Instructions and contact details link at top of Start Menu  

Police Report to CPS - 1992 - Uncommented

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 -
you decide!

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.


1a.    At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
1b.    between 2 OCT 88 and 30 NOV 91,
1c.    with intent to pervert the course of public justice,
1d.    did a series of acts
1e.    which had a tendency to pervert the cause of justice
1f.    in that false verbal and written statements were made
1g.    in relation to the processing of a planning application
1h.    by Timothy Sparrow WILMOT.


2a.    At Liskeard in the County of Cornwall
2b.    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 duty
2f.    you were required to perform by common law or statute.



      Subject: Caradon District Council - Allegation of criminal misconduct



1.1a.    This report relates to an allegation
1.1b.    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 stem
1.2b.    from an application of his made in late 1988
1.2c.    for planning permission to develop a garden centre
1.2d.    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 Council
1.3b.    on the 03 OCT 88
1.3c.    when he was granted outline planning permission
1.3d.    subject to him supplying a consultant's report on landfill gas.

1.4a.    It was from hereon that matters appeared to have gone significantly wrong
1.4b.    as alleged by Mr WILMOT.

1.5a.    In April the following year, 1989,
1.5b.    a Refusal Notice was issued by Caradon District Council
1.5c.    and this stimulated a sustained and determined effort by Mr Wilmot
1.5d.    to obtain his planning permission
1.5e.    and have the Refusal Notice overturned.

1.6a.    Strong resistance to this application was maintained by the Council
1.6b.    and as percieved by Mr Wilmot,
1.6c.    certain officers with the Council
1.6d.    were instrumental in blocking the application
1.6e.    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 1991
1.8.1b.    following a complaint by Mr Wilmot
1.8.1c.    that he was totally dissatisfied
1.8.1d.    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 investigate
1.8.1g.    his misgivings about the council earlier in 1991.

1.8.2a.    This in fact refers to a limited investigation
1.8.2b.    carried out by the police at Liskeard
1.8.2c.    when it had quickly been established
1.8.2d.    that there were no criminal offences to investigate
1.8.2e.    and that there was nothing of substance in Mr WILMOT's allegations.


1.9.1a.    In consequence, a full Police investigation
1.9.1b.    has now been carried out by the Police
1.9.1c.    with all the relevant parties having been seen.

1.9.2a.    The sequence of events
1.9.2b.    are discussed in detail later in the report.


1.10.1a.    It is only fair to report at this stage
1.10.1b.    that Mr WILMOT has become obsessed
1.10.1c.    with his fight with Caradon District Council
1.10.1d.    and has on a number of occasions,
1.10.1e.    set out to, and succeeded
1.10.1f.    in embarassing Caradon District Council
1.10.1g.    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 corruption
1.10.1l.    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 this
1.10.2b.    is to try and stimulate Caradon District Council
1.10.2c.    into suing him for libel
1.10.2d.    in the hope that he will then be afforded
1.10.2e.    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 successful
1.11c.    in securing planning permission for his development
1.11d.    and is in fact in further dispute with the Council
1.11e.    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 address
1.12b.    is viewed as being a separate matter
1.12c.    to the issues contained in this report
1.12d.    and therefore will not be discussed in detail any further.


1.13.1a.    Caradon District Council have made it clear to the Reporting Officer
1.13.1b.    that they are not prepared to exercise their discretion in favour of Mr Wilmot
1.13.1c.    by granting him planning permission
1.13.1d.    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 pursued
1.13.2b.    geared towards resolving the current impasse
1.13.2c.    but it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
1.13.2d.    that as both parties hold strong views
1.13.2e.    in support of their respective arguments
1.13.2f.    that the dispute will continue for the forseeable future.

1.14a    As the attached documents show
1.14b    a number of Officers involved with the Council
1.14c    have become involved in this dispute
1.14d    and it has clearly been a source of embarassment
1.14e    not only for the Council as an organisation
1.14f    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 neccesary
1.15.1c.    to contact the local police at Liskeard on a number of occasions
1.15.1d.    upon receipt of letters from Mr WILMOT
1.15.1e.    as they contained inuendo of possible violence towards Mr TOLLEY
1.15.1f.    and/or his family.

1.15.2a.    Regrettably despite Police investigations into these allegations
1.15.2b.    all have fallen short of being sufficient to support any criminal proceedings.


2.1.1a.    Mr WILMOT who describes himself as a 'gentleman adventurer'
2.1.1b.    purchased 'The Burrows' on 23 NOV 86.

