In 2015, the High Court in London responded to a case brought by Cornish resident and former police officer, Mr Peter Waller, in respect of the handling by Cornwall Council officers, of a planning application for a 77-metre tall wind turbine at Tredinnick Farm, Newquay, close to the Grade I Listed Trerice House, Newlyn East. The High Court ruled that the Council had acted unlawfully in several regards: that the report of the case officer, Mr Ellis Crompton-Brown, contained several inaccuracies that led to elected members making unlawful errors of fact; that it failed to report the objections of English Heritage, or those of the National Trust, with regard the effect of the proposal on the setting of a Grade I Listed Building, leading to the planning committee being unaware of these objections. The High Court concluded that Cornwall Council had unlawfully withheld objections to the planning application from the relevant committee. Mention was also within the Court’s ruling made of e-mails suggesting pressure being successfully applied upon the case officer with regard to the alleged need for urgency to suit the timeline of the applicant’s own programme. The High Court then quashed the planning permission for this proposed wind turbine. Cornwall Council’s response was dismissive. “We remain of the firm view,” said an anonymous ‘spokesman’, “that the application was objectively considered by the planning committee and carried out in accordance with available policy and guidance.” One is entitled to ask how that could have possibly been the case considering that they were acting on incorrect – perhaps deceitful – information. That is not the last we shall hear of that Council response, which appears to be its standard line of defence. Two statements in particular stood out from the High Court proceedings, which are entirely relevant to two further cases: “A case officer who misled elected councillors about the scale of protest.” “Failure to disclose a detailed objection”. So, we move on to 2017 and the Tintagel Castle footbridge application by English Heritage (PA17/05087). This, too attracted large opposition, but that is not what the Planning Committee was shown. The report laid before them by case officer Patrick James gave four public representations in full, three of them in favour, one against. Others were reduced to selected and briefly summarised sentences in a handful of bullet points. That the scheme was, in fact, opposed by 50 people, with only 6 in favour, was withheld from Committee members. One support letter, from a self-confessed English Heritage contractor, failed to be rejected by the planning officers for its obvious pecuniary interest. The most detailed objection was a 4-page submission by a person with unique knowledge of this heritage site, categorized into effects upon the ancient monument; stability and safety, with particular regard to the brittle geology; cost, and justification. The case officer quite shockingly failed to regard this objection as being sufficiently “notable” to be made available to the Committee. On this deficient information, the application was approved, despite a refused attempt to request the Secretary of State to call it in. The same main points raised by the High Court ruling had been shamelessly repeated. In reaction to two written complaints, and just as in the Tredinnick case, Council spokespersons denied malpractice, insisting that correct procedure had been carried out, while also threatening one complainant with legal action. Now, 2018 and the monstrous egg farm proposal at Pengwedna, Breage (PA17/04129). The Nancegollan Action Group raised a 20,000 signature petition against the scheme, while 156 individuals submitted objections, some advised by professional landscape architects and planning consultants who identified several errors and omissions in the application. The Council’s own landscape architect considers the proposal to be deficient and potentially damaging. The Group allege that the case officer – the same Ellis Crompton-Brown whose practice had been ruled against and severely criticised by the High Court in 2015 – had played down the level of objection and recommended approval under Delegated Powers. Pressure resulted in the application being brought before the Strategic Planning Committee instead, with same recommendation of approval. Has the High Court ruling of 2015 been flouted yet again? Is the Council knowingly committing Contempt of Court? Perhaps that should be for the High Court itself to decide. At this Planning Committee meeting, Parish Council spokesmen were specifically critical of the case officer for “skating over” adverse impacts of the proposal in his report, as were Cllrs Keeling and Jenkin, who both criticised its “superficial” coverage. Despite a voiced threat of Appeal, the elected members were not taken in by the report, or its recommendation of approval, and unanimously voted to refuse the application. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3149731/Will-High-Court-ruling-save-glorious-coastline-wind-farms-invasion-Cornwall-s-green-strategy-turmoil-council-s-unlawful-backing-turbine-quashed.html