Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Hartridge Affidavit 1993

NOTE: This affidavit was sworn by Hartridge
when Caradon were defending themselves
against Tim Wilmot's amateur civil litigation.

Observe how Hartridge's position has changed since his police witness statement.

Notice also that at 22.2,
Hartridge ( or more accurately, the Bond, Pearce lawyer who drafted it )
actually refers to the 'Clerks notes'.

First, these are the notes that Caradon claim are 'missing', and
second, it is general practice to exhibit any documents refered to in an Affidavit -
and these are not exhibited.

Caradon can claim that the reference to the 'Clerks notes' is an error,
but that still poses the question
"How could such an error arise
if the Bond, Pearce lawyer was simply aware that the Clerks notes were 'missing'? -
because if they were genuinely missing,
and he was genuinely under the impression they were missing,
his mind would not have made the error.

Oh! What a greasy trail of liars!




of Caradon District Council, Luxstowe House, Liskeard, Cornwall, PL14 3DZ
MAKE OATH and say as follows

1.1a.    I am a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute
1.1b.    with Diplomas in Town and Country Planning and landscape design.

1.2.    I have been the most senior Planning Officer to Caradon District Council since 21 DEC 87.

1.3a.    Prior to that I was the Acting Planning Officer for a month
1.3b.    and before that Principal Assistant Planning Officer for 3 years.

1.4a.    I manage a staff of over 40 people
1.4b.    to provide statutory and non-statutory services across the district
1.4c.    in respect of Town and Country Planning and Building Regulations,
1.4d.    with sections concerned with Development Control, and Forward Planning.

2.1a.    I make this Affidavit
2.1a.    in support of the application to strike out the Plaintiff's statement of claim
2.1a.    on the grounds, inter alia,
2.1b.    that it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious
2.1c.    and/or an abuse of the process of the Court,
2.1d.    and am duly authorised to do so.

As the Chief Planning Officer knows perfectly well
that Tim Wilmot's writs addressed his own criminality,
Caradon's actions are themselves an abuse of the process of the court,
as well as an abuse of power.

2.2a.    Save where I depose otherwise,
2.2b.    I make this Affidavit from matters within my own knowledge.

Please bear in mind the 'missing Clerks notes' at 22.2.

3.1a.    The Plaintiff's claim emanates from a planning application
3.1b.    submitted to Caradon District Council and dated 06 JUL 88.

3.2a.    The application (for which we attributed a reference 88/1140/F)
3.2b.    was expressed to be a full planning application for planning permission
3.2c.    for a change of use of approximately 7 acres of land at Target Tip, South Hill Road, Callington
3.2d.    from a redundant Council rubbish tip to a garden centre.

The application was plainly and obviously one in outline only,
and designed solely to address the geographical location suitability question.

The Planning Department chose to redesignate the application as full,
rather than simply ask Tim Wilmot to simply amend
"change of use" to "operational development".

3.3.    There is now produced and shown to me exhibit (***) a copy of the application.

4a.    The Defendant is a local planning authority under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
4b.    and, as such, is bound to determine applications for planning permission
4c.    and undertake various other statutory planning functions.

5a.    The Secretary of State of the Environment
5b.    issues guidance notes and advice to planning authorities
5c.    which they are obliged to take into account when considering an application
5d.    so long as the policies contained in them are lawfull and relevant to the application.

6a.    The professional planning officers who work for local planning authorities
6b.    including the defendant
6c.    give councillors advice upon planning applications
6d.    but the final decision on the majority of applications that are not of a minor nature,
6e.    rests with local elected councillors ("the members")
6f.    and ( at appeal ) the Secretary of State.

7.1a.    In 1988 the vast majority of applications to the Defendant
7.1b.    were dealt with by the members
7.1c.    as the amount of delegation to the Chief Planning Officer was minimal.

7.2a.    Severe pressures for development
7.2b.    were occurring across the district at this time (the building "boom")
7.2c.    and the Planning Committee, that met monthly,
7.2d.    had lengthy meetings, lasting all day,
7.2e.    with a high volume of applications to determine.

Everything was stretched to the limit -
including the Chief Planning Officer, to the point of mad impetuosity.

7.3a.    This was also a time when the authority was competing for staff
7.3b.    with nearly every other authority in the south of the country.

7.4a.    There were extensive delays in filling vacant posts in Development Control,
7.4b.    and a need for newly arrived staff to settle in.

7.5a.    It was not uncommon for an application to be dealt with
7.5b.    by more than one case officer in Development Control.

7.6a.    The management problem at that time for the Development Control Section
7.6b.    was to improve the handling time for applications,
7.6c.    maintaining the quality of decision making,
7.6d.    whilst halting a backlog of applications.

8.1a.    This management responsibility essentially lay with myself,
8.1b.    but also with my Deputy
8.1c.    and the 2 Area Planning Officers.

8.2a.    We attended Planning Committee Meetings,
8.2b.    to give oral reports expanding upon the written reports prepared under my name,
8.2c.    and to answer questions upon the material planning issues and policies.

8.3a.    It was my duty to ensure to the best of my abilities
8.3b.    with assistance from my Deputy and Area Officers,
8.3c.    that members had the opportunity
8.3d.    to consider all the material planning aspects concerning applications.

8.4a.    Following from what I have said at Paragraph 5 herein,
8.4b.    I felt it was my duty to draw member's notice to Circular 21/87
8.4c.    when they were considering the Plaintiff's application at the Planning Committee on 03 OCT 88.

8.5a.    There is now produced and shown to me marked Exhibit (***)
8.5b.    a copy of the said Circular entitled "Development of contaminated land."

9.1.    The Plaintiff's application first went to a planning technician ( Alan LIBBY ) on 06 JUL 88.

9.2a.    I am informed and verily believe
9.2b.    that he carried out a clerical check to see whether the application was in the correct form.

