Complaints about Restormel Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Policy 1.

More exposure of discrepency in Cornish planning regulations and potential interventions by the Duke of Cornwall.

9 Coombe Park,
Bal Lake,
Cornwall TR14 0JG
M/s Katrine Sporle,
The Chief Executive, 26th February 2007
The Planning Inspectorate,
4/04 Kite Wing,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square, Temple Quay,
Bristol BS1 6PN Fax:- 0117-372-8139 1 of 2

Dear M/s Sporle,

Restormel Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Policy 1.

Following a failed request of 20th February to attend and speak at the Hearing scheduled for 27th February 2007, I claimed the right to do so under section 20 (6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, which states:- “Any person who makes representations seeking to change a development plan document must (if he so requests) be given the opportunity to appear before and be heard by the person carrying out the examination”. This was rejected by the Inspector on the grounds of The Town and Country (Local Development ) (England) Regulations 2004. (Statutory Instrument (S.I) 2004/2204). Section 27 imposes a restriction requiring six weeks notice which puts it at odds with the Act itself and creates confusion. The Act and the S.I. came into force on 28th September 2004.

The Strategic Environmental Assessment Regulations 2004, Directive 2001/42/EC (S.I. 2004/1633) referred to at paras. 3.16 & 3.17 of PPS 12, takes legal precedence under the House of Lords ruling in the Berkeley Case [2001] 2 AC 603 HL that: “individuals may rely on the Directive”. The Directive, which came into force on 20th July 2004, states at Article 6: “Member States shall identify the public including the public affected or likely to be affected by, or having an interest in, the decision-making subject to this Directive”. The subject of the Directive includes “cultural heritage”. It is well known that the Duchy of Cornwall covers the whole of Cornwall in terms of foreshore, intestate estates, bona vacantia and minerals etc., and that, therefore, its plans and policies are of interest to the public throughout Cornwall as ruled by the Lord Chief Justice in the case of Rowe v. Brenton of 1828. Consequently, there has been insufficient public notification bearing in mind also that the Cornwall County Council is the minerals and waste authority.

Furthermore, it is known to the authorities that the Crown Estate, under the Crown Estate Act 1961, has no holdings in Cornwall. The Crown Estate letter dated 7th January 2005 affirms that the Duchy of Cornwall is the analogous landowner in Cornwall. This separation of Cornwall from the public benefits of the Crown Estate is of public interest throughout Cornwall as a suspected racist policy (Race Relations Act section 19A). Wider publicity of stage by stage progress of Duchy of Cornwall plans would permit the individual to ascertain any differences in the application of planning laws in Cornwall compared to the Crown Estate in the remaining part of the United Kingdom.

There are four important questions. (1) Why has the Deputy Prime Minister made an agreement with the Crown Estate to provide affordable housing and not with the Duchy of Cornwall? (2) Why is the Duchy of Cornwall free to invest its profits anywhere around the globe while the Crown Estate is not? (3) On what grounds did Cornwall qualify for Objective One funding? (4) Was the Duchy of Cornwall created in 1337 in order to exploit the mineral assets and land of Cornwall so as to avoid imposing taxation on the English national majority to provide an income for the heir to the throne?
There are no answers as to why under the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, (s.38 (3) & 40 (2g)) the Duke of Cornwall has the right to:- “control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting his rights property or profits”. This would appear to provide evidence of dictatorial powers being made available to the Duke of Cornwall in place of the second 1337 Charter grant of: “the King’s writ and summons of exchequer throughout Cornwall”.

My original letter included the question:- “Does ‘control or otherwise intervene in proceedings etc.,’ extend to the planning process?

Planning for ‘Surfbury’; The Restormel Council’s: “The Core Strategy, Topic Paper 2 – Newquay – Strategic Policy 6, reveals at para 16:- “The majority land owner, the Duchy of Cornwall are currently printing the following finalised documents with the intention of them being put to the Prince’s Council for approval on the 13th December:-

Sustainability strategy; Energy strategy; Water strategy; Food strategy; Transport principles; Design statement; The Building Code; The Pattern Book.

These will help to set the highest possible standards for the development of the Growth Area”.