2.1.2a.    The property consists of a number of what could ordinarilly be described as outbuildings
2.1.2b.    set in an open boundaried area which has the appearance of a 'junk yard'.

2.1.3a.    Mr WILMOT resides
2.1.3b.    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 purchase
2.3.1c.    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 acres
2.4b.    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 Officer
2.5.1c.    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 conversation
2.5.2b.    was such that he saw grounds for cautious optimism
2.5.2c.    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 88
2.7c.    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 meeting
2.8b.    all then returned to Luxstowe House, the offices of Caradon District Council, Liskeard,
2.8c.    where the Planning Committee Meeting was to be held
2.8d.    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 break
2.10b.    that whilst Mr WILMOT had been talking to a local Councillor, Mr Gerald PENGELLY,
2.10c.    the opportunity arose for Mr PENGELLY
2.10d.    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 WILMOT
2.11c.    that he must withdraw his application
2.11d.    and obtain a survey concerning the landfill gas
2.11e.    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 opinion
2.12.3b.    that the Environmental Health Officer, Mr Inman,
2.12.3c.    was in some way in support of Mr WILMOT's application
2.12.3d.    and that Mr HARTRIDGE was clearly against the application.

2.13a.    At the conclusion of the tea break
2.13b.    the business of the Planning Committee Meeting was resumed
2.13c.    and when Mr WILMOT's application came up for consideration,
2.13d.    he alleges that Mr HARTRIDGE addressed the members of the Committee
2.13e.    stating that Mr WILMOT wished to withdraw his application.

2.14.1a.    Mr WILMOT went on to allege on this point
2.14.1b.    that he was taken by surprise by this comment by Mr HARTRIDGE
2.14.1c.    as it was completely at odds with what he wanted
2.14.1d.    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 HARTRIDGE
2.15.1b.    it was proposed by a Councillor PEARCE
2.15.1c.    and seconded by a Councillor SMALE
2.15.1d.    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 vote
2.16.1b.    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 impression
2.16.2b.    was one of the Committee wishing to see immediate granting of the consent.

2.16.3a.    Mr WILMOT is not able to satisfactorily conclude however
2.16.3b.    how he became to be under that impression.

2.17.1a.    The aspect of whether or not 'consent' had been granted
2.17.1b.    at this particular Planning Committee Meeting
2.17.1c.    is a crucial factor in this case.

2.17.2a.    Mr WILMOT maintained that he was under the clear impression
2.17.2b.    that his application had been approved
2.17.2c.    and that the aspect of landfill gas would have to be examined at some stage
2.17.2d.    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 thereafter
2.18c.    when he failed to recieve any such written notification of the Committee's decision
2.18d.    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 WILMOT
2.19b.    to being under the impression that he had obtained outline planning permission
2.19c.    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 Officer
2.20.2b.    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 WILMOT
2.20.3b.    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 emanate
2.20.5b.    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 Council
2.21b.    until early APR 89
2.21c.    when Mr WILMOT recieved a Refusal Notice in the post signed by Mr HARTRIDGE.

2.22a.    It was in consequence of recieving this document
2.22b.    that Mr WILMOT embarked on a series of attempts
2.22c.    geared towards establishing what he percieved to be the true sequence of events
2.22d.    as he was firmly convinced by this time
2.22e.    that something had gone drastically wrong with his planning application.

2.23.1a.    One of the first steps he took was to attend Luxstowe House
2.23.1b.    and examine the official minutes of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88.

2.23.2a.    He identified an entry in the minutes (ASE1) viz:-
2.23.2b.    "The Senior Planning Assistant said that the applicant had asked for deferral
2.23.2c.    for further information to be submitted.

2.23.3a.    However, he maintained his recommendation of refusal
2.23.3b.    as the proposal represented substantial development in the countryside.'

2.24a.    The Planning Officer explained
2.24b.    that the Waste Disposal Officer of the Cornwall County Council
2.24c.    had expressed concern regarding the possibility of landfill gases escaping from the site
2.24d.    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 matter
2.24f.    in accordance with Government advice in Circular 21/87.

2.25.1a.    Mr WILMOT found this to be totally inconsistent
2.25.1b.    with his own recollection of what had taken place on 03 OCT 88.

2.25.2a.    He then asked if he could examine the original handwritten minutes
2.25.2b.    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 occasion
2.25.3b.    and from whom he was seeking this information
2.25.3c.    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 point
2.26b.    that he thought the Minutes had been falsified.

