Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Chief Planning Officer demolished

The purpose of this file is to conclusively prove
that the Chief Planning Officer internally manipulated the planning process
to willfully and wrongfully reverse by deceit
the Planning Committee approval vote of 16 to Nil given on 03 OCT 88.


Let us begin by highlighting the legal terms "prima facie" and "Res ipsa loquitur", or
making a case" and "the thing speaks for itself".

Let us take an imaginary case put before a Court by a Barrister:-


"There is a prima facie case that the defendant is liable.

They controlled the pump.

The pump was left on and flooded the plaintiff's house.

The plaintiff was away and had left the house in the control of the defendant.

Res ipsa loquitur".


Now let us imagine Tim Wilmot addressing a Court on Caradon:-


Caradon District Council are a local planning authority
empowered by law to regulate building and construction in the Public Interest.

They have a duty not to be negligent in their handling of an application,
and should handle an application honestly and diligently,
subject to the Rules of Natural Justice.

The Council at all times had total control over the application.

At one moment, the Planning Committee of 03 OCT 88
expressed itself by a vote of 16 to Nil
to grant some benefit to the applicant -
at another moment - the Planning Committee of 06 FEB 89 -
that benefit was withdrawn.

A series of supposedly inexplicable coincidences took place,
during which there were many events uniformly unfavourable to the application
after the end of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

At the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
the Chief Planning Officer - a man vehemently opposed to the application -
felt obliged for some reason to offer the Committee
the very thing he was so strongly opposed to -
opportunity to grant the application.

One can argue over exactly what that grant means,
but there can be no doubt that the offer was made,
nor that the offer ran directly contrary to his true wishes.

The very fact that an approval vote contrary to his wishes
was reversed in circumstances filled with inexplicable coincidences -
all of which were under the command of his Planning Department -
speaks for itself.


Now let us put some flesh on the bones.


The Chief Planning Officer is a man of a socialist background,
where centralised control of the community
is carried out by officers appointed by government.

The Chief Planning Officer actively disliked property speculators,
describing them as "ripping-off the community".

In 1988, the building boom was in full swing,
property speculation was rampant,
and planners generally were under greater stress than ever before.

So 1988 was a time when a Chief Planning Officer could display a moment of madness.

All that was required was something out of the ordinary -
something so "red rag to a bull",
that he was incapable of ignoring it.


Tim Wilmot was young,
inexperienced in handling local government,
and from a very different background.

Whereas socialists wanted to destroy Tim Wilmot's background,
and use it to fund their urban socialist workers paradise,
Tim Wilmot saw vast acreages of agricultural land,
obliged, due to excessive taxation,
to provide minimal employment opportunities -
a loss to the nation and the environment.

Tim Wilmot was a conservative opening his mind to alternative ways of thinking,
and had been fortunate in business dealings to become independent financially.

As a result, although severely turned off from employing people
by socialist "squeeze the rich until the pips squeak" rhetoric, restriction, and regulation,
Tim Wilmot felt it was his duty to develop ideas on rural regeneration
where he could share his good fortune with others.


When Target Tip, a former council rubbish dump,
came up for auction in 1988,
Tim Wilmot saw a perfect garden centre site.

Although on a B road,
the road was dead straight from Callington,
and had a wide grass verge of six feet on both sides.

With a long road frontage
to the seven acres of level ground on the former tip
access and visibility was excellent.

Three adjacent fields of solid ground totalling five acres,
had further road frontage,
but Tim Wilmot was attracted by reclaiming derelict land on the tip.

Tim Wilmot bought the land.


Tim Wilmot then applied to Caradon District Council
for outline planning permmission for a garden centre.

Tim Wilmot drew up an amateur site map himself,
and it is fair to say that the application lacked professionalism.

Tim Wilmot was asking one question only:-
"is this geographical location suitable for a garden centre?"


Tim Wilmot had no idea whatsoever that
1. a garden centre is not far removed from an out-of-town shopping in planning terms, and
2. the site was in a green gap of importance to the Chief Planning Officer.

Both out-of-town and green gap are "red flag" controversial items in planning terms.

The planners may well have seen Tim Wilmot's inexperience
as opportunity for obstruction that they would not get away with on a pro.


In spite of this,
Caradon District Council's Planning Department claim
that there was no "red flag" controversy,
and the application was dealt with in a very low key manner,
during which a series of accidents occurred,
none of which caused any harm whatsoever to the application.

