-====================================================-Link - Return to Start Menu - allegations in detail -====================================================-Link - Return to Start Menu - Police section -====================================================-Link - Police Report to CPS - 1992 - with commentary -====================================================- You may wish to read this uncommented version first,
before reading Tim Wilmot's commentary on Draper's report.
Tim Wilmot is preparing a more comprehensive demolition webpage,
as the commentary hangs on bones supplied by Draper -
when truth alone provides a better framework.
Of course, Tim Wilmot may be completely wrong -
After all, police would'nt lie, would they? -====================================================-Police Report to Crown Prosecution Service.
Author: Detective Inspector Draper.
Force: Devon & Cornwall.
Subject: false verbal and written statements were made
in relation to the processing of a planning application.
Date: 08 JUN 92. -====================================================- SUGGESTED OFFENCES -====================================================-1a.
At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall1b.
between 2 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,1c.
with intent to pervert the course of public justice,1d.
did a series of acts1e.
which had a tendency to pervert the cause of justice1f.
in that false verbal and written statements were made1g.
in relation to the processing of a planning application1h.
by Timothy Sparrow WILMOT.1i.
CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW2a.
At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall2b.
between 02 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,2c.
being a person holding a public ofice,2d.
did wilfully and without reasonable excuse or justification,2e.
neglected to perform duty2f.
you were required to perform by common law or statute.2g.
CONTRARY TO COMMON LAW -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- Subject: Caradon District Council - Allegation of criminal misconduct -=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X=- -====================================================- INTRODUCTION -====================================================-1.1a.
This report relates to an allegation1.1b.
by Mr Timothy Sparrow WILMOT, 34 years (B.30.6.57),1.1c.
of 'The Burrows', South Hill Road, Callington, Cornwall.1.2a.
His allegations stem1.2b.
from an application of his made in late 19881.2c.
for planning permission to develop a garden centre1.2d.
on the site of an old waste tip at Callington, Cornwall,1.2e.
known locally as 'Target Tip'.1.3a.
His application went before the Planning Committee of Caradon District Council1.3b.
on the 03 OCT 881.3c.
when he was granted outline planning permission1.3d.
subject to him supplying a consultant's report on landfill gas.1.4a.
It was from hereon that matters appeared to have gone significantly wrong1.4b.
as alleged by Mr WILMOT.1.5a.
In April the following year, 1989,1.5b.
a Refusal Notice was issued by Caradon District Council1.5c.
and this stimulated a sustained and determined effort by Mr Wilmot1.5d.
to obtain his planning permission1.5e.
and have the Refusal Notice overturned.1.6a.
Strong resistance to this application was maintained by the Council1.6b.
and as percieved by Mr Wilmot,1.6c.
certain officers with the Council1.6d.
were instrumental in blocking the application1.6e.
or supplying vital information as to the reasoning for their objections.1.7.
Mr WILMOT expressed total dissatisfaction with the following officers:-1.7a1.
a. Mr John Oliver Collins -1.7a2.
Chief Executive of Caradon District Council up to 01 OCT 90.1.7b1.
b. Mr David John NEWELL -1.7b2.
Chief Executive of Caradon District Council since the 1st October 1990.1.7c1.
c. Mr Alan HARTRIDGE - 1.7c2.
Planning Officer with Caradon District Council.1.7d1.
d. Mr Michael Gregory TOLLEY - 1.7d2.
Solicitor to the Council,1.7d3.
currently known as Director of Administration and Monitoring Officer.1.7e1.
e. Mr Clifford Gerald PENGELLY - 1.7e2.
District Councillor with Caradon District Council for the Callington area. -====================================================-1.8.1a.
Police enquiries were commenced into these matters in November 19911.8.1b.
following a complaint by Mr Wilmot1.8.1c.
that he was totally dissatisfied1.8.1d.
with the continued negative response from Caradon District Council,1.8.1e.
compounded by the fact that in his view,1.8.1f.
the Police at Liskeard had failed to satisfactorily investigate1.8.1g.
his misgivings about the council earlier in 19188.8.131.52a.
This in fact refers to a limited investigation1.8.2b.
carried out by the police at Liskeard1.8.2c.
when it had quickly been established1.8.2d.
that there were no criminal offences to investigate1.8.2e.
and that there was nothing of substance in Mr WILMOT's allegations. -====================================================-1.9.1a.
In consequence, a full Police investigation1.9.1b.
has now been carried out by the Police1.9.1c.
with all the relevant parties having been seen. 1.9.2a.
The sequence of events1.9.2b.
are discussed in detail later in the report. -====================================================-1.10.1a.
It is only fair to report at this stage1.10.1b.
that Mr WILMOT has become obsessed1.10.1c.
with his fight with Caradon District Council1.10.1d.
and has on a number of occasions,1.10.1e.
set out to, and succeeded1.10.1f.
in embarassing Caradon District Council1.10.1g.
by parading in front of the Council Offices,1.10.1h.
at Council meetings,1.10.1i.
in the streets of Callington and Liskeard,1.10.1j.
and outside the home address of Councillor PENGELLY,1.10.1k.
with a placard alleging dishonesty and corruption1.10.1l.
against the officers named in paragraph 1.7. [ Chief Planning Officer, Pengelly & Tolley ]1.10.2a.
He has openly admitted one of his objectives in doing this1.10.2b.
is to try and stimulate Caradon District Council1.10.2c.
into suing him for libel1.10.2d.
in the hope that he will then be afforded1.10.2e.
the opportunity to air his grievances in open court.1.10.3a.
To date, on advice, 1.10.3b.
Caradon District Council have decided not to pursue this course. -====================================================-1.11a.
