It's incredible that whilst a few campaigners keep knocking at Cornwall Council's door, to better understand the chaos and mayhem unleashed around us by our own planning department, led by the obviously misunderstood Phil Mason, Cornish residents - old and new - are happy to wait in longer and longer lines of traffic, whilst new estates spring up all around them, for anybody and everybody around the UK, except (generally) for members of their own community that desperately need affordable housing... especially our own kids, Meanwhile, we're happy to drop off those same children at (now overcrowded) schools every morning, in the knowledge that most of our towns have effectively been designated "toxic" by Cornwall Council, due to higher than acceptable traffic-generated nitrogen dioxide levels. And in the Summer, we're also happy to watch our kids swim with the tourists in higher and higher concentrations of raw sewerage. But hey! X-Factor's on, so we'll forget to mention to Phil Mason that 52,500 more homes by 2030 equates to 100,000+ cars... and guess what? Most are still run on diesel and petrol! So instead of using their brilliant planning and legal skills to stop Wain & Persimmon building plasterboard rubbish on our green belts, the saga rolls on with inept planning officers and council lawyers spending Cornish residents' taxes on fighting aggrieved members of the public, rather than serving their communities, as demonstrated by this ongoing rather fraught email exchange: Sent: 07 December 2017 14:28 To: Trudgeon Dorothy; Mansell Simon; kkennally@cornwall.gov.uk; adam.paynter@cornwallcouncillors.org.uk ; craig@agantavas.org; Mike Chappell; Matt Blewett; contactus@Cornwall4Change.org ; Armorel Carlyon; Kenneth Rickard; Iwan le Moine; cabinet@cornwall.gov.uk; sparker@westernmorningnews.co.uk ; laurence.reed@bbc.co.uk Subject: FW: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle Dear Ms Trudgeon and Mr Mansell This is series of emails are self explanatory. I would greatly appreciate them being made available to the relevant officers. Mr Weatherhill appears to be getting treated in a similar manner to myself, insofar that we both appear to be ignored by Cornwall Council presumably in the hope that we will go away. Or maybe Cornwall Council are contemplating blocking us in a similar manner to Mr Le Moine? There is also the unresolved matter of the wholly unjustifiable threat of legal action issued to Mr Blewett by Cornwall Law. Judging from the disgraceful threats and alleged bullying that have been reported in the local media recently, with regard to Mr Tozer's property at Treliever (Falmouth), because due to his unwillingness to sell the land, it may be made subject to a compulsory purchase order. With this in mind, is the blunt instrument of threats and bullying becoming a standard procedure, embedded in the current growth strategy to drive it forward, regardless of any or all legitimate objections to the very real threat this increasingly unpopular policy poses to Cornwall’s priceless environment and culture? While I have no interest in wasting anyone’s time, least of all my own, I really do think that our council as a self-professed professional organisation, owes us the courtesy of a proper and honest response to the legitimate issues we raise. Right glad I am that the Chief Executive deigns to acknowledge the passion that drives these matters, because I put it to everyone that the sustainable future of our Cornwall is bigger than any one of us. If our council is either unwilling or incapable of undertaking what appears to be a relatively simple task, then without further ado, I suggest that the matter is referred to the Ombudsman. I look forward to Cornwall Council's response within a reasonable timescale. Yours faithfully Kevin Bennetts From: Craig Weatherhill Sent: Thursday, December 7, 2017 To: Michael Chappell; Matt Blewett; kevin bennetts; P.I. I.; Cornwall4Change ; Armorel Carlyon ; kenrickard@ Subject: Fwd: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle This gets more laughable by the minute. Having given themselves 10 working days to investigate my complaint, and taking 20 to respond, they now give themselves 20 working days to "review" my complaint! Craig Begin forwarded message: From: EGD - Feedback Subject: RE: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle Date: 2017 Mys Kevardhu 7 12:24:48 GMT+00:00 To: Craig Weatherhill Dear Mr Weatherhill I acknowledge receipt of your comments to our initial response to your complaint dated 5 December. I will arrange for your comments to be reviewed and for a final complaint response to be sent to you within 20 working days. If your complaint remains unresolved on receipt of our final response you will have the option to refer the matter to the Local Government Ombudsman for independent review. Kind regards Dorothy Trudgeon Feedback & Principal Development Support Officer Customer Relations Office Economic Growth and Development Cornwall Council External Tel: 01872 224345 or 01872 323984 dorothy.trudgeon@cornwall.gov.uk egdfeedback@cornwall.gov.uk Room 117, St Austell One Stop Shop, 39 Penwinnick Road, St Austell, PL25 5DR www.cornwall.gov.uk ‘Onen hag oll’ From: Craig Weatherhill [mailto:craig@agantavas.org] Sent: 05 December To: EGD - Feedback; Mansell Simon Subject: Re: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle 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, C. Weatherhill (Mr), Penzance Cornwall TR20 8QH On 2017 Kev 4, at 16:42, EGD - Feedback wrote: Dear Mr Weatherhill I am sorry that you have not received a response to your complaint as promised. From a check of my file in respect of this complaint I was under the impression that a response had been already been sent via our Legal and Chief Executives office. I apologise that this was not the case and appears to be my error. The response prepared was as follows: Planning application: PA17/05087: Proposed Footbridge Tintagel Castle Thank you for your letter expressing your concerns about the recent planning decision PA17/05087 to approve the construction of a pedestrian footbridge between the mainland and island wards of Tintagel castle and also your more general concerns about the planning department of Cornwall Council. Your concern for this important and unique Cornish historic site is welcomed. We can confirm that that this decision was made by an experienced Planning Committee after consideration of all relevant matters and a full and frank debate. This application was called to the Strategic Planning Committee due to the sensitivity