committee did not accept my recommendation for refusal
16.1b.    for the reasons given as shown in my report (***)
16.1c.    as supplemented by myself at the Meeting.

16.2a.    However they accepted my advice
16.2b.    that they should not give any decision
16.2c.    until the aspect relating to methane gas had been thoroughly investigated.

Totally untrue.

Please remember that the Chief Planning Officer verbally offered the Planning Committee
opportunity to GRANT planning permmission.

He did not say "Withold consent untill methane dealt with!"

It was clearly a condition as part of the grant of planning permission.

Which is why the seconder, Councillor Smale - BEFORE he was nobbled by Tolley -
told Tim Wilmot 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?"

16.3a.    This was particularly relevant
16.3b.    as the proposed use of the land was for public purposes.

17.1a.    By a vote of 16 to nil,
17.1b.    they accepted my advice relating to how the application ought to be dealt with
17.1c.    if they did not want it refused.

Untrue - see below.

17.2a.    It is likely that Mr WILMOT would have been in the chamber
17.2b.    and heard the decision following the debate
17.2c.    and Miss PEARCE's proposition
17.2d.    and he would have been aware of the sentence in the Planning Officer's report,
17.2e.    viz, 'If the Committee were minded to approve the proposal,
17.2f.    it is essential that no consent is granted
17.2g.    until this aspect has been thoroughly investigated.'

At first sight, so reasonable - but it is yet again twisted truth.

The Chief Planning Officer carefully omits his verbal offer:-
"If Members were minded to grant planning permission,
it should be subject to satisfactory results
of investigations into [ landfill gas ]

From the Chief Planning Officer's own mouth,
there was "minded to grant planning permission",
but there was no "it is essential that no consent is granted".

Therefore Tim Wilmot suggests that it is inescapable
that the Chief Planning Officer's offer to the Planning Committee
was to grant planning permission
with a condition on gas attached
over which he had power to draft it's text.

17.3a.    I believe that the minutes are a true reflection of the situation
17.3b.    and that no planning permission was ever granted subject to conditions.

17.4.    In effect, Mr WILMOT was not granted approval.

The Chief Planning Officer moved to prevent any benefit
from the 16 to Nil vote ever reaching Tim Wilmot.

18.1a.    In consequence of the decision of the Committee,
18.1b.    I would have then expected the case officer, Mr HARVEY,
18.1c.    to liase with the applicant in the normal manner.

18.2a.    In effect, I would have expected Mr HARVEY
18.2b.    to have sent a letter to Mr WILMOT out of courtesy,
18.2c.    advising him of the Committee's decision.

18.3a.    There was no legal requirement for such a letter
18.3b.    but it certainly would have been good practice.

18.4a.    Through my department,
18.4b.    I would not have been involved in any aspect
18.4c.    of the despatch of this type of correspondence,
18.4d.    instead the Deputy Planning Officer would have maintained overall managerial responsibility for this.

19a.    Concerning the report required on landfill gas as required by Mr WILMOT,
19b.    it most certainly was not the responsibility of the Planning Authority either legally or morally,
19c.    to advise him on what type of report was required.

Then why was it that in the early stages, Kimberley was arranging it - click 'back' to return.

20.1a.    I continued to be involved with Mr WILMOT
20.1b.    but from documents available to me
20.1c.    it appears as though contact was maintained between Mr WILMOT and Mr HARVEY
20.1d.    and that Mr WILMOT was aware that a 'decision notice' would not be issued
20.1e.    until the methane gas matters had been clarified.

Skirting around Harvey's File Note here!

Gas matters that were impossible to clarify
due to the inability of the Planning Department at any time over a four year period
to supply any form of specification for a landfill gas survey.

20.2a.    Mr WILMOT stated his solutions
20.2b.    and that he did not intend to have an engineer's report
20.2c.    ( letter from him 07 DEC 88 refers )
20.2d.    because he did not see technical difficulties
20.2e.    because he had been in touch with consultants on the subject.

Tim Wilmot suggests that it was a very reasonable solution
in view of the patent obstruction taking place regarding the landfill gas survey specification.

So reasonable, Harvey accepted it instantly.

Were Harvey's File Note not being concealed by Caradon,
the letter would be read for what it was -
confirmation of the agreement between Tim Wilmot and Harvey.

21.1.    He stated he saw no value in spending several thousand pounds on a methane gas report.

There was a reason why Tim Wilmot believed
that a landfill gas survey could only cost as much as "several thousand pounds".

