But Phil Mason and his planning team obviously think that's fine, as they prepare to lumber you and I with another £600m debt to build more plasterboard rubbish, for out-of-Duchy second-home owners. www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/15704483.Kernick_businesses_served_eviction_notices_by_developers/?ref=mr&lp=2 Mason's behaviour, treatment and neglect of the local community that pays his wages to serve them, is bordering on criminal. He has absolutely no regard for Cornish residents, behaves with such arrogance in meetings, as to be completely blind to the chaos he has unleashed around him, despite huge legal & executive powers, which if he chose to, would give him the power to stop any unsuitable and unsustainable development. HE MUST GO, before Cornwall is turned into West Plymouth! As one senior Cornwall councillor recently wrote about him: "I agree with everything you say about this person, he has no respect for anything or anyone other than himself. My memory goes back a long way to his transfer from Restormel BC to Cornwall Council in 2009 where under the thumb of Lavery he altered the planning officer's report from refusal of planning for the incinerator, to one of approval, then presented it at the planning committee meeting. Cornwall Council refuses to include the area around the incinerator, including St. Dennis, on its Air Quality Management Plan, a typical case of protecting the contractor while failing in its Duty of Care for St.Dennis, all because of the pollution levels/emissions would not make good reading. This man is one of the main contributors to the not fit for purpose culture which exists within the Unitary Authority today, a shameful shambles if ever there was one, that hides behind an undemocratic delegation agreement, where mismanagement of our money and the questionable control of planning are high on the list of culprits. How we cry out for honesty, transparency, and genuine sincerity in protecting Cornwall’s unique culture and interests. However remember a leopard never changes its spots, I would like to know why elected members put up with it. This Guy is no good to himself or anyone else, we must keep turning the screw. The problem is also the chief executive; as they say the buck stops at the top. There are more problems than most know. She must go too." In other news: NHS www.falmouthpacket.co.uk/news/15700088.Time_running_out_to_have_say_on_possible_move_of_radiotherapy_services_to_Plymouth/?ref=mr&lp=5 USUAL MORNING REPORT: Gridlock on A30 causes delays Traffic is at a standstill on the A30 heading from Carland to Chiverton this morning. Highways England says it’s due to congestion: Location The A30 westbound between the junctions with the A39 South and the A390 Reason Congestion Status Currently Active Delay There are currently delays of 10 minutes against expected traffic Finally, the Tintagel saga rolls on, with more heated exchanges between 'public' servants and members of the public: From: Subject: Re: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle Date: 2017 Mys Kevardhu 5 11:03:32 GMT+00:00 To: EGD - Feedback , Mansell Simon Dear Ms Trudgeon, Re: FORMAL COMPLAINT REGARDING PLANNING APPLICATION No. PA17/05087: Proposed footbridge, Tintagel Castle. I am in receipt of your belated response dated 4th December 2017, the findings of which I do not accept. This investigation should have been carried out by an independent body, and not one with a direct interest. In parallel with the recent rulings against the Council by the High Court in respect of a wind farm application (Waller v Cornwall Council), there are two questions to be addressed: 1. Was the Strategic Planning Committee misled as to the scale of objections to the application proposal? 2. Were detailed objections withheld from the elected councillors of the Strategic Planning Committee? In my considered opinion, the answer to both is: Yes. The actual number of objections and supporting representations were not included in the report before that Committee, and both the four detailed objections included in the report, and the bullet points which followed, failed to represent the true picture and scale of objection. Of all 57 representations, mine was not only the most detailed, but the only one to carefully itemise, in depth, the points of objection; yet the case officer decided that this was not to be considered sufficiently "notable" to be brought before the Committee: a decision I find to be inexplicable, unacceptable and arguably contemptuous. You make a point of stressing the "substantial knowledge and experience of planning matters among the members of that Committee. However, I seriously doubt that this knowledge and experience extends to archaeology, geology, or the true importance of the Tintagel castle site to the Cornish national minority people. You write as though I have none of my own, and yet I am a substantially experienced archaeologist, and planning (Conservation) officer with a former Cornish authority. That extensive knowledge and experience was utilised in the formation of my objection, rendering the case officer's decision all the more inexplicable and open to serious question. I note that in the "neutral" representation by Mr James Hutchins, at no point in his text, as made available to the public via your website, does he write the word "neutral". His wording cannot be construed as anything other than an objection and should have been entered as such by your Authority. I cannot accept your excuse of "error" for exceeding the 10 working day limit that you yourself imposed on the Council's full response to my complaint. Indeed it took 20 working days for you to respond and then only after prompting from myself. I cannot view this as anything other than indicative of the contempt in which your undemocratically created Unitary Authority holds its electorate. I am determined that an investigation of this serious matter be carried out independently and so, as stated in my previous correspondence, I hereby give notice that the matter will indeed be taken further. Yours sincerely