Former Braddan clerk says he left room when Commissioners discussed land he sold to Dandara (part 1)

Charles Lewin finally appeared before the Tynwald Select Committee, set up 14 months ago, to investigate his, and the Commissioners’, involvement in the withdrawal of the draft Braddan Plan.

 

He was accompanied, at the hearing, by his Advocate, Walter Wannenburgh and Stephen Sauvin Q.C. The Committee, on this occasion, also had the Clerk of Tynwald, Malachy Cornwell-Kelly, to help balance up the legal representation.

 

Mr Sauvin read from a prepared statement that dealt with matters relating to certain principles of law, in relation to the use of the word ‘bias’,  which was claimed to have been made in some of allegations made in respect of Mr Lewin.

 

Effectively, the statement made the case that two of the accepted common law principles, relating to bias, did not apply and as for the third - which related to the conduct of other parties - as Mr Lewin was so far removed from the ultimate decision maker, the DLGE Minister, he couldn’t possibly be held responsible for the decision by, the former DLGE Minister, John Rimington to withdraw the draft plan.  Therefore, there was no case for Mr Lewin to answer in this respect either.

 

Mr Lewin then made a statement of his own in relation to the sale of his field, in Mount Rule, to Heritage Homes. He claimed that, from as far back as 1988, a number of developers had expressed an interest in taking an option or purchasing the land. He said that he had decided, in 1999, to sell the land, prior to the commencement of the review of the Braddan Plan, and that he informed Dan Tynan he would sell it for 50% of the market price for zoned land.

 

He claimed that negotiations for the sale were completed in July 1999; and that the formal sale was completed in December 1999. He said this deal gave him certainty, as he no longer carried the risk the land would not be zoned, and also, by its sale, he would remove any conflict of interest in respect of his employment with Braddan Parish Commissioners.

 

He claimed that he had informed the Commissioners of this sale at a meeting in July 1999. However, he said that as it was a voluntary disclosure it wasn’t minuted; even though another voluntary disclosure, at the same meeting, in relation to his plant hire business, was minuted.

 

He went on to say that he had informed former Commissioners’ Chairman, Allen Gawne, in 2000, that he was selling his interest in the plant hire business; which at the time was contracting to IOM Business Parks.

 

Mr Lewin claimed that another former Commissioner, David Mason had asked him if he had any objection to him preparing a paper on his land sale. He said that this paper was presented at a Commissioners’ meeting on the 24^th July 2000. He added that a previous witness, Commissioner Andrew Jessopp, had said, when giving his evidence, that another voluntary disclosure, regarding the land sale, had been made at a meeting on 12^th June 2000.

 

Relying on evidence of another current Commissioner, Ray Corkhill, Mr Lewin said that Mr Corkhill had stated that whenever Area 14, the field sold by Mr Lewin, was discussed he had taken no part; even though these discussions were some seven months after he had sold the field.

 

Mr Lewin then moved on to the matter regarding a fax - given to the Committee by Mr Rimington, during his first appearance before the Committee - concerning a meeting arranged for Mr Lewin, by Dan Tynan, to meet with David Cooper, in London, in May 2000.

 

Mr Lewin explained that the Barrister, John Hoggett QC, retained by the Commissioners for planning advice, had advised him, on a strictly confidential basis, that, for medical reasons, he may not be able to continue to take instructions from the Commissioners.

 

He then said he recalled bumping into Dan Tynan, at Ronaldsway Airport, who also used the service of Mr Hoggett, and was aware of his medical condition, and that he mentioned they now retained a different barrister. He said Mr Tynan had said he would arrange for his secretary to let him know the name of the barrister.

 

Mr Lewin said, as the Commissioners had three major planning issues to contend with, he contacted Mr Tynan’s secretary and asked her to set up a meeting with Mr Cooper, for the 12^th May 2000; the day after he was next due to meet Mr Hoggett. He said he wished to sound out Mr Cooper’s knowledge of the Island, expertise and availability; in case he had to find a replacement counsel for the Commissioners.

 

However, he said Mr Hoggett informed him, at the meeting, on the 11^th May 2000, that he could continue to receive instructions; so he cancelled the meeting.