They say there was no official "blocking" of Tim Wilmot and his application.


The Chief Planning Officer claims that he was unaware
of either Tim Wilmot or his application
until a mere five days before the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

Unaware of a major "red flag".


Tim Wilmot submitted his application with a covering-letter
addressed to the Area Planning Officer, Les Kimberley
( who had previously been easy to deal with ).

The letter asked that the application be checked for any silly mistakes.


In spite of this request,
although a silly mistake was detected,
Tim Wilmot was not asked to correct it.

To a layman such as Tim Wilmot,
he owned an area of derelict land,
and wanted "change of use" from dereliction to garden centre.

In planning terms, change of use can only be considered
where an existing use is changed for another,
such as change of use from shop to estate agent's office.

The correct term would have been "operational development", not "change of use",
and a very junior planner would spot it immediately.


The Planning Department unilaterally redesignated the application
from "outline" to "detailed",
in spite of the fact that no details whatsoever were included.

This enabled the Planning Department to request
if the proposed sewage arrangements
were likely to be by septic tank drainage,
as the application would need to be advertised in the newspaper by law.


Is it really likely that any developer at outline stage
would have decided on sewage arrangements?

Is it at least a possibility that this was a classic delaying tactic?


Tim Wilmot's reply was a broadside letter,
and if the Chief Planning Officer was truly unaware of his application before,
you have to wonder why he claims not to have seen this letter
until very much later.

Put simply, did the letter get up his nose?

Up his nose enough to prompt misrepresentation,
falsification of Planning Committee Minutes,
and internal manipulation of the planning process
on both Tim Wilmot's application,
and those of Councillor Tony Knott,
to reverse by stealth and deceit
the democratic votes of the Planning Committee.


What is certain is that the sewage request vanished.

Please ask yourself
if this is indeed confirmation that it was a delaying tactic.


The next move of the Planning Department
was to see if they could get Tim Wilmot to withdraw his application,
and carry out a survey upon landfill gases on the former landfill site.

On the face of it, this would appear to be a perfectly reasonable request.

After all, landfill gases can cause fire and explosions,
and can therefore endanger life and property.


From the point of view of the Planning Department,
having the application withdrawn reduced pressure,
and meant that the application would return to Committee sometime in the future,
while costing Tim Wilmot time and money.

If Tim Wilmot gave up, that would be a bonus.


From Tim Wilmot's point of view,
while he fully understood and supported proper regard for dangers from gas,
this was putting the cart before the horse.

What on earth was the point of spending a great deal of time and money
on a landfill gas survey
if the Planning Committee's considered view was
that the answer to Tim Wilmot's geographical location suitability question was "No!"

In Tim Wilmot's view, the time to deal with gas
was only if the Planning Committee's answer
to the geographical location suitability question was "Yes!",
and he was granted outline planning permission.


Tim Wilmot was perfectly entitled to hold that view,
and insist that his application went before the Planning Committee.

Equally, the Planning Department was perfectly entitled
to insist on an answer to it's landfill gas survey demands -
which it could have done
by serving on Tim Wilmot a notice under the General Development Order ( 1977 ).

DoE Circular 21/87 Circular clearly states at 21.3:-

"If the information provided by the applicant
is insufficient to enable the authority to determine the application,
the applicant may need to be asked to provide further information
by means of a direction under article 5(1)
of the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 as amended".

The Planning Department never did so.


Here is the relevant part of a letter ( full text here - click 'back' )
written by the Area Planning Officer, Les Kimberley,
to the Cornwall County Council Waste Disposal Officer
( who monitors landfill gases ).

Please bear in mind
that Kimberley is a senior planning officer known to be competent.

The very fact that Kimberley, was handling this,
strongly suggests a "red flag" application.

3a.   I appreciate that it may be necessary
3b.   for you to make tests in order to provide this information
3c.   and would be grateful if you could advise me if there is a fee for such tests,
3d.   as it would then be necessary for me to arrange for the applicant, Mr T WILMOT,
3e.   to commission the tests himself.


Tim Wilmot has never seen the reply to this letter,
so he has no idea of what the Planning Department were told
about either a proposed specification for the survey,
or the estimated cost.

Tim Wilmot suggests that there is a possibility
that the potential costs of a survey were played-up by the Planning Department,
with the hope that he might be deterred to the point of abandoning the project.

What is certain is that,
in spite of the clear statement by Kimberley in the letter,
no planning officer at any time "arranged" for Tim Wilmot
to commission a survey.

