Please note that this website uses cookies necessary for the functioning of our website, cookies that optimize the performance, to provide social media features and to analyse website traffic.

Dear Ms Godfrey,

Good morning.  Time passes.  I have taken preliminary advice from a lady barrister who specialises in ''planning'' with a possible judicial review in mind.  I had heard from local people as to how ''prior approval'' can be revoked, and then read it up.

Given that TDC was given 'false information' (euphemism) after Ms Kelly Grunnill  Senior Planning Officer asked a clear/unambiguous question - No 2, it would seem to this layman that revocation of the 'prior approval' is the way out of this mire for TDC.

Perhaps TDC is worried the appeal will stay live.  I would hope that an inspector would kick it out quickly given the travesty of this most recent application.

for truth, reason and justice

David Halpin 

Dear Ms Godfrey,

I thought a link to my work re Dr Kelly might be of use

Also, re the photo taken of two horses in Mr King's barn.  Taken at 7.20am 6-07-15.  Looking at the piles of dung they must have been in there all night.  And the dung is not confined to that 'barn'.

For truth

David Halpin

Thank you Ms Godfrey, very kind,

The correspondence with Mr Davies is now on my web site, with the photo

I have prepared a summary of the guts of this for a national publication -

Application for adaptation of 3 yr old timber barn of ugly appearance to dwelling on a hill top in Combe Parish

a.  Refused by TDC 12-01-15 - isolated position

b.  Further application under very new rules - c. 11-05-15

c.  Appeal against refusal received by TDC shortly afterwards

d.  The second application given 'prior approval' 3-07-15

Some background.  This quoted from the submission made by my wife and myself 21-12-14  -

1.  TDC Planning Department have quoted this -

"“Section 336 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 defines 'agriculture' as including: 'horticulture, fruit growing, seed growing, dairy farming; the breeding and keeping of livestock (including any creature kept for the production of food, wool, skins or fur, or for the purpose of its use in the farming of land).”

There is no evident agricultural use at present. 5 horses are present. The applicant gave up his fine flock of sheep some years ago. Was there an agricultural purpose/justification when the timber barn was given approval 3 years ago?

- the building to change from agricultural use to a use falling within Class C (dwellinghouses) of Schedule to the Use Classes Order.”

To be plain, the building does not have an agricultural use and the application for change of use is thus invalid."

2.   Aside from the question of isolation, permission hinged on whether the barn had been used to stable horses.

3.   A Statutory Declaration was made by Emma Perkins and Wayne Farley 18-06-15.  This stated very clearly that horses had been stabled in this barn.  They had no pecuniary interest in the outcome of the application.

4.   "A Statutory Declaration was made by Mr Mike King 25-06-15  In paragraph 8 he says "I currently have four leisure horses, all kept as grazing animals ........The fodder business does not allow for stabling (although most is in plastic covered round bales outside DSH) other than welfare/vet they are kept out all year as grazing animals."

c. Given the hill top site, does welfare include housing during inclement winter months? (Rhetorical)"
His response is cunningly vague.  Mr King has a direct and substantial pecuniary interest in the outcome.

5.   Ms Kelly Grunnill Senior Planning Officer for TDC wrote to the agent Ms Claire Alers-Hankey 2-07-15 and asked for confirmation 'That no horses have ever been stabled within the subject building since the building has been in your clients ownership.'

6.   Ms Alers-Hankey replied to this latter question 'I can confirm that no horses have ever been stabled within the application building since Mr King has owned the building and site.'
She has a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome as the agent for Savill Smith Gore.

Mr Nicholas Davies has chosen to disregard sworn evidence from a couple who are close neighbours of Mr King's and who produced detailed evidence that horses have been stabled in the barn.  Instead he has accepted as truth, and with bold perversity, the sentence recorded above from Ms Alers-Sankey.  This cannot be accepted in an orderly and ostensibly lawful society.


Ms Godfrey,

Mr Davies will know that I regard this smelly business as being of great importance.  Please convey this to him.  I am a very determined man who hates lies.  My wife and I have spent money already with the instruction of a solicitor for both these applications.  I have, alone, acted in the High Court to get the then Attorney-General, Mr Grieve, to request an inquest on Dr David Kelly since he had never had one.

I have the means and determination to pursue a Judicial Review of the handling of this case.

for truth

David Halpin MB BS FRCS

On 06/07/15 16:25, Lisa Godfrey wrote:

Dear Mr Halpin,

Reference:   15/01296/NPA
Location:      HACCOMBE WITH COMBE - Charlecombe Mill Top Farm, Stokeinteignhead
Proposal:      Application For Prior Approval Under Part 3 Class Q (A) And (B) And Paragraph W Of The Gpdo For Change Of Use Of An Agricutlural Building From Agricultural Use To A Dwelling
Applicant:     Mr M King

Thank you for your email, letter and photo received 6 July 2015 regarding the above proposal.

You should receive a full response to your letter from Nick Davies, Business Manager – Strategic Place, by 3 August 2015.

Kind Regards,

Lisa Godfrey

Planning Support Officer
Development Management & Spatial Planning
Teignbridge District Council
Tel 01626 215735


Kings HorsesDear Mr Davies,

There is a good deal more that I could have levelled at your department but I am a bit tired at 75; my wife is recovering from a major operation.  Besides, some humans cause others to tire.

One small point of many.  I referred to the difficulty in finding ones place in the comments.  Please have them numbered.  Another- the Statutory Declaration of Emma Perkins and Wayne Farley listed on 18th June is simply listed as 'Comment'.  This 'comment' took courage, time and money.  The Statutory Declaration made by Mr King 26th June and listed 2nd July is listed accurately as - 'Statutory Declaration'.  WHY THE DIFFERENCE?

I had a friend take a photo this morning for the sake of truth, a flickering light in the UK of 2015 AD.  I attach it.  They were stabled for 'welfare' purposes no doubt. Is it fair to assume they were stabled over night?  They are not dairy cows or sheep from the Shetlands.

There is a way out of the quagmire created by your department.  You know that.

"This development is permitted on the basis of the information set out in the Statutory Declaration by Mr Michael John King dated 26 June 2015 and the email from Claire Alers-Hankey from Savills Smiths Gore dated 2 July 2015. If any of this information is found to be incorrect, you are advised to contact the Local Planning Authority to seek further clarification."

Finally,  I have asked my very good friend who manages my web site, to publish this correspondence for those who are immediately concerned, and for a potential wider constituency.  Perhaps you will show respect for the Nolan Principles in Public Life by publishing this correspondence too.  I will make sure Mrs Anne-Marie Morris has it too.  I assume she voted for the 'Pickles' legislation.

yours sincerely

David Halpin


Dear Mr Davies,

I should add to the note below.  I was a public servant working as a doctor and surgeon within OUR NHS so I share with you the obligations and privileges of public service.

I attach my letter to you.

David Halpin


FAO     Mr Nicholas Davies    'Business Manager'/Planning

Mr Davies,

Several people who opposed this application have described the process as a sham.  We might use other descriptions.  As custodians of our countryside and wildlife, as residents in Teignbridge since 1975, and as council tax payers, we look to Teignbridge Planning Committee to be even handed and wise/lawful in its conclusions.  The opposite is true in this case.

We will write during the weekend, listing a few of the fundamental reasons why the process has been a sham or worse.  We remind you that you are a public servant and that your salary comes from our pockets.

David and Susan Halpin