There is no reference to the “cultural heritage” environmental assessment requirement of Directive 2001/42/EC at Index II (2). Note is taken of the careless neglect and/or acquisition of Cornish “cultural heritage” and the specific “duty” of HM Treasury to give priority to the interests of the Duke of Cornwall. (Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982, section 8). The maximisation of profits for the Duchy of Cornwall is, therefore, a statutory “duty” for all government departments. While the Crown Estate renovates historic properties in the U.K. outside Cornwall, in Cornwall, the Duchy/Stannary Palace at Lostwithiel is falling into ruins and the Duchy refuses, under exemptions from the Freedom of Information Act, to reveal the date and reasons for handing over Tintagel Castle to the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England. This institution attempts to lay claim to the “cultural heritage” of Cornwall by ignoring its statutory name and renaming itself under the possessive title of: ‘English Heritage’, a ploy now imitated by ‘English Partnerships’.

The Duchy of Cornwall has many statutory privileges and exemptions from enforcement under planning laws some of which are listed in my original letter of request for participation.

This cavalier approach to English law, and the unjustifiable instances of segregation reveals a general lack of respect for the rule of law in order to promote English racial, cultural and economic advantage. In a system full of privileges and exemptions for profit, the suspicion is aroused that there can be no effective “Independent Examination” under PPS 12 Annex D especially in respect of , the area excluded from the corporate responsibility and statutory public benefits of the Crown Estate, Cornwall, home of the indigenous Cornish national minority of pre-England Celtic origins. Acts of official deception and manipulation of the law to redefine the Duchy of Cornwall as “private” is made possible by the absence from English law of a statutory guarantee of equality before the law, a principle included in the constitution of every modern European state, including, the Monarchy of Sweden.

The Planning Inspectorate would appear to be well and truly under the “control” of the Duchy of Cornwall.

Yours sincerely,


9 Coombe Park,
Bal Lake,
Cornwall TR14 0JG

20th February 2007

The Planning Inspectorate,
4/04 Kite Wing,
Temple Quay House,
2 The Square, Temple Quay,
Bristol BS1 6PN Fax:- 0117-372-8804 1 of 4

Attention Mr Christopher Snarr

Dear Sirs,

Restormel Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Policy 1.

As stated this morning in telephone calls to Miss T. Young, the Programme Officer at Restormel and Mr Christopher Snarr at the Planning Inspectorate, and yesterday to Mr Malcolm Pinch of Restormel Planning, I first discovered the new “Independent Examination” procedure in relation to planning appeals which I discovered over the Weekend at the end of an article on “Surfbury” in the Western Morning News of Thursday 15th February 2007.

I am submitting this letter as a request to attend and state my case at the proposed “Hearing Session” scheduled for Tuesday 27th February 2007, at 10.00am.

Core Strategy One – Affordable Housing.

Paragraph 7 includes the statement:- “The recent growth in second homes was certainly not a factor that informed the Structure Plan projections”

I regard this as a serious matter for consideration on the following grounds:-

In response to a request under the Freedom of Information Act, I received a response, dated 7th January 2005, from The Crown Estate, which stated:- “The Crown Estate has no holdings within the boundaries of Cornwall” and “The analogous landowner in Cornwall is the Duchy of Cornwall”.

I note from the website of the Crown Estate that it has made arrangements with the Deputy Prime Minister to provide affordable housing in London. No mention is made of the Duchy of Cornwall. There is also a CrownEstDEFRA website.

Is the Duchy of Cornwall fulfilling in Cornwall the role of the Crown Estate in the remainder of the United Kingdom under the Crown Estate Act 1961?

Should the provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961 be extended to Cornwall?

The corporate responsibility concept of public benefit reflected in the statutory requirements of the Crown Estate Act 1961 are at complete variance with the benefits (Tamar Bridge Act 1998, section 41) for profit arranged for the Duchy of Cornwall under the Duchy of Cornwall Management Act 1982 and the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which states at section 40 (2g) “nothing in this Act shall affect any right of the Crown [includes the Duke of Cornwall under section 38 (3)] to demand a trial at bar or to control or otherwise intervene in proceedings affecting its rights, property or profits”.

Does “control or otherwise intervene in proceedings” etc extend to the planning process?