But Libby was strangely unable to
1. read the accompanying letter
that requested the application be checked against minor errors,
and having found the blatant error,
2. unable to suggest to Tim Wilmot
that he should alter "change of use" to "operational development".

9.3a.    Mr LIBBY returned the application to the Plaintiff
9.3b.    under cover of a letter dated 20 JUL 88 (***)
9.3c.    in which he requested clarification
9.3d.    of the proposed means of sewage disposal at the application site
9.3e.    as septic tank drainage
9.3f.    would require the application to be advertised in the newspaper
9.3g.    in accordance with legislation.

Failure to make the tiny alteration above,
enabled the Planning Department
to unilaterally redesignate the application as full, not outline,
which meant opportunity to request details of sewage disposal.

A classic bureaucratic "delay and obstruct" tactic.

10.1a.    The Plaintiff replied to Mr LIBBY's letter on the 11 AUG 88 (***)
10.1b.    with the application form specifying main drainage.

10.2a.    The Plaintiff described the clarification requested
10.2b.    as "an insignificant technicality....
10.2c.    typical of the kind of bureaucratic pitfall which is both annoying and expensive."

10.3a.    The Plaintiff suggested at paragraph 2 of his letter
10.3b.    that "the the Garden Centre
10.3c.    are caused by the general morass of work created by your department.
10.3d.    Nonetheless just as Government always holds me liable regardless of fault,
10.3e.    and frequently punishes me,
10.3f.    so I am determined to punish Government..."

TIm Wilmot's letter was the broadside of a man
who knows when he is being messed with.

The truth of this is shown by the fact
that the interest in sewage instantly evaporated.

Please remember that the Chief Planning Officer
is a supporter of a form of politics
devoted to "squeezing the rich until the pips squeek".

When Dennis Healey said that back in 1974,
Tim Wilmot was a teenager aged 17,
from a background that employed people,
and he naturally assumed that he would do the same.

Tim Wilmot found it rather hard to comprehend the sanity of a political system
that says it wishes to encourage the creation of employment to benefit the country,
and then punishes those who succeed in doing just that,
or even thinking of it.

So he was turned off being an employer for life,
but set up the English Earth Project
to provide self-employment under a protective umbrella
because he felt an obligation to return something.

10.4.    Copies of the said letters are now produced and shown to (me) marked Exhibit (***).

11.1a.    The Plaintiff's letter of 11 AUG 88 (***)
11.1b.    was addressed to Les KIMBERLEY who was the Area Planning Officer in Development Control
11.1c.    under the control of the Deputy Planning Officer and myself.

11.2a.    At that time I still had no knowledge of the Plaintiff's application or letter
11.2b.    but on reading the letter now
11.2c.    it appears to me
11.2d.    that the Plaintiff may have felt persecuted by central or local government
11.2e.    and that, in particular,
11.2f.    Caradon District Council were attempting to inhibit his ability to create business and employment.

Please ask yourself
if a highly unusual letter on a major seven acre retail development
in a green gap favoured by the Chief Planning Officer,
is NOT going to known to him at a very early date?

Ask yourself - is he distancing himself to protect something?

And is it not true that the Chief Planning Officer over a five year period
consistently blocked every single move made by Tim Wilmot,
and then did the same thing to Councillor Knott?

12.1a.    The feeling of persecution by the Plaintiff
12.1b.    may have been engendered by previous events and enforcement action
12.1c.    but I accept that this is supposition on my part.

One can almost see the crocodile tears.

12.2a.    In his letter of 11 AUG 88 (***)
12.2b.    the Plaintiff refers to his meeting with Mr KIMBERLEY at 20 Church Street, Callington.

12.3.    The Plaintiff also refers to "delays" at the shop and garden centre.

12.4a.    From my reading of the file
12.4b.    I note that in 1988 enforcement action was being considered by Caradon District Council
12.4c.    in relation to another site owned by the Plaintiff
12.4d.    in respect of unauthorised storage of material
12.4e.    on land known as "The Burrows", South Hill Road, Callington.

12.5a.    In addition,
12.5b.    the Plaintiff was objecting to the terms of a conditional planning permission
12.5c.    granted for his 20 Church Street site by the defendant.

Tim Wilmot forgets what the condition was,
but it was getting in the way.

Tim Wilmot met Les Kimberley, the Area Planning Officer,
and negotiated it's removal.

In spite of Kimberley looking to Tim Wilmot
like the worst kind of bureaucrat visually,
Tim Wilmot found him an easy man to deal with -
he seemed straightforward and honest.

So it was not objection in the sense of Tim Wilmot being objectionable;
it was a request for the removal of an inconvenient condition
made in such a way that Kimberley was happy to do so.

This point is important as Tim Wilmot is made out to be "difficult".

As long as someone is honest and open in what they do -
even if it opposes what Tim Wilmot wishes to do -
then what is the point of raising hell?

Dishonesty is another matter.

12.6a.    Although my name appears upon standard letters, decision notices and enforcement notices
12.6b.    I had no direct involvement in either of these matters
12.6c.    and they were not material planning matters for consideration by the members
12.6d.    in determining the Plaintiff's application
12.6e.    for changing the use of the former refuse tip to a garden centre at Target Tip.

13.1a.    The Plaintiff re-submitted his application to Caradon District Council
13.1b.    under cover of his letter dated 11 AUG 88 (***).

13.2.    It was received by the Planning Department on 12 AUG 88.

13.3a.    It was the practice at that time for a member of staff
13.3b.    from the water authority, County Surveyor's department and Environmental Services
13.3c.    to check the weekly list of applications
13.3d.    to see whether any warranted detailed inspection in the department
13.3e.    and comment from a "specialist" point of view.