The Planning Department - which claims that gas safety was central to it's concerns -
consistently totally failed to enable Tim Wilmot to carry out a survey,
and blocked all attempts at contact with the Environmental Health Department
from after the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

Tim Wilmot suggests that it is hard to escape the conclusion
that landfill gas, and the dangers associated with it,
were at all times a mere stumbling block from the Planning Department,
used as a pawn in their strategy to refuse the application.


Visit 1993 affidavit to see where Kimberley hands over application to Harvey, then click 'back'.


The Planning Department wanted Tim Wilmot
to have a site meeting with Environmental Health Officers,
and claimed they were unable to arrange a meeting before the morning of 03 OCT 88 -
which was the same day the application was due to be heard by the Committee.

Tim Wilmot suggests that it is very possible
that the object of having the site meeting on 03 OCT 88,
was to maximise pressure on Tim Wilmot to withdraw.

There was no planning officer present.


The site meeting is interesting
because it clearly demonstrates two things:-

1. that Tim Wilmot put up a perfectly reasonable case to the Environmental Officers
that his geographical location suitability question should be dealt with first,
with gas dealt with between outline ( if Yes ) and detailed.

2. that having been rapped over the knuckles by the Chief Planning Officer,
and being aware that Caradon District Council were under investigation by police,
closing ranks took place, and lies were told by one of the officers.


First, let us examine the truth,
and please bear in mind that the truth is scientific truth.

This is what Dr Ankers, the Environmental Protection Officer said to Tim Wilmot on 03 OCT 88.

When tipping ends on a landfill site,
decomposing materiel producing methane and other gases
will be emitting gas for a period of not less than 35 years,
with the first 10 being the most active.

Ankers stated that gas would definitely be issuing from the site.


Here is what Ankers says in his police witness statement ( full text - click 'back' ).

6.1a.    I am satisfied that at this meeting, Mr Wilmot was advised
6.1b.    that it would be neccessary to have a site investigation
6.1c.    to assess whether the site was still generating landfill gas.

Tim Wilmot suggests that this difference exists
because Caradon District Council were seen to be under a genuine threat,
and this lie was intended to assist their defence against the truth.


Here is the proof that Tim Wilmot is correct in saying
that Ankers said that landfill gas would definitely be issuing from the site.

In 1991, Tim Wilmot managed to get past the blocks put in place
by the Chief Planning Officer and Tolley,
and had a site meeting at Target
with Mike Bullock, Principal Environmental Health Officer at CDC, and
Colin BREWER, of the County Council Waste Disposal Office.

Read here how Bullock memoed to the Chief Planning Officer
that Brewer had stated:-

2.2a.    Mr BREWER informed him
2.2b.    that there will inevitably be methane present on the site
2.2c.    but there would be no problem in this respect
2.2d.    if Mr WILMOT restricts his buildings
2.2e.    to ones which are portable and raised off the ground
2.2f.    or open structures with no appreciable sides which could trap gas.

Here is the full memo,
plus the Chief Planning Officer's blocking memo.

This document was in the Police Reoprt to the CPS evidence file,
but is not mentioned in Draper's report
because it demolishes Caradon District Council's defence.


Please note that both Ankers below and Brewer above
have no problem with development:

6.2a.    If still active,
6.2b.    he would have been advised that development could take place,
6.2c.    subject to appropriate precautions being taken.

Please note that Ankers sees no problems whatsoever in development taking place -
all that is required are appropriate precautions -
see Ankers' statement - then click 'back'.

Please contrast the above with the Chief Planning Officer's 1993 affidavit:-

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.

The scientist sees no problem whatsoever,
but the Chief Planning Officer fundamentally opposed to the very idea of a garden centre
sees so great a problem that he seems doubtfull it can be resolved.


Tim Wilmot suggests that the Chief Planning Officer's 1993 affidavit contains evidence
that he rapped the Environmental Health Officers over the knuckles
for getting in the way of the Planning Department's desire
for withdrawal of the application
by agreeing at the site meeting to deal with gas after outline 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.

See full text in context with 18.3 - click 'back'.


Although the Chief Planning Officer makes much of landfill gas,
the police witness statement of Dr Ankers makes it clear
that gas was not his real concern at all -
it seemed as if he had other, stronger reasons for wanting refusal.

The full extract is worth reading - click 'back'.


