PENDLE Council leader, Councillor Alan Davies (Letters, August 13) accused me of suggesting to the inspector of the public inquiry into the appeal over the enforcement notice on the house at Barley, which the council said was built of the 'wrong stone,' that costs should be awarded against the council.

This is an outrageous and offensive fabrication which he should withdraw immediately.

The main reason for my involvement was to try and prevent the gratuitous waste of tax payers' money due to the unreasonable stance being adopted by the Council's Barrowford and Western Parishes Area Committee.

I was first notified of the enforcement action by a colleague on the Community Health Council. He implied that the action was likely to cost the taxpayers of Pendle dear.

I recalled that I was a member of the original planning committee when this development was approved, and my initial reaction was that this enforcement was unreasonable and could cost the taxpayers of Pendle a significant amount of money.

I decided to study the file and consult with officers. This only reinforced my view that planning permission had not been breached - a view shared by all of Pendle's planning and building control officers.

I met with the council's solicitor Mr Philip Mousedale, together with David Lambert, a senior building inspector, to express our concerns. He accepted that the council would lose the case, but hoped they would not have costs awarded against them. My argument was that the case was so unjust and unreasonable, that the council would be forced to pay the costs. I requested that the matter be referred to the Policy Committee for further discussion, but he declined this request.

My reasons for writing to the inspector and attending and speaking at the inquiry, were to prevent an obscene injustice being perpetrated against the appellants. I did this for the good name of Pendle and councillors who might wish to dissociate themselves from the unjust actions of the Barrowford and Western Parishes Area Committee.

At the inquiry, I read directly from my letter to the inspector, outlining the discussions with Mr Mousedale, and his hopes that cost might not be awarded against the council. From this letter, I then related my argument with Mr Mousedale, that I considered the position being adopted was so unreasonable, it seemed inevitable that the council would have to bear the costs.

At no point did I invite, or suggest to the inspector that he should award costs against the council.

The inspector's report fully vindicates my judgment. In it he states:

He found it difficult to establish what grounds the council had for issuing the enforcement notice and that there had been a breach of planning.

The council's grounds for issuing the enforcement notice were confused, subjective and unsupported by professional planning advice and issued unreasonably.

The notice itself was ill-conceived, excessive and manifestly unreasonable.

Why was this case allowed to proceed against the advice of all the professional planning officers involved? I can only assume it was to satisfy a fit of pique from certain members on the Barrowford and Western Parishes Area Committee, which will now cost the taxpayers a large amount of money which we can ill afford.

On a final note, I would sincerely apologise to the appellants for the obvious distress caused to them by this unjust action, brought about by a very small number of Pendle councillors. I would add that most of us in Pendle welcome strangers in our midst.

COUNCILLOR FRANK CLIFFORD, Brierfield Ward, Pendle Council.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.