13.4a.    I am informed and verily believe that Mr INMAN, the Environmental Health Officer,
13.4b.    noted the Plaintiff's application had environmental implications
13.4c.    because of the proposed change of use from a redundant Council rubbish tip to a garden centre.

13.5a.    There is now produced and shown to me Exhibit (***)
13.5b.    a copy of his report to the Area Planning Officer, (Mr KIMBERLEY), dated 26 AUG 88
13.5c.    which stated:-

13.6.    "It is not clear at this time what structures will be put on the site."

13.7a.    "I suggest that before any decision is made
13.7b.    the Applicant should furnish a consultant's report on the absence or otherwise of methane gas. "

As methane issues from ANY piece of ground with decomposing organic materiel within it,
a suburban front lawn will be emitting methane gas.

This demonstrates the knots that bureaucrats tie themselves into,
because it would be IMPOSSIBLE for there to be an "absence" of methane gas.

The officer is right to have due regard for gas,
but wrong to have a lack of clarity on what and why.

13.8a.    You will be aware no doubt of explosions and fires
13.8b.    which have occurred in similar situations elsewhere."

On badly managed sites ( including ones run by local government and utilities ),
fires and explosions have taken place on rare occasions.

However petrol filling stations have been built on former landfill sites,
together with housing, and commercial buildings.

It is all a matter of being aware gas is present,
and designing into the site appropriate precautions.

14.1a.    Waste management was, and still is,
14.1b.    a function exercised by the County Council
14.1c.    rather than the Defendant although there is close liason
14.1d.    between the specialist environmental professional/scientists of both authorities.

14.2a.    I am informed and verily believe that Mr KIMBERLEY wrote
14.2b.    to Mr REID, (***) the Waste Management Officer at Cornwall County Council on 30 AUG 88
14.2c.    attaching a copy of the Plaintiff's application
14.2d.    and referring to Circular 21/87 (***) ,
14.2e.    Mr KIMBERLEY asked Mr REID for advice
14.2f.    as to whether there was any likelihood of danger
14.2g.    from methane or other substances at the application site.

14.3a.    Mr KIMBERLEY continued:-
14.3b.    "I appreciate that it may be necessary for you to make tests
14.3c.    in order to provide this information
14.3d.    and would be gratefull if you could advise me
14.3e.    if there is a fee for such tests,
14.3f.    as it would be necessary for me to arrange for the applicant, Mr WILMOT
14.3g.    to commission the tests himself."

No reply to this is known.

However it is crystal clear that Kimberley - a competent officer -
expected that the tests would be done by Cornwall County Council,
and that he ( Kimberley ) would arrange for Tim Wilmot to commission the tests.

This is a vital point, to be held in mind,
because of the Chief Planning Officer's Great Gas Deception.

Tim Wilmot suggests that arrange
means "to come to an agreement or understanding" or "to prepare or plan".

The Planning Department consistently failed to arrange anything regarding landfill gas.

14.4.    A copy of this letter is now produced and shown to [me] marked EXHIBIT (***).

Click here to see Kimberley's letter - then click 'back'

15.1a.    I am informed and verily believe that at some time following this letter of 30 AUG 88,
15.1b.    Mr KIMBERLEY re-allocated the file to Neil HARVEY,
15.1c.    one of the case officers in the Planning Department.

Tolley claimed Harvey was incompetent, and used him as a scapegoat.

Assuming there to be any truth in Harvey's assessment,
one might ask why an incompetent employee
would be assigned to a major planning application?

And why Kimberley - a very competent planner - was removed from a major planning application.

15.2a.    Mr HARVEY then prepared the Planning Officer's written report (***)
15.2b.    concerning the Plaintiff's application,
15.2c.    both of which were due to be considered by the Planning Committee on 03 OCT 88.

15.3.    There is now produced and shown to me Exhibit (***) a copy of the report.

15.4a.    I note that from page 2
15.4b.    that the point about contaminated land was raised
15.4c.    and indeed I respectfully submit
15.4d.    that it is clear from the matters set out in Paragraphs 13 and 14
15.4e.    that the issue had been raised during the consideration of the application by officers
15.4f.    before I became involved.

16.1a.    The report prepared by Mr HARVEY and the case officers
16.1b.    would have been checked prior to the 03 OCT 88 Planning Committee Meeting
16.1c.    by either the Area Planning Officer, Mr KIMBERLEY,
16.1d.    or my Deputy Planning Officer, Mr John WALTON.

16.2a.    Although I had no direct part in preparing the report
16.2b.    it is prepared under my name
16.2c.    and I am responsible for the recommendation.

16.3a.    However, I personally had no knowledge at this stage of the Plaintiff
16.3b.    or the receipt of his application for planning permission for land at Target Tip
16.3c.    and I had no reason to interfere
16.3d.    in the way in which the application was being handled
16.3e.    by the Area Planning Officer and his case officers.

16.4a.    Specific planning applications only come before the Chief Planning Officer
16.4a.    where they become potentially or actually complicated or controversial.

And seven acres of out of town shopping in a green gap was not?

Methinks you protesteth too much!

16.5a.    On reading the report prior to the Planning Committee
16.5b.    I would have been concerned that the potential safety risk
16.5c.    was not specified as a reason for refusal.

Whoa! WHAT safety risk?

Right at the moment, this is open ground, which poses no threat.

Ground that has passed the first ten years of most active emissions,
and is on it's way through the 25 year period to end of emissions.

And read what Dr Ankers - the scentific expert on landfill gas - has to say at 6.2 - then click 'back'.

16.6a.    I had the opportunity to clarify matters if need be
16.6b.    at the Planning Committee prior to the application being determined.

