Complaint against planning officers reaches appeal stage

28 12 08

The Monitoring Officer,
Luxstowe House
Liskeard
Cornwall
PL14 3DZ

Re: Complaint to Planning Department dated 12 08 08 and 21 10 08
Ref: SBF/PAW

Dear Mrs Diggens,

I have recently made a complaint against Mark Andrews of the Caradon District Council Planning Department concerning false evidence that was presented to a planning public inquiry, concerning 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. The initial complaint was made on 12th August 2008. On 17th December 2008 I received a reply from Mr S Besford-Foster.

I am not satisfied with the outcome of the investigation and would therefore request that the original evidence is looked at again. This letter should be considered as a request to appeal the decision.

From the reply given by Mr S Besford-Foster it is apparent that the evidence that I presented has not been fully understood or that additional evidence given by the planning department has been misleading.

In my letter dated 12 08 08, I stated that,


“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”.


Mr S Besford-Foster has interpreted this to mean that my complaint is saying that Mr Andrews deliberately presented false information in an attempt to influence the outcome of the appeals.

It is my personal opinion that Mr Andrews has acted with bias and prejudice. However as stated in the above letter, the focus of my complaint is that the evidence presented to the inquiry was false. Evidence in support of this assertion was presented. I have not presented evidence as to the motive of why the evidence was false, only that it was false.

I regret any confusion that my have resulted from the wording of my original letter. I request that you firstly look at the evidence as it has been presented and determine whether false information was presented to a public inquiry. Secondly, if you find that my accusation is correct, then I request that you look for a reason for this happening, so that action can be taken to ensure that it does not happen again.

I fully accept the possibility that you may find additional reasons why false information was presented to a public inquiry. I respectfully ask you do not to dismiss the possibility that Mr Andrews acted with bias and prejudice, I realise that this is a serious accusation and I do not make it lightly. My understanding of Mr S Besford-Fosters response is that Mr Andrews has attempted to divert responsibility away from himself and direct it towards other planning officers that made recommendations to the planning committee and towards the planning committee itself. This response confirms to me my original but unstated belief that Mr Andrews has behaved extremely arrogantly. I believe he has placed his personal prejudices above his professional integrity.

In the letter from Mr S Besford-Foster dated 17 12 08 it states that:


“that you [Mr Simon] have, as a matter of fact, accepted explicitly by correspondence and actions, that the mobile home is indeed development and requires express planning consent”.


I am disappointed that in giving evidence to Mr S Besford-Foster, planning officers were unable or unwilling to clarify the distinction between “development” , “change of use” and “permitted development”. Mr Andrews seems to have implied that there has been confusion between “change of use”, “development” and “permitted development” and that the planning committee was also confused by this distinction.

I believe that in my correspondence with the Council I clearly made the distinction between what I considered was “permitted development” and what needed planning permission for “change of use”. I believe that the planning committee in coming to its decision on 6th September 2008 also understood this distinction and the recommendation made by the committee was clear.

I have always accepted that planning permission is explicitly required for “change of use” of the mobile home, but on many occasions stated that the siting of the mobile home does not need planning permission as it is “permitted development”.

In response to the enforcement questionnaire dated 26 08 07 I stated that,


“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 the minutes of the planning committee meeting on 6th September 2007, I believe that it is clear that officers and committee members understood the distinction between the siting of a storage container that was unauthorised “development” and the siting of the mobile home which was “permitted development” but which had unauthorised “change of use”.

In the minutes it states that,


“The Planning Manager (west) clarified that the presence of a caravan on the site as a storage receptacle was permitted development. He also drew attention to the wording of the recommendation in the report”.


Which stated,


“Unauthorised residential use of a static caravan and the unauthorised siting of a storage container at Trevalon, Church Hill, Herodsfoot (50700305).

Resolved: That appropriate enforcement action be taken in the form of an enforcement notice to secure the following:

1.The permanent removal of the storage container from the site; and
2.Permanent cessation of the residential use of the static caravan.


I request that you speak to the planning officer that gave evidence to the 6th September planning committee and also that you speak to the councillors on the same planning committee (including the chair), and ask them whether they understood that the siting of the mobile home for agricultural use was considered “permitted development”.

It is my belief that the committee's intention was clear, however the proposed wording for the enforcement notice did not address the possible landscape harm of the mobile home. I believe the decision was made in light of the evidence that the siting of the mobile home was in fact “permitted development”.

In the letter dated Mr S Besford-Foster's letter dated 17 12 08 it states that,


“the committee's intentions were not at all clear. The result has been that a gradual 'refinement' has taken place. ....”.


The letter goes on to say,


“Mr Andrews considered that he had to resolve the discrepancy that had emerged.”


I believe that my correspondence with planning officers and planning committee members before the 6th September committee meeting clearly and honestly stated the facts and that based on this, the planning committee made a clear recommendation.

I believe that in giving evidence to Mr S Besford-Foster, Mr Andrews has attempted to confuse the investigation in order to divert blame away from himself and direct it towards officers that made recommendations to the 6th September 08 Planning Committee Meeting and towards Councillors on the Planning Committee.

I stand firm in my belief that the evidence presented by Mr Andrews to the public inquiry was false. I ask that you do not dismiss the possibility that this was due to bias, prejudice and arrogance on the part of Mr Andrews.

Finally, Mr S Besford-Foster's letter dated 17 12 08, gives no reason for the failure of the Planning Department to respond to my initial complaint made on 12 08 08. I request that an explanation is sort for this failure.


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, Mr S Besford-Foster, The Chief Executive Byron Davies.