As of the date of compilation of this report,1.11b.
Mr WILMOT has still not been successful1.11c.
in securing planning permission for his development1.11d.
and is in fact in further dispute with the Council1.11e. at his home address at 'The Burrows' situated in Callington,1.11f. which is little more than what can only be literally described as a 'pig sty',1.11g.
has been made the subject of an 'enforcement notice'1.11h.
being in breach of planning permission. -====================================================-1.12a.
The aspect of the dispute regarding his home address1.12b.
is viewed as being a separate matter1.12c.
to the issues contained in this report1.12d.
and therefore will not be discussed in detail any further. -====================================================-1.13.1a.
Caradon District Council have made it clear to the Reporting Officer1.13.1b.
that they are not prepared to exercise their discretion in favour of Mr Wilmot1.13.1c.
by granting him planning permission1.13.1d.
to develop this area of land known as 'Target Tip'1.13.1e.
without the payment of any fee.1.13.2a.
Such an option could be pursued1.13.2b.
geared towards resolving the current impasse1.13.2c.
but it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer1.13.2d.
that as both parties hold strong views1.13.2e.
in support of their respective arguments1.13.2f.
that the dispute will continue for the forseeable future.1.14a
As the attached documents show1.14b
a number of Officers involved with the Council1.14c
have become involved in this dispute1.14d
and it has clearly been a source of embarassment1.14e
not only for the Council as an organisation1.14f
but for certain individuals.1.15.1a.
It has certainly started to affect the Solicitor to the Council, Mr TOLLEY,1.15.1b.
and he has found it neccesary1.15.1c.
to contact the local police at Liskeard on a number of occasions1.15.1d.
upon receipt of letters from Mr WILMOT1.15.1e.
as they contained inuendo of possible violence towards Mr TOLLEY1.15.1f.
and/or his family.1.15.2a.
Regrettably despite Police investigations into these allegations1.15.2b.
all have fallen short of being sufficient to support any criminal proceedings. -====================================================- THE ALLEGATION -====================================================- 2.1.1a.
Mr WILMOT who describes himself as a 'gentleman adventurer'2.1.1b.
purchased 'The Burrows' on 23 NOV 184.108.40.206a.
The property consists of a number of what could ordinarilly be described as outbuildings2.1.2b.
set in an open boundaried area which has the appearance of a 'junk yard'.2.1.3a.
Mr WILMOT resides2.1.3b.
and has done so for some time in one of the buildings.2.1.4.
Normal servives associated with ordinary dwellings are somewhat limited.2.2a.
In SEP 87, Mr WILMOT purchased two further properties,2.2b.
a disused shop premises and a bungalow, both in Callington.2.3.1a.
In MAY 88, the bungalow was sold,2.3.1b.
the proceeds of which funded the purchase2.3.1c.
of twelve and a half acres of land known as 'Target Tip', South Hill Road, Callington.2.3.2.
This was purchased for £26,000.2.3.3.
'Target Tip' is situated a short distance away from 'The Burrows'.2.4a.
Shortly afterwards, Mr WILMOT sold 3 of the twelve and a half acres2.4b.
but this still left him with the part of 'Target Tip' which was a former Council Tip.2.5.1a.
During the summer of 1988,2.5.1b.
Mr WILMOT had occasion to speak with a Mr KIMBERLEY, the Area Planning Officer2.5.1c.
whose area encompassed the Callington area,2.5.1d.
concerning the use and possible development of seven acres of the 'Target Tip' land.2.5.2a.
Mr WILMOT's recollection of the conversation2.5.2b.
was such that he saw grounds for cautious optimism2.5.2c.
should he pursue his planning application in respect of this proposed development.2.6a.
On the 06 JUL 88,2.6b.
Mr WILMOT formally submitted his application for planning permission,2.6c.
though he only sought in effect outline planning permission at that stage.2.7a.
In consequence of the application,2.7b.
a site meeting was arranged for the morning of 03 OCT 882.7c.
at which a Mr John INMAN, the Principal Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council,2.7d.
Mr Robert Douglas Boyd REID, the Waste Disposal Officer with Cornwall County Council,2.7e.
and Dr Walter Brian ANKERS, the Industrial Waste Officer, also with Cornwall County Council,2.7f.
all met with Mr WILMOT at 'Target Tip'.2.8a.
At the conclusion of the site meeting2.8b.
all then returned to Luxstowe House, the offices of Caradon District Council, Liskeard,2.8c.
where the Planning Committee Meeting was to be held2.8d.
at which the Planning Application by Mr WILMOT would be considered.2.9.1a.
Mr WILMOT entered the Council Chamber and listened to other applications,2.9.1b.
waiting for his to come up.2.9.2a.
Prior to his application being heard,2.9.2b.
the Committee adjourned for a tea break,2.9.2c.
into a room adjacent to the Chamber.2.9.3a.
As was normal practice,2.9.3b.
there were conversations between Officers of the Council and applicants,2.9.3c.
all very informal.2.10a.
It was during this break2.10b.
that whilst Mr WILMOT had been talking to a local Councillor, Mr Gerald PENGELLY,2.10c.
the opportunity arose for Mr PENGELLY2.10d.
to introduce Mr WILMOT to the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge.2.11a.
Mr WILMOT alleges that during a conversation with Mr HARTRIDGE,2.11b.
he, Mr HARTRIDGE told Mr WILMOT2.11c.
that he must withdraw his application2.11d.
and obtain a survey concerning the landfill gas2.11e.
and return the application to the Committee at a later stage.2.12.1a.
Mr WILMOT, displeased with this,2.12.1b.
told Mr HARTRIDGE that he wanted a decision that day, 03 OCT 88. 2.12.2a.