16.7a.    With a high volume of applications/reports to present to Committee at that time
16.7b.    I generally spoke only to those applications
16.7c.    where I felt that the written report required clarification
16.7d.    or that the members had to be mindfull of Government advice and the Council's policies.

16.8a.    When I spoke upon this application at the Planning Committee,
16.8b.    it was because there was evidence to suggest
16.8c.    that there may be a safety risk to people
16.8d.    if the development went ahead
16.8e.    and I felt that I had to point that out to members reflecting advice in a Government Circular.

Two points.

Please remember that right at the beginning of Tim Wilmot's allegations,
Caradon District Council's official position was
that the Chief Planning Officer never spoke upon the application,
or had any part in it's handling
( in spite of the Planning Committee Minutes of 03 OCT 88 ).

Exactly what the Chief Planning Officer claimed in his police witness statement.

0n 18 JUL 91, at the meeting at Luxstowe House,
where Caradon desired Tim Wilmot to withdraw his counterclaim,
the Chief Planning Officer let slip that he HAD spoken,
and might have misrepresented Tim Wilmot "by mistake".

By the time that Tolley wrote his File Note on the meeting,
this had been altered to
"IF I spoke", with IF underlined.

The second point is how fixed the Chief Planning Officer is on the "safety risk" -
it is clear that his mind is totally closed to any development,
regardless of Dr Ankers' advice.

17.1a.    I note from Paragraph 14 of the Plaintiff's affidavit
17.1b.    that there was a site meeting on 03 OCT 88 in the morning.

17.2a.    I have no reason to doubt the Plaintiff's statement
17.2b.    that a meeting took place
17.2c.    and that it would have considered implications of the possible existence of methane gas.

17.3a.    The Environmental Health Officers referred to in Paragraph 14
17.3b.    as being in attendence
17.3c.    would most probably have been an officer from the Environmental Health Department of the Defendant
17.3d.    and an environmental scientist or a waste management officer from Cornwall County Council.

17.4a.    It is likely that the Area Planning Officer was informed of the outcome of the visit
17.4b.    prior to the Committee considering the application,
17.4c.    and it is likely that the Area Planning Officer would have updated me
17.4d.    upon the current advice concerning methane gas prior to the application being debated.

Note how the Chief Planning Officer's memory differs from his police witness statement of JUN 92.


18.1a.    I cannot agree with the Plaintiff's assertion
18.1b.    in Paragraph 14 of his Affidavit
18.1c.    that the 2 Environmental Health Officers
18.1d.    "agreed that they would be happy for any landfill gas question
18.1e.    to be dealt at a detailed planning stage...".

18.2a.    In my experience
18.2b.    Environmental Health Officers are aware that it is not their remit
18.2c.    to advise applicants of how they envisage an application
18.2d.    will be determined by the local planning authority.

Tim Wilmot never said they did!

The Environmental Health Officers made it clear
that they were 'advisory only' to the Planning Department.

They merely said that their professional responsibility would be covered,
if, Tim Wilmot having successfully gained an outline planning consent
on the geographical location suitability question,
any gas issues could be dealt with at detailed stage.

Note the Chief Planning Officer's picque in the use of the word 'remit' -
as if he had to really slap the Environmental Health Officers down!

18.3a.    It is, however, entirely appropriate for environmental health officers
18.3b.    to advise applicants upon the salient safety aspect
18.3c.    of an application for planning permission
18.3d.    and the information they require to enable them to respond positively
18.3e.    to a request for advice by the District Planning Department.

Tim Wilmot says they did so advise.

What is clear here is the Chief Planning Officer's anger
that the Environmental Health Officers had been willing
to unknowingly step outside his rigid "no survey, no consent" position -
a position reinforced by a consistent refusal to supply any specification.

Please note the Chief Planning Officer's need
for applicants to respond positively to his demands.


19.1a.    It was and still is my practice prior to any Planning Committee Meeting
19.1b.    to consider as carefully as possible the reports prepared by my case officers.

19.2a.    The Deputy Planning Officer and/or the Area Planning Officer
19.2b.    would have drawn to my attention any matters relating to specific applications
19.2c.    which they felt needed to be drawn to the Planning Committee's attention
19.2d.    prior to an application being determined.

20.1a.    My recollection is that I first became aware
20.1b.    of the Plaintiff's application for planning permission
20.1c.    on reading the Committee report prepared in my name
20.1d.    and I would have considered the views
20.1e.    of the Environmental Health Officer at Caradon District Council
20.1f.    and the Waste Management Officer at Cornwall County Council
20.1g.    were important,
20.1h.    as they related to the implications of the possible existence of methane gas.

Please note the Chief Planning Officer's rigid view,
as he tries to twist the simple existence of gas
into a danger that automatically means refusal
in spite of Dr Ankers' advice.

20.2a.    I would have considered that this was material to the Plaintiff's
20.2b.    application in the light of Government advice contained in Circular 21/87 (*T 20).

20.3a.    The following paragraphs of the Circular and the Annex to it were, and still are,
20.3b.    in my view relevant to the Plaintiff's application
20.3c.    (although the advice in substantially similar terms
20.3d.    is now contained in a Planning Guidance note).

20.4a.    Circular Paragraph 5
20.4b.    "Contamination, or the potential for it,
20.4c.    is a material planning consideration
20.4d.    which needs to be taken into account at various stages of the Planning process
20.4e.    including the preparation of development plans
20.4f.    and the determination of planning applications.

20.5a.    The best way of minimising any associated risks
20.5b.    is to ensure that areas of potentially contaminated sites
20.5c.    are identified at the earliest stage of planning.

20.6a.    The necessary investigations can then be carried out
20.6b.    before the particular form of development is decided.

20.7a.    This should enable cost effective solutions to be devised,
20.7b.    so reducing the need for urgent and expensive emergency action."

