26 October 2017 - Letter to Alison Barnes, Chief Executive of the New Forest National Park Authority complaining about Caroline Nokes, MP
Ms Alison Barnes 26 October 2017
Chief Executive
New Forest National Park Authority
Lymington Town Hall
Avenue Road
Lymington
SO41 9ZG BY RECORDED DELIVERY
Dear Ms Barnes
A complaint of negligence or misconduct by officers of the New Forest National Park Authority in assisting Mrs Caroline Nokes MP, Councillor Roy Perry and others concerning the conversion of a dilapidated garage block into a self-contained residence or separate residential accommodation in the garden of Moorland, Canada Road West Wellow, Hampshire the home of Caroline Nokes MP without planning permission and contrary to the Planning Policies of the NFNPA.
I am writing to you to complain about the conduct of officers of the NFNPA in permitting the conversion of a dilapidated garage block owned by Mrs Caroline Nokes MP into separate accommodation now occupied by her parents, Cllr and Mrs Roy Perry, without planning permission and contrary to the planning policies of the NFNPA. I am further complaining that these officers have not dealt correctly with complaints concerning this matter and that Mr Steven Avery, Executive Director Strategy and Planning, has assisted Mrs Nokes in threatening and intimidating me and my family when I have sought to expose what happened.
You have probably already seen the article by Mr Tom Harper, the Home Affairs Correspondent of the Sunday Times, which was published last Sunday 22 October 2017. However I enclose a copy of the article for ease of reference. I also enclose a copy of a letter which I had delivered to the Chief Constable of Hampshire on 6 October 2017 which contains my complaint of fraud and conspiracy to defraud by Mrs Nokes, Cllr Roy Perry and others concerning the documentation submitted on behalf of Mrs Nokes to the NFNPA Planning Development Control Department.
The witness statement enclosed with that letter (also enclosed) provides a full explanation of what occurred. In this letter I shall set out the important facts and explain the elements of negligence or misconduct by NFNPA officers.
Essentially Mrs Nokes was the owner at all material times of the detached house called Moorland which had a number of outbuildings including some stable buildings and a dilapidated garage block. Mrs Nokes wished to carry out building works at the property including three extensions to the house, the erection of a new stable block and a double garage and the conversion of the dilapidated garage block into residential accommodation for her parents Cllr and Mrs Perry.
Accordingly Mrs Nokes’ agent, Mr Graham Jenkins, submitted a planning proposal by letter dated 6 April 2014, received by the NFNPA on 11 August 2014. This enclosed a Planning Submission Statement and a draft Bat Survey containing the false statement that the dilapidated garage block, described as “the Coach House”, was a building which had been used for residential purposes.
That was plainly not true and was misleading to Ms Deborah Slade, Senior Planning Officer, when she gave pre-application advice by letter dated 19 August 2014. Ms Slade was led to believe that the dilapidated garage block had been used for habitable accommodation at some time in the past and correctly pointed out that “using the building as a self-contained unit i.e. a dwellinghouse in its own right would require planning permission…”
The planning policies for outbuildings in the NFNP are quite clear from the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
Policy DP12 states that “Domestic oubuildings will be permitted where they
a) are located within the residential curtilage
b) are required for purposes incidental to the use of the main building
c) are not providing additional habitable accommodation
Para 7.42 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) states that “for the purposes of applying this policy, habitable floorspace will include living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens”.
A planning application was apparently submitted dated 6 October 2014 but the original form is not available for public inspection. In any event there was a further application dated 26 October 2014 and date stamped as received on 29 October 2014. This application made no mention of any works to be carried out at “the Coach House”, as it was named in the papers.
The application was made in the name of Mrs Elizabeth Bellingham, the sister of Mrs Nokes who lives in Florida, with a Certificate A, Certificate of Ownership stating that Mrs Bellingham was the sole owner when, of course, it was Mrs Nokes who was the sole owner. The pre-application advice documentation clearly identifies Mrs Nokes as the sole owner and in any event your Authority has on-line access to the Land Registry records and this could be checked in about 20 seconds.