Mr WILMOT further alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE lost his temper at this point,2.12.2b.
in front of Councillor PENGELLY.2.12.3a.
Mr WILMOT was of the opinion2.12.3b.
that the Environmental Health Officer, Mr Inman,2.12.3c.
was in some way in support of Mr WILMOT's application2.12.3d.
and that Mr HARTRIDGE was clearly against the application.2.13a.
At the conclusion of the tea break2.13b.
the business of the Planning Committee Meeting was resumed2.13c.
and when Mr WILMOT's application came up for consideration,2.13d.
he alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE addressed the members of the Committee2.13e.
stating that Mr WILMOT wished to withdraw his application.2.14.1a.
Mr WILMOT went on to allege on this point2.14.1b.
that he was taken by surprise by this comment by Mr HARTRIDGE2.14.1c.
as it was completely at odds with what he wanted2.14.1d.
and had advised Mr HARTRIDGE during the tea break.2.14.2.
It is alleged that Councillor PENGELLY similarly found Mr HARTRIDGE's comments odd.2.15.1a.
Regardless of the alleged comment by Mr HARTRIDGE2.15.1b.
it was proposed by a Councillor PEARCE2.15.1c.
and seconded by a Councillor SMALE2.15.1d.
that permission should be granted.2.15.2a.
This was after Councillor PENGELLY,2.15.2b.
the Local District Councillor for the Callington area,2.15.2c.
had spoken in favour of the application by Mr WILMOT.2.16.1a.
Mr WILMOT recalls how his application was put to the vote2.16.1b.
and by a unaminous verdict of 16 to nil,2.16.1c.
his application was approved.2.16.2a.
Mr WILMOT further stated that his clear impression2.16.2b.
was one of the Committee wishing to see immediate granting of the consent.2.16.3a.
Mr WILMOT is not able to satisfactorily conclude however2.16.3b.
how he became to be under that impression.2.17.1a.
The aspect of whether or not 'consent' had been granted2.17.1b.
at this particular Planning Committee Meeting2.17.1c.
is a crucial factor in this case.2.17.2a.
Mr WILMOT maintained that he was under the clear impression2.17.2b.
that his application had been approved2.17.2c.
and that the aspect of landfill gas would have to be examined at some stage2.17.2d.
between the 03 OCT 88 and the detailed planning stage on a date in the future.2.17.3.
As far as Mr WILMOT was concerned, he had been successful in his planning application.2.18a.
Mr WILMOT, expectant of the issuing of a 'Consent Notice'2.18b.
started to become concerned some 2 months thereafter2.18c.
when he failed to recieve any such written notification of the Committee's decision2.18d.
and inconsequence he wrote to a Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant and Case Officer.2.19a.
Contained in this letter was a reference by Mr WILMOT2.19b.
to being under the impression that he had obtained outline planning permission2.19c.
and was asking for a consultation with the Planning Department.2.20.1a.
On 21 DEC 88, Mr WILMOT attended Luxstowe House, Liskeard,2.20.1b.
and had a meeting with a Mr Kimberley of the Planning Department.2.20.2a.
Mr WILMOT was reminded by Mr KIMBERLEY that he was not the Case Officer2.20.2b.
but that a Mr Neil HARVEY was,2.20.2c.
and that Mr WILMOT's comments would be passed on to Mr HARVEY.2.20.3a.
Mr KIMBERLEY was able to advise Mr WILMOT2.20.3b.
that the Planning Assistant was waiting for Mr WILMOT's report on the landfill gas survey.2.20.4a.
Mr WILMOT in turn, stated that he was waiting for his 'Consent Notice'2.20.4b.
and a specification for the landfill gas survey.2.20.5a.
It appeared as though a clear cut decision failed to emanate2.20.5b.
from this brief encounter between the two,2.20.5c.
and Mr WILMOT left Luxstowe House not having satisfactorily achieved anything.2.21a.
1989 came and still nothing in writing from Caradon District Council2.21b.
until early APR 892.21c.
when Mr WILMOT recieved a Refusal Notice in the post signed by Mr HARTRIDGE.2.22a.
It was in consequence of recieving this document2.22b.
that Mr WILMOT embarked on a series of attempts2.22c.
geared towards establishing what he percieved to be the true sequence of events2.22d.
as he was firmly convinced by this time2.22e.
that something had gone drastically wrong with his planning application.2.23.1a.
One of the first steps he took was to attend Luxstowe House2.23.1b.
and examine the official minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 220.127.116.11a.
He identified an entry in the minutes (ASE1) viz:-2.23.2b.
"The Senior Planning Assistant said that the applicant had asked for deferral2.23.2c.
for further information to be submitted.2.23.3a.
However, he maintained his recommendation of refusal2.23.3b.
as the proposal represented substantial development in the countryside.'2.24a.
The Planning Officer explained2.24b.
that the Waste Disposal Officer of the Cornwall County Council2.24c.
had expressed concern regarding the possibility of landfill gases escaping from the site2.24d.
and said that if members were minded to grant WILMOT planning permission,2.24e.
it should be subject to satisfactory results of investigations into this matter2.24f.
in accordance with Government advice in Circular 21/18.104.22.168a.
Mr WILMOT found this to be totally inconsistent2.25.1b.
with his own recollection of what had taken place on 03 OCT 22.214.171.124a.
He then asked if he could examine the original handwritten minutes2.25.2b.
but had been refused on the basis they were official Council property.2.25.3a.
It is believed that the person Mr WILMOT saw on this occasion2.25.3b.
and from whom he was seeking this information2.25.3c.
was a Mrs Cynthia Muriel JEWELL,2.25.3d.
a Minutes Clerk then employed by Caradon District Council.2.26a.
