09.05.01 - Letter of Judith Ashton of Barton Willmore (Crest Nicholson's agent) to the Inspectorate

Just how much importance Crest Nicholson's agent put to this document, is obvious in Judith Ashton's statement:
"The Local Planning Authority's decision to formally designate the appeal site, is in our opinion material to the Inspectors determination of this appeal"

However, the Inspectorate failed to inform The Telephone House Neighbours Association, Tunbridge Wells.

The Planning Inspectorate's Guide:
Making your planning appeal - 7 The Inquiry Procedure: Late comments -
clearly states:
" 7.20 - The Inspector will only consider any evidence we receive after the inquiry has closed in extraordinary circumstances. If we get new evidence after the inquiry but before we issue our Inspector's decision, we will pass it to our Inspector to decide if they will consider it. If, in very unusual circumstances they do, we will pass it on to the other people who were involved in the inquiry. If necessary, we will re-open the inquiry. "

To download the full Publication: "Making your planning appeal"
go to
http://www.planning-inspectorate.gov.uk/pins/appeals/planning_appeals/guide_making_appeal_dec02RL07.pdf

Could the Inspector's decisions have been challenged ? 09.05.02 - Residents' complaint to the Planning Inspectorate, Bristol

Bizarrely, Policy H6(a) allocated for Telephone House was identical to the two refused planning applications for the Telephone House development. [1st: refused at delegated officers' level - 2nd: refused by the Councillors of the Western Area Planning Committee]. Policy H6(a) is the most controversial document, produced by the Tunbridge Wells Borough Council, leading to the Telephone House Debacle.

After the Public Inquiry, during summer/autumn 2001 - The Attitude of Tunbridge Wells Borough Council's Chief Executive attitude towards residents and rate payers