Council Lies - Click the blue links to see the Proof!
(A lie is an untruthful statement made to someone else with the intention to deceive. Source- the Wikipedia free encyclopedia.)
Listed below are six points raised in a complaint I made to the North Devon District Council about lies contained in a memorandum originating from the Planning Managers office. This memorandum formed the basis of evidence supplied to the Local Government Ombudsman by the Council regarding a complaint I made to the Ombudsman about a disgraceful planning decision. Not one of these points was answered by Mrs. S Harrison, (stage one) or by Anne Cowley (stage two). Ms. Cowley then stated that I had "exhausted the complaints process" and closed the matter – this is undemocratic, arrogant and is no more than a cover-up! I subsequently uncovered several other instances of lies by Council employees in respect of this same planning decision – these follow on at the end of the notes to the complaint.
Note: All the claims of lying by council employees are fully supported by evidence from the Council's own documentation! To see at a glance who the guilty employees and Councillors are click here.
The Complaint
5th April 2006.
Mrs Angela Webb supplied misleading information to the Local Government Ombudsman in connection with my complaint regarding planning consent No.40770 at Hares Green, South Molton which adversely affected the investigation. Your ref: SH:15:14:596.
1. Mrs Webb stated that "it demonstrates that consideration has been given to using Hares Green as a point of access".
The fact is that the Planning Manager justifies using Moorland Rise as a point of access (planning application No.35910) and recommends approval.
2. Mrs Webb stated that the proposal was "not considered to result in any overlooking"
The fact is that is that the row of bungalows opposite the new development is overlooked both front and back by bedroom windows.
3. Mrs Webb stated that "Access from Moorland Rise has, therefore, been carefully considered but has not been acceptable to the council"
The fact is that the Planning Manager justifies using Moorland Rise as a point of access and recommends approval (planning application No.35910). (Note that when the Moorland Rise planning application 30527 was approved by the Council this included the proposed access point into the adjoining site).
4. Mrs Webb stated that "The hedgerow at the turning head in Moorland Rise, whilst adjoining the site, contains three trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Orders"
The fact is there are not three trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders in the way of the access from Moorland Rise as indicated by the Tree Preservation Order – Land Rear of Underhill dated 18th Dec. 2002 (see also the answer to Nick Harvey MP's first question below).
5. Mrs Webb states that "The design of the access had been provided to minimise any impact on the protected trees within the site".
The fact is that the entrance drive to the new development passes directly over the root spread of an Oak tree which is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order in contravention of item 8 of the planning conditions (Application No.40770).
6. Mrs Webb stated that "There are many locations within towns where sheltered and family housing sit side by side".
Whilst this statement is true it is misleading as the Hares Green/Widgery Drive development is a sheltered retirement bungalow estate with a minimum age requirement of 55 years. It is unique in South Molton!
Notes to the Complaint
Point 1. When Moorland Rise was built there was a short piece of road shown on the plans leading up to the boundary of the new site ready to provide access. The planners approved this and its suitability was confirmed by the Planning Managers recommendation for approval of application No35910.
Point 2. See the photographs on the link.
Point 3. See point 1.
Point 4. Note that the short piece of road intended as a point of access has now become a "turning head".
Point 5. See the photographs on the link.
Point 6. When Hares Green was built the amenity of the residents was protected by a set of conditions. For instance minimum age 55; none of the conditions apply to the new property so Hares Green has been turned into a mixed housing estate 16 or so years after the properties were sold on the basis of being sheltered retirement bungalows. In business terms this would be breach of contract!
Now read about the rest of the lies from the planners:
- In the memorandum mentioned above the impression is given on page 4 that the two applications for access to the site from Moorland Rise were turned down on account of this access being unsuitable. This is not true as 34686 was dismissed at appeal for the reason that the financial arrangements were unsatisfactory. The other, 35910 was turned down because of a tree, the subject of a preservation order (see also the answer to Nick Harvey MP's first question below). However the alternative access mentioned (from Hares Green) takes the entrance road over the root spread of a tree covered by a preservation order and infringes the councils own planning conditions.