Mr WILMOT then made the point2.26b.
that he thought the Minutes had been falsified.2.27.1a.
Another aspect that had been of particular concern to Mr WILMOT2.27.1b.
was the absence of any advance notification to him2.27.1c.
that it was intended to recommend refusal of his application2.27.1d.
at a Planning Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 126.96.36.199.
He was therefore not afforded the opportunity to prepare his case at that meeting.2.28.1a.
Clearly Mr WILMOT felt aggrieved2.28.1b.
as he had established from documents that the Council's view concerning landfill gas2.28.1c.
was that Mr WILMOT was not going to have a report prepared.2.28.2a.
Mr WILMOT viewed this as totally incorrect2.28.2b.
as he maintained he was waiting for consultation with the Council2.28.2c.
to give him guidance before such a report could be prepared.2.29a.
Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT became involved in protracted correspondence with the Council,2.29b.
including writing to the Chief Executive,2.29c.
but much of this was passed on to Mr HARTRIDGE to deal [with],2.29d.
the very person whom in Mr WILMOT's view was losing credibility by the week.2.30.1a.
Mr WILMOT did not exercise his right of appeal to the Secretary of State2.30.1b.
as he had decided to try and resolve the matter2.30.1c.
by bringing his complaint to the attention of the Chief Executive,2.30.1d.
but this failed to secure any satisfactory action.2.30.2a.
He was aware the Appeals Option was open to him2.30.2b.
but he was intent to resolve the matter on a more local basis.2.31.1a.
On 10 APR 90, Mr WILMOT appeared at Liskeard Magistrates Court2.31.1a.
in response to an Enforcement Summons concerning his home address at 'The Burrows'.2.31.2a.
He was given a Conditional Discharge2.31.2b.
and Mr WILMOT alleged that concern of Caradon's handling of his application concerning 'Target Tip'2.31.2c.
was expressed by the Chairman of the Bench.2.31.3a.
As this particular hearing was effectively concerned with 'The Burrows',2.31.3b.
Mr WILMOT's home address,2.31.3c.
he was not allowed to refer to non-related matters,2.31.3d.
such as his dispute with the Council over 'Target Tip'.2.32.1a.
On 26 APR 90 Mr WILMOT had a meeting at Luxstowe House2.32.1b.
with Mr Michael TOLLEY, the solicitor to Caradon District Council.2.32.2.
This meeting was at the request of Mr WILMOT.2.33.0a.
Mr WILMOT alleges2.33.0b
that a number of salient points were aired at this meeting2.33.0c
and he specfically recalled areas of concern:-2.33.1a
a. that Mr TOLLEY would produce a preliminary report within 14 days.2.33.2a.
b. that if Mr WILMOT's allegations were true,2.33.2b.
Caradon would shortly have a new Planning OFFICER.2.33.3a.
c. that Mr HARVEY, the Senior Planning Assistant,2.33.3b.
had been frequently incompetent2.33.3c.
and that the Council would be better off without him.2.33.4a.
d. that Mr TOLLEY had been unable to locate the original handwritten notes2.33.4b.
taken of the meeting held on 03 OCT 88.2.34a.
Mr WILMOT left this meeting under the impression2.34b.
that he would recieve a copy of this preliminary report within 14 days2.34c.
but instead, he recieved a full report on 08 SEP 90,2.34d.
much of the content of which he rejected as being inadequate.2.35.1a.
Subsequent to this, Mr WILMOT continued to write2.35.1b.
to various officers of Caradon District Council2.35.1c.
but it became apparent to him2.35.1d.
that all of his letters were being passed to Mr TOLLEY.2.35.2a.
Mr David NEWELL, the Chief Executive2.35.2b.
who had taken up post in OCT 90,2.35.2c.
was one of the Officers Mr WILMOT wrote to,2.35.2d.
but again he was advised matters were being dealt with by Mr TOLLEY.2.36.1a.
On 1 NOV 90 Mr WILMOT held a public meeting at Callington Town Hall.2.36.1b.
Caradon District Council had been invited to attend but declined to do so.2.36.2a.
At this meeting Mr WILMOT was left feeling2.36.2b.
that he had support for his grounds for concern over the handling of his planning application.2.36.3a.
It is only fair to point out here2.36.3b.
that this meeting was arranged and chaired by Mr WILMOT2.36.3c.
and was only formalised by the procedure of the meeting.2.36.4.
There were no persons holding official offices present.2.37.1a.
On 22 NOV 90, a meeting of the Planning Services Committee2.37.1b.
was held to discuss Mr WILMOT's allegations.2.37.2a.
A report prepared by Mr TOLLEY (TSW/13 & MGT2) was presented to the meeting2.37.2b.
and a copy of this report was subsequently forwarded to Mr WILMOT.2.38.1a.
The report contained in paragraph 5 of this document2.38.1b.
an aspect which Mr WILMOT considered to be a 'blatant lie',2.38.1c.
referring to the part containing2.38.1d.
'the Planning Officer not having taken any action himself in relation to the application'.2.38.2a.
Clearly Mr WILMOT felt that this was untrue2.38.2b.
as he recalled Mr HARTRIDGE speaking at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,2.38.2c.
when he made reference to the possibility of landfill gas escaping from the site (ASE/1 refers).2.39.1a.
A letter was later recieved by Mr WILMOT (TSW/14) from Mr TOLLEY,2.39.1b.
expressing full confidence in Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer.2.39.2a.
This, clearly, was unacceptable to Mr WILMOT2.39.2b.
and so in the early part of 1991,2.39.2c.
Mr WILMOT had Councillor SCREECH,2.39.2d.
a Cornwall County Councillor and Callington Town Councillor,2.39.2e.
call on Mr WILMOT at his home address2.39.2f.
and discuss the planning application.2.39.3a.
In consequence of this,2.39.3b.
though some time later on 18 JUL 91,2.39.3c.
a meeting was arranged at Luxstowe House2.39.3d.
which was attended by Councillor Screech, Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE, and Mr WILMOT.2.40.1a.
What struck Mr WILMOT as significant at this meeting2.40.1b.
was that Mr HARTRIDGE admitted that he had spoken at the Planning Committee Meeting on 03 OCT 88,2.40.1c.
and that he might have misrepresented Mr WILMOT.2.40.2.
This meeting was minuted and a copy of the minutes (MGT/3) were sent to Mr WILMOT.2.40.3a.
Nothing particularly fruitful emanated from this meeting,2.40.3b.
and Mr WILMOT felt as though he had secured little progress.2.41.1a.
Prior to this meeting,2.41.1b.
Mr WILMOT had served on him on 2 MAY 912.41.1c.
a County Court Injunction2.41.1d.
whilst he had been parading in Callingtton Town Square2.41.1e.
with a placard2.41.1f.
accusing Councillor PENGELLY, Mr TOLLEY, and Mr HARTRIDGE2.41.1g.
of serious planning offences.2.41.2a.
This date ( 02 MAY 91 ) was Local Government Election day,2.41.2b.
and Councillor PENGELLY had been standing for re-election2.41.2c.
and so it had been viewed by the Council2.41.2d.
to be potentially harmful to Mr PENGELLY to have such a placard on public display.2.42.1a.
Mr WILMOT still intent on seeking some form of justice,2.42.1b.
filed charges against officers of Caradon District Council2.42.1c.
regarding his planning application2.42.1d.
with Bodmin Crown Court.2.42.2a.
In consequence of this, Mr Wilmot was awarded the nominal sum of One Pound,2.42.2b.
as claimed by Mr WILMOT.2.42.3a.
This was paid by Caradon District Council2.42.3b.
without admitting any form of liability (TSW/16). 2.43a.
Mr WILMOT has consistently claimed2.43b.
that his grievances have never been properly aired by Caradon District Council2.43c.
and felt, and in fact continues to feel, particularly aggrieved2.43d.
by what he sees as a negative, unhelpful response to his allegations.2.44.0a.
As the last page of his statement discloses,2.44.0b.
his allegations are in effect threefold:-2.44.1a.
1. Falsification of official records - 2.44.1b.
referring to the inaccurate recording of the minutes 2.44.1c.
of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 188.8.131.52a.
2. Conspiracy to conceal the inaccurracy by a sustained effort2.44.2b.
employed in particular by2.44.2c.
the Chief Executives of Caradon District Council, Mr COLLINS and Mr NEWWELL,2.44.2d.
Mr Michael TOLLEY the Director of Administration,2.44.2e.
Mr Alan HARTRIDGE the Director of Planning Services,2.44.2f.
and Councillor PENGELLY, a District Councillor for the town of Callington.184.108.40.206a.
3. The uttering of an Affidavit dated 02 MAY 9220.127.116.11b.
prepared by Mr TOLLEY (JLB/1). 18.104.22.168a.
This Affidavit refers to the document prepared by Mr TOLLEY22.214.171.124b.
in order for him to secure a County Court Injunction126.96.36.199c.
prohibiting Mr WILMOT from parading in Callington Town Centre188.8.131.52d.
with a placard on Local Government Election day ( 02 MAY 91).2.45a.
In short, Officers of Caradon District Council have told lies2.45b.
concerning Mr WILMOT's application2.45c.
and then conspired together to conceal those lies,2.45d.
all emanting from the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.2.46a.
Mr WILMOT has developed his desires2.46b.
to seek what he sees as the truth regarding his application,2.46c.
into a determined onslaught2.46d.
geared towards securing the expulsion from office of the senior officers concerned2.46e.
and substantial compensation as a direct result of loss of potential revenue2.46f.
which he maintains he would have secured2.46g.
had he been able to develop his site at Target Tip. -====================================================- THE INVESTIGATION -====================================================-3.1a.
Despite Mr WILMOT's allegations of criminal conduct and improper conduct3.1b.
by senior officers within Caradon District Council,3.1c.
it soon became apparent3.1d.
that the two main persons responsible for his dissatisfaction3.1e.
in the handling of his planning application3.1f.
was the Planning Officer, Mr Alan HARTRIDGE3.1g.
and the Solicitor to the Council, Mr Michael Tolley.3.2a.
Though his allegations were also aimed at the former Chief Executive, Mr John Oliver COLINS,3.2a.
and the current Chief Executive, Mr David James Newell,3.2a.
and Councillor Cliifford Gerald PENGELLY,3.2a.
it was decided on the evidence presented at an early stage,3.2a.
that these three persons would be treated as witnesses,3.2a.
leaving TOLLEY and HARTRIDGE as suspected offenders.3.3a.
The investigation was commenced with a detailed statement from Mr WILMOT3.3b.
which formed the basis of his complaint3.3c.
and the taking posession of a number of documents.3.4.1a.
Mr WILMOT had, during the time of dispute with Caradon District Council,3.4.1b.
collected a considerable volume of documents3.4.1c.
and geared towards restricting this file to the salient points,3.4.1d.
only limited copy documentation has been seized by police.3.4.2.
These are shown in the exhibits bundle. -====================================================-3.5a.
As much of what Mr WILMOT was alleging3.5b.
centred on the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,3.5c.
efforts were made to recover the original hand-written notes3.5d.
as taken down by the Minutes Clerk, a Cynthia Muriel Jewell.3.6.1a.
Despite determined efforts it was not possible to find these3.6.1b.
nor in fact many other books containing hand-written notes of other meetings.3.6.2a.
As there was no legal requirement to retain such documents3.6.2b.
there did not appear to be anything sinister in this.3.7a.
The procedures adopted by the Minutes Clerks3.7b.
when recording proceedings at the various Committee Meetings3.7c.
was to record in their own long or shorthand, details of the proceedings3.7d.
and then subsequently arrange to have the minutes typed up3.7e.
which would be ratified at a subsequent Committee Meeting.3.8a.
As the statement of a Mr Andrew ELLIS shows,3.8b.
efforts to locate the original book containing the handwritten notes of Mrs JEWELL3.8c.
revealed that a considerable number of Minute Books were in fact missing,3.8d.
which was contrary to the impression that Mr WILMOT had,3.8e.
being that he thought3.8f.
only the book containing the original minutes of 03 OCT 88 had gone missing. -====================================================-3.9a.
Examination of a copy of the typed minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 883.9b.
disclosed that both the Senior Planning Assistant, a Mr Neil HARVEY,3.9c.
and the Planning Officer, Mr Alan Hartridge, had spoken.3.10.1a.
The Planning Officer in addressing the Committee,3.10.1b.
had made reference to the implications of landfill gas3.10.1c.
and made reference to Government Circular 21/873.10.1d.
( copy included in the exhibits bundle ).3.10.2a.
This circular concerned the development of land3.10.2b.
where landfill gas was likely to be present3.10.2c.
and the precautions needed to be taken.3.10.3a.
As the minutes (ASE/1) showed,3.10.3b.
Councillor PEARCE proposed that the application for development be granted3.10.3c.
and this was seconded by Councillor SMALE.Para 3.11 is missing, or Tim Wilmot miscount in 2005.3.12.1a.
Councillor PENGELLY, the Local Councilor for the Callington area3.12.1b.
in which Target Tip was situated,3.12.1c.
spoke in favour of the application.3.12.2a.
This seems a strange way of expressing an opposition3.12.2b.
to the scheme as inferred by Mr WILMOT.3.13.
The minutes show that it was resolved viz:- 'that -====================================================-
Note: I cannot find pages 23 & 24 of the report, but will add later, as we have full documention stored in four locations, just in case this house should catch fire - LOL. -====================================================-3.20.1a.
[ assuming sentence 1 ]. /cont:- blah blah Target Tip.3.20.2a.
In consequence of unequivocal advice from Mr John INMAN,3.20.2b.
the Environmental Health Officer with Caradon District Council (TSW/7),3.20.2c.
Mr HARVEY was clearly not satisfied3.20.2d.
that the application for development could go ahead3.20.2e.
until the next Planning Committee Meeting due to be held on 06 FEB 184.108.40.206a.
At the meeting Mr HARVEY advised the Committee3.20.3b.
that permission should not be granted,3.20.3c.
based on the advice for the Environmental Health Officer, Mr INMAN.3.21.1a.
Mr WILMOT's application was refused at this Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89,3.21.1b.
and he was notified of this in writing,3.21.1c.
but not until 25 MAR 89 (TSW/5).3.21.2a.
This document would have been prepared by Mr HARVEY3.21.2b.
and passed to Mr HARTRIDGE for signature.3.22a.
As Mr WILMOT proceeded to make contact3.22b.
with a variety of people connected with the Council,3.22c.
the current investigation conducted by the Police3.22d.
was confined to those persons3.22e.
more closely associated with the application and its subsequent processing.3.23.1a.
As the various statements disclose,3.23.1b.
all the persons involved with the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 883.23.1c.
were satisfied that Mr WILMOT had only been granted outline planning permission,3.23.1d.
subject to him producing a report on landfill gas,3.23.1e.
in effect - a deferred permission.3.23.2a.
Mr WILMOT clearly contends3.23.2b.
that he had in actual fact obtained his permission3.23.2c.
and was awaiting guidance as to the nature of the report required -3.23.2d.
a clear and significant conflict of interpretation of events.3.24.1a.
As the investigation unfolded3.24.1b.
it was clear that there was a complete absence3.24.1c.
of any evidence in support of Mr WILMOT's allegations.3.24.2a.
No doubt percieved differently,3.24.2b.
Mr WILMOT embarked upon a series of efforts to substantiate his allegations,3.24.2c.
and when his efforts failed to produce results conducive to his own interpretation of events,3.24.2d.
he resorted to behaviour3.24.2e.
which was designed to stimulate some form of response3.24.2f.
from certain Officers with Caradon District Council,3.24.2g.
resulting in a Court appearance3.24.2h.
which would give Mr WILMOT a forum to air his grievances.3.25a.
Such efforts included parading outside the Council Offices at Liskeard3.25b.
and in the streets3.25c.
with a placard accusing named Officers,3.25d.
i.e. Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor PENGELLY, Mr COLLINS, and Mr NEWELL3.25e.
of such offences as corruption and of being liars.3.26a.
It was hoped by Mr WILMOT that he may be sued for libel3.26b.
which would give him that opportunity in open court3.26c.
to voice his interpretation of the sequence of events.3.27.
On advice, no members of the Council pursued any action against Mr WILMOT.3.28a.
No doubt out of frustration, on 14 NOV 91,3.28b.
a letter was recieved by the Chairman of Caradon District Council, Mr DISTIN,3.28c.
from Mr WILMOT.3.29a.
In short the letter contained threats3.29a.
which could have been interpreted as threats to kill certain Officers of the Council3.29a.
and demanding £150,000 as compensation for loss he had suffered since 19220.127.116.11a.
This matter was investigated by the Police at Liskeard3.30.1b.
which included the arrest of Mr WILMOT.3.30.2a.
It was subsequently decided following consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service at Plymouth3.30.2b.
that no further action would be taken in this matter. -====================================================-3.31.1a.
Such was the onslaught of verbal and written allegations against Mr TOLLEY in particular,3.31.1b.
that on 06 DEC 91, an incident occurred3.31.1c.
when Mr TOLLEY saw Mr WILMOT parading around Liskeard Town Centre3.31.1d.
with a placard naming Mr TOLLEY3.31.1e.
and accusing him of corrupt proceedings.3.31.2a.
Such was the frustration felt by Mr TOLLEY3.31.2b.
that he endeavoured to spray the placard using a can of aerosol paint3.31.2c.
and threw a hat worn by Mr WILMOT into the road.3.31.3a.
Despite being reported to the Police by Mr WILMOT,3.31.3b.
this incident was not investigated or proceeded with.3.32a.
Mr WILMOT subsequently took out a private prosecution against Mr TOLLEY3.32b.
and on 26 FEB 92, at Liskeard Magistrates Court,3.32c.
Mr TOLLEY was found guilty of an offence under Section 5 of the Public Order Act 19863.32d.
and was given a Conditional Discharge. -====================================================-3.33.1a.
Subsequent to this,3.33.1b.
Mr WILMOT has sought sanction from the Crown Prosecution Service3.33.1c.
to pursue a private prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice3.33.1d.
against Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE and Councillor Pengelly.3.33.2a.
Proceedings were discontinued by Liskeard Magistrates3.33.2b.
on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence. -====================================================-3.34.1a.
When the enquiry reached the stage of formally interviewing Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE,3.34.1b.
both sought legal advice3.34.1c.
and thereafter declined to be interviewed under caution.3.34.2a.
The evidence did not justify the arrest of the two persons3.34.2b.
and so, following consultation with the Crown Prosecution at Plymouth,3.34.2c.
it was decided to obtain witness statements from Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE3.34.2d.
which was in fact done.3.35a.
Both persons spoke full and frankly to the Reporting Officer3.35b.
and were only too anxious to tender their version of events. -====================================================-3.36a.
To assist in this enquiry,3.36b.
exhibited copy documents were confined to what was considered the relevant ones,3.36c.
but a copy has been made of the full planning file3.36d.
and as a source of reference3.36e.
this copy file is included in the Exhibits bundle. -====================================================-3.37.1a.
It will be noted in the Exhibits bundle3.37.1b.
that there appears to be a duplication of a number of exhibits.3.37.2a.
This is due to the desire of the Senior Officers with Caradon District Council3.37.2b.
wishing only to refer to documents in their possession,3.37.2c.
and not relying upon documents produced by Mr WILMOT.3.38a.
Having said that, by comparing these copy documents3.38b.
it can be seen that there were no discrepancies3.38c.
between the copies held by the Council3.38d.
and those forwarded to Mr WILMOT. -====================================================-3.39a.
Whilst other persons connected with this matter could arguably be interviewed,3.39b.
it is the contention of the Reporting Officer3.39c.
that those persons already seen3.39d.
are sufficient to establish the Council's version of events,3.39e.
and it is not proposed therefore at this stage,3.39f.
to extend the investigation. -====================================================- CONCLUSION -====================================================-4.1a.
Right at the onset of this allegation,4.1b.
Mr WILMOT made it clear4.1c.
that he considered there had been criminal offences committed.4.2a.
It appeared to the Reporting Officer4.2b.
that as other avenues of seeking some form of redress had been explored,4.2c.
that his only remaining option was a Police investigation,4.2d.
and he clearly sought this as a way of achieving his objectives.4.3a.
He had complained to various Officers within Caradon District Council4.3b.
and had failed to secure what he considered to be4.3c.
a full, fair and unbiased internal investigation.4.4a.
He interpreted any conclusions, not conducive to his own,4.4b.
as tantamount to criminal concealment.4.5a.
Considerable time and effort has now been spent on this investigation4.5b.
and it is the contention of the Reporting Officer4.5c.
that there has been no evidence revealed4.5d.
in support of the commission of any criminal offences4.5e.
by anyone connected with Caradon District Council.4.6a.
What has been identified4.6b.
are areas of minor maladministration4.6c.
and these can best be summed up as follows:-4.6d.
a. Following the decision of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,4.6e.
Mr WILMOT was not advised in writing of their decision. 4.6f.
Had this been done4.6g.
then no doubt the contentious issue4.6h.
of whether or not Mr WILMOT had secured his planning permission4.6i.
would have been clarified.4.6j.
b. That Mr WILMOT was not given or offered the guidance and help4.6k.
with regard to the type and extent of report required concerning landfill gas.4.6l.
This simply would have been good practice.4.6m.
c. Failure to notify Mr WILMOT in writing in advance4.6n.
of the intended recommedation of refusal4.6o.
to be heard at the Planning Committee Meeting on 6 FEB 89.4.6p.
d. The unneccessary delay in the issue of the Refusal Notice4.6q.
following the Planning Committee Meeting of 06 FEB 894.6r.
( Notice dated 29 MAR 89 ).4.7.1a.
In support of the above points,4.7.1b.
a copy of the Audit Commissioner's report dated JAN 92,4.7.1c.
on Development Control Audit Guide was obtained4.7.1d.
and at Para. 161, the document states under a sub-heading of 'Decisions':-4.7.1e.
'Once a decision has been made4.7.1f.
it is essential that is is conveyed in writing to the applicant as soon as possible.4.7.2a.
In delegated cases this should present no great problem4.7.2b.
with decisions issued on a continuous basis,4.7.2c.
but, with some Committee cases there is potential for delay.4.7.3a.
It is usually praticable, with a computerised system,4.7.3b.
to pre-print decision notices based on Officer's recommendations4.7.3c.
with a view to dispatch after signature ( often rubber stamped ) the following day.4.7.4a.
For those cases where the decision has been changed4.7.4b.
or conditions added or altered4.7.4c.
a new decision notice will be neccessary4.7.4d.
but such cases rarely exceed 20% of an agenda.4.7.5a.
The pre-printed notices was quite common,4.7.5b.
it has been generally dropped in favour of preparation and dispatch in the days following.4.7.6a.
In one authority, Council Standing Orders contain a provision4.7.6b.
that within 48 hours any committee decision may be referred to a higher level4.7.6c.
( i.e. parent committee or Council )4.7.6d.
at the request of four members.4.7.7.
This automatically delays the dispatch of decision notices.4.7.8a.
Pre-printing is not essential4.7.8b.
but speed of dispatch of decion notices is critical.4.7.8c.
The Audit Commission Survey showed a range from half a day to 10 working days4.7.8d.
with the average for 53 authorities of just under 3 days.4.7.9a.
But unless there are reasons such as those quoted above,4.7.9b.
notices should be in the post at the very most within two days,4.7.9c.
if not 24 hours.4.7.10a.
There is variable practice4.7.10b.
as to returning a set of approved plans with the decision notice.4.7.11.
It is percieved as good practice to ensure that the correct plans are implemented.'4.8a.
Though this Audit Commission document is dated some considerable time after 1988,4.8b.
the gist of the content of Para. 161 is in line with good practice4.8c.
which would have been exercised at the time in 1918.104.22.168a.
Failure to comply with such good practice however4.9.1b.
does not constitute a criminal offence.4.9.2a.
Procedures have since been changed within Caradon District Council4.9.2b.
to accomodate these best practices ( Exhibit AH/1 refers ).4.10.1a.
Following the Refusal Notice having been issued,4.10.1b.
Mr WILMOT's best course of action4.10.1c.
would have been to appeal to the Secretary of State, the normal appeals route,4.10.1d.
but he failed to do so.4.10.2a.
He offered no explantion as to why he failed to do so4.10.2b.
other than that he was devastated4.10.2c.
at the response by Caradon District Council to his complaints.4.11.1a.
What he did pursue was a complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman in DEC 904.11.1b.
about the actions of Caradon District Council4.11.1c.
regarding his planning application for development of land4.11.1d.
at his home address at The Burrows.4.11.2.
He did not pursue the complaint regarding his proposed development at Target Tip.4.12a.
It is the opinion of the Reporting Officer4.12b.
that, whilst difference of opinion exists over what the Planning Officer, Mr HARTRIDGE,4.12c.
did or did not say at the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,4.12d.
that it mattered not,4.12e.
as the Committee exercised their right to vote against the Planning Department's recommendation4.12f.
and granted Mr WILMOT permission,4.12g.
but all the evidence points to the fact4.12h.
that this permission was conditional4.12i.
upon Mr WILMOT supplying a report on landfill gas.4.13.1a.
This stance taken by the Council was particularly significant4.13.1b.
as earlier in 1988,4.13.1c.
a dispute had been publicised involving Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council4.13.1d.
and residents living close to a former landfill site.4.13.2a.
The potential danger of landfill gas was exposed4.13.2b.
and in this case claims for compensation were being considered.4.14.1a.
Caradon District Council acted in good faith in opposing carte blanche4.14.1b.
permission for this development at Target Tip,4.14.1c.
and clearly had public safety in mind.4.14.2a.
Mr WILMOT had expressed a view4.14.2b.
that he knew sufficient about the implications of landfill gas4.14.2c.
and in consequence,4.14.2d.
saw little point in incurring heavy expensesin having a report prepared.4.14.3a.
This was construed by the Planning Department4.14.3b.
to be a refusal or reluctance by Mr WILMOT to fulfill his obligations.4.14.4.
Accordingly the recommendation to the Planning Committee of 6 FEB 89 was for a refusal.4.15a.
In short - Caradon District Council have acted properly4.15b.
in the manner with which they have dealt with this application4.15c.
as far as satisfying proper criteria in the public interest.4.16a.
Where errors have occurred,4.16b.
they have been confined to administrative errors4.16c.
and the apparent lack of urgency in dealing with his application.4.17.1a.
The individual who appeared to have failed4.17.1b.
to properly and efficiently expedite Mr WILMOT's application4.17.1c.
was Mr Neil HARVEY, Senior Planning Assistant, in 1988/22.214.171.124a.
He would have conducted most of the work on behalf of Mr HARTRIDGE, the Planning Officer,4.17.2b.
who would have been expected to have maintained proper communication with Mr WILMOT.4.18a.
As the evidence shows,4.18b.
there has been non-secured to support any criminal proceedings against any individual4.18c.
and it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer4.18d.
that no further Police action be taken in this matter4.18e.
and that Mr Wilmot be formally notified in writing accordingly. -====================================================-Link - Police Report to CPS - 1992 - with commentary -====================================================-Link - Return to Start Menu to Police section -====================================================-Link - Return to Start Menu - allegations in detail
Click "back" to your last webpage location
[C] 2010 - Zen asserts copyright on text, context, and design.
Go to Instructions & Contact Details at top of Start Menu for:-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. you want to use some of this site for a non-commercial purpose.
2. you want to use some of this site for a commercial purpose.
3. you want to use the design of this site for your own legal work,
and would welcome professional assistance.
||Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to