Only Mrs Nokes and her agent will know why the application was submitted in this false and misleading manner, but the application should have been rejected as invalid at this stage by your officers. Instead they allowed it to proceed to be dealt with under delegated powers. For a multitude of reasons it is obvious that this application, if it proceeded at all, should have been referred for decision by the Planning Development Control Committee in accordance with the Authority’s Planning Development Control Charter.
Specifically it should have been called in by Cllr Ian Hibberd, who was the Test Valley Borough Council representative on the Planning Development Control Committee, as well as being a member of NFNPA Standards Committee. However Cllr Hibberd, who is still a member of Test Valley DC and the current Mayor of Romsey Town, did not call it in. Since Cllr Hibberd was at the time the Chairman of the Conservative Constituency Association for Romsey and Southampton North, for which Mrs Nokes was the MP, Cllr Hibberd’s omission requires explanation. However I believe this is primarily a matter for Test Valley Borough Council or Romsey Town Council to consider.
The officer’s report on the application correctly identifies that one of the relevant issues to consider is –
. whether the outbuildings will be incidental to the main dwelling and not provide habitable accommodation
The eventual Decision Notice dated 16 December 2014 reflects this and has a condition 3:-
The garage and stable buildings the subject of this permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling on the site and shall not be used for habitable accommodation such as kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policies DP11 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
The proper application of Policy DP12 is shown by two other applications which were decided at the Planning Development Control Committee Meeting on 16 December 2014 to which Mrs Nokes’ application should have been referred.
Thus in Application Reference No 14/00811/FULL for a Garden Store (Report Item No 2) Condition 5 of the Permission states:-
The outbuilding the subject of this permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling on the site and shall not be used for habitable accommodation such as kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policies DP1 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
By contrast Application No 14/00026/FULL (Report Item No 6) which was also for an outbuilding was refused and one of the reasons was that it would be contrary to policy DP12.
There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that if an application for the change of use of the garage block at Moorland for habitable accommodation had been presented to the Committee it would have been refused as contrary to Policy DP12. Equally if such a conversion had taken place it could not have been granted a Lawful Development Certificate.
However that is exactly what happened. In September 2015 instead of building one of the three extensions at Moorland Mrs Nokes instructed her builder to convert the dilapidated garage block into a separate residence which is now occupied by her parents. When neighbours complained an Enforcement Officer, Mr Rob Aldred, visited the premises and a Planning Contravention Notice was issued. Mrs Nokes apparently then signed a document saying that she would use the converted garage for ancillary use of the main house. The Enforcement Officer said that there was no breach of Planning Control and this was later confirmed by Mr Avery.
Despite repeated requests, copies of the Planning Contravention Notice and the document signed by Mrs Nokes have not been made available to neighbours and others complaining. Additionally it has now been admitted that “the owners submitted a statement and plans to [your Authority] in 2015 saying how they intended to use the Coach House as ancillary family accommodation.” Copies of those plans were shown to neighbours and more detailed ones were provided to Test Valley Borough Council for building regulations. These showed two storeys of development including bedrooms, bathrooms, a kitchen area and living accommodation. I understand that what was built included a utility area and the records of Test Valley Borough Council show that there were even separate works to the garage block for electricity and gas supply. It is quite clear that this work was providing “additional habitable accommodation” – in fact the garage block was being converted to a self-contained unit.
It is quite obvious to anyone with any knowledge of planning law not only that such a conversion required planning permission but also that permission could not be granted in accordance with the NFNPA’s published planning policies. With his experience, Mr Avery must know this, and he must also know that an application for planning permission or for a Lawful Development Certificate must be referred first to the Parish Council for comment and then to the Planning Development Control Committee if requested. The whole principle of democratic accountability depends on this. It is especially important when the applicant and beneficiaries of the conversion are an MP, in fact a Junior Minister, and her parents, the Leader of Hampshire County Council and his wife, a former longstanding chairman of the Parish Council.