 

Questioning of Mr Lewin then commenced, with Committee Chairman, Steve Rodan SHK, asking Mr Lewin to detail his involvement with the Commissioners.

 

Mr Lewin said that he had been elected a Commissioner in 1986 and had been the Clerk from 1991 until 2007 when, he claimed, he had been unfairly dismissed.

 

Mr Rodan inquired what Mr Lewin considered was the role of the clerk to the Commissioners.

 

He replied that it was to provide a service to, and to assist, the Commissioners, carry out policy, implement decisions; and, because he couldn’t give advice on everything, to arrange for professional advice when appropriate.

 

Mr Rodan sought clarification of what Mr Lewin thought was the difference in the role of the clerk and the Commissioners.

 

Mr Lewin said that there was a significant difference in that the clerk served the board and was not involved in decision making, although he may advise on policy; and thereafter the clerk was responsible for implementing the decision.

 

Mr Lewin was then briefly asked about his membership of the Board of Education, and his role as a previous chair of the Governors of Braddan School, before the Committee moved on to more detailed questioning.

 

Mr Rodan wished to know what advice Mr Lewin had provided when, in 1998, two members of the Board had been effectively excluded from the Commissioners’ business.

 

Mr Lewin said he would provide some background information which would help explain how the situation came about.

 

He said that the late David Mason had been unhappy that the Board were not going to oppose the incinerator. So Mr Mason planned to introduce a motion, to oppose the incinerator, at the AGM, which - as the incinerator public inquiry was to follow only a few days after the AGM - would have changed the Board’s policy overnight.

 

Mr Gawne then proposed, and got approval, for the date of the AGM to be moved, thus scuppering Mr Mason’s plans; which was much to his annoyance.

 

Mr Lewin said that as a form of “tit for tat” Mr Mason had the Committee structure created; although he personally didn’t think it was suitable or would work. He claimed Mr Mason had consulted Select Committee member, Peter Karran MHK over the issue.

 

Mr Rodan asked if the two excluded Commissioners, Mr Gawne and Mr Halsall, were denied access to the Commissioners papers; to which Mr Lewin said they had been. He said that this had caused him concern because he believed that all the Commissioners should have access to all the correspondence in the office.

 

Committee member, Alex Downie MLC asked if any of the Commissioners had been sent lawyers letters in respect of this issue.

 

Mr Lewin replied that as part of the dispute, between Mr Gawne and Mr Mason, he thought a letter was probably sent.

 

Mr Downie wondered if Mr Mason had ever used his position, within the Authority, to use the legal services to get at another Commissioner.

 

It was a horrendous period, replied Mr Lewin, and claimed to be stuck in the middle trying to bring both sides together.

 

Mr Karran said he did not recall Mr Mason consulting him over the internal matters but did recall him phoning him about a lawyer’s letter he had received from the clerk; and did Mr Lewin remember this incident.

 

Mr Lewin sought clarification from Mr Karran as to whether he was suggesting he personally had sent lawyer’s letters to Mr Mason or whether they were from the Committee. In a further response, he said that, for the record, he had never sent any legal letters to Mr Mason; although he recalled that Mr Mason had received one from the Committee, as he had spoken to him about it.

 

Mr Karran asked if any other Commissioners had received lawyer’s letters, but Mr Lewin said, as he didn’t have access to the Commissioners’ records anymore, he couldn’t say.

 

Mr Karran pointed out the high level of legal costs borne by Braddan ratepayers and asked if Mr Lewin would confirm they were mostly spent on fighting government and not each other.

 

Mr Lewin confirmed that they mainly related to various planning matters, including the incinerator.

 

The Chairman said they may return to these issues later but they needed to address matters closer to the remit of the Committee. He inquired if there had been any meetings, with Sarah Corlett, to discuss the content prior to the Issues & Options document, dated October 1999, being given to the Commissioners.

 

No, was Mr Lewin’s unequivocal answer.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know how many meetings had been held between himself and Miss Corlett, to discuss the content of the document that was issued to the public in May 2000.

 

Mr Lewin said he couldn’t say but gave an overview of the period. He said that the initial document was a very rough draft, that the Commissioners had decided they wouldn’t give any support to any particular piece of land, but wanted to make sure all land likely to be considered for development was included.

Mr Rodan reiterated he just wanted to know about the meetings held between him and Miss Corlett.

