THE Crown Prosecution Service is to look at a police file after a complaint by a Bickington developer and businessman of alleged obstruction and misrepresentation by Teignbridge Council planning officers.

The complaint relates to a planning application made three years ago by Bob Wakeling. The plan for a live/work unit on land at his home in Bickington was approved by the development control committee in March 2006. But using a council procedure since discontinued, the application was referred to full council where the decision was overturned. 

Teignbridge Council has strenuously denied it has done anything wrong. It says Mr Wakeling's allegations have been looked into not only by themselves but have also been investigated by numerous independent bodies who found no evidence of wrong-doing.

In September 2007 Mr Wakeling lodged a complaint with the council. Its complaints policy states that complaints will be dealt with promptly. Initially he was told that the scope of the complaint investigation would not include all the matters that concerned him. Fourteen months later, Mr Wakeling contacted the council to see what was happening only to be told that the investigation had been discontinued through lack of evidence.

'Following a Freedom of Information request to see the findings, they could provide no evidence of any investigation having taken place,' Mr Wakeling said.

'I am absolutely disgusted. The actions of the council are disgraceful. It is nothing less than a major cover-up. In reality the council only pays lip service to its complaints procedure.'

Conservative leader Cllr Stuart Barker questioned whether a council-

led investigation could be impartial. He and ward member Cllr Jeremy Christophers have called for an independent body to look into the matter.

Cllr Barker said: 'There needs to be an independent body where members of the public can take a complaint which will be investigated thoroughly and independently and which will look at the wider issues that Mr Wakeling has complaints about.' 

Police looked into the matter after a complaint by Mr Wakeling but decided not to pursue the matter. Mr Wakeling has now asked them to look at it again in the light of the council's handling of his complaint.

The CPS wrote to Mr Wakeling on April 8 confirming the police file had been recalled and that the officer-in-charge was being asked for an update.

A CPS spokesman said: 'The CPS have advised the police that, should they resubmit the file with further evidence, the CPS will review it again in acccordance with the Code [for Crown Prosecutors].'

A Teignbridge Council spokesman said: 'We regret that any customer would continue to feel aggrieved despite our commitment to top quality services, and to putting things right when mistakes are made.

'However, in addition to Teignbridge's extensive consideration of Mr Wakeling's many and varied complaints and allegations, these allegations have also been investigated by numerous independent bodies. All of these bodies found no evidence of wrong-doing by the council and an independent Planning Inspector also upheld the council's decision to refuse planning permission.'

The council says it has not been re-approached by the police or CPS but if fresh evidence is produced it will be looked at.

Mr Wakeling claims a catalogue of inconsistencies in the way his application was handled.

'The application received 50 letters of support and not one letter of objection,' he said.

Among the supporters was Bickington Parish Council, of which Mr Wakeling was then chairman. He insists he was 'squeaky clean' in not seeking to influence members and withdrew from discussions.

Mr Wakeling's main bone of contention is that he claims refusal was based on draft Local Development Framework policies, later thrown out by the planning inspector as 'unsound'.

Other government planning policies which, he claims, would have supported his application he says were not mentioned in the planning report.

He claimed: 'It is strictly against the ruling of the council to use draft policy and it's also in breach of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Order Act 2004. They are unadopted policies.

'As a result I have had an application determined under a policy that doesn't exist and that is a fact,' Mr Wakeling said.

Two months after his application was refused, the procedure which allowed it to be referred to full council was discontinued in its current form.

Cllr Barker said: 'I do think Bob Wakeling is justified in feeling aggrieved that development control granted him permission only to have it snatched away by a device not used by other councils at the time and not used now by the council.'

Cllr Christophers said: 'I feel that to judge an application on policies that have not been adopted damages the reputation of the council and they need to be investigated by an independent body.

'I think Bob has been harshly dealt with. The decision of the development control committee on the day was that it was passed. For six councillors to take it to full council, where members have no inkling about development control, was just wrong.

'It is not how the democratic process should work. It was stopped subsequently but at the cost of an individual application.'

Cllr Mike Haines, executive portfolio holder for planning services, defended the council's actions.

'The planning decision was made entirely in accordance with planning policy as set out by the officers. I don't see anything wrong with that. I think the inspector dismissed the appeal demonstrating that the council had acted correctly as far as planning policy was concerned.

'Mr Wakeling also complained to the Standards Board about a number of members. It was examined by the Standards Board, who found there was nothing wrong with that.'