2.27.1a.    Another aspect that had been of particular concern to Mr WILMOT
2.27.1b.    was the absence of any advance notification to him
2.27.1c.    that it was intended to recommend refusal of his application
2.27.1d.    at a Planning Committee Meeting on 06 FEB 89.

2.27.2.    He was therefore not afforded the opportunity to prepare his case at that meeting.

2.28.1a.    Clearly Mr WILMOT felt aggrieved
2.28.1b.    as he had established from documents that the Council's view concerning landfill gas
2.28.1c.    was that Mr WILMOT was not going to have a report prepared.

2.28.2a.    Mr WILMOT viewed this as totally incorrect
2.28.2b.    as he maintained he was waiting for consultation with the Council
2.28.2c.    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 State
2.30.1b.    as he had decided to try and resolve the matter
2.30.1c.    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 him
2.30.2b.    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 Court
2.31.1a.    in response to an Enforcement Summons concerning his home address at 'The Burrows'.

2.31.2a.    He was given a Conditional Discharge
2.31.2b.    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 House
2.32.1b.    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 alleges
2.33.0b    that a number of salient points were aired at this meeting
2.33.0c    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 incompetent
2.33.3c.    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 notes
2.33.4b.    taken of the meeting held on 03 OCT 88.

2.34a.    Mr WILMOT left this meeting under the impression
2.34b.    that he would recieve a copy of this preliminary report within 14 days
2.34c.    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 write
2.35.1b.    to various officers of Caradon District Council
2.35.1c.    but it became apparent to him
2.35.1d.    that all of his letters were being passed to Mr TOLLEY.

2.35.2a.    Mr David NEWELL, the Chief Executive
2.35.2b.    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 feeling
2.36.2b.    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 here
2.36.3b.    that this meeting was arranged and chaired by Mr WILMOT
2.36.3c.    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 Committee
2.37.1b.    was held to discuss Mr WILMOT's allegations.

2.37.2a.    A report prepared by Mr TOLLEY (TSW/13 & MGT2) was presented to the meeting
2.37.2b.    and a copy of this report was subsequently forwarded to Mr WILMOT.

2.38.1a.    The report contained in paragraph 5 of this document
2.38.1b.    an aspect which Mr WILMOT considered to be a 'blatant lie',
2.38.1c.    referring to the part containing
2.38.1d.    'the Planning Officer not having taken any action himself in relation to the application'.

2.38.2a.    Clearly Mr WILMOT felt that this was untrue
2.38.2b.    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 WILMOT
2.39.2b.    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 address
2.39.2f.    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 House
2.39.3d.    which was attended by Councillor Screech, Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE, and Mr WILMOT.

2.40.1a.    What struck Mr WILMOT as significant at this meeting
2.40.1b.    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 91
2.41.1c.    a County Court Injunction
2.41.1d.    whilst he had been parading in Callingtton Town Square
2.41.1e.    with a placard
2.41.1f.    accusing Councillor PENGELLY, Mr TOLLEY, and Mr HARTRIDGE
2.41.1g.    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-election
2.41.2c.    and so it had been viewed by the Council
2.41.2d.    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 Council
2.42.1c.    regarding his planning application
2.42.1d.    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 Council
2.42.3b.    without admitting any form of liability (TSW/16).

2.43a.    Mr WILMOT has consistently claimed
2.43b.    that his grievances have never been properly aired by Caradon District Council
2.43c.    and felt, and in fact continues to feel, particularly aggrieved
2.43d.    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 88.

2.44.2a.    2. Conspiracy to conceal the inaccurracy by a sustained effort
2.44.2b.    employed in particular by
2.44.2c.    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.    3. The uttering of an Affidavit dated 02 MAY 91    prepared by Mr TOLLEY (JLB/1).    This Affidavit refers to the document prepared by Mr TOLLEY    in order for him to secure a County Court Injunction    prohibiting Mr WILMOT from parading in Callington Town Centre    with a placard on Local Government Election day ( 02 MAY 91).

2.45a.    In short, Officers of Caradon District Council have told lies
2.45b.    concerning Mr WILMOT's application
2.45c.    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 desires
2.46b.    to seek what he sees as the truth regarding his application,
2.46c.    into a determined onslaught
2.46d.    geared towards securing the expulsion from office of the senior officers concerned
2.46e.    and substantial compensation as a direct result of loss of potential revenue
2.46f.    which he maintains he would have secured
2.46g.    had he been able to develop his site at Target Tip.


