In a quiet village in South Devon, former council standards committee member Robert Wakeling is waging a battle that strikes at the very core of public trust in governance. His story is one of whistleblowing, personal sacrifice, and a relentless pursuit of accountability within a system he describes as riddled with corruption, cronyism, and systemic failure.
For nearly two decades, Wakeling has endeavoured to expose what he portrays as a network of misconduct stretching from his local council to national regulatory bodies, implicating some of the most influential figures in the UK’s planning and governance system. His evidence is comprehensive, his allegations severe, and his resolve remains unshaken despite significant personal and professional costs.
The Journey Begins
Wakeling’s struggle commenced in 2006 when a planning application he submitted for a modest single dwelling in Bickington was unlawfully denied. According to him, the application was rejected based on unadopted draft policies, violating statutory planning law. He contends that this was not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of systemic abuse intended to serve undisclosed personal and political interests.
What followed was a series of procedural breaches and governance failures. Investigations were promised but never materialised. Evidence was either withheld or altered. Allegations of fraud, intimidation, and conflicts of interest were met with silence or denial from authorities.
“I was naïve back then,” Wakeling admits. “I believed that raising the alarm would lead to accountability. Instead, it led to years of obfuscation, stonewalling, and targeted harassment.”
Corruption at the Top
Wakeling’s allegations are supported by extensive documentation, including emails, Parliamentary Ombudsman reports, and police witness statements. He asserts that high-ranking officials within Teignbridge District Council manipulated the planning system to prioritize large-scale developments that benefited a select few. His evidence also implicates regulatory bodies such as the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI), the Planning Inspectorate (PINS), and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) in covering up wrongdoing.
One of the most startling claims involves Mel Stride, Wakeling’s MP, whom he accuses of fabricating a ministerial email response to deflect inquiries about planning misconduct. The Commons Speakers Office has advised Wakeling to seek assistance from another MP due to Stride’s apparent conflict of interest.
“Corruption isn’t just local; it’s systemic,” Wakeling argues. “From councils to regulatory bodies, the system seems designed to protect its own, even at the expense of public trust.” An advisor to former PM David Cameron has been writing articles in The Times identifying his own experiences of corruption within the planning system, which he describes as “endemic.” This new report highlights how entrenched corruption is being facilitated from the very top.
A System Stacked Against Whistleblowers
Wakeling’s whistleblowing has come at a high personal cost. His health has deteriorated, his family’s wellbeing has been affected, and his property has been targeted with discriminatory actions, including deliberate exclusion from council services. Despite these challenges, he has persisted in challenging decisions, filing appeals and raising objections supported by concrete evidence.
However, the resistance has been relentless. Grant Thornton, the external auditors for Teignbridge District Council, dismissed Wakeling’s concerns and accused him of lying—despite his claims being backed by documentary evidence. Just before Christmas, Wakeling received an erroneous email from a Grant Thornton partner, seemingly attempting to influence an audit investigation into the Council and referring to an “update” involving other parties. In response to a Subject Access Request (SAR), the firm omitted key communications, including the misdirected email, and included irrelevant and unqualified commentary. Wakeling believes this is part of an ongoing effort to discredit him.
A National Issue
Wakeling’s case exemplifies broader issues within the UK’s planning system. Reports from Transparency International and Parliamentary inquiries have also highlighted endemic corruption, the misuse of public funds, and conflicts of interest in planning decisions. These problems extend beyond local councils to the regulatory bodies tasked with upholding ethical standards.
“Planning corruption is big news,” Wakeling asserts. “If we can show that it’s being enabled by regulatory bodies, the story will grip the nation.”
Looking Ahead
Despite the obstacles, Wakeling’s fight is far from over. In January 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a Court Order granting permission to appeal a Tribunal Decision and submit a supplementary bundle of evidence intended to expose the corruption involved. Wakeling aims to raise public awareness through media advocacy and with the support of whistleblowing organisations and investigative journalists. He hopes to illuminate the systemic failures that have allowed corruption to flourish unchecked.
“This isn’t just about me,” he says. “It’s about restoring integrity to public governance and protecting the rights of ordinary citizens. If we don’t act now, the damage to public trust will be irreversible.”
A Call for Accountability
As Wakeling prepares for his next legal battle, he remains steadfast in his determination to ensure his evidence is heard. His journey is a testament to the power of perseverance in the face of overwhelming odds and a reminder of the critical importance of transparency and accountability in a democratic society.
For many, Wakeling’s case raises an uncomfortable question: if the system can fail someone so determined and well-documented in their claims, what hope is there for the ordinary citizen?
Robert Wakeling may be just one man, but his fight against planning corruption could have far-reaching implications for the future of governance in the UK.
Disclaimer
The content of this article is provided for informational and educational purposes only. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the information presented, the author and publisher make no warranties or representations regarding the completeness, truthfulness, or accuracy of the content. The allegations and claims discussed within are based on the information available at the time of writing and have not been independently verified.
Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with qualified professionals before taking any actions based on the information provided. The author and publisher disclaim any liability for actions taken or not taken based on the content of this article. Additionally, any references to individuals or organisations are based on reported information and do not constitute an endorsement or condemnation.
If you believe that any information in this article is inaccurate, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable, please contact the author or publisher to address your concerns.