See how the Chief Planning Officer's story changes
between his 1992 police witness statement,
and his 1993 affidavit.

Visit affidavit, then click link to PWS, then click 'back' twice.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that there is now a clear picture of a Chief Planning Officer
who is vehemently opposed to Tim Wilmot's application,
sees landfill gas of secondary importance,
and expects applicants to positively respond to his demands.

Tim Wilmot suggests that his failure to comply,
added to the unprecedented stress of the 1988 building boom,
was enough to trigger a cold-blooded moment of madness,
followed by a systematic campaign of obstruction and lying.


We now jump to the Planning Committee afternoon tea break,
where Tim Wilmot and the Chief Planning Officer met for the first time.

Tim Wilmot recalls that, without any preamble whatsoever,
the Chief Planning Officer demanded that he withdraw his application,
get a landfill gas survey,
then bring the application back.

Tim Wilmot suggests that this was not a man open to reasonable discussion -
it was almost an order.

As this was directly contrary to his intention,
Tim Wilmot politely put the case
for dealing with the geographical location suitability question first,
then dealing with gas if the Committee approved the concept.

Tim Wilmot can remember as if yesterday
that the Chief Planning Officer lost his temper
just as the bell rang for the Committee to start again.


Tim Wilmot suggests that all of us can lose our tempers -
it is a human frailty common to us all.

However, there is a vast difference
between losing your temper, putting it to one side, and behaving fairly, and
losing your temper, and as a result setting out to cause deliberate harm.


When Tim Wilmot's application was called by the Chairman of the Planning Committee 30 minutes later,
Tim Wilmot has a crystal clear memory of the Chief Planning Officer standing up,
and saying "The applicant wishes to withdraw!"

Tim Wilmot suggests that this is the Chief Planning Officer's banana skin -
the moment of madness that led directly to an even greater moment of madness -
the falsification of the Planning Committee Minutes
by ordering the Committee Clerk
to replace "Planning Officer" with "Senior Planning Assistant", and
to replace "withdraw" with "defer".

This classic blunder led directly to the "missing" Clerk's notebook,
because the notebook contained the fatal words
"The Planning Officer said the applicant wishes to withdraw!"

Words that Tolley knew were in the notebook on 26 APR 90 -
words that broke him as a liar and perjurer in 1991.


Tim Wilmot has consistently recorded
that Councillor Pengelly ( witness to the tea break conversation )
"spun around to Tim Wilmot with his eyes popping out on stalks",
and that Tim Wilmot shook his head
to convey that this was a lie.

The proof that Pengelly was there,
complete with his glasses with heavy duty magnifying lenses,
that made his eyes like goldfsh bowls -
lies in his police witness statement,
where Pengelly claims to have left Tim Wilmot and the Chief Planning Officer
immediately after introducing them -
and therefore before any loss of temper.


Now we come to the most amazing part of all.

Please remember that the Chief Planning Officer wants this application approved
about as much as he wants a very large hole in his head.

Although it is the busiest Planning Committee Meeting ever,
and one might expect
that when a Chief Planning Officer says the applicant wishes to withdraw,
he says so with all of the authority of his position,
sits down,
and the Planning Committee Chairman moves on the the next item.

The Chief Planning Officer remained standing,
and spoke to the Planning Committee on the application.

During his briefing to the Committee,
he said these words which are recorded in the Planning Committee Minutes:-

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

Tim Wilmot suggests that the Chief Planning Officer
was offering the Planning Committee opportunity to grant planning permission,
with gas to be dealt with by a condition.

Tim Wilmot suggests that this is supported by two pieces of evidence:-
1. the powerfull difference between the Planning Department's position in the Listing,
and the Chief Planning Officer's own words, and
2. Tim Wilmot's written record of what the seconder of the approval motion told him
before the seconder was nobbled by Tolley.


To assist the Planning Committee in their deliberations,
a document known as the Listing is printed to brief them.

"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."

The Listing for Tim Wilmot's application states categorically
that, if the Planning Committee has in mind approving the application,
the Planning Department recommends that no actual grant takes place
untill landfill gas has been thoroughly investigated.

Nothing could be clearer.


So if the Chief Planning Officer, in his verbal briefing to the Committee,
significantly lowers his demands,
Tim Wilmot suggests that the reader has a right to ask "Why?"

This is what he said:-

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

The Chief Planning Officer is saying:-

"If the Committee intends to grant planning permission,
that planning permission should include provision for landfill gas".