- Another reason given for turning down application 34686 is shown on the council’s website as loss of trees worthy of tree preservation orders. These trees, had they been worthy of protection, would have been included on the council’s Tree Preservation Order dated 18th December 2002. They were not.
- Planning approval for application 40770 contains the following: (5) Reason: In order to minimise the impact of development on trees protected by a tree preservation order. But: The council allowed the access road to cross the root spread of such a tree as noted above. (6) Reason: In order to minimise the impact of development on trees protected by a tree preservation order But: There is no such tree in the way of the entrance from Moorland Rise. (8) Condition: The soil levels within the root spread of trees/hedgerows to be retained shall not be raised or lowered. But: As noted above the road passes over the root spread of a tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
- The Proposal for planning application 37263 states that "the position of the access drive would not appear to affect any remaining trees covered by a Tree Preservation Order." It clearly does as shown on the plans for the new site – the planners ignored this as the photograph shows.
- In a letter signed by Ms J Watkins there is a statement concerning the above tree: "I regret that the first I was aware of this specific concern…" The memorandum from Andrew Tucker to Jean Watkins clearly shows that she had been told and would have been fully conversant with the problem with the access from Hares Green. It is also clearly indicated on the plans for the site.
The Case Officer for the Planning Applications 34686, 37263, 35910 and 40770 was Ms J Watkins. The former Planning Manager (Mr. M J Easton) in a letter to me claims that the decision to use the Hares Green access to the new development was made for "sound planning reasons". However he has been unable to name any at all. How can he say that the status of my home has not changed when the estate has been changed from sheltered retirement bungalows to mixed housing? This letter is a pathetic attempt to justify a disgraceful planning decision - it fails completely!
One further point - the unused piece of ground set aside for access to the site rear of Underhill and fenced off by steel mesh panels could remain a permanent eyesore in Moorland Rise - thanks for this sound bit of planning Mr. Easton! See the photo below:
Was the access from Hares Green used simply to benefit the Council to the tune of £25,000? This is the fee charged so that the drive could cross the narrow strip of grass in Hares Green shown in the photographs. Could there be any other logical reason for this disgraceful episode? What do you think?
An e-mail has been sent to the Leader of the Council Malcolm Prowse with copies to our local representatives Cllrs. Sue Sewell and John Moore. We await results.
A reply from Malcolm Prowse has been received and is copied onto the above e-mail link.
A follow up e-mail has been sent asking Councillor Prowse when he is going to deal with the lying employees. Councillor Prowse has neither acknowledged receipt nor replied to the e-mail!
A further e-mail with a request for help to deal with the dishonesty within the North Devon District Council has been made to our two local Councillors John Moore and Susan Sewell. Councillor Moore has agreed to assist and put the following question at the Council Meeting on 21st February 2007.
Cllr. Sewell, surprisingly, has declined to help and continues to refuse to assist, continually coming up with ridiculous excuses. She evidently has her own agenda and looking after the electors is not part of it! Does she deserve our support in the next election?
This is the question Cllr. Moore has agreed to put:
"Why has Cllr. Prowse not dealt with the North Devon District Council employees who have lied nor the cover-up as detailed in my e-mail to him of 5th of October 2006 and on my website at www.northdevonlink.co.uk/council-lies.htm as he promised to do in his e-mail to me of 13th October 2006?"
A truly remarkable letter has been received from Cllr. Malcolm Prowse - read it here.
So the above question has therefore been cancelled and a more appropriate one is being prepared!
This is it - to be asked at the next Council meeting on 21st February 2007: -
"Why is Cllr. Prowse attempting to cover up lies told to the Ombusman and to the public by employees in the Planning Office which are fully exposed in the South Molton section of my website The North Devon Link?"
