Paragraph 9 of the Slade decision refers to confusion at the Inquiry because the County Council had produced several plans of the Order Route over the years, and the identifying lettering was shown differently on the Order Plan.

It's crucial to correct misinformation. The Order plan, presented to the Regulatory Committee of Hampshire County Council, was distinct from the Order route. The County Council did not produce several plans over the years.

Mr Piper did not explain this at the PI, but I have included three of his explanations in my summary.

Para 11 Last sentence “As a consequence, I place no significance on these administrative quirks since no-one seems to have been prejudiced by them.”

Well, I certainly was.  As a witness, I had been asked by the Barrister, Mr Grant, why there was only half the number of journeys recorded on the Schedule 14 application in the County Council’s bundle.  I could not immediately remember.  Then the Inspector asked me why I claimed only half of the route.  That evening, I was able to piece together some of the evidence as to why this might be, and my research, together with memory, finally explained the situation outlined in my summing up and accepted to be reasonable.  So, the internal administrative policy or procedure adopted by HCC certainly caused me significant concern and extra work.

Paras 12 & 13.  HCC’s disregard of its statutory duties was one of my complaints to the Planning Inspectorate.  They have a Statutory Duty to research a claim within twelve months.  In my experience, this never happens.  Again, the Inspector is incorrect in saying that it took from October 2000 to July 2006 to reach HCC’s Regulatory Committee.  It came to the Regulatory Committee on 10th January 2007, over six years after it was first deposited.

Neither can it be said to affect both parties equally.  I heard of no essential witnesses who had either passed away or moved permanently abroad who could not attend the Public Inquiry for the Objectors.  In addition, the Objector’s Witnesses were not required to remember the details on which my witnesses were examined.  Indeed, it was noticeable in the cross-examination of the Objectors’ witnesses how conflicting and lacking they were in detail of description and dates.

Next time: my notes continue.
UPDATE: letter dated 24th July 2024

All 'TCHCC' Parts so far