Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Councillor Pengelly Police Witness Statement

This is the police witness statement
of Councillor Clifford Gerald PENGELLY, of Callington.

It shows how Pengelly lied to move himself away
from witnessing the Chief Planning Officer's loss of temper.

It fails to record Pengelly's eyes popping out with shock,
as the Chief Planning Officer
deliberately misrepresented Tim Wilmot to the Planning Committee.

It shows how this previously supportive Councillor
suddenly blocked all contact with Tim Wilmot,
because Pengelly knew that the application's reversal
was due to the Chief Planning Officer's deceit.

An innocent Pengelly would have sued Tim Wilmot,
or got Police to prosecute,
but Pengelly knows Tim Wilmot holds the truth.

As, of course, do police.


1.1a.    I am a Sales Representative for J. CARNE & Son, of Beal Mill,
1.1b.    dealing in the animal feeds business.

1.2a.    I am also a District Councillor
1.2b.    for the town of Callington with Caradon District Council
1.2c.    and have been since 1973/74.

Pengelly was a councillor from the formation of Caradon District Council
under the local government reforms of 1973,
and was, if Tim Wilmot recalls correctly,
a councillor on the old authority that was replaced.

This means Pengelly was a very experienced councillor indeed.

Pengelly would spot internal manipulation of the planning process a mile off.

Add to that the fact that he chaired Planning Committees,
and you have a man experienced in the chicanery of executive council officers -
as his police witness statement proves.

2.1a.    On 03 OCT 88
2.1b.    I attended Luxstowe House for the purpose of attending a Planning Committee Meeting.

2.2a.    As was normal practice,
2.2b.    I had been supplied in advance
2.2c.    with a copy of the agenda for the day's business.

2.3a.    In the documentation supplied to me
2.3b.    was details of an application by a Mr Timothy WILMOT of Callington,
2.3c.    who wanted to develop an old waste tip ( area known as 'Target Tip' in Callington ).

2.4a.    I was also aware from the documentation
2.4b.    that the Planning Officer, Mr HARTRIDGE,
2.4c.    was to recommend refusal of this application.

3.1a.    Prior to this date, 03 OCT 88,
3.1b.    I had never met Mr WILMOT or had any contact with him.

3.2a.    I first met him in the Council Chamber
3.2b.    whilst the Planning Committee was sitting.

Untrue. The public cannot speak while the Committee is sitting.

3.3a.    I think he was sat in a seat immediately behind me
3.3b.    and it was then that I recall him first making himself known to me.

Tim Wilmot sat behind Pengelly AFTER the tea break.

3.4.    I cannot recall any specific conversation of this time.

No wonder - there was none.

4.1a.    The Committee proceeded with it's business
4.1b.    and then at a point throughout the afternoon,
4.1c.    the Committee broke for a refreshment break.

4.2a.    Mr WILMOT made contact with me during this break,
4.2b.    and whilst I cannot recall the exact words used,
4.2c.    or in fact who used the words first,
4.2d.    I do recall Mr WILMOT wishing to be introduced
4.2e.    to Mr HARTRIDGE, the Council's Planning Officer.

Tim Wilmot recalls Pengelly seeing the Chief Planning Officer,
and asking Tim Wilmot if they had met.

On Tim Wilmot saying that they had not,
Pengelly beckoned the Chief Planning Officer over.

4.3a.    In consequence of this,
4.3b.    I did then introduce Mr WILMOT to Mr HARTRIDGE
4.3c.    and left them together
4.3d.    whilst I went and had a cup of tea elsewhere in the same room.

Pengelly was also a Callington Town Councillor,
and the Town Council was so supportive of Tim Wilmot's plan,
they had gone far beyond the normal "No objection!",
to record "The Town Council wishes Mr Wilmot every success with his venture!"

Pengelly wishes the reader to believe
that he considered an important employment prospect for Callington so unimportant,
that he moved elsewhere.

The reader is asked to consider a more likely possibility -
that Pengelly witnessed
both the Chief Planning Officer losing his temper
when Tim Wilmot failed to bow to his demand that he withdraw his application,
and, therefore,
the deliberate misrepresentation of Tim Wilmot's stated desire
that his application be heard that day -
leading directly to the falsification of the minutes
to obscure the misrepresentation
in a moment of Chief Planning Officer madness.