The Planning Department consistently failed to supply any form of specification,
yet Tim Wilmot was never told of the possibility of an inexpensive hand-held probe survey -
only with drilling rigs
( which themselves needed a separate planning application ).

21.2a.    Mr WILMOT's request ( as per the letter of 07 DEC 88 )
21.2b.    to have the matter expedited,
21.2c.    appeared to have been interpreted by the case officer
21.2d.    as a request for the 'consent notice' to be issued.

Please consider if Harvey -
supposedly awaiting Tim Wilmot's detailed planning application at some time in the future -
is really likely to then suddenly decide
that something "appears" to be a request for the Consent Notice,
and then goes to the extreme of returning it to the Planning Committee
without Tim Wilmot's knowledge or consent
and in "a heavily-loaded manner" designed to secure a refusal vote.

Surely this move has the Chief Planning Officer stamped all over it.

21.3.    In my opinion this was not an unreasonable interpretation.

21.4a.    Further advice was sought from the Environmental Health Officer upon Mr WILMOT's proposals,
21.4b.    so that the matter could be discussed at the first available Planning Committee Meeting
21.4c.    when a 'decision notice' could then be issued.

The scare report.

21.5a.    The matter was dealt with on 06 FEB 89,
21.5b.    when it was decided that a 'refusal notice' should be issued.

22.1a.    I would have liked Mr WILMOT
22.1a.    to have been advised in advance of the intention of the Council
22.1a.    to consider his application on 06 FEB 1989.

What? Advertise an ambush?

22.2a.    I am unaware as to whether he was told or not
22.2a.    or in fact whether he just failed to attend on 06 FEB,
22.2a.    when the Planning authority report was presented by my deputy, Mr WALTON,
22.2a.    accompanied by Mr HARVEY.

The Chief Planning Officer was aware of the truth
right from Tim Wilmot's first letter in May 89.

23.1a.    I would have expected early written notification to Mr WILMOT,
23.1b.    advising him of the 'refusal'
23.1c.    but it appears as though this was not done, and that was regrettable.

Sheer coincidence, of course.

23.2.    The 'refusal notice' was issued on 29 MAR 89.

24.1a.    My next dealings with Mr WILMOT was on 26 MAY 89,
24.1b.    when I replied to a letter of his.

24.2a.    In my letter I explained the reasons for the Council's actions
24.2b.    and I considered my letter helpful.

Please note that the Chief Planning Officer
does not record that Tim Wilmot was spotlighting the Planning Committee Minutes as falsified,
or that the Chief Planning Officer actually felt it neccessary
to repeat his denial twice in one letter..

24.3.    He was also reminded that he had a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.

25.1a.    Subsequent to this I became aware
25.1b.    that Mr WILMOT had been dissatisfied
25.1c.    with the way the Planning Authority had dealt with his application.

Tim Wilmot suggests that "dissatisfied" is one way to describe Tim Wilmot's initial challenge,
which was totally ignored By Caradon District Council.

25.2a.    He continued to write to the Council
25.2b.    and matters were then dealt with by Mr TOLLEY
25.2c.    in his capacity as the Council's Monitoring Officer (internal Ombudsman).

26a.    On 29 NOV 90 I attended a Planning Services Committee towards the end of the Meeting
26a.    when a report by Mr TOLLEY was considered
26a.    and the Council resolved that they expressed full confidence in myself.

A report so obviously full of lies,
that Tolley resorted to physical assault with aerosol cans of paint,
as he tried to cover up the words LIAR & PERJURER!

27.1a.    Not being actively involved in the allegations made by Mr WILMOT,
27.1b.    but being aware of the ongoing concerns,
27.1c.    on 18 July 1991 I agreed to attend an arranged meeting at Luxstowe House, Liskeard,
27.1d.    between Mr TOLLEY, Councillor SCREECH, Mr WILMOT and myself.

27.2a.    The meeting was full and frank
27.2b.    and I admitted that had I misrepresented Mr WILMOT
27.2c.    then it had not been done intentionally.

Councillor Screech recorded what the Chief Planning Officer really said,
and both Tolley and the Chief Planning Officer had to draft and re-draft Tolley's File Note,
differing only on what the Chief Planning Officer did or did not say.

27.3a.    Quite simply it would have been unreasonable to expect me
27.3b.    to remember every word that was said on this item on 03 OCT 88.