Mr Lewin said he was coming to that but, as he still didn’t answer the question, Mr Rodan asked if the meetings he held with Miss Corlett were minuted or recorded in any way.

 

Mr Lewin replied that they were and he was acting as conduit between meetings for information; and that he reported on these meetings to the next Commissioners’ meeting.

 

Mr Downie asked who had produced the questionnaire that had been sent to residents.

 

Mr Lewin replied that it had been entirely the work of Miss Corlett but it had been the Commissioners’ idea - and, technically, they approved it - as they thought it would help the residents to become involved in the process.

Mr Rodan asked who had been advising the Commissioners at this time on planning matters.

Mr Lewin thought it was Robert Turley Associates (RTA); although, initially, they had agreed with Miss Corlett they would not employ any consultants, but would rely on her planning expertise.

 

He continued to explain that Camlork was a big issue so RTA was retained to give advice.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know why Camlork areas 1 – 4 had been included.

 

Mr Lewin said they had been included from the beginning, as it was an area that had been considered previously for development, but, following discussions with the planning officer, the area was split up instead of it being one string. This was to help overcome objections to the whole site as there was little planning reason to object to the area to the north (area 3).

 

So why was area 3 included and then removed, inquired Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin suggested it was because the Commissioners, as elected representatives, were reflecting the views of the residents who were opposed to the area. The Commissioners thought if it was included it would open “the floodgates” to further development.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know if the Board’s decision resulted from a recommendation from him.

 

Mr Lewin denied making such a recommendation; and added that in fact he had never made a recommendation on the suitability or unsuitability of any land. He told the Committee that following a site visit he had issued a report as he believed it would be very difficult to oppose the site on landscape impacts.

 

Mr Rodan suggested it was technical reasons, for example drainage, that Mr Lewin believed the site was excluded.

 

Mr Lewin thought that it was because the Commissioners were just opposed to all of areas 1-4, as the wet area, of area 3, would probably be a landscaping buffer zone. So no, there was no technical reason.

 

Mr Downie seemed a bit taken aback by this revelation and wondered if the Commissioners had taken all the previous planning history, and the possible repercussions, into account before making this decision.

 

Mr Lewin made out that he had tried to make the Commissioners aware of the risks of following this course, which is why he said he had produced a memo in May 2000 and a copy of the previous inspector’s report.

 

Planning advisor to the Committee, Tony Pass sought agreement from Mr Lewin that, as the two reasons, which were used to remove area 3, were topography and drainage concerns, a bit more technical input would have been required than just relying on the ground being “a bit squishy”.

 

Mr Lewin said that as it was essentially a political decision of the Commissioners, technical input wasn’t needed; although they did get some advice from Turley.

 

Mr Rodan also seemed to have some difficulty in accepting what he heard and suggested to Mr Lewin that the decision was later dressed up in technical reasons.

 

Mr Lewin thought any possible planning objection was weak, and reconfirmed it was purely a political decision.

 

Mr Rodan put it to Mr Lewin that the reasons were contrived to fit the political decision; but he didn’t agree.

 

Moving on Mr Rodan wondered if the ownership of areas 1-4 had been discussed before May 2000; to which Mr Lewin said it had not been but it was well known who owned the land. In fact, he said, the only time land ownership was a concern, during the whole process, was when the land to the south of the Cooil Road was considered.

 

Mr Rodan then asked when area 7, the land to the north of the Mount Rule Road, was first identified for possible development.

 

Mr Lewin suggested that as existing hamlets and villages would be considered for further development any land adjacent would naturally also be considered; and that was how it came to be included. He added that the Commissioners had purchased the fields nearby, for sports pitches, and they considered it a natural extension of the village.

 

So who suggested the site was suitable for a school, inquired Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin at first thought it was David Mason but then suggested it may have been Ray Corkhill. He thought it had something to do with the government’s investment in the sports pitches and the school being able to use them during the day.

 

And who suggested the houses, you or the Board, was the next question from Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin was adamant that it was not him and he wished to make clear again that he did not recommend, or suggest, any areas for development.

 

Were the Commissioners aware of the designation of the land, in the 1982 Order, as being in an area of High Landscape Value and Scenic Significance, inquired Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin thought the designation out of date and arbitrary, particularly the blanket approach taken in the plan.

