CHARLES ERNSHAW, of Bishopsteignton, writes: Having read your report of the Venn Farm Lane planning problems, and the recent correspondence in your columns on the same subject, my attention was aroused by the letter from Vaughan Lancaster-Thomas in your issue of March 31. Far be it from me to enter the fray, but I cannot stand by and allow such a representation as that contained in his letter to go unchallenged. To recap: Mr Lancaster-Thomas makes the unequivocal statement that the question of stationing a caravan (not a hut) on an allotment, presumably already established in the field, was one of the three issues decided at the local planning inquiry held at Forde House on January 31 and February 1, 2006. He states the inspector's decision sets a 'vital precedent', thus establishing a 'relevant criteria', which will apply to the 19 remaining allotments. I can say categorically, this did not happen. Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act I have an unexpurgated copy of the report. Nowhere in the report is there any reference to an appeal against the council's decision to require the removal of a caravan from the site. the three appeals, the subjects of the inquiry, were against orders requiring the removal of an unauthorised: a) fence, b) track laid down with hardcore in the field, and c) a 'grasscrete' access extending 13m into the field from the garden of Barn Cottage. The decisions of the inspector were: 1 The fence to be removed within one month. 2 The hardcore track to be removed within two months. 3 The 'grasscrete' to be removed within two months. The one tiny concession allowed by the inspector relates to the unauthorised track into the field. The applicant is to be allowed to retain 20m of this track, referred to in the report as the 'rampway' because it facilitates entry into the field through the gate in Venn Farm Lane. In these circumstances, may I say that, unlike Mr Lancaster-Thomas, I am not surprised that your report of the planning inquiry does not contain any reference to caravans or allotments since they were not mentioned. I am beginning to wonder if he actually attended the inquiry, since he seems to think the issue was raised and a decision given in his favour.