Unfortunately I have other grave reasons for concern. Following complaints by neighbours and others of the fear of retribution and intimidation if they complained I referred the matter to Hampshire Constabulary on 21 April 2017. Hampshire Constabulary have seemingly been unwilling to take any action against an MP and the Leader of Hampshire County Council because they have not requested information from me at any stage. However during August I was contacted by Hampshire Constabulary and I was invited to an interview under caution following a complaint by Mrs Nokes that I had made a false statement during the General Election campaign about the works done at her property.
That Mrs Nokes should waste valuable police time in this way is a matter which I shall be taking up with Hampshire Constabulary and, if necessary, with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Authorities. However I am afraid there is an involvement of your Authority. That is because Mr Steve Avery has given evidence on behalf of Mrs Nokes, saying that there was no breach of Planning Development Control, when there plainly was. In other words Mr Avery has joined with Mrs Nokes in making a vindictive complaint about me when I have correctly raised concerns of suspected planning fraud and intimidation of complainants by Mrs Nokes and Cllr Perry. This has caused great distress to my wife and is something for which your Authority has to accept responsibility. That is something which I am sure you will be very concerned about.
I am also very concerned by comments which I understand have been made by your Communications Manager, Hilary Makin, about this matter. In particular I understand that Ms Makin has said that the submission of a false certificate of ownership does not invalidate the planning permission. That is true but as I have pointed out the application should have been invalidated before it was even considered. She has also said that “There has been no gain to the family as a result and it does not affect any outside interest in any material way. Therefore it would not be in the public interest to spend public money on a prosecution and we consider the case closed”. Your Enforcement Officer said similar things to some of the complainants.
Such comments by officers of your Authority who are paid by the taxpayer have been considered by all who have seen them as outrageous. Your officers have said that there has been no gain to the family as a result of what occurred. So is the NFNPA saying that there is no gain to the Perry family in a separate residence probably worth several hundred thousand pounds being erected, without planning permission? Or that the neighbours who have complained have not been affected in a material way?
You also need to consider the implications for not just the NFNP but any other National Park in the country if your Authority were to take no action in this matter. It means that anyone with a similar garage block at the edge of their garden can convert it into habitable accommodation without having to worry about getting planning permission. You will be aware that there are many similar properties within the near vicinity of Moorland.
I can also give you recent examples of cases where enforcement actions taken and prosecutions have been brought for similar breaches of planning laws – one in Ringwood for example may be of interest to you. However in this case there would appear to be a suspicion that an MP, indeed a Junior Minister, and the Leader of the County Council can do just what they like, including deliberately submitting a document with a false statement in a planning application. Mrs Nokes has said in the local newspaper that the use of Mrs Bellingham’s name was a “genuine mistake” by her agent. I think most people would find it difficult to believe that Mrs Nokes’ agent should suddenly decide to name Mrs Bellingham, a lady living in Florida, as the sole owner of the house.
I must now ask formally that you consider this complaint with the seriousness which it requires. I believe that Mr Avery’s actions in particular cannot possibly be justified, and constitute serious misconduct. I would ask that you should arrange for an independent investigation of what has occurred, apologise to me and those others who feel they have been intimidated and ignored, and work with us to put things right. I would also hope that some lessons might be learnt about this sorry affair, which can only bring discredit to your Authority if it is not dealt with fairly and properly.
In the circumstances I hope you will understand that I do feel that I must make the contents of this letter and your reply public, in the interests of transparency and to protect my wife and others from further upset and intimidation. I shall also be sending a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the Chairman of the Authority and to the Chairman of the Planning Development Control Committee.