 

Mr Rodan pointed out that the Commissioners had attempted to purchase the land, but Mr Lewin corrected him by saying they had wanted to buy the whole farm.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know from Mr Lewin who had instigated the attempted purchase; and whether the Commissioners were aware of the Department’s interest in acquiring the land.

 

He replied that Martin Moore, who was the agent of the land owner, Mrs Paton, had approached the Commissioners; and yes they were aware of the Department’s interest.

 

However, the Department didn’t progress the matter and left the door open to the Commissioners to pursue the deal; but even they got left behind when various developers became involved in the bidding.

 

Mr Rodan returned to Mr Lewin’s role as Governor of Braddan School and what involvement he had in the choice of area 7 for a school. Mr Lewin responded by saying a decision had already been made, by the Commissioners, of it being a potential site for a school, prior to him being elected to the Board of Education.

 

Mr Rodan then turned to area 16, an area in Mount Rule in which Miss Corlett lived, and wondered why she had included it in the Issues and Options document.

 

Mr Lewin wasn’t sure she had; he thought it resulted from a submission from the Lovejoy Partnership, representing Mount Rule residents, Mrs Watkinson and Mr Turner. He said it was these submissions that had caused a problem for Miss Corlett and triggered her declaration.

 

Mr Downie asked Mr Lewin if the Commissioners were informed of this development and what the procedure was that was followed.

 

Mr Lewin said he receieved a phone call from Miss Corlett who said she was going to speak to Mr Vannan and also wanted a meeting with the Commissioners to explain the situation. He said nobody ‘higher’ than Miss Corlett had corresponded about the issue, but he was comfortable with the ‘open and transparent’ way she handled the issue.

 

Next, Mr Rodan inquired about area 23, in the business park, and wondered why the Commissioners supported the area for housing if they also supported the need for industrial land.

 

Mr Lewin said the original masterplan included housing; with Clybane forming part of the residential element. He explained that in his view residential use was acceptable and the residents didn’t want big industrial buildings near their homes.

 

Mr Rodan then inquired who had initiated the inclusion of area 25, the ‘Drinkwater land’ off Ballafletcher Road.

 

Mr Lewin said it came about through Mr Gawne’s desire to match the housing need with the required amount of land to accommodate the need. The Commissioners had decided it should be included as an option when they toured the parish to visit various sites.

 

In response to question about the proposed life of the plan - and who had suggested it should be five years and not ten - Mr Lewin explained it arose from the historical use of 5 year plans; and the Commissioners’ concern that it would be more difficult to control the release of land, and the completion of sites, in a ten year plan.

 

Appreciating the link to housing need and population growth, Mr Rodan asked who had first raised these issues and whether technical advice had been sought.

 

Mr Lewin said that it had been prompted by the first draft of the Issues and Options document and, in his opinion, was more straight forward than technical. In the end it boiled down to whether the Commissioners were prepared to fight with Miss Corlett over an issue for political reasons; and eventually they accepted the evidence and went with the 10 year plan. He confirmed the Commissioners received some advice from Turley on the issue of population and housing figures.

 

Mr Rodan then asked if he had also sought information from Lovejoy; to which Mr Lewin replied that, as he was aware of an issue of development land supply during the Onchan plan review, he had used his initiative and contacted Ian Reid for a copy of their submission to the Onchan Plan Inquiry.

 

Mr Pass sought clarification of the reasons for asking Turley for advice, as he thought the matters involved were quite complex, and clearly there had been a disagreement between the Commissioners and Miss Corlett on some of the issues.

 

Mr Lewin still maintained the issue of 5 or 10 years was not a technical issue and, once the Commissioners had accepted 10 years, it was only then that it became an issue of housing need.

 

Mr Pass pressed Mr Lewin on whether to accept the ten year plan and the number of houses was the Commissioners’ decision and not one strongly guided by Mr Lewin or consultants.

 

Mr Lewin said that without a shadow of doubt it was the Commissioners’ decision.

 

Mr Karran stepped into the fray and expressed surprise at Mr Lewin’s apparent ‘humbling position’ within the Commissioners and found it interesting that they were taking such technical decisions on their own.