3.1a.    Despite Mr WILMOT's allegations of criminal conduct and improper conduct
3.1b.    by senior officers within Caradon District Council,
3.1c.    it soon became apparent
3.1d.    that the two main persons responsible for his dissatisfaction
3.1e.    in the handling of his planning application
3.1f.    was the Planning Officer, Mr Alan HARTRIDGE
3.1g.    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 WILMOT
3.3b.    which formed the basis of his complaint
3.3c.    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 documents
3.4.1c.    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 alleging
3.5b.    centred on the events of the Planning Committee Meeting of 03 OCT 88,
3.5c.    efforts were made to recover the original hand-written notes
3.5d.    as taken down by the Minutes Clerk, a Cynthia Muriel Jewell.

3.6.1a.    Despite determined efforts it was not possible to find these
3.6.1b.    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 documents
3.6.2b.    there did not appear to be anything sinister in this.

3.7a.    The procedures adopted by the Minutes Clerks
3.7b.    when recording proceedings at the various Committee Meetings
3.7c.    was to record in their own long or shorthand, details of the proceedings
3.7d.    and then subsequently arrange to have the minutes typed up
3.7e.    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 JEWELL
3.8c.    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 thought
3.8f.    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 88
3.9b.    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 gas
3.10.1c.    and made reference to Government Circular 21/87
3.10.1d.    ( copy included in the exhibits bundle ).

3.10.2a.    This circular concerned the development of land
3.10.2b.    where landfill gas was likely to be present
3.10.2c.    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 granted
3.10.3c.    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 area
3.12.1b.    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 opposition
3.12.2b.    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 satisfied
3.20.2d.    that the application for development could go ahead
3.20.2e.    until the next Planning Committee Meeting due to be held on 06 FEB 89.

3.20.3a.    At the meeting Mr HARVEY advised the Committee
3.20.3b.    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 HARVEY
3.21.2b.    and passed to Mr HARTRIDGE for signature.

3.22a.    As Mr WILMOT proceeded to make contact
3.22b.    with a variety of people connected with the Council,
3.22c.    the current investigation conducted by the Police
3.22d.    was confined to those persons
3.22e.    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 88
3.23.1c.    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 contends
3.23.2b.    that he had in actual fact obtained his permission
3.23.2c.    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 unfolded
3.24.1b.    it was clear that there was a complete absence
3.24.1c.    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 behaviour
3.24.2e.    which was designed to stimulate some form of response
3.24.2f.    from certain Officers with Caradon District Council,
3.24.2g.    resulting in a Court appearance
3.24.2h.    which would give Mr WILMOT a forum to air his grievances.

3.25a.    Such efforts included parading outside the Council Offices at Liskeard
3.25b.    and in the streets
3.25c.    with a placard accusing named Officers,
3.25d.    i.e. Mr TOLLEY and Mr HARTRIDGE, Councillor PENGELLY, Mr COLLINS, and Mr NEWELL
3.25e.    of such offences as corruption and of being liars.

3.26a.    It was hoped by Mr WILMOT that he may be sued for libel
3.26b.    which would give him that opportunity in open court
3.26c.    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 threats
3.29a.    which could have been interpreted as threats to kill certain Officers of the Council
3.29a.    and demanding £150,000 as compensation for loss he had suffered since 1988.

3.30.1a.    This matter was investigated by the Police at Liskeard
3.30.1b.    which included the arrest of Mr WILMOT.

3.30.2a.    It was subsequently decided following consultations with the Crown Prosecution Service at Plymouth
3.30.2b.    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 occurred
3.31.1c.    when Mr TOLLEY saw Mr WILMOT parading around Liskeard Town Centre
3.31.1d.    with a placard naming Mr TOLLEY
3.31.1e.    and accusing him of corrupt proceedings.

3.31.2a.    Such was the frustration felt by Mr TOLLEY
3.31.2b.    that he endeavoured to spray the placard using a can of aerosol paint
3.31.2c.    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 TOLLEY
3.32b.    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 1986
3.32d.    and was given a Conditional Discharge.


3.33.1a.    Subsequent to this,
3.33.1b.    Mr WILMOT has sought sanction from the Crown Prosecution Service
3.33.1c.    to pursue a private prosecution for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice
3.33.1d.    against Mr TOLLEY, Mr HARTRIDGE and Councillor Pengelly.

3.33.2a.    Proceedings were discontinued by Liskeard Magistrates
3.33.2b.    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 advice
3.34.1c.    and thereafter declined to be interviewed under caution.