As he is not suggesting witholding the grant of planning permission
until landfill gas has been dealt with,
logically that can only be done by a condition attached to the Consent Notice.

He has definitely NOT said
"Having granted planning permission,
do not issue until landfill gas satisfactorily dealt with!"


Tim Wilmot suggests that the Chief Planning Officer lowered his demands
because he was uncertain what response he would get from Councillor Pengelly
to his deliberate misrepresentation of Tim Wilmot's wishes.

So he appeared to be conciliatory.


Now we come to the seconder of the motion to approve, Councillor Smale.

Tim Wilmot managed to get to Smale before he was "nobbled" by Tolley.

Here is what Tim Wilmot recorded - click 'back'

In spite of this written record being in Tolley's hands,
this is what Tolley formally reports
to the Planning Committee secret meeting on 29 NOV 90 - click 'back'


Tim Wilmot suggests that by getting past the Caradon smokescreens,
one can logically deduce what actually happened.

In a moment of madness,
the Chief Planning Officer offered the precise thing he was opposed to -
the grant of planning permission, with a gas condition.

And the Planning Committee took him at his word
voting by 16 to Nil to approve.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that the Chief Planning Officer was not over happy with this result.

Tim Wilmot suggests
that the long list of events that acted against his application
are clear evidence of a deliberate campaign
to reverse by deceit the democratic vote of the Planning Committee,
and deny Tim Wilmot any benefit of that vote.


At the close of the Planning Committee Meeting,
Tim Wilmot was disgusted by the display of moral values by local government,
but as he wrongly thought that he had outline planning permission,
he had no intention of making any complaint.

Why wash in a cesspit?

Tim Wilmot was unaware that a Consent Notice is only valid at law
when it is signed by the Chief Planning Officer.


So the irony was that the Chief Planning Officer was safe
from everything except his own fear.

And his fear was that Tim Wilmot would complain about misrepresentation.

So what does an internal manipulator of the planning process do?

He alters the record - the Planning Committee Minutes - a criminal offence.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that, while fear may have been his first response,
it was anger that came to predominate,
and Tim Wilmot suggests that the Chief Planning Officer's anger
can be seen as the guiding hand in all subsequent events.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that the Chief Planning Officer first set aside the actual Planning Committee decision
to approve with a condition on gas his own verbal offer,
and reverted to the position in the Listing.

This meant that his mind was fixed on preventing any issuing of a Consent Notice
until landfill gas was dealt with "satisfactorily".

If landfill gas was not dealt with in some way,
the Consent Notice could not be issued.

What better way to prevent landfill gas being dealt with,
than to "forget" to inform the applicant of the Committee's decision,
or to "arrange" a landfill gas survey
( as Kimberley had so clearly stated - click 'back' ).


Tim Wilmot suggests
that when a Planning Department "forgets" to inform an applicant
of a Planning Committee decision,
that there is something wrong.

Tim Wilmot waited for 57 days
before phoning the Planning Department,
and being put through to the Senior Planning Assistant, Neil Harvey
( whom he had never spoken to before ).

Had Tim Wilmot not phoned,
who knows how many days would have clocked up?


Tim Wilmot's minimum expectation was a Consent Notice,
together with a specification for a landfill gas survey.

A landfill gas survey is a complex scientific operation
beyond the means of mere laymen.

So Tim Wilmot suggests
that it would be unreasonable to expect him to commission a landfill gas survey
without a specification.

And yet Tolley claims just that - click here - then click 'Back'.


So Tim Wilmot was taken aback by Harvey saying
that the Planning Department were waiting for Tim Wilmot's landfill gas survey report.


Bearing in mind the established fact
that the Planning Department had never asked Tim Wilmot for a report,
Tim Wilmot questions how on earth Harvey could possibly be asking for it?

It just did not add up.

In hindsight, it would have been a good idea to have asked Harvey
how he could supply a report without either request or specification,
but Tim Wilmot realised that he was being messed about,
and instantly created a solution.


Please remember that Tim Wilmot had been told by Ankers
that gas would definitely be issuing from the site.

So it seemed sensible to work on the basis of the worst case scenario,
and design the detailed application
with landfill gas safety measures as the core concept.

This fitted in perfectly with Tim Wilmot's interest in the environment,
and his desire to reclaim for beneficial use an area of land
that was already past it's maximum landfill gas output.


So reasonable was Tim Wilmot's suggeston,
Harvey accepted it immediately.