4.4a.    I was not a party to any of the conversation between these two
4.4b.    nor am I in a position to state
4.4c.    whether they spoke amicably or whether some form of argument ensued.

Direct lie.

5.1a.    I have been shown a document ( see note below ) by Inspector DRAPER
5.1b.    which it is alleged a copy was handed to me
5.1c.    by Mr WILMOT during this refreshment break.

5.2a.    It is possible that such a document was handed to me
5.2b.    but I have no recollection of it.

Tim Wilmot's document made it crystal clear
that he was opposed to either withdrawal or deferral.

So clear was it,
Tolley, solicitor to Caradon District Council,
accepted in his Report dated 05 SEP 90
that Tim Wilmot authorised neither,
but failed to wonder how the minutes could record "deferral",
or find out how it happened.

By pretending no recollection of the document,
Pengelly pretends no awareness of Tim Wilmot's opposition to both withdrawal or deferral.

5.3a.    I have also been asked by Inspector DRAPER
5.3b.    whether or not I had any contact with Mr WILMOT prior to 03 OCT 88.

5.4.    I have no recollection whatsoever of ever having met him prior to this date.

6a.    A short time later, after the tea break had started,
6b.    the bell rang denoting it was time to resume the Council's business
6c.    and so we all returned to the chamber.

It was now that Tim Wilmot sat immediately behind Pengelly.

Tim Wilmot, Pengelly, and the Chief Planning Officer,
were still talking as the bell rang,
so Tim Wilmot simply followed Pengelly.

And why not?

Pengelly had showed himself very helpful.

7a.    Mr WILMOT's application was introduced by the Chairman of the Committee,
7b.    after which, at some stage, the Planning Officer, Mr HARTRIDGE
7c.    presented his verbal report,
7d.    referring to his written report,
7e.    and clearly identifying the fact
7f.    that it was his recommendation that the application be refused.

Note that Detective Inspector Draper FAILS to ask Pengelly
if the Chief Planning Officer had stated to the Planning Committee
that Tim Wilmot wished to withdraw.

Since this event was central to the most serious criminal allegation -
falsification of the Planning Committee Minutes -
the ommission needs to be noted.

Remember also that Tim Wilmot had described this event as
as Pengelly spinning around like a scalded cat,
with his eyes popping out on stalks,
when the Chief Planning Officer had said Tim Wilmot wished to withdraw.

Strange the Detective Inspector did not specifically question Pengelly on that.

8.1.    I have been shown a copy of the Minutes of 03 OCT 88.

8.2a.    The section referring to Mr WILMOT's application
8.2b.    is consistent with my recollection of the events of that afternoon.

9a.    I have a faint recollection of the Senior Planning Assistant, Mr Neil HARVEY,
9b.    addressing the Committee
9c.    but cannot be sure of what he said
9d.    or of what the gist of what he said included.

Nothing like an old hand laying a smokescreen
on a man who never spoke.

10.1a.    I do recall addressing the Committee myself
10.1b.    and speaking in support of Mr Wilmot's application.

Pengelly did indeed speak in support - which was admirable.

However he ignored the Chief Planning Officer's deliberate misrepresentation altogether -
which is not admirable at all.

What is about to be said,
is recorded by the Detective Inspector below -
but belongs here.

Pengelly is minuted as asking for deferral -
exactly one of the two things Tim Wilmot was adamantly opposed to.

Now why would Pengelly do that?

Please bear in mind
that the Chief Planning Officer had stated that Tim Wilmot wished to withdraw.

Presumably Pengelly saw deferral as better than withdrawal.

What is certain is this -
if the Planning Committee Minutes were true in recording
that the Senior Planning Assistant had said that the applicant had asked for deferral -
why on earth would Pengelly need to duplicate the request?

10.2a.    This was followed by a proposal by Councillor PEARCE in support of Mr WILMOT
10.2b.    and seconded by Councillor SMALE.

10.3a.    A vote was then cast on the application
10.3b.    and Mr WILMOT's application was approved by 16 votes to nil.

Which suggests that the entire Planning Committee thought
that Tim Wilmot's plan was a very good one.

Which makes the reversal just four months later seem rather strange.

11.1a.    This permission for outline planning permission was granted
11.1b.    and I remember it being granted clearly,
11.1c.    on the proviso
11.1d.    that Mr WILMOT first of all submit an official report on the methane gas implications of the site.

Pengelly "forgets" what actually took place
because if he does not,
Caradon District Council are deep in the mire.

