Saturday, 25 October 2008
Complaint against the planning department.
At the recent public inquiry held to decide the fate of Trevalon, Mark Andrews of Caradon District Council Development Control presented false information. A compalaint was made to the planning department but to date has gone unanswered. Now a complaint has been made to the Chief Executive and hopefully I will now get a reply.
Details of the complaint are copied below:
Letter to the chief exectutive:
Trevalon
Herodsfoot
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 4RS
21 10 08
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ
Dear Byron Davies,
I wish to draw your attention to a complaint made to Mrs Walters of Caradon District Council Planning Department on 12th August 2008 concerning the conduct of planning officer Mark Andrews at a recent public inquiry.
It is now over two months since the complaint was made and I still have not received an acknowledgement.
Enclosed is a copy of the letter and evidence sent to Mrs Walters. Since making the complaint the appeal decision has been issued and a copy enclosed.
I hope you will appreciate that presenting false information to a public inquiry is a serious matter and would like to ask your reassurance that this complaint is taken seriously.
Yours Sincerely
Mark Simon
Letter to Caradon Planning Department:
Trevalon
Herodsfoot
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 4RS
12 08 08
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ
Dear Mrs Walters,
I wish to make a complaint concerning the conduct of planning officer Mark Andrews at the public inquiry held on 9th and 10th July 2008.
The public inquiry concerned the appeal against refusal of planning permission and the appeal against enforcement at Trevalon, Herodsfoot, local authority reference No. 07/00175/FUL & MA/LI/041136.
On a number of occasions in his dealings with planning matters at Trevalon and during the public inquiry, Mark Andrews has demonstrated bias and prejudice, this complaint however focuses specifically on two instances where false information was presented before the public inquiry.
In the Proof of evidence of Caradon District Council, Para 5.5, Mark Andrews states,
“The appellants accept that the mobile home is development requiring the express planning consent of the local planning authority”
This statement is untrue, in numerous dealings with the planning department I have stated and restated my belief that the mobile home is a temporary agricultural structure.
In a letter dated 26 08 07 (copy enclosed) I stated,
“It is my honest belief that all the structures, which are subject to planning enforcement, are in fact temporary structures being used for agriculture and do not need planning permission. I believe that the only legitimate enforcement would be against the residential use of the mobile home, which requires permission from agricultural use to mixed agricultural and residential use, which has not yet been granted”.
In a letter responding to the social consequences questionnaire, also dated 26 08 07 (copy enclosed) I stated,
“The mobile home on site is a temporary structure used for the purpose of agriculture. Its function is that of a workers rest room”.
I also stated,
“The mobile home on site is also used as a temporary agricultural structure for the purpose of a site office”.
In a letter to councillors (copied to planning officers) (copy enclosed),dated 02 09 07, I stated,
“I believe all the structures subject to enforcement are temporary and in use for agricultural purposes and that enforcement is therefore inappropriate”.
In paragraph 6.32 of the proof of evidence of Caradon District Council, Mark Andrews states,
“ The enforcement notice issued in respect of the mobile home and storage container, owing to error, fails to require the mobile home to be removed from site”.
This statement is untrue. In the minutes of the council meeting held on 6th September 2007 (copy enclosed) it states that,
“The planning officer (West) clarified that the presence of a caravan was permitted development, he also drew attention to the wording of the recommendation in the report”
At this meeting it was resolved that the wording of the enforcement notice be,
“permanent cessation of the residential use of the static caravan”
The enforcement notice issued on the 17th September 2007 (copy enclosed) stated,
“cease the residential occupation of or the remove the static caravan from the site”.
Presenting false evidence to a public inquiry is a very serious matter and I expect that this matter will be dealt with appropriately.
Yours Sincerely
Mark Simon
Copies sent to: Cllr Paul Adams, Cllr George Hocking, Cllr Richard Pugh, Cllr Colin Riches, Cllr Hugh Francis and Cllr Bernie Ellis.
Details of the complaint are copied below:
Letter to the chief exectutive:
Trevalon
Herodsfoot
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 4RS
21 10 08
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ
Dear Byron Davies,
I wish to draw your attention to a complaint made to Mrs Walters of Caradon District Council Planning Department on 12th August 2008 concerning the conduct of planning officer Mark Andrews at a recent public inquiry.
It is now over two months since the complaint was made and I still have not received an acknowledgement.
Enclosed is a copy of the letter and evidence sent to Mrs Walters. Since making the complaint the appeal decision has been issued and a copy enclosed.
I hope you will appreciate that presenting false information to a public inquiry is a serious matter and would like to ask your reassurance that this complaint is taken seriously.
Yours Sincerely
Mark Simon
Letter to Caradon Planning Department:
Trevalon
Herodsfoot
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 4RS
12 08 08
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ
Dear Mrs Walters,
I wish to make a complaint concerning the conduct of planning officer Mark Andrews at the public inquiry held on 9th and 10th July 2008.
The public inquiry concerned the appeal against refusal of planning permission and the appeal against enforcement at Trevalon, Herodsfoot, local authority reference No. 07/00175/FUL & MA/LI/041136.
On a number of occasions in his dealings with planning matters at Trevalon and during the public inquiry, Mark Andrews has demonstrated bias and prejudice, this complaint however focuses specifically on two instances where false information was presented before the public inquiry.
In the Proof of evidence of Caradon District Council, Para 5.5, Mark Andrews states,
“The appellants accept that the mobile home is development requiring the express planning consent of the local planning authority”
This statement is untrue, in numerous dealings with the planning department I have stated and restated my belief that the mobile home is a temporary agricultural structure.
In a letter dated 26 08 07 (copy enclosed) I stated,
“It is my honest belief that all the structures, which are subject to planning enforcement, are in fact temporary structures being used for agriculture and do not need planning permission. I believe that the only legitimate enforcement would be against the residential use of the mobile home, which requires permission from agricultural use to mixed agricultural and residential use, which has not yet been granted”.
In a letter responding to the social consequences questionnaire, also dated 26 08 07 (copy enclosed) I stated,
“The mobile home on site is a temporary structure used for the purpose of agriculture. Its function is that of a workers rest room”.
I also stated,
“The mobile home on site is also used as a temporary agricultural structure for the purpose of a site office”.
In a letter to councillors (copied to planning officers) (copy enclosed),dated 02 09 07, I stated,
“I believe all the structures subject to enforcement are temporary and in use for agricultural purposes and that enforcement is therefore inappropriate”.
In paragraph 6.32 of the proof of evidence of Caradon District Council, Mark Andrews states,
“ The enforcement notice issued in respect of the mobile home and storage container, owing to error, fails to require the mobile home to be removed from site”.
This statement is untrue. In the minutes of the council meeting held on 6th September 2007 (copy enclosed) it states that,
“The planning officer (West) clarified that the presence of a caravan was permitted development, he also drew attention to the wording of the recommendation in the report”
At this meeting it was resolved that the wording of the enforcement notice be,
“permanent cessation of the residential use of the static caravan”
The enforcement notice issued on the 17th September 2007 (copy enclosed) stated,
“cease the residential occupation of or the remove the static caravan from the site”.
Presenting false evidence to a public inquiry is a very serious matter and I expect that this matter will be dealt with appropriately.
Yours Sincerely
Mark Simon
Copies sent to: Cllr Paul Adams, Cllr George Hocking, Cllr Richard Pugh, Cllr Colin Riches, Cllr Hugh Francis and Cllr Bernie Ellis.