Harvey wrote a File Note dated 29 NOV 88 to record the fact
that he would wait for Tim Wilmot to supply a detailed plan,
at which point a site meeting would be held to discuss it.


This File Note is concrete evidence
that Caradon District Council's defence
that Tim Wilmot stated that he would not produce a landfill gas survey report
( and was therefore irresponsible towards gas dangers )
is not only false, but fraudulent also.

So concrete is the evidence,
the File Note was always stripped from the application file
before Tim Wilmot was allowed to look at it,
and the 1992 police investigation does not have it in the evidence file.

Tim Wilmot suggests that it is hard to escape the conclusion
that it was deliberately witheld.


Within a week, Tim Wilmot wrote a letter dated 07 DEC 88 to the Planning Department
confirming the verbal agreement with Harvey.

This letter was taken out of context by the Planning Department
as a statement by Tim Wilmot that no landfill gas survey report was coming.


As Tim Wilmot's detailed plan
had landfill gas safety measures as it's core concept,
Tim Wilmot suggests that any attempt to make him seem irresponsible
is at odds with the truth.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that when the Chief Planning Officer heard of the agreement to await a detailed plan,
he immediately realised that his witholding of the decision had been outmanoeuvred.

To outmanoeuvre the outmanoeuvre,
required destroying the Planning Committee decision of 03 OCT 88
before a detailed application arrived.

Tim Wilmot suggests that to do this required an ambush.

It was vital that the Planning Committee be deceived
as to the real nature of Tim Wilmot's intentions,
and that Tim Wilmot be unaware of the application returning to the Committee.


This may well explain why,
when Tim Wilmot met Area Planning Officer, Les Kimberley, on 21 DEC 88,
he was only given about five minutes to discuss three properties.

The agreement had been unilaterally broken,
and the blocks were already in place.


Tim Wilmot suggests that the Planning Committee of 06 FEB 89
had no option but to comply with the Chief Planning Officer's wishes.

They were mere puppets
in the hands of the Chief Planning Officer doing what he does best -
internal manipulation of the planning process.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that when a Planning Department takes an extraordinary time
to inform an applicant of a Planning Committee decision
that was nothing short of an ambush,
that this is evidence that something is wrong.

The Refusal Notice was not signed until 28 MAR 89 -
a total of 50 days from 06 FEB 89.


The moment that Tim Wilmot got over the shock,
he went to Caradon District Council's offices,
and asked to see the Planning Committee Minutes for 03 OCT 88.

As soon as he set eyes on the Minutes,
he instantly realised that the Chief Planning Officer had falsified them.

The Committee Clerk refused Tim Wilmot sight of her notebook,
and lied in her police witness statement
by saying that Tim Wilmot had left the offices happy.


Tim Wilmot's first letter to Caradon District Council's then Chief Executive,
was simply passed to the Chief Planning Officer,
who repeated twice in two pages:-

"You are mistaken in thinking that I told the Committee that you wished to withdraw
( a copy of the Planning Committee are enclosed ).


Tim Wilmot realised that he was being fobbed off by Caradon District Council,
and was not interested in a massive confrontation
with a government structure that he found disgusting.


Tim Wilmot suggests
that the hand of the Chief Planning Officer is once again visible
when Enforcement action began against Tim Wilmot
three days after the expiry of the six months appeal period.

Tim Wilmot realised he had to fight or die.


Tim Wilmot's first move was a letter addressed to the Chief Planning Officer.

The letter was ignored.

Although not known, one assumes that it was looked at by legal staff,
so one might wonder why no attempt was made to contact Tim Wilmot,
and convince him of Caradon District Council's innocence.


Tim Wilmot has recorded elsewhere the Enforcement prosecution,
and the various hoops that Caradon's solicitor Tolley put himself through,
as he set about covering-up the Chief Planning Officer's criminality.


On 29 NOV 90, the Chief Planning Officer was officially whitewashed.


In May 91 a District Council election took place,
and Tim Wilmot took the opportunity to publicly display in Callington
a large placard stating the plain truth.

Caradon responded by obtaining an Injunction under the Representation of The People Act,
claiming that Tim Wilmot was making "false statement"
about the character and integrity of an election candidate,
Geral Pengelly.

On reading it, Tim Wilmot realised that the Injunction was not a problem,
but decided to show willing
by removing the vowel letters from "Gerald" and "Pengelly".

Tolley was reduced to a headless chicken.

