Says Bob Milton

There seems to be an anomaly in the treatment of unlawful works [s194] under s38. It cannot be right or fair for the rectification so wrongly withheld from the public for so long to be now reliant on public use of the expensive court procedures yet at the same time where unlawful works are relied on in making applications under s38 they do not need to be included.

One thing concerns me in all this is that yours and others responses seem to really act as a disclaimer in that the Inspectors deliberations are a balancing act where as they are a quasi legal assessment on behalf of the Secretary of State, so that any single failure in any of the tests should govern the decision. It is not the Inspectors duty or power to assist either side or to balance any particular failure eg interest of the neighbourhood with any perceived benefit for any one test eg nature conservation or even if applicable vice versa.

This situation coupled with the seeming inability or refusal to allow the advice of NE to be questioned at an inquiry and the acceptance of statements without evidential proof in such cases as Hartlebury in respect to land ownership, statutory duty, the Thames Basin Heaths SPA [development, core strategy and SANGS] and the need for HLS funded fencing as against alternative measures leads the Inspectorate, I believe, into disrepute.

I would be grateful if you would forward this email and my concerns to the senior management and hope to be able to continue this discussion in matters of principle at the earliest opportunity.