 

Mr Lewin countered by saying that neither Mr Gawne, Mr Mason nor Mr Halsall, who attended some ‘robust’ meetings with Miss Corlett, were fools and that the decisions were theirs’ alone.

 

Mr Karran’s repost was to suggest that perhaps other members of the Board were not quite so astute, but Mr Rodan wanted to move on to land ownership issues; particularly areas 1-4.

 

Mr Lewin made it clear that the Commissioners knew Baccarat owned this area; because they attended a presentation by the developer’s architect. They also knew Mrs Paton owned the remainder of Camlork Farm; and he said he was called, at hospital, on the opening morning of the Public Inquiry, to inform him that Heritage Homes had acquired an option to purchase the whole of the Farm, minus areas 1-4.

 

Mr Rodan asked for clarification if the Commissioners were aware of who owned land in the parish; and Mr Lewin replied that he thought Mr Corkhill and Mr Halsall would have a pretty good knowledge. He then took a swipe at current Commissioners’ Chairman, Margaret Hodge, who he described as a recent arrival to the Island and didn’t know anywhere in the parish.

 

Mrs Hodge, who was in the public seating area, appeared quite hurt by the suggestion.

 

Mr Lewin continued, that the only time land ownership was an issue was when Corkills Garage had sought planning permission for a new site on the south of the Cooil Road. The Commissioners had written suggesting that if land was to be zoned for industrial/employment use it should have a variety of owners to avoid a monopoly situation; which they thought was prevalent at the time. Mr Lewin said he had discussed this issue with the Department of Trade and Industry, including Mr Downie who was in the DTI at the time.

 

Mr Rodan, appeared satisfied with the response and inquired how long Mr Lewin had owned area 14.

 

Mr Lewin replied that the land had been bought from Richard Formby in the mid 1980’s, and said that, in 1988, Chris Simpson, of developer Mill Baldwin and former business partner of Henry Kennaugh, had approached him as he had thought the site suitable for first time buyers homes. (This statement prompted raised eyebrows and a shaking of the head from Henry Kennaugh; but as Mr Simpson is dead he will not be able to confirm or deny the allegation.) Mr Lewin said that it was this approach that had prompted him to put in a planning application; and from then on, in his opinion, the site would always be considered for development in any review of the local plan.

 

Mr Rodan inquired what other planning applications had been lodged for the site subsequently.

 

Mr Lewin said Mr Corkhill had approached him to act as his agent for a planning application to build two houses; which gained approval. A deal was struck on fees but Mr Corkhill had later challenged Mr Lewin over the amount, rejected an offer to settle and had lost in Court.

 

A later approval, in 1997, for a stable block was confirmed and Mr Lewin agreed that it was unlikely that it was not well known, in the planning office, who owned the field.

 

Mr Rodan pointed out that, in the period October 1999 to May 2000, area 14 was discussed at several Commissioners’ meetings, and wondered if landownership had ever been raised.

 

Mr Lewin said that the ownership had already been disclosed and pointed to Mr Corkhill’s evidence; but, before he could finish, Mr Rodan sought clarification if by disclosed he meant the meeting in July 1999.

 

Mr Lewin said it was; even though it was not minuted.

 

Mr Rodan then asked if it would surprise him that Commissioners, since that time, had claimed they had no knowledge of the ownership or sale.

 

Mr Lewin returned to Mr Corkhill’s evidence which he said confirmed he had not participated in discussions in respect of the field; and, therefore, it was virtually impossible it was not known about.

 

Mr Downie reminded Mr Lewin that Mr Halsall had said he was amazed to find out that the land was his.

 

Mr Lewin said he played it by the book and obeyed the law; and pointed out that the disclosure of the plant hire business, in 1999, and all through the process confirmed this. He said the Act only required declarations to be made in writing to the Authority and there was no requirement for the disclosure to be minuted.

 

Under further questioning, from Mr Rodan and Mr Karran, Mr Lewin claimed that whenever area 14 came up for discussion he would either take a ‘comfort break’ or go for a cigarette; so how much more reminding than that did, they think, the Commissioners needed of his disclosure.