No further effort was made during the election,
and the placard remained on public display.


On Tim Wilmot announcing his intention to seek leave from the District Judge
to counterclaim against the Injunction at a Hearing due on 22 JUL 91,
Caradon District Council first threatened high legal costs,
then suggested a meeting at their offices on 18 JUL 91.


On arrival at the offices, Tim Wilmot was searched by seven armed police.

Tim Wilmot suggests that this major police operation
was designed to put him into a compliant, submissive-to-authority mood,
allowing Caradon District Council to reassert it's authority,
and escape liability for criminal offences.

However, as soon as Tim Wilmot smelt gun oil,
he knew he had Caradon District Council over a barrel.


Fortunately for Tim Wilmot,
he had with him Cornwall County Councillor for Callington, Roger Screech
( who also sat on Callington Town Council ),
who was furious with the use of police.


Having been searched,
Tim Wilmot joined Screech, Tolley, and the Chief Planning Officer.

The Chief Planning Officer was all smiles
as he spoke about Tim Wilmot's planning problem.

Then he said something that made Tolley's jaw drop open in shock.

The Chief Planning Officer said
"When I spoke at the Meeting,
I may have misrepresented you by mistake!

Councillor Screech recorded this in his 1994 statement.

This was the first time that Caradon had admitted that he had spoken in any way -
in spite of the Planning Committee Minutes showing him as speaking.

Caradon's defence had previously been
"the Chief Planning Officer did not speak,
therefore he could not have misrepresented Tim Wilmot!"


Tim Wilmot then said
"Okay! You may have misrepresented me by mistake,
but who falsified the Planning Committee Minutes?

The Chief Planning Officer's smile vanished instantly.


Tolley wrote a File Note recording his version of 18 JUL 91.

Caradon were warned by Councillor Screech not to alter anything,
yet that is exactly what they did.

On receipt of the File Note,
Councillor Screech noticed that the Chief Planning Officer's words had been prefixed
with the word "IF" ( underlined ).

"IF ( underlined ) I spoke at the Meeting,
I may have misrepresented you by mistake!"

Councillor Screech wrote a formal letter of complaint recording this.


Nearly two years later, in the spring of 1993
when Tim Wilmot received the 1992 Police Report to the CPS,
the evidence file contained a second version of the File Note.

The differences were all
on what the Chief Planning Officer said at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88.

Councillor Screech made clear what he thought of this.

Caradon District Council legal staff admitted
that Tolley and the Chief Planning Officer were drafting and re-drafting.


Although the Chief Planning Officer promised on 18 JUL 91
to finally supply Tim Wilmot Wilmot with a landfill gas specification,
none was supplied.


There is written evidence
that the Chief Planning Officer acted totally contrary to the Rules of Natural Justice.

During the period after 22 JUL 91,
while Caradon District Council were seeing where Tim Wilmot's counterclaim went,
they proposed an outside solicitor looking at the planning file,
and meeting Tim Wilmot
to see if a way forward could be found.

The solicitor completely backed Tim Wilmot
by recommending that his position be restored to that of the evening of 03 OCT 88.

The Chief Planning Officer,
together with Newell and Tolley ( both also accused by Tim Wilmot ),
and the Chairman of the Council, Eric Distin,
met as the "Emergency Committee".

Three out of four were accused,
and the committee keeps no written records.

Although the outside solicitor had made a recommendation,
it was rejected by the committee.

"No realistic solution was forthcoming"
was how Tolley put it in his Police Witness Statement 1992,

Not realistic to admit the truth!


There is written evidence of "blocking" Tim Wilmot
from accessing the Environmental Health Department.

Click here - then click 'back'

The two memos discovered in the Police Report to the CPS evidence file,
from Mike Bullock, EHO, to the Chief Planning Officer,
supporting Tim Wilmot's construction concepts,
and the Chief Planning Officer's blocking replies,
provide concrete evidence of blocking.


Tim Wilmot trusts that this file
finally makes as clear as it possibly can be,
what was done to his application.

It is now 40 days since Tim Wilmot last ate solid food,
and it has taken the clarity of fasting with death in mind
to focus the mind to the point where he can produce such a narrative.

Tim Wilmot is now close to reaching the end of re-writing his website,
and ready to settle into dying.

For if there is anything he has learned about this primitive society,
it is that it buries it's mistakes.

Link - Return to top of this webpage
Link - Return to Start Menu to Hartridge Comprehensively Demolished 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