and cultural importance of the site. It was considered to be a matter of Cornwall-wide, national and even international interest and significance. As you may be aware, the Strategic Planning Committee comprises democratically elected members with substantial knowledge and experience of planning issues, policy and the local area. It is their role to weigh the competing public and private interests involved in a planning application. The decision The Strategic Planning Committee approved the decision by an overwhelming majority in favour of 13:2. The proposal was designed to minimise adverse impacts on the existing ecology and landscape and had demonstrated that the conservation status of the affected species will be maintained. Other potential adverse impacts including those relating to landscape, heritage, archaeology, geology and highways were also considered to have been addressed satisfactorily. Presentation of submissions in the Officer's report In respect of your specific criticisms of the presentation of the submissions received in the officer's report, no reference was made either in the report, or as part of the officer's presentation to the Committee, to the numbers of letters from individuals received either for or against the proposal. Instead, and in line with established planning practice, the officer made reference to individual planning considerations raised. Of these, the report lists 9 in favour and 27 in opposition. It is important to note that the numbers of submissions received for or against any proposal are not as important as the issues that, across them, they raise, and then in turn the amount of weight in the planning balance that is ascribed to these issues by the Committee. The officer did, however, itemise the only 4 representations that were received from named organisations, of which 3 happened to be in favour and 1 against. Your allegation that the officer's report is misleading is therefore denied. Neutral representation It is also not the case that any representation was listed in the report as being 'neutral'. There is one such representation on the Council's website. However, this representation was made directly by the named individual via public access to the Council's website. He himself selected to classify it as 'neutral'; at no point was there any intervention by the Council. The summarising of planning considerations raised in submissions As you may be aware, the Council receives extensive submissions in support and in opposition to planning applications and it is not practical, or desirable, for it to set out in full in the officer's report the detail of every single submission raised. Part of a planning officer's expert function in reporting to a committee is to make an assessment of how much information needs to be included in the report in order to avoid burdening the busy committee with excessive and unnecessary detail. Instead the officer distils the submissions down to the planning considerations that they raise. Consideration of issues raised by you Your own letter of objection was considered carefully by the case officer and the main points were summarised within the 27 bullet points of paragraph 64 of the report. Further, the issues raised by you were considered directly in the officer's report at paragraphs 123-127 which discusses geological conservation and the land stability impact of the proposal. This issue was also referred to as a material consideration in paragraphs 1 to 6 of the report. The Cornwall Geoconservation Group's consultation response is referred to and set out in detail at paragraph 53 of the officer's report. Whilst the Cornwall Geoconservation group are not a statutory consultee the officer went to extensive lengths to specifically consult with them, including chasing them 3 times for their response, because he considered geological erosion to be a material consideration to the determination of the proposal. As you acknowledge, your points were "absolutely echoed by" the Cornwall Geoconservation group therefore were not set out separately to avoid overburdening the committee with duplication. However, the geological point made by you is referred to at paragraph 64 of the report. Further the issue was clearly brought to members' attention at paragraphs 1, 53 and 123-127. We trust that this response alleviates your concerns. Kind regards Dorothy Trudgeon Feedback & Principal Development Support Officer Customer Relations Office Economic Growth and Development Cornwall Council External Tel: 01872 224345 or 01872 323984 dorothy.trudgeon@cornwall.gov.uk egdfeedback@cornwall.gov.uk Room 117, St Austell One Stop Shop, 39 Penwinnick Road, St Austell, PL25 5DR www.cornwall.gov.uk 'Onen hag oll' -----Original Message----- From: Craig Weatherhill [mailto:craig@agantavas.org] Sent: 01 December 2017 18:20 To: EGD - Feedback Cc: Kernow Matters To You; Kevin Bennetts; Iwan Le Moine; Cornwall4Change ; Armorel Carlyon ; kenrickard@ Subject: Formal complaint re. Planning Application PA17/05087: proposed bridge, Tintagel Castle Dear Ms Trudgeon, Your ref: CR/FB/PA17/05087 With regard to my formal complaint dated 5th November 2017 in respect of the aforementioned planning application, I must remind you that you wrote to me on 8th November 2017, stating an ongoing investigation and ensuring a full response within 10 working days. You have failed to respond within that time, or to date, which rather suggests to me that my allegation of unlawful practice on the part of your Council may indeed be a correct assumption. That period has long expired and, accordingly and as stated at the outset, I shall now take the matter to a higher level and I further reserve the right to approach the national Press. Anowr, C. Weatherhill (Mr) This e-mail and attachments are intended for above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us immediately atenquiries@cornwall.gov.uk. Please note that this e-mail may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with the relevant legislation and may need to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. Security Warning: It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. The Authority will not accept liability for any damage caused by a virus." We need every signatory to help us reach out to ALL Cornish residents, so that the message can be passed on to Cornwall Council: ENOUGH IS ENOUGH So please knock on neighbours' doors, go to the pub, the church, the school and the social club and get them to sign up, before our own planners turn Cornwall into an urban mess called PLYMOUTH WEST!