Cllr. Moore has forwarded an e-mail to me from Don Pratt, an assistant chief executive suggesting that the above question could be disqualified as being defamatory. The definition of defamation given by the Wikipedia online encyclopedia is:
"The communication of a statement that makes a false claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may harm the reputation of an individual."
As none of the claims I have made are false and are fully supported by evidence from the Council's own documentation I have requested that the question be put to Cllr. Prowse unchanged. Let's call a spade a spade and a lie a lie!
Well - Monitoring Officer Don Pratt has watered down the question as he believes it could lead to a breach of the rules. So this is the version he has come up with: (Note that he cleverly avoids any mention of lies and puts the emphasis onto the complaint "relating to a planning decision"!)
"Can the Leader explain why he did not investigate allegations made regarding information given to the Ombudsman undertaking an investigation into a complaint relating to a planning decision"
Cllr. Moore reports that at the council meeting the Leader of the Council Cllr. Malcolm Prowse said that the allegations on this website were "a pack of lies". Curious that Cllr. Moore was not allowed to put the question as I wanted as it could be considered defamatory but the Leader can slander me and in effect call me a liar. This leaves him open to a complaint to the Standards Board - which will duly follow! It is noted that the Monitoring Officer Don Pratt had advised there was no reason for a review. One more Council employee involved in the cover up! What a pathetic bunch they all are.
I have e-mailed Cllr. Sewell asking her to confirm the words "pack of lies" were used - I wonder if she will be prepared to do the job she was elected to do and look after her constituents? No - she will not confirm that these words were used although I am legally entitled to this information under the Members Code of Conduct.
You can read the objectives behind this campaign here.
The complaint has been sent to the Standards Board - let's see if they will side with me or with a lying, arrogant, dishonest Council. There will be updates plus a full report published here on the North Devon Link.
One big question now presents itself - why does Cllr. Prowse find it necessary to risk damaging his own position by covering up for the lying council employees? What exactly has been going on within the North Devon District Council? And why does Cllr. Sewell not wish to get involved?
The Standards Board has decided against investigating the complaint against Cllr. Prowse but the decision was based on invalid reasons - this has been pointed out to them so we will wait and see if they will reverse their decision and investigate our leader who is guilty of covering up lies told by council employees. Or will the Standards Board be party to a cover up?
Yes, the Standards Board for England with it's slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy" has associated itself with the lying and the cover up by Cllr. Prowse. The chief executive David Prince has decided not to investigate my complaint and has said he will not engage in further correspondence on the matter. Why do we taxpayers have to put up with these people who are more concerned with avoiding their responsibilities than with doing their job? The next step will be a complaint to my MP Nick Harvey - Cllr. Prowse is not off the hook yet!
I have booked an appointment with Nick Harvey MP. on the 25th May 2007 to discuss the issue of a cover up by Cllr. Prowse and the refusal by Cllr. Sewell to take action on my behalf. What will our MP. have to say about the actions of these councillors who are both supported by his party the Lib-Dems?
At the meeting mentioned above Nick Harvey MP., having heard the complaint and having been given all the evidence on this website on a CD, is going to look into the matter and get back to me.
Nick Harvey MP has studied the material on this website and has formulated three questions. These have been put to the chief executive of the Council who may have some difficulty in answering without confirming all the claims on these pages! Well done Mr. Harvey! The questions are:-
Well now - we have a response from planning manager Easton. It contains a letter from the man himself plus a great deal of documentation. This letter and the report in which he is forced to confirm the lies are reproduced together with my observations from this link.
So there we are - thanks Mr Easton for confirming that the claims made on these pages are fully justified. Thanks also to Nick Harvey MP's intervention which, in effect, forced the Council to own up to the lies and dishonesty!