I am anxious to help produce a satisfactory outcome to this matter in a cooperative manner and perhaps we could meet as soon as possible to discuss how this might be achieved.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours sincerely
D G Jerrard
Chief Executive
New Forest National Park Authority
Lymington Town Hall
Avenue Road
Lymington
SO41 9ZG BY RECORDED DELIVERY
Dear Ms Barnes
A complaint of negligence or misconduct by officers of the New Forest National Park Authority in assisting Mrs Caroline Nokes MP, Councillor Roy Perry and others concerning the conversion of a dilapidated garage block into a self-contained residence or separate residential accommodation in the garden of Moorland, Canada Road West Wellow, Hampshire the home of Caroline Nokes MP without planning permission and contrary to the Planning Policies of the NFNPA.
I am writing to you to complain about the conduct of officers of the NFNPA in permitting the conversion of a dilapidated garage block owned by Mrs Caroline Nokes MP into separate accommodation now occupied by her parents, Cllr and Mrs Roy Perry, without planning permission and contrary to the planning policies of the NFNPA. I am further complaining that these officers have not dealt correctly with complaints concerning this matter and that Mr Steven Avery, Executive Director Strategy and Planning, has assisted Mrs Nokes in threatening and intimidating me and my family when I have sought to expose what happened.
You have probably already seen the article by Mr Tom Harper, the Home Affairs Correspondent of the Sunday Times, which was published last Sunday 22 October 2017. However I enclose a copy of the article for ease of reference. I also enclose a copy of a letter which I had delivered to the Chief Constable of Hampshire on 6 October 2017 which contains my complaint of fraud and conspiracy to defraud by Mrs Nokes, Cllr Roy Perry and others concerning the documentation submitted on behalf of Mrs Nokes to the NFNPA Planning Development Control Department.
The witness statement enclosed with that letter (also enclosed) provides a full explanation of what occurred. In this letter I shall set out the important facts and explain the elements of negligence or misconduct by NFNPA officers.
Essentially Mrs Nokes was the owner at all material times of the detached house called Moorland which had a number of outbuildings including some stable buildings and a dilapidated garage block. Mrs Nokes wished to carry out building works at the property including three extensions to the house, the erection of a new stable block and a double garage and the conversion of the dilapidated garage block into residential accommodation for her parents Cllr and Mrs Perry.
Accordingly Mrs Nokes’ agent, Mr Graham Jenkins, submitted a planning proposal by letter dated 6 April 2014, received by the NFNPA on 11 August 2014. This enclosed a Planning Submission Statement and a draft Bat Survey containing the false statement that the dilapidated garage block, described as “the Coach House”, was a building which had been used for residential purposes.
That was plainly not true and was misleading to Ms Deborah Slade, Senior Planning Officer, when she gave pre-application advice by letter dated 19 August 2014. Ms Slade was led to believe that the dilapidated garage block had been used for habitable accommodation at some time in the past and correctly pointed out that “using the building as a self-contained unit i.e. a dwellinghouse in its own right would require planning permission…”
The planning policies for outbuildings in the NFNP are quite clear from the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
Policy DP12 states that “Domestic oubuildings will be permitted where they
a) are located within the residential curtilage
b) are required for purposes incidental to the use of the main building
c) are not providing additional habitable accommodation
Para 7.42 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010) states that “for the purposes of applying this policy, habitable floorspace will include living rooms, bedrooms and kitchens”.
A planning application was apparently submitted dated 6 October 2014 but the original form is not available for public inspection. In any event there was a further application dated 26 October 2014 and date stamped as received on 29 October 2014. This application made no mention of any works to be carried out at “the Coach House”, as it was named in the papers.
The application was made in the name of Mrs Elizabeth Bellingham, the sister of Mrs Nokes who lives in Florida, with a Certificate A, Certificate of Ownership stating that Mrs Bellingham was the sole owner when, of course, it was Mrs Nokes who was the sole owner. The pre-application advice documentation clearly identifies Mrs Nokes as the sole owner and in any event your Authority has on-line access to the Land Registry records and this could be checked in about 20 seconds.