The Chief Planning Officer said this to the Planning Committee:-

"If Members were minded to grant planning permission,
it should be subject to satisfactory results
of investigations into [ landfill gas ]"

Do you see any request to hold back issuing a Consent Notice?

What was said was simple:-

"If you GRANT planning permission,
it should have a condition attached
to ensure satisfactory results of investigations into landfill gas"

Now look at the Listing:-

"If the Committee were minded to approve this proposal,
it is essential that no consent is granted
until this aspect [ landfill gas ] has been thoroughly investigated."

Here it is saying,
"if you are seriously considering approval,
do not actually grant that approval
before landfill gas has been thoroughly investigated".

11.2a.    This permission that had just been voted on and given
11.2b.    was in effect a deferred permission,
11.2c.    as it was conditional upon the gas aspect being satisfactorily resolved.

"in effect!" !!!!!

Strange that the Planning Officer never, ever explained what "satisfactory" actually meant.

12a.    I am unaware for sure as to whether Mr WILMOT was present
12b.    when the Committee made this decision,
12c.    but I can only assume that he was,
12d.    as he had been present earlier on.

Pengelly knew that I was within three feet of him, immediately behind.

13.1a.    I have been asked by Inspector DRAPER
13.1b.    if I recall any comment by myself when addressing the Planning Committee
13.1c.    about asking for a deferral of Mr WILMOT's application.

Covered above.

13.2a.    I do recall asking for a deferral
13.2b.    but I did not get any support
13.2c.    and so the matter was moved on to the vote referred to earlier.

Here is skirting over a difficult point!

Pengelly asked for deferral
so the the landfill gas issue could be dealt with.

The reason why he got no support was simple -
the Committee did not want to pussyfoot around over landfill gas -
it wanted to approve the application,
attach a condition covering landfill gas,
and issue the Consent Notice
( exactly as Councillor Smale first told Tim Wilmot in SEP 90 ).

The truth was "forgotten"
when the executive officers "persuaded" the councillors
to back their efforts to protect the council from admitting serious criminal offences.

14a.    The Committee's business then moved on to other applications
14b.    and that was the total extent of my involvement with Mr WILMOT and his application.

15a.    The next time I had any contact with Mr Wilmot
15b.    was some time in the early part of 1989,
15c.    when he came to my home address
15d.    and presented me with an affidavit that he had prepared.

Delivery of the Affidavit was probably 06 APR 90.

16a.    He went on to explain
16b.    that he considered me to have been totally ineffective in supporting his claim
16c.    as he had by this time received a refusal notice in respect of 'Target Tip'.

Tim Wilmot recalls
that he at first ( say late 1989 ) simply informed Pengelly what had happened,
and that Pengelly was obviously "blocking" -
so it became clear that he was part of Caradon's defence.

The Affidavit came later.

17a.    Subsequent to this I received a number of telephone calls from Mr WILMOT
17b.    when he was aggressive and upset
17c.    with what he perceived to be inaction by myself.

Is it not the duty of a councillor to uphold the law?

18.1a.    Mr WILMOT has, up to three weeks ago,
18.1b.    continued with a barrage of abuse,
18.1c.    placard carrying
18.1d.    and the sending of highly critical letters.

18.2.    Much of this documented abuse has been passed to my solicitor, Mr SKINNARD of Callington.

19.1a.    With regard to this whole scenario,
19.1b.    I have had to put up with a sustained barrage of abuse from Mr WILMOT
19.1c.    and I feel I ought to point out that it is all without foundation.

19.2a.    I supported his application in the early stages
19.2b.    but after 1988 I did not see that I had a role to play in his matters.

20a.    I accept that Mr WILMOT may well have perceived me as being unsupportive of his case,
20b.    certainly following the issuing of the refusal notice,
20c.    but I feel satisfied that, after supporting him in the early stages,
20d.    there really was no role for me to play
20e.    and that the matter was left in the hands
20f.    of the full time employees within the Planning Department of Caradon District Council.

Strange that the Detective Inspector did not ask "Why no role?"

That's it! Rely on good, old honest Chief Planning Officer!



Pengelly was a Methodist Lay Preacher -
obviously Christ's teachings mean little to him -
"Thou shalt not bear false witness!",
for example.

Or - "Walk the extra mile!"

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Return to Start Menu to Pengelly 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