 

Mr Karran pointed out that none of the breaks were minuted; to which Mr Lewin said there was no requirement, and as it was an important point, where would it all end if you had to minute everything. He continued, the minutes would be full of voluntary declarations - and made a flippant comment about the amount of people Mr Corkhill meets in the pub each week - before stating that it was Mr Corkhill’s evidence, not his, that he declared and left the meetings.

 

Probably feeling the exchange was not assisting matters any further, Mr Rodan asked when Mr Lewin had first considered selling the field; and whether it had been an open market sale.

 

He said from the moment he purchased it he viewed it as a potential site for development and because he had received so many inquires, from potential buyers, he didn’t need to advertise. He said Heritage Homes had tried for years to get an option but he had held out for a sale to get certainty on the deal. Eventually they did a deal for 50% of the price of zoned land, which was a gamble for both parties, but he thought having the £200,000 plus was better in the bank than not.

 

Mr Rodan wondered on what grounds the Commissioners had supported the site for housing.

 

Mr Lewin said he wasn’t involved in the meetings so he couldn’t say, but the Committee had to be careful in the use of the word ‘support’ because the Commissioners were only ‘commenting’ on Miss Corlett’s text.

 

Mr Rodan wished to confirm that as far as Mr Lewin was concerned the Commissioners were aware of his ownership and sale, and you were working on that basis; which Mr Lewin agreed was his understanding as it was never a secret.

 

Mr Downie inquired if Mr Lewin agreed, in hindsight, that it would be a good idea to have an annual return for all declarations of interest by members and officers; and if this had been the case they would not have been here today.

 

Mr Lewin agreed.

 

Mr Rodan returned to the Commissioners’ submission on the field, and drew Mr Lewin’s attention to a letter, sent in September 2001, suggesting that the field could accommodate 20 rather than 10 dwellings; and wanted to know who had made the submission.

 

Mr Lewin explained that it came about through the desire to make better utilisation of land; as the Commissioners had recognised that the lower the density the more land that would be needed. He said, although it was not universally popular, the Commissioners had been the first to promote the idea of affordable homes on the sites; and since then the government had adopted a 25% requirement.

 

In reply to question from Mr Rodan where the Commissioners had sought guidance, Mr Lewin stated that they had relied on the UK PPG3; and this principle was applied to all the major sites, not just area 14. He added, even the Island’s recently approved Strategic Plan indicated, that guidance should be sought from the UK or EU where there was a gap in Manx planning legislation or guidance.

 

Mr Rodan suggested that the maximisation of land was a novel concept and Mr Lewin agreed; and pointed out the provision of affordable and social housing was a major area of disagreement between the Commissioners and Miss Corlett.

 

Moving on, Mr Rodan asked Mr Lewin if he was aware of the ‘Pilling Judgement’, and whether he considered part of his duty to inform the Commissioners of the implications.

 

He thought his first recollection was when Tynwald was setting up the Select Committee, and he heard something on the radio, but this was in 2000 odd; so it post dated the sale of his land. He said he tried to get a copy from the DLGE, who he said didn’t have one, so had tried elsewhere; but had discovered it was not freely available to the public. He said he continued to pursue the issue, and as recently as 2005 had sought guidance from the Chief and Deputy Executives of the DLGE, but that the response was: you are a body corporate, deal with it yourself.

 

So you were unaware of this contentious planning issue, in respect of ‘perception of bias’ leading up to, and throughout the Braddan Plan review process, inquired Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin confirmed that was the case before 2000; and in fact it was only in the last couple of years people had started to refer to the Pilling judgement.

 

So did you tell the present Chairman of the Commissioners it had no relevance in the Isle of Man, asked Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin denied he had and thought Mr Corkhill may have made the comment. He personally, once he became aware of it, thought it was a very important matter.

 

Mr Downie sought clarification from Mr Lewin that it applied to both people in public office and those that served them.

 

He confirmed that it did; but suggested the DLGE were at fault for not including anything to do with the Judgement on the local authority induction course or in the handbook.

 

Mr Downie wanted Mr Lewin to say when he first became aware of the complaint regarding Miss Corlett and explain his understanding of the matter.

 

He said he was in hospital when Mr Corkhill had phoned him to tell him about the bizarre goings on at the Public Inquiry. He had told him that Mr McKinney had produced a deed of sale, showing where Miss Corlett lived, which he thought was well known, and had claimed a perception of bias.