A few years ago the arrogant dismissal of my complaint by Anne Cowley without answering any of the points raised and the refusal to communicate further would have meant that I would have found it difficult to pursue the matter. However now, with the Internet, neither council employees nor councillors are able to hide their dishonest actions - this is a new departure and will in the future make our representatives and employees more accountable as there will be no hiding place!
A copy of these pages on a CD will now be passed to our new District Councillor David Worden with a request to take up this complaint on my behalf. (Sat. 28th July 2007.)
Councillor Worden has kindly agreed to look into the way the complaint about Council employees lying to the Ombudsman was handled by Anne Cowley. The reason given by Ms Cowley for not dealing with the six points raised in the complaint was that they were "issues that the Ombudsman would consider as part of their thorough investigation." As the Ombudsman was not involved in this new complaint this is, as previously stated, nothing more than a way of avoiding dealing with the lies and therefore a cover up.
No news yet from Cllr. Worden but a recent assessment by the Audit Commission does not take into account the lying and dishonesty by employees and Councillors. The verdict of this commission was that the performance of the North Devon District Council was "Fair". The question here is "how can a dishonest Council be rated "Fair"? Surely the only possible rating would be "Dishonest"!
Cllr Worden reports that the Planners are reluctant to communicate about the council lies - no surprise there. They obviously think that if they ignore it then the problem will go away - it will not!
Cllr Worden has informed me that he has not yet had time to deal with the issue of dishonesty within the North Devon District Council. I have replied by e-mail The page that will open when you click the link includes copies of e-mails leading up to this one..
There is a thread of dishonesty running through the North Devon District Council at present. In order to expose the employees and Councillors who have acted dishonestly we have introduced THE WEDGE. This will drive deep into the council to expose these people - those who have lied and those who have tried to cover up those lies. THE WEDGE is available here.
In order to encourage some kind of action from the Council copies of these pages on CDs will be sent to three Councillors (posted 11.01.08) with a request for their advice and help on how to achieve the objectives. The Councillors are:
Cllr. Michael Harrison. (Leader of Executive.)
Cllr Mair Manuel. (Chairman of Council)
Cllr. Jasmine Chesters (Chairman of the Planning Committee.)
Copies of the CD will also be sent to the media - responses will be published on the North Devon Link.
A reply has been received from the Chairman of the Council - you can read it together with my reply here. No reply yet from the other two Councillors! They should both be aware they run the same risk of being reported to the Standards Board as Cllr. Manuel. (See the reply from the Chairman of Council). They will of course be included in the list of "acted dishonestly" on THE WEDGE page. Still no response from the other two so a letter has been sent to the Council Leader Cllr. Harrison (14th February 2008) - read it here.
This campaign is going to be included on the Rotten Borough website run by Ian Johnston (see his Local Links page). It seems our own Council is not the only one that is arrogant and dishonest. We are also included on the links page of the anti-corruption site name-n-shame
After a delay of five weeks the Leader of the Executive, Cllr. M. Harrison has replied. His letter is included on his dedicated page - here When the Ombudsman was told a pack of lies by the council in order to try to justify a disgraceful planning decision they started busily digging a hole for themselves - since then several employees and councillors have taken up the shovel. The latest to jump into the pit is the Leader of the Executive, Cllr. M. Harrison. More will surely follow!
Before the Internet and the Freedom of Information Act the council would have been able to close ranks and shut me out - now however there is no hiding place for dishonest employees and councillors. The penny does not appear to have dropped yet. I shall be using the Freedom of Information Act to force the Leader to prove that my complaint was "found not to be justified". (See Cllr Harrisons page) This is in spite of all the claims being backed up by the council's own documentation. So why is Cllr. Harrison, like Cllr. Prowse, risking his career in local politics by condoning dishonesty and protecting lying employees?
Some time ago the Standards Board decided they would not investigate a complaint about Cllr. Prowse. Their decision was based on invalid reasons and, true to form, they refused to communicate further - in other words we are right and you can get lost! I have arranged a meeting with our MP Nick Harvey and will ask him to investigate the arrogance and incompetence of the Standards Board. The Chief Executive of the Standards Board and the person responsible for this decision is David Prince.