27.4.    Mr WILMOT was assured his concerns would be pursued and explored.

28.1a.    Following this meeting I wrote to Mr WILMOT in OCT 91
28.1b.    and advised of how to further pursue his application in respect of 'Target Tip'.

28.2.    I never received a reply to this.

28.3a.    I further corresponded with him in DEC 91 over related matters
28.3b.    and asking for a reply to my OCT 91 letter.

29.1a.    My most recent letter to Mr WILMOT is dated 13 JAN 92.

29.2.    He has been pursuing the option of developing elsewhere.

29.3a.    I have, at every opportunity,
29.3b.    given him assistance regarding his proposed development
29.3c.    but he has not intimated his intent on realisticly pursuing any of his options.

30.1.    Since 1989 onwards I have been the subject of written abuse from Mr WILMOT.

30.2.    On one occasion, in the Council Chamber, he uttered verbal abuse.

Sounds terrible, said like that,
but the truth is rather different.

Caradon District Council rapidly withdrew their 06 MAY 1991 Injunction
in the face of Tim Wilmot's counterclaim,
in which he laid five very serious charges,
but foolishly claimed just £1 in damages,
which Caradon paid rather than try it's honour and reputation.

A £1 coin was selotaped to a letter,
and hand-delivered to Tim Wilmot,
who returned it to the Planning Committee,
throwing it on the floor,
and standing upon it to display his utter contempt for Caradon.

they say they believe in law,
but when push comes to shove, they hide behind closed doors like cowards.

30.3a.    This barrage has continued for some considerable time
30.3b.    and I feel that it is all completely unwarranted.

30.4a.    I consider that the purpose of planning
30.4b.    is to regulate the use of land in the public interest.

30.5a.    The advice in relation to this application of Mr WILMOT's
30.5b.    has been correct and professionally based throughout.

31.1a.    I am surprised that this interview should have taken place
31.1b.    as I am completely satisfied
31.1c.    that I have acted professionally and fairly with the applicant and his proposal.

31.2a.    I was surprised that he did not appeal the decision
31.2b.    and I note the Local Government Ombudsman
31.2c.    did not find there was a case of maladministration to investigate.

Tim Wilmot did not appeal
because he was unwilling to submit to people like the Chief Planning Officer,
and he was adjusting to the realisation that local government was full of lying shits,
who uphold the law against the public with one hand,
while urinating on it with the other to protect themselves.

The Chief Planning Officer knows perfectly well -
but the Detective Inspector did not -
that the Local Government Ombudsman cannot investigate
when an applicant does not appeal.

So it is both untrue and misleading for the Chief Planning Officer to say
"the Local Government Ombudsman did not find there was a case of maladministration to investigate".


32.1a.    There is evidence that the applicant in a past planning matter,
32.1b.    early in 1988,
32.1c.    was found to have "camouflaged" the truth.

32.2.    This related to his home at 'The Burrows' at Callington.

32.3.    It appears to me that Mr WILMOT's recollection of past events is not always accurate.

This refers to the visit by Les Kimberley to The Burrows,
when Kimberley asked Tim Wilmot if he was living there.

Tim Wilmot explained that he was selling his Yealmpton property,
and moving items to the farm at The Burrows,
and was at times acting as a nightwatchman,
before buying a suitable home in the area.

Had Tim Wilmot not been attacked by the Chief Planning Officer,
he would have bought a suitable home.

As it is, the Chief Planning Officer's annoyance is clear -
having been aware of residential occupation in early 1988,
his garden centre dishonesty took his eye off the ball.

However, why cannot a nightwatchman be resident?

Tim Wilmot suggests that one could say it was a white lie
( although it was true - he was there at night, and he did keep watch,
whenever he was resident at The Burrows ).

However, when contrasted with the criminality of the Chief Planning Officer's lies,
the arrogance of the man is revealed.


33a.    I consider the planning application regarding 'Target Tip' Ref. 88/1140/F
33b.    was dealt with in a professional manner,
33c.    mindful of D.O.E. advice
33d.    and without regard to personal matters.

34.1a.    On 7 February 1991 I advised upon procedural improvements
34.1b.    which should be adopted in the handling of planning applications.

34.2.    This policy pre-dates the advice given in the Development Control Audit Guide dated 1992.



NOTE: anyone with half an ounce of brain can see how weak this statement is,
and will no doubt wonder how a Detective Inspector ever came to write it,
and wose - leave it unchallenged.

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Return to Start Menu to Hartridge section
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.
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER