Misrepresentations to the LGO

There are many and they are sorted/grouped in the order in which they appear in the Final Draft by the First Inspector.

The main complaint against the Inspector is that she has not addressed the actual complaint and that is:

    • 20-Dec-13, the Case Officer said it was compliant.
    • 13-Feb-14, his Planning Manager conceded that it had not been built to approved plans
    • 2-May-14, the Head of Development Services partially reverted, in his response to our petition, to what the Case Officer was saying – “Apart from the width these dimensions are either entirely in accordance with the approved plan, or subject to such minor deviation that they are properly categorised as non-material changes”

The Inspector omitted to mention the height at all in her first draft and I had to tell her, “there will be little point in pursuing this with the Ombudsman if the height of the structure is not considered.” Continue reading Misrepresentations to the LGO