Only Mrs Nokes and her agent will know why the application was submitted in this false and misleading manner, but the application should have been rejected as invalid at this stage by your officers. Instead they allowed it to proceed to be dealt with under delegated powers. For a multitude of reasons it is obvious that this application, if it proceeded at all, should have been referred for decision by the Planning Development Control Committee in accordance with the Authority’s Planning Development Control Charter.
Specifically it should have been called in by Cllr Ian Hibberd, who was the Test Valley Borough Council representative on the Planning Development Control Committee, as well as being a member of NFNPA Standards Committee. However Cllr Hibberd, who is still a member of Test Valley DC and the current Mayor of Romsey Town, did not call it in. Since Cllr Hibberd was at the time the Chairman of the Conservative Constituency Association for Romsey and Southampton North, for which Mrs Nokes was the MP, Cllr Hibberd’s omission requires explanation. However I believe this is primarily a matter for Test Valley Borough Council or Romsey Town Council to consider.
The officer’s report on the application correctly identifies that one of the relevant issues to consider is –
. whether the outbuildings will be incidental to the main dwelling and not provide habitable accommodation
The eventual Decision Notice dated 16 December 2014 reflects this and has a condition 3:-
The garage and stable buildings the subject of this permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling on the site and shall not be used for habitable accommodation such as kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policies DP11 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
The proper application of Policy DP12 is shown by two other applications which were decided at the Planning Development Control Committee Meeting on 16 December 2014 to which Mrs Nokes’ application should have been referred.
Thus in Application Reference No 14/00811/FULL for a Garden Store (Report Item No 2) Condition 5 of the Permission states:-
The outbuilding the subject of this permission shall only be used for purposes incidental to the dwelling on the site and shall not be used for habitable accommodation such as kitchens, living rooms and bedrooms.
Reason: To protect the character and appearance of the countryside in accordance with Policies DP1 and DP12 of the adopted New Forest National Park Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (DPD) (December 2010).
By contrast Application No 14/00026/FULL (Report Item No 6) which was also for an outbuilding was refused and one of the reasons was that it would be contrary to policy DP12.
There is, therefore, absolutely no doubt that if an application for the change of use of the garage block at Moorland for habitable accommodation had been presented to the Committee it would have been refused as contrary to Policy DP12. Equally if such a conversion had taken place it could not have been granted a Lawful Development Certificate.
However that is exactly what happened. In September 2015 instead of building one of the three extensions at Moorland Mrs Nokes instructed her builder to convert the dilapidated garage block into a separate residence which is now occupied by her parents. When neighbours complained an Enforcement Officer, Mr Rob Aldred, visited the premises and a Planning Contravention Notice was issued. Mrs Nokes apparently then signed a document saying that she would use the converted garage for ancillary use of the main house. The Enforcement Officer said that there was no breach of Planning Control and this was later confirmed by Mr Avery.
Despite repeated requests, copies of the Planning Contravention Notice and the document signed by Mrs Nokes have not been made available to neighbours and others complaining. Additionally it has now been admitted that “the owners submitted a statement and plans to [your Authority] in 2015 saying how they intended to use the Coach House as ancillary family accommodation.” Copies of those plans were shown to neighbours and more detailed ones were provided to Test Valley Borough Council for building regulations. These showed two storeys of development including bedrooms, bathrooms, a kitchen area and living accommodation. I understand that what was built included a utility area and the records of Test Valley Borough Council show that there were even separate works to the garage block for electricity and gas supply. It is quite clear that this work was providing “additional habitable accommodation” – in fact the garage block was being converted to a self-contained unit.
It is quite obvious to anyone with any knowledge of planning law not only that such a conversion required planning permission but also that permission could not be granted in accordance with the NFNPA’s published planning policies. With his experience, Mr Avery must know this, and he must also know that an application for planning permission or for a Lawful Development Certificate must be referred first to the Parish Council for comment and then to the Planning Development Control Committee if requested. The whole principle of democratic accountability depends on this. It is especially important when the applicant and beneficiaries of the conversion are an MP, in fact a Junior Minister, and her parents, the Leader of Hampshire County Council and his wife, a former longstanding chairman of the Parish Council.