 

So if you had been aware of ‘Pilling’, do you think it would have applied to your sale of land, inquired Mr Rodan.

 

Mr Lewin pointed out they had heard the legal advice earlier - and he reminded them he had been attempting to get help and advice from the DLGE regarding the matter – but how do you actually deal with a perception of bias. He remarked that Mr Karran was smiling, and suggested he wanted to put a ‘knife in his back’, but how was he to know in the absence of any advice or guidance.

 

Mr Rodan did not appear to impressed by this response, and reminded Mr Lewin he must have had a concept of the perception of bias, because he claimed to have excused himself whenever area 14 came up for discussion.

 

Mr Lewin said he had applied common sense, if you have an interest, declare it and move on.

 

Mr Rodan wanted absolute assurance Mr Lewin had made the declaration on the 19^th July 1999; and Mr Lewin gave it.

 

Still less than 100% satisfied Mr Rodan sought confirmation that in May 2000 Mr Lewin had told the Commissioners he had sold the land and in July 1999 he had declared the agreement to sell the land.

 

Yes that was correct, replied Mr Lewin; and then said how could he then continue to have an interest in something he had sold.

 

Mr Downie thought that was pretty easy, a cynic could say the sale included an option for a further payment if permission was granted for 20 houses.

 

Mr Lewin said there was no option included; but Mr Downie contended there could be a perception an agreement existed and that had to be protected against.

 

Mr Lewin agreed, but said in this case everything had been open and honest.

 

Mr Rodan stepped back to the beginning and asked who had instigated the changes in the October 1999 and May 2000 Isssues and Options document; was it the Commissioners, him or the Department.

 

Mr Lewin avoided answering the specific question but was emphatic that it all the changes were approved by the Department. He pointed out that the review had commenced under the 1934 Act, and the Commissioners were the only party identified, under that Act, as a consultee; so there was a special relationship. The Commissioners made their views known to Miss Corlett and it was for her to decide with the Department what to include in the document.

 

Mr Rodan suggested that he and Miss Corlett discussed the intended changes before the Commissioners’ meetings; but Mr Lewin strongly refuted the suggestion. He said the Commissioners met with Miss Corlett and discussed matters directly with her. He said the Commissioners didn’t send him off to inspect various sites, Mr Gawne and Mrs Halsall did that themselves and then reported back to Miss Corlett; which was how area 25 was proposed for inclusion as an option.

 

Mr Rodan sought to clarify whether Mr Lewin and Miss Corlett did hold meetings on their own, and, if so, whether they were only to progress matters requested by the Commissioners.

 

Mr Lewin said that was basically the case; and described it as “feathering-out exercise”.

 

Mr Rodan asked if the Commissioners had met, during this period, with any other parties outside of the Department, such as developers; or Mr McKinney and his Association added Mr Downie.

 

Mr Lewin was sure there were none at that stage, but perhaps later there were after the questionnaire was issued; which included a meeting with Baccarat.

 

Mr Rodan inquired about the meetings at Mr McKinney’s with the planning officer; to which Mr Lewin said he had not attended any, and added that he thought Miss Corlett had put herself in a difficult position by doing so.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know if the Commissioners had been aware, when getting advice from Lovejoy that they were also acting for other parties.

 

Mr Lewin said apart from the information supplied on the Onchan Plan, Lovejoy had been acting for the Commissioners on the incinerator and prison projects.

 

Moving swiftly on Mr Rodan asked if Mr Lewin knew Miss Corlett personally; and he replied yes he knew her through work and had grown up with her partner.

 

The purpose of the Commissioners' meeting in London, when it was arranged by Dan Tynan for him to meet David Cooper, was queried.

 

Mr Lewin said because of Mr Hoggett’s treatment, the meeting was arranged for London, and the first meeting was related to the proposed changes to the incinerator conditions; and the second one was in respect of the prison.

 

Mr Rodan wanted to know if Mr Lewin had informed the Chairman or the Board about the planned meeting with David Cooper.

 

Mr Lewin said no, as the medical issue was a sensitive, personal issue. He was just intending to see if there were any barristers who had any knowledge, or experience of the Isle of Man.

 

Mr Rodan understood that but still wanted to know why it didn’t occur to him to inform the Chairman.