On Friday 8 November 2024 Richard White gave evidence to the Stag Brewery Public Inquiry about the false letters of support for the planning applications posted on the Richmond Council Planning Portal. The letters could be seen by councillors at the Planning Committee Meeting on 19 July 2023 and were still on the Portal at the time of the second Planning Committee Meeting on 31 January 2024, when revised plans were approved.
Related emails and letters are now posted on the Inspectorate website at INQ-18 within Documents Submitted During Inquiry – Gateley Although the oral brief provided in writing to the Inspector and Counsel for all the Parties has not been uploaded to the website, the recorded livestream of the session is at Stag Brewery Inquiry: Transport – Friday 8 November 2024, 10:00am – Richmond upon Thames Webcasting
The livestream has now been transcribed in so far as it contains the responses from Counsel for the local authority, Matthew Reed KC, and Counsel for the developers, Russell Harris KC, both of Landmark Chambers, and observations from the Inspector.
Mr Reed “ I am not going to ask questions of Mr White. The position was that we wrote to the Inspector on 22 March 2024 which letter went to the Inspector’s administrative department. No doubt it was then forwarded on as part of the case file. We stated that Lucy Thatcher, the case officer, was concerned with regard to the letters of support not being genuine and as a result indicated that they should not be considered.
“ Please be advised, she says, that these letters were not submitted by individual residents, so we indicated to the inspector and we did so direct to you because by that point there had been an appeal in place, so obviously we heard what Mr. White said.”
So in spite of requests to the Council by Mr White and by three other persons to investigate how it came about that false letters were placed on the Council Planning Portal, no explanation has been given.
Russell Harris KC “ For the purposes of your determination we are clear as to our position on those documents. Sir you will be more aware than anybody else, being an experienced inspector appointed to determine afresh this application as if it were a new application, that is the effect of section 78, and you do so on the land use planning evidence before you.
“As counsel has pointed out, in this case the council has as a precaution removed all of that evidence whether it’s challenged or not and has indicated to the inspector that it is not relying on it and it’s not to be relied upon. We placed no reliance on it now and never have.
“ It is not in evidence before you in the land planning because it’s all been withdrawn and that it’s not before you in those circumstances, it’s not something that is much less at the top of your considerations is not on your list of considerations at all [sic]. Circular advice on costs and the PINS [Planning Inspectorate] guidance and procedure makes it clear that inspectors are not expected [Inaudible, microphone malfunctioned], so that should be the end of it.
“ I will say, however, given some of the terms used in a public arena in the document that the Law Society, the Bar and its Bar Code of Conduct and PINS in its guidance to inspectors indicates that deliberate allegations of deliberate fraud are not to be made in enquiries such as this, without the clearest possible evidence identifying the fraud and the persons responsible. You will know that Mr White and reading his document where he in public in a document that I think is probably on the website indicates that the malfeasance was ‘perpetrated by the agents’ was watered down to ‘probably perpetrated’ I think correctly and appropriately and sensibly. There is no evidence of such perpetration and it’s a shame really that these proceedings have been rather sullied by such suggestions. So summing up the evidence which is complained about isn’t before you and that should be the end of the matter. “
Richard White’s response to Counsels’ submissions. “ It’s regrettable and it’s brazening it out. [It is a… ] determination not to give any explanation of what has happened. I don’t think I need to say any more sir.”
Inspector “ I have not seen those letters. I was aware of the allegations prior to the original date of the appeal so I had seen the correspondence that occurred before then. I have not seen the letters themselves so they have no part in my decision making. I will continue to decide these appeals as they have been lodged and validated and I am required to do that.”
Richard White “ Nothing I have said should be taken to gainsay that. Some local people have said should we not report this to the police? Should we go to the Local Government Ombudsman? In my view that would be inappropriate. I raise it with you as the only judicial figure before whom this matter comes. I hear what Counsel say that you have to decide this on the evidence relating to planning. I entirely accept that but I have no other forum to make these points. I am saddened I have to say that both Counsel have chosen effectively to brazen this out. I don’t think that will go down well with the people that I am having regular discussions with in my local community. “
Inspector. May I ask that Mr White’s letter to us is taken in as an enquiry document ….. and attachments.
Observations
“ There is no evidence of such perpetration….” What clearer evidence could there have been than the exhibits on the Inspectorate website? Readers can judge for themselves.
“ Mr. White’s letter to us is taken in as an enquiry document … and attachments.” So whatever Counsel might like to think, the false letters included in the attachments, are enquiry documents.
“ …. it’s a shame really that these proceedings have been rather sullied…. “ Was the sullying putting the false letters on the Council Planning Portal or drawing the Inspector’s attention to them?
“ … some of the terms used in a public arena in the document that the Law Society, the Bar and its Bar Code of Conduct and PINS in its guidance to inspectors indicates that deliberate allegations of deliberate fraud are not to be made in enquiries such as this …..”
This feels like a threat or Counsel seeking to put a mere (former) solicitor in his place.
The Solicitors’ Regulation Authority Code of Conduct states: Solicitors must act:
- in a way that upholds .. the rule of law;
- in a way that upholds public trust and confidence in the solicitors’ profession and in legal services provided by authorised persons;
- with independence, honesty and integrity….
Readers might think that bringing the false letters of support to public attention was exactly in line with these principles.