Unfortunately I have other grave reasons for concern. Following complaints by neighbours and others of the fear of retribution and intimidation if they complained I referred the matter to Hampshire Constabulary on 21 April 2017. Hampshire Constabulary have seemingly been unwilling to take any action against an MP and the Leader of Hampshire County Council because they have not requested information from me at any stage. However during August I was contacted by Hampshire Constabulary and I was invited to an interview under caution following a complaint by Mrs Nokes that I had made a false statement during the General Election campaign about the works done at her property.
That Mrs Nokes should waste valuable police time in this way is a matter which I shall be taking up with Hampshire Constabulary and, if necessary, with the Independent Police Complaints Commission and the Parliamentary Standards Authorities. However I am afraid there is an involvement of your Authority. That is because Mr Steve Avery has given evidence on behalf of Mrs Nokes, saying that there was no breach of Planning Development Control, when there plainly was. In other words Mr Avery has joined with Mrs Nokes in making a vindictive complaint about me when I have correctly raised concerns of suspected planning fraud and intimidation of complainants by Mrs Nokes and Cllr Perry. This has caused great distress to my wife and is something for which your Authority has to accept responsibility. That is something which I am sure you will be very concerned about.
I am also very concerned by comments which I understand have been made by your Communications Manager, Hilary Makin, about this matter. In particular I understand that Ms Makin has said that the submission of a false certificate of ownership does not invalidate the planning permission. That is true but as I have pointed out the application should have been invalidated before it was even considered. She has also said that “There has been no gain to the family as a result and it does not affect any outside interest in any material way. Therefore it would not be in the public interest to spend public money on a prosecution and we consider the case closed”. Your Enforcement Officer said similar things to some of the complainants.
Such comments by officers of your Authority who are paid by the taxpayer have been considered by all who have seen them as outrageous. Your officers have said that there has been no gain to the family as a result of what occurred. So is the NFNPA saying that there is no gain to the Perry family in a separate residence probably worth several hundred thousand pounds being erected, without planning permission? Or that the neighbours who have complained have not been affected in a material way?
You also need to consider the implications for not just the NFNP but any other National Park in the country if your Authority were to take no action in this matter. It means that anyone with a similar garage block at the edge of their garden can convert it into habitable accommodation without having to worry about getting planning permission. You will be aware that there are many similar properties within the near vicinity of Moorland.
I can also give you recent examples of cases where enforcement actions taken and prosecutions have been brought for similar breaches of planning laws – one in Ringwood for example may be of interest to you. However in this case there would appear to be a suspicion that an MP, indeed a Junior Minister, and the Leader of the County Council can do just what they like, including deliberately submitting a document with a false statement in a planning application. Mrs Nokes has said in the local newspaper that the use of Mrs Bellingham’s name was a “genuine mistake” by her agent. I think most people would find it difficult to believe that Mrs Nokes’ agent should suddenly decide to name Mrs Bellingham, a lady living in Florida, as the sole owner of the house.
I must now ask formally that you consider this complaint with the seriousness which it requires. I believe that Mr Avery’s actions in particular cannot possibly be justified, and constitute serious misconduct. I would ask that you should arrange for an independent investigation of what has occurred, apologise to me and those others who feel they have been intimidated and ignored, and work with us to put things right. I would also hope that some lessons might be learnt about this sorry affair, which can only bring discredit to your Authority if it is not dealt with fairly and properly.
In the circumstances I hope you will understand that I do feel that I must make the contents of this letter and your reply public, in the interests of transparency and to protect my wife and others from further upset and intimidation. I shall also be sending a copy of this letter and its enclosures to the Chairman of the Authority and to the Chairman of the Planning Development Control Committee.
I am anxious to help produce a satisfactory outcome to this matter in a cooperative manner and perhaps we could meet as soon as possible to discuss how this might be achieved.
I look forward to hearing from you
Yours sincerely
D G Jerrard
