IN my submission on the proposal for the housing development at Creedy Bridge dated April 23, 2017, I began by discussing Mid Devon District Council’s (MDDC) repeated failure to comply with Government-dictated regulations on the consultation of the public on planning applications, with specific reference to this site (known locally as Pedlarspool).

I discussed the repeated failure to consult in accordance with regulations, and the apparent obfuscation inherent in changing the name of the site from Pedlarspool to Creedy Bridge, given that the site is still at Pedlarspool and NOT at Creedy Bridge.

I have checked the relevant Government legislation online - it requires that even for minor domestic planning applications, at least two out of three possible methods of informing the public must be employed:

1 - A notice in the local newspaper. 2 - Letters to immediate neighbours and other interested parties. 3 - A notice on or immediately adjacent to the site for the entire duration of the consultation period.

In the case of major developments - and we must assume Pedlarspool is major - ALL THREE forms of consultation are required. This is the law, and MDDC are required to obey it.

I do not buy or read a local paper, so if there has been a notice in the local paper I am unaware of it.

MDDC Planning have failed to send any "neighbour letter" to the residents who live at the crossroads of Pounds Hill and Stonewall Lane with extensive views over the site, and hence are immediate neighbours with a known and obvious interest.

Since I learned of the application I have repeatedly driven along all the roads bordering the site looking for a site notice, starting on the first day of the consultation period and continuing at least once per week, with my final inspection today, May 14, 2018. I found none dated 2018.

As I stated in 2017, the only possible conclusion to be drawn is that MDDC have AGAIN tried deliberately to conceal the application from the public, especially the public most likely to object (neighbours, those who walk/drive/ride/cycle past the site), in order to prevent a deluge of objections.

MDDC Planning has not properly consulted the public, and hence any decision on the application should be postponed while MDDC Planning consult the public in a proper, compliant, and appropriate manner that targets the entire local population rather than the few that read planning notices in the local newspaper.

The failure to consult is clearly deliberate concealment of a development likely to arouse considerable protest, or gross incompetence.

I doubt the latter, as planning notices and letters seem to be utilised very efficiently for minor domestic developments.

The failure to consult according to statute law means that MDDC Planning cannot legally grant planning permission for the current proposal without first repeating the consultation process, this time complying in full with the relevant regulations.

Objectors to a proposal cannot challenge any planning permission granted by appeal to the Planning Inspectorate, but they can have recourse to the High Court, which would, I think, have no choice but to overturn any planning permission granted without due process in contravention of relevant legislation.

Should any local resident(s) choose to lodge such an appeal to the High Court, it will be my pleasure to testify on their behalf.

Mary Bailey

Address supplied