Ernie Clark. Hilperton Division, Wiltshire Council.

The Inquiry was completed in one day.
As with all these sort of things it was quite incredible to see some of the assertions put forward in the 'Proof of Evidence' submitted by the expert witnesses for Marshgate and W&D.

What I don't understand is why the WWDC barrister didn't pick up on them, and why it was left to me to try, a member of the public, to try and show the statements to be of doubtful accuracy.

I don't intend to list them all, but a couple of examples are:-

Proof of Evidence from Don Proctor.

8.12 'Marshgate have at no time during the last five years been approached in any way by the PCT, surgery/health facility operators or their agents to express an interest in locating at this site'.

8.14 'the Section 106 agreement .... requires Marshgate to use "all reasonable endeavours" to secure the establishment of a medical practice and a retail pharmacy on the public house site'.

I asked Mr. Proctor his view on these two statements as, surely, this means that Marshgate should be pro-active in seeking a user, not re-active in waiting for one to come to them, doesn't it? As it would seem that Marshgate are happy to sit on their hands they have surely failed to comply with the requirement of the S.106? His reply failed to address my concerns.

Proof of Evidence from Craig Rawlinson.

6.11 'Based on the parking surveys, the time when the car park will experience the peak demand from the existing land uses combined with the appeal proposal is between 1200 and 1300, irrespective of the day of the week'.

I asked Mr. Rawlinson if this meant that the car park would be busier at that time on a Saturday than at, say, 21.45 when a function was taking place at the Community Centre whilst people were still using Budgens, the chip shop etc. His reply was "Yes". I then asked if he had ever visited the car park on a Saturday evening to see just how busy it was. His answer "No". In other words, his proof of evidence was not backed up by proof of usage at peak evening periods.

6.19 Mr. Rawlinson stated that a number of the users of the three new retail units planned for the local centre would represent linked trips. I asked him how he came to this conclusion, and didn't receive a proper answer. I then asked who the new units were going to be let to (as he had a view about 'linked trips'). His answer "I don't know". How then could he assert that 'a number of users would be making linked trips'?

I would like to think that my questions will have some impact on the outcome of the Inquiry, but how can these people be allowed to make such sweeping statements without being challenged by a well paid barrister?