20.8a.    Circular Paragraph 8
20.8b.    "The Secretary of State looks to local planning authorities and developers
20.8c.    to implement the advice and guidance in this Circular.

20.9a.    This should ensure that, in most instances, contaminated land is
20.9b.    identified at an early stage in the planning process, appropriate policies are
20.9c.    developed for it's use and planning applications are decided on the basis of
20.9d.    adequate information.

20.10a.    The specific policies and practices to be adopted by local planning authorities,
20.10b.    are, however, for them to decide
20.10c.    given the particular local circumstances of their area."

20.11a.    Circular Annex Paragraph 2
20.11b.    "Each site must be considered on it's merits
20.11c.    and if necessary treated with caution.

20.12a.    Where the previous history of the site
20.12b.    suggests that contamination may have occurred,
20.12c.    an investigation to assess the condition of the site
20.12d.    and identify any particular problems or hazards
20.12e.    will normally need to be undertaken by the prospective developer
20.12f.    before deciding the most appropriate use for the land.

20.13.    Findings of the investigation should enable the most suitable use to be determined.

20.14.    The development should then be designed to minimise the risks.

Exactly what Tim Wilmot intended - and the Chief Planning Officer blocked.

20.15a.    The specific precautions needed will depend on the degree of risk
20.15b.    and the sensitivity of the potential target(s) to the hazards."

20.16a.    Circular Annex A Paragraph 3
20.16b.    "Even before an application is made,
20.16c.    informal discussions between a potential developer and the local planning authority
20.16d.    can be very helpfull.

The Planning Department consistently blocked discussions.

20.17a.    If the local planning authority has reason to believe
20.17b.    that there is a possibility that the land might be contaminated,
20.17c.    this may be brought to the attention of the developer at this stage,
20.17d.    and the implications explained.

20.18a.    The applicant can then design his scheme
20.18b.    so as to take full account of the likely requirements of the local planning authority.

20.19a.    Applications need not, however,
20.19b.    be delayed pending an investigation by the developer
20.19c.    to establish the nature and extent of the contamination
20.19d.    unless there is good reason to suppose that the land in question is actually contaminated...

20.20a.    If an application is received without prior discussion
20.20b.    and the authority suspects that the site may be contaminated,
20.20c.    it may be to the benefit to all parties concerned
20.20d.    to advise the applicant that the land may be contaminated
20.20e.    and of the factors which will be taken into account [in] determining the application.

20.21.    The Applicant may then wish to consider whether or not to proceed."

20.22a.    (Circular Annex Paragraph 13)
20.22b.    "Where it is known or strongly suspected that the site is contaminated
20.22c.    to an extent which would adversely affect the proposed development,
20.22d.    an investigation by the developer
20.22e.    to identify any remedial measures required to deal with hazards
20.22f.    will normally be required
20.22g.    before the application can be decided by the local planning authority..."

An alternative garden centre, specifically designed with landfill gases in mind,
with no use of concrete or tarmac,
with open-sided structures, or structures raised off the ground,
and with all services above ground level -
does not alter existing gas dispersion,
and therefore does not adversely affect the proposed development.

Please bear in mind, that twice in 1991,
Mike Bullock, the replacement Environmental Health Officer to John Inman,
wrote memos to the Chief Planning Officer
backing Tim Wilmot's proposed garden centre construction methods.

Twice the Chief Planning Officer wrote blocks back.

These documents were fond in the 1992 Police Report Evidence File.

21.1a.    In the light of the advice in the Circular (***)
21.1b.    I took the view that, in accordance with paragraph 13 of Annex A,
21.1c.    a methane gas survey was necessary
21.1d.    before the application could be decided by the Local Planning Authority.

Please remember that Tolley, during the first four hour meeting,
stated that "no survey, no consent" was unreasonable.

However, Tim Wilmot is perfectly entitled to disagree
with the Chief Planning Officer's view,
and ask the Planning Committee to answer only the geographical location suitability question.

That question was asked, and they said "Yes!".

21.2a.    Paragraph 14 of Annex A to the Circular does suggest
21.2b.    that where there is only a suspicion
21.2c.    that the site might be contaminated
21.2d.    or where the evidence suggests that there is potentially only slight contamination,
21.2e.    planning permission may be granted
21.2f.    but conditions should be attached
21.2g.    to make it clear that development will not be permitted to start
21.2h.    until the site investigation and assessment has been carried out.

21.3a.    The Principal Environmental Health Officer in his report of 26 AUG 88 (***)
21.3b.    noted that explosions and fires had occurred on similar redundant rubbish tips elsewhere.

21.4a.    I considered that the application
21.4b.    came into the category of being "strongly suspected" as being contaminated
21.4c.    in accordance with Paragraph 13 of Annex A to the Circular.

21.5a.    I wanted to convey this view to the members of the Planning Committee, on
21.5b.    receipt of the most up to date advice from the "specialists."


22.1a.    The Planning Committee's Meeting on 03 OCT 88 started at 10.38am and closed at 7.35pm.

22.2a.    The Clerk's notes indicated
22.2b.    that I was present at the Meeting throughout this time
22.2c.    except during the lunch break and tea breaks
22.2d.    and for a short period between 6.40pm and 7.12pm.
The Clerk's Notes were "discovered" to be missing by Tolley on 24 APR 90.

So why are they not only refered in 1993 to at 22.2a,
but not exhibited, as normal in an affidavit?

This is evidence that Caradon District Council are lying.


23.1a.    The Committee considered 49 Minuted items at the Meeting.

23.2a.    Each of the Minuted items contained several ancillary matters
23.2b.    which had to be considered during the Meeting
23.2c.    and over 100 applications were determined.

24.1a.    The presentation of the Planning Officer's report on all these matters
24.1b.    to the Committee was at that time an exhausting task
24.1c.    for myself, the officers involved, and no doubt for the Members themselves.

24.2a.    A tea break comes as a welcome relief
24.2b.    both for the Planning Officer and for the Committee Members.

24.3a.    The Plaintiff refers in paragraph 15 of his Affidavit
24.3b.    to such a tea break in the afternoon.

24.4a.    Although I cannot recall the time
24.4b.    at which the tea break took place that afternoon,
24.4c.    I would have thought that it occurred between 3.30pm and 4pm
24.4d.    and lasted approximately 15 minutes in accordance with usual practice.

24.5a.    It was at that time open to Members, Council Officers, the public and others
24.5b.    to mingle during the brief period during the Committee adjournment,
24.5c.    but the primary purpose of such adjournment was refreshment.

25.1a.    I do not recall the Plaintiff approaching me to discuss his application
25.1b.    although his recollection of events,
25.1c.    bar losing my temper,
25.1d.    is not disputed

If the Chief Planning Officer admitted losing his temper,
he is halfway towards admitting falsifying the Planning Committee Minutes -
so no wonder he admits nothing.

25.2a.    This is because I am sure that I would remember such an unusual event
25.2c.    as losing my temper with an applicant.

25.3a.    Councillor PENGELLY may have introduced the Plaintiff to me,
25.3b.    but again I cannot recall.

25.4a.    My immediate reaction, had we briefly discussed his application,
25.4b.    would have been to determine whether or not the Plaintiff now realised
25.4c.    the concern of the environmental health officers,
25.4d.    and the issue of safety
25.4e.    and thereby had any new information regarding his application
25.4f.    (which was not evident from the written report prepared under my name)
25.4g.    and which would assist the Planning Committee in arriving at a decision on the application.

25.5a.    I would have been concerned to elicit from the Plaintiff
25.5b.    in any discussion we may have had during the tea break
25.5c.    any matters which occurred to me as relevant material planning considerations.


25.6a.    Unfortunately the Plaintiff may not have agreed with the importance
25.6b.    that I attached to determining
25.6c.    whether there could be a resolution of the methane gas problem.

Here is the crux of the matter.

The Chief Planning Officer had no interest in seeing any resolution
because his one fixed desire was refusal.

This is why he consistently blocked all routes forward.


25.7a.    I respectfully submit that a refreshment adjournment
25.7b.    is hardly the place to debate the matter.

26.1a.    During the alleged discussion at the tea break
26.1b.    I am confident that I would have advised the Plaintiff to withdraw his application
26.1c.    and to consider whether it was cost effective to proceed with it
26.1d.    after a methane gas survey had been prepared.

Tim Wilmot is confident that the Chief Planning Officer has full recall of what he said.

The withdrawal part is correct,
but the cost effectiveness part is wishfull thinking on his part,
because what he hopes for, is that Tim Wilmot gives up.

26.2a.    Because of the high possibility that methane gas existed
26.2b.    and the potential danger in encouraging the public onto the site
26.2c.    if there was no possibility of treating the problem,
26.2d.    I felt that a survey was needed to identify what measures,
26.2e.    if any could be taken,
26.2f.    would be necessary to render the tip safe for use as a garden centre.

Once again, the Chief Planning Officer is blind to the advice of Dr Ankers at 6.2 - then click 'back'.

26.3a.    At that time no fee was charged for a re-submitted planning application
26.3b.    and therefore the Plaintiff would have incurred no extra cost
26.3c.    in withdrawing his application at that stage.

27a.    If in fact I did meet the Plaintiff during the tea break
27b.    that would have been the first time we had met.

28.1a.    When the Planning Committee reconvened after the tea break,
28.1b.    the Plaintiff's application for planning permission was considered,
28.1c.    and I had Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant,
28.1d.    available to advise and update me and Members upon the latest information.

Harvey never confirmed that he spoke,
beyond say that if it was in the Minutes, it must be true.

Tim Wilmot has adamantly maintained since 1989 that only the Chief Planning Officer spoke.

28.2a.    I may have been mistaken by suggesting
28.2b.    that the Plaintiff wished to withdraw his application,
28.2c.    no doubt arising from a short discussion during a refreshment adjournment.

The twists and turns of liars.

28.3a.    Notwithstanding that,
28.3b.    the Minutes of the Meeting record that Members were aware
28.3c.    of the need for information about the landfill gases escaping from the site.

28.4a.    A copy of the Minutes is now produced
28.4b.    and shown to me marked Exhibit (***).

29.1a.    It is likely that the debate was longer
29.1b.    than that portrayed in the Minutes of the Meeting
29.1c.    and it is obvious that the application was not treated as withdrawn.

But you fail to explain why it was not withdrawn!

29.2a.    The Meeting clearly did not labour under any misapprehension
29.2b.    that the Plaintiff's application had been withdrawn.

Because the Chief Planning Officer -
strongly opposed to the application -
offered the Planning Committee the opportunity to grant planning permission -
which they did by 16 votes to nil -
answering Tim Wilmot's geographical location question,
exactly as he had asked.

However, the Chief Planning Officer then could not possibly allow
any resolution of the methane gas problem".

29.3.    If it had, then no further discussion to the matter would have been given.

29.4a.    The Minutes record the resolution
29.4b.    that the application be granted ( by 16 votes to nil )
29.4c.    subject to satisfactory results of a survey
29.4d.    to be carried out by the applicant regarding landfill gases on the site.

Once again, please remember clarity here.

The Planning Committee do NOT set the text of the conditions -
this is done by the Planning Department after the Meeting.

So there are several unanswered questions here:-

1. what does satisfactory mean?

2. what type of survey?

3. over what period is the survey to be carried out?

4. who does one get a survey from?

5. who does one give it to?

Once again, the Chief Planning Officer twists the truth.

29.5a.    The Plaintiff was present at that Meeting on 03 OCT 88
29.5b.    and I submit that he must, therefore, have been aware of the requirement
29.5c.    for a satisfactory methane report to be produced
29.5d.    before any permission would be issued.

Complete rubbish.

What Tim Wilmot heard was the proposer saying something to the effect of:-
"I propose we approve with a condition on gas!"

Add to that Councilor Smale being adamant
that he voted for the immediate issuing of a Consent Notice,
with anything else dealt with at detailed stage.

The simple fact is that the Chief Planning Officer was responsible
for failing to convey the Planning Committee Decision on 03 OCT 88 to Tim Wilmot,
and consistently blocked every route forward thereafter.

29.6a.    The Senior Planning Assistant and the Area Planning Officer
29.6b.    would have been aware of the Plaintiff's presence
29.6c.    and, in my opinion, in subsequent discussions with the officers
29.6d.    the Plaintiff would have been in no doubt as to the Planning Committee's decision.


29.7a.    I cannot therefore see how the Plaintiff can have been under any misapprehension
29.7b.    or suffered any detriment.

Tim Wilmot could not supply what was impossible to supply,
therefore there is clear detriment.

30.1a.    I am informed and verily believe
30.1b.    that following the Planning Committee,
30.1c.    the case officer, Mr HARVEY met the Plaintiff at Target Tip on 29 NOV 88
30.1d.    and discussed the methane gas issue.

This is a very inaccurate statement,
based upon a document the Chief Planning Officer could not acknowledge
without destroying his thin tissue of lies,
because he would have been required to exhibit it.

Tim Wilmot refers to Harvey's File Note of 29 NOV 88,
which recorded the telephone conversation and agreement between Tim Wilmot and Harvey
to await a detailed planning application
in which the design and layout took into account any possible landfill gas problem.

What the Chief Planning Officer fails to make clear is the source of his information.

30.2a.    He noted that the Plaintiff accepted the presence of methane gas
30.2b.    but that the Plaintiff intended to "design around the problem".

30.3a.    The Plaintiff wrote to Mr HARVEY on 07 DEC 88
30.3b.    and advised that he wished to submit a detailed application
30.3c.    in which portable buildings ( with space for air to circulate below )
30.3d.    would be used
30.3e.    and that all services would be kept above ground.

30.4a.    The Plaintiff also indicated
30.4b.    that by reason of the revised form of development
30.4c.    "no value whatsoever [would be achieved]
30.4d.    by wasting several thousand pounds on a methane report
30.4e.    when the lay-out and technical specification can fully cover any possible methane problem.

As stated before, landfill gases would definitely be issuing from the site.

All that a survey can do, is tell you in what quantity gas is issuing.

So by taking the worst case scenario,
and designing the garden centre with it's core concept being gas safety,
how on earth was Tim Wilmot branded as irresponsible?

30.5a.    A copy of the Plaintiff's letter is now produced
30.5b.    and shown to me marked Exhibit (***).

31.1a.    Mr HARVEY wrote
31.1b.    to the Environmental Health Officer at Caradon District Council on 13 JAN 89 (***)
31.1c.    referring to the Plaintiff's intentions expressed in his letter of 07 DEC 88 (***)
31.1d.    to the effect that a methane gas report would now no longer be submitted.

There was no categoric statement of no survey -
"to the effect" is mere wishfull thinking.

31.2a.    Mr HARVEY informed the Environmental Health Officer
31.2b.    that the matter would
31.2c.    be reported to the Planning Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89
31.2d.    and requested the Environmental Health Officer's observations for that Meeting.

31.3a.    On 24 JAN 89 the Principal Environmental Health Officer reported (***)
31.3b.    on the Plaintiff's revised proposals and stated that:-

31.4a.    "In the absence of a consultant's report
31.4b.    the Council has no alternative
31.4c.    but to work on the assumption
31.4d.    that there is methane gas being produced on this seven acre site
31.4e.    which makes paragraphs 18-22
31.4f.    of the Inter-Departmental Committee on the redevelopment of contaminated land
31.4g.    even more important which, to put it simply,
31.4h.    means that there should be no development of any kind."

31.5a.    "...portable buildings such as horticultural tunnels, greenhouses, sheds and the like
31.5b.    are considered particularly vulnerable
31.5c.    because they form enclosures which are in intimate contact with the ground."

31.6a.    "The placing of portable structures on stilts or piers
31.6b.    may not necessarily remedy the situation
31.6c.    because if the landfill gas which is being produced also contained carbon dioxide,
31.6d.    it is possible for the two gases to accumulate in layers
31.6e.    so that an inflammable mixture becomes concentrated
31.6f.    not at the bottom of an enclosure
31.6g.    but at the top of an enclosure."

31.7a.    "One should not lose sight of the fact
31.7b.    that where landfill flammable gases are being produced
31.7c.    even such basic works as trenching for services
31.7d.    for the provision of roads, car parks, or hard-standings
31.7e.    can alter the pattern of the accumulation and dispersal of the gases
31.7f.    and possibly in an un-researched situation give rise to a dangerous situation.

31.8a.    Copies of the Memoranda concerned are now produced
31.8b.    and shown to me marked Exhibit (***).

32.1a.    Although it is regrettable
32.1b.    that the Plaintiff was not notified of the fact
32.1c.    that his views upon the matter would be considered again
32.1d.    at the 06 FEB 89 Planning Committee Meeting
32.1e.    it was not the Defendant's practice at the time
32.1f.    to inform applicants when the Planning Committee was to meet
32.1g.    to consider information relevant to deferred applications.

32.2a.    We have since changed our procedures
32.2b.    and, as a matter of courtesy, do give applicants such notice.