3.34.2a.    The evidence did not justify the arrest of the two persons
3.34.2b.    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 HARTRIDGE
3.34.2d.    which was in fact done.

3.35a.    Both persons spoke full and frankly to the Reporting Officer
3.35b.    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 file
3.36d.    and as a source of reference
3.36e.    this copy file is included in the Exhibits bundle.


3.37.1a.    It will be noted in the Exhibits bundle
3.37.1b.    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 Council
3.37.2b.    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 documents
3.38b.    it can be seen that there were no discrepancies
3.38c.    between the copies held by the Council
3.38d.    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 Officer
3.39c.    that those persons already seen
3.39d.    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.


4.1a.    Right at the onset of this allegation,
4.1b.    Mr WILMOT made it clear
4.1c.    that he considered there had been criminal offences committed.

4.2a.    It appeared to the Reporting Officer
4.2b.    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 Council
4.3b.    and had failed to secure what he considered to be
4.3c.    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 investigation
4.5b.    and it is the contention of the Reporting Officer
4.5c.    that there has been no evidence revealed
4.5d.    in support of the commission of any criminal offences
4.5e.    by anyone connected with Caradon District Council.

4.6a.    What has been identified
4.6b.    are areas of minor maladministration
4.6c.    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 done
4.6g.    then no doubt the contentious issue
4.6h.    of whether or not Mr WILMOT had secured his planning permission
4.6i.    would have been clarified.

4.6j.    b. That Mr WILMOT was not given or offered the guidance and help
4.6k.    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 advance
4.6n.    of the intended recommedation of refusal
4.6o.    to be heard at the Planning Committee Meeting on 6 FEB 89.

4.6p.    d. The unneccessary delay in the issue of the Refusal Notice
4.6q.    following the Planning Committee Meeting of 06 FEB 89
4.6r.    ( 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 obtained
4.7.1d.    and at Para. 161, the document states under a sub-heading of 'Decisions':-
4.7.1e.    'Once a decision has been made
4.7.1f.    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 problem
4.7.2b.    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 recommendations
4.7.3c.    with a view to dispatch after signature ( often rubber stamped ) the following day.

4.7.4a.    For those cases where the decision has been changed
4.7.4b.    or conditions added or altered
4.7.4c.    a new decision notice will be neccessary
4.7.4d.    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 provision
4.7.6b.    that within 48 hours any committee decision may be referred to a higher level
4.7.6c.    ( 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 essential
4.7.8b.    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 days
4.7.8d.    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 practice
4.7.10b.    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 practice
4.8c.    which would have been exercised at the time in 1988.

4.9.1a.    Failure to comply with such good practice however
4.9.1b.    does not constitute a criminal offence.

4.9.2a.    Procedures have since been changed within Caradon District Council
4.9.2b.    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 action
4.10.1c.    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 so
4.10.2b.    other than that he was devastated
4.10.2c.    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 90
4.11.1b.    about the actions of Caradon District Council
4.11.1c.    regarding his planning application for development of land
4.11.1d.    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 Officer
4.12b.    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 recommendation
4.12f.    and granted Mr WILMOT permission,
4.12g.    but all the evidence points to the fact
4.12h.    that this permission was conditional
4.12i.    upon Mr WILMOT supplying a report on landfill gas.

4.13.1a.    This stance taken by the Council was particularly significant
4.13.1b.    as earlier in 1988,
4.13.1c.    a dispute had been publicised involving Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council
4.13.1d.    and residents living close to a former landfill site.

4.13.2a.    The potential danger of landfill gas was exposed
4.13.2b.    and in this case claims for compensation were being considered.

4.14.1a.    Caradon District Council acted in good faith in opposing carte blanche
4.14.1b.    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 view
4.14.2b.    that he knew sufficient about the implications of landfill gas
4.14.2c.    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 Department
4.14.3b.    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 properly
4.15b.    in the manner with which they have dealt with this application
4.15c.    as far as satisfying proper criteria in the public interest.

4.16a.    Where errors have occurred,
4.16b.    they have been confined to administrative errors
4.16c.    and the apparent lack of urgency in dealing with his application.

4.17.1a.    The individual who appeared to have failed
4.17.1b.    to properly and efficiently expedite Mr WILMOT's application
4.17.1c.    was Mr Neil HARVEY, Senior Planning Assistant, in 1988/89.

4.17.2a.    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 individual
4.18c.    and it is the opinion of the Reporting Officer
4.18d.    that no further Police action be taken in this matter
4.18e.    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.
This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours? Zen wishes to say "Thank You!" to BLOGGER