A rather pathetic letter has been received from the Chairman of the Council Mair Manuel. Read it together with my response here. I have also e-mailed our Leader, Cllr. Harrison, to ensure that he realises that he is in a similar position with regard to the responsibility of the elected Councillors to weed out dishonest employees.
A comment from an e-mail sent to me by someone who is experiencing dishonesty in his own local Council "how appalling you had to go through such a ‘struggle’ when simple honesty & fair play could & should have resolved the matter for you". I couldn't agree more....
Our MP Nick Harvey has looked at the response from the Standards Board and has kindly agreed to write and ask for an explanation about their decision which implies that a Councillor can choose to ignore dishonesty within the Council. So much for the Standards Board slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy", who are they kidding!
A response has been received from the Council's legal department referring to the letter from the Executive Leader of the Council, Cllr M. Harrison. Readers are invited to judge whether the employee Pratt is dishonest, incompetent or both. And to decide why Cllrs. Harrison, Manuel and Chesters are content to hide behind this continuing pretence that the Ombudsman has dealt with the matter of council lies when the complaint to the Ombudsman was about a planning matter not council lies. How they can consider that the Council has dealt with the complaint about lies when Anne Cowley acted arrogantly and dishonestly by closing the complaints procedure without referring to a single point raised as described above.
Read the full text together with my response to the Leader of the Executive Cllr. M. Harrison here
How do the three Councillors named above feel about this - are they safeguarding the interests the electorate when they obediently fall in line behind dishonest employees and protect them when all three have been provided with proof of the dishonesty which is supported by the Council's own documentation?
Our MP. Nick Harvey, having looked at the evidence, has written to the Standards Board and the Ombudsman asking for information about both their decisions. This could be a breakthrough in this campaign.
To the Standards Board "the present situation appears to absolve councilors of responsibility and just invite them to turn a blind eye"
The letter from the Standards Board with it's slogan "Confidence in Local Democracy" in which David Prince sanctions the dishonesty within the North Devon District Council is available here. A reply from David Prince has been has been forwarded to me by Nick Harvey MP. It appears that no matter what hard evidence of lies and a cover up such as that submitted with my complaint against Cllr Prowse the Standards Board can throw out a complaint with the only reason being that a Cllr. is not obliged to take any action. This position not only sanctions dishonesty but encourages it! I shall ask our MP if the Minister responsible for the Standards Board could look into this. The answer is yes - and the Minister has been requested to do this by Nick Harvey. The response will be published on this website!
And to the Ombudsman "what can be done after the Ombudsman has ruled and it is discovered that lies have been told to him".
A reply from the Ombudsman, Jerry White, has been forwarded by Nick Harvey - it is clear that White is not interested in the fact that lies have been told to his agency but is more interested in coming up with excuses for supporting the dishonest North Devon District Council. If this pathetic fellow leans much further in their direction he will be horizontal - I shall not bother to publish his letter.
An unexpected result of this campaign has been to attract e-mails from others who have been let down by our Council. Two recent e-mails contain information from an informed source that are quite literally dynamite. They tell of sex, intimidation, victimisation, theft and a host of other dodgy dealings by employees and councillors. All the names are there. If the allegations contained in these e-mails were followed up there would be, in my view, criminal proceedings and a lot of red faces in the NDDC. As the information does not refer directly to this campaign it will not be published within these pages.
The complaint to the Standards Board against Cllr Harrison has been drafted and a copy sent to Cllr Worden with a request for a letter of support to be sent with the complaint. As soon as he makes his decision the complaint it will be sent off.
To be continued..............Pages and Images on the North Devon Link are copyright Gordon Bray 2000/2008
South Molton Snippets South Molton Home Page Guest Book for your comments!