33.1a.    Despite not having given the Plaintiff notice of the 06 FEB 89 Planning Committee's consideration
33.1b.    it is difficult to see what further information the Plaintiff could have provided
33.1c.    to assist the Committee in arriving at it's decision.

The truth?

33.2a.    The Plaintiff did not wish to spend money on obtaining a methane gas report
33.2b.    and I would have been satisfied
33.2c.    that the Plaintiff had by then had sufficient opportunity
33.2d.    to obtain and submit an independent methane gas survey report,
33.2e.    had failed to do so
33.2f.    and had no immediate intention of commissioning such a report.

The Planning Department had deliberately prevented Tim Wilmot
from having any concrete basis on which to survey or report.

33.3a.    He had successfully conveyed this information to the case officer
33.3b.    and it was in my opinion right for the case officer
33.3c.    to seek the views of the Environmental Health Officer
33.3d.    before referring the matter back to the Committee.

Please note that Harvey's File Note agreement is not mentioned
because it demolishes the Chief Planning Officdr's agrgument.

34.1a.    I was on leave during the week of 06 Feb 88
34.1b.    and I am informed and verily believe that my Deputy Planning Officer, Mr WALTON
34.1c.    presented the Planning Officer's report (***)
34.1d.    ( again prepared under my name by Mr HARVEY )
34.1e.    to the Committee in my absence.

34.2a.    A copy of the report is now produced
34.2b.    and shown to me marked (***).

34.3a.    The Minutes of the 06 Feb 89 Meeting (***)
34.3b.    record that when the Plaintiff's application was considered
34.3c.    the Senior Planning Assistant, Mr HARVEY, informed the Committee
34.3d.    that the Environmental Health Officer
34.3e.    was of the opinion that permission should not be granted.

Please bear in mind that this Environmental Health Officer
was on the point of retirement,
and therefore willing to humour a Chief Planning Officer.

Please remember that his replacement, Mike Bullock,
in two memos the the Chief Planning Officer in 1991,
expressed himself in full support of Tim Wilmot's construction methods.

The Chief Planning Officer moved fast to block him.

34.4a.    The Deputy Planning Officer and the Planning Assistant
34.4b.    would have been able to clarify matters and answer questions
34.4c.    about the material planning issues from Members.

34.5a.    The Committee considered the information
34.5b.    and resolved that planning permission be refused for the application.

An application returned to the Planning Committee
in "a heavily-loaded manner designed to secure refusal",
is likely to be refused.

34.6a.    A copy of the Minutes of the Meeting is now produced
34.6b.    and shown to me marked Exhibit (***).

35.1a.    A Notice of Refusal of planning permission for development
35.1a.    was issued to the Plaintiff on 28 MAR 89,
35.1a.    and a copy is now produced and shown to me marked Exhibit (***).

35.2a.    The reason for refusal was
35.2b.    that in the light of advice contained in Circular 21/87
35.2c.    any form of building or structure erected on the application site
35.2d.    may have resulted in a hazard to public safety.

35.3a.    "Government Circular No. 21/87
35.3b.    places a responsibility on the Local Planning Authority
35.3c.    to have regard to the possible dangers
35.3d.    of development of sites formerly used for the dumping of waste.

35.4a.    In the absence of a consultant's report,
35.4b.    the Local Planning Authority has no alternative
35.4c.    but to assume that emission of gases may occur
35.4d.    and in this circumstance it is considered
35.4e.    that any form of building or structure erected on this land
35.4f.    may result in a hazard to public safety."

36.1a.    The Plaintiff was advised of his rights to appeal against the Notice of Refusal
36.1b.    by way of Notice to that effect on the reverse of the Notice of Refusal.

36.2a.    If the Plaintiff had considered
36.2b.    he had a justifiable ground for objecting to the refusal
36.2c.    then he had a six month period in which to appeal in the normal way.

36.3a.    The Plaintiff chose not to do so
36.3b.    and, in my opinion, thereby failed to avail himself
36.3c.    of the opportunity of challenging the validity of the refusal of planning permission.

37.1a.    By a letter dated 02 OCT 91
37.1b.    which is now produced and shown to me marked (***)
37.1c.    I advised the Plaintiff of further information that I had received
37.1d.    concerning the presence of methane gas on the site.

37.2a.    An assessment of the site had been carried out
37.2b.    by the Assistant Environmental Protection Officer with the County Surveyor's Department.

37.3a.    Advice was given upon the presence of gas,
37.3b.    the specialist design work that was needed to make the site safe
37.3c.    and the Government's grant arrangements.

The Chief Planning Officer had killed the application by this time.

37.4a.    Despite this helpfull advice,
37.4b.    I am now advised that unauthorised residential occupancy
37.4c.    is being encouraged by the Plaintiff on this site.

38.1a.    In conclusion,
38.1b.    I acted throughout this matter simply in a professional way,
38.1c.    seeking to assist the Defendant
38.1d.    in carrying out it's functions under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

38.2a.    I have never had any intention to harm the Plaintiff
38.2a.    or his business interests.

From the moment that the Chief Planning Officer became aware
that Tim Wilmot, and later Councillor Knott,
were focusing on the criminal offences committed by the Chief Planning Officer,
blocking and revenge became paramount.

38.3a.    I have investigated the matter thoroughly
38.3b.    and I am convinced that my junior officers and the Members
38.3c.    also acted entirely properly throughout.

38.4a.    I believe that the Plaintiff has brought these proceedings
38.4a.    in order to perpetuate his campaign against the Department and me
38.4a.    and that they are, accordingly, scandalous, frivolous, vexatious
38.4a.    and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.

38.5.    I therefore humbly ask the Court to grant the Defendant's application.

A. Hartridge

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