The complaint against Mr Haig and his redevelopment of the Pilots Office in Greens Place into a three story house with gym, integral garage and two patio gardens etc. started with the complaint that the Planner who was promoting his development was not following the Councils’s own Guidelines SPD 9 and it was a simple as that.

By the time the complaint had been driven through the Complaints Procedure all mention of SPD 9 had been lost and the Ombudsman was not only not interested she gave the impression that she was lead to beleive that I was making unfounded allegations about Mr Haig’s total  rebuild of 71 Greens Place. The only part of the building retained was the the front wall.

I saw that Mr Haig had built what he wished for rather than what was permitted I made the point that he should have submitted an application to get permission retrospectively and the the Council aggreed with me in July 2013.

As you can see, I was already having trouble because the plans refer to what Mr Haig built and not what he was permitted to build, from the notes made to the Planning Manager, Mr Atkinson, in August 2013. All references to the fact that ST/0749/13/FUL is a retrospective planning application have disappeared.

By the time it came for the Planning Manager to approve the retrospective application it had changed to ST/0749/13/HFUL 15-Dec-13 and all observations/submissions had been made with ST/0749/13/FUL had been deleted and so had the history of the Council giving misinformation/misrepresentation to the Local Government Ombudsman.

The planning manager, Mr Atkinson and the planning officer, Ms Matten had between them, contrived to hide the fact that Building Control, Messrs Telford and Eggington had allowed Mr Haig to revert to his original plan for a wall. This has been explained more fully in Double Standards

‘Oh what a tangled web we weave/When first we practice to deceive’