Will all communications with the Duchy of Cornwall in respect of the subject matter of the Hearing be made available to the public?

It is contended that the exclusion of Cornwall and the Cornish from the public benefit provisions of the Crown Estate Act 1961 represents an act of racial discrimination in violation of the following statutory provisions in respect of the Restormel Core Planning Strategy and Cornwall Structure Plan. The Race Relations Act 1976, section 19A, “Discrimination by planning authorities”; The Code of Practice on Racial Equality in Housing published by The Commission for Racial Equality, and edited by Pat Munn MP, Under Secretary of State at the Department for Communities and Local Government, May 2006 establishing a requirement for a “Race Equality Impact Assessment”. It is also necessary to avoid an infringement of the provisions of the E.U. Race Directive 2000/43/EC (S.I. 2003/1626) covering discrimination in “access to the supply of housing” and the provision of “social advantages” in relation to the construction of second homes and a below target or failure to meet best practice provision in respect of affordable housing.

Housing matters extend to “regeneration” under Directive 85/337/EEC (S.I.1988/1199) as amended by Directive 97/11/EC (S.I. 1999/293) requiring assessment of the effects on “human beings” and “cultural heritage” as well as assessing the general environmental welfare of the existing public under the SEA Directive 2001/42/EC (S.I.2004/1663).

The exemption of the Duchy of Cornwall from sections 27 and 28 of the Housing Act 1988 covering “Protection from eviction” should be addressed as a potential problem for tenants.

The provision of new housing should be considered in relation to The Regional Development Agencies Act 1998, section 5 (3):- “A regional development agency may only provide housing by acquiring existing accommodation and making it available on a temporary basis for purposes incidental to its purposes” and a similar provision at The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993, section 160 (2a) under “The Urban Regeneration Agency”, subsequent to the Act renamed: “English Partnerships”.

What is the criteria used to obtain the housing needs statistics for Cornwall?
Are there plans to implement the proposal by “The Affordable Rural Housing Commission” that “Councils may be allowed to stop sales of second homes”?
It is contended that Cornwall as a whole is rural; should it therefore be treated as rural in order to benefit from the calculation of the more generous percentage in respect of affordable housing construction that has been decided in respect of rural areas?

Will there be extra police, health and infrastructure central funding to establish a sustainable settlement strategy?

Is the Objective One requirement of “the development of endogenous potential by measures which encourage and support local development and employment initiatives” being applied in the planning process? (Regulation (EC) No. 1783/1999 – European Regional Development Fund, as updated).

Does the Core Strategy fully integrate environmental regulations?

Any impact upon core values or the principle of equality of treatment required under the Human Rights Act 1998, as provided under Articles 6, 8, 10, 13, and 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights and EU Directive 2000/43/EC, should be considered in the application of planning laws, in particular, in relation to:- section 5, para.21 of Crown Circular 18/84: “Since the Crown is not subject to planning legislation, any use of land which it institutes is a lawful use and subject to what is said in paragraph 1 of Part II of this memorandum, can be continued by a third party”. Also, similar provisions in:- The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, section 293 to 298; The Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, section 172 (3), “No failure by the Crown makes the Crown criminally liable”; The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, section 111, Part 8 and section 84 “no enforcement by a local planning authority in respect of Crown land” unless e.g. with Duchy consent, and The National Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, section 54 (5) “Nothing in this Part affects Her Majesty in Her Private capacity” (includes the Duke of Cornwall) and section 102 (3).

If waste land is involved, the House of Lords ruling in the Hayley Heath case
( [1991] 1 AC 325) ([1990] 2 All ER 257) in favour of the land of a Manor being made available for public benefit should be carefully considered by planners.

In addition there are “public participation and access to justice” requirements of Directives 2003/35/EC and 2003/04/EC (S.I. 2004/3391) within the terms of which I earnestly request to be included.

Yours faithfully,

Attached:- Copy of letter from The Crown Estate dated 7th January 2005.


What's Related

Document Options


Trackback URL for this entry:

No trackback comments for this entry.
Complaints about Restormel Local Development Framework – Core Strategy – Policy 1. | 0 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
copyright CSP 2006 ..... Designed and hosted by FTI