As you read this schedule of shenanigans, be aware that Officers of the Wealden District Council may read your emails under RIPA and be assured that “a public authority that carries out intrusive or directed surveillance or uses CHIS without obtaining authorisation under RIPA will not be in breach of RIPA. At most it might be in breach of S.6 of the HRA 1998, or evidence might be excluded by the court.”
The information in this dossier supports the statement that Wealden District Council have an unchallenged Planning Department, regularly defeating the objectives of justice and procuring outcomes by obstruction, obliteration, discrimination, destruction, oppression, falsification, attenuation, maladministration, non-disclosure, concealment, inconsistency, nepotism, perjury and targeted malfeasance.
This dossier has been compiled with the assistance of numerous individuals and information harvested personally from appeals, Crown Court attendances, committee meetings, contemporary digital & emulsion photographs, contemporary tape & mini disc recordings, WDC's own records and advice from the late Dunlop Griffith of Doncaster.
Several individuals did not wish to have any details of their dealings with WDC to be included because they know that will make them targets for future retribution.
It is quite clear that WDC use their planning department as a vehicle for revenge, operating as a sophisticated team to systematically silence and discredit victims, manufacture unnecessary work and generate enforcement uprisings.
Scrupulous accuracy has been adhered to in the transcription of documents and letters with only standardised abbreviations introduced where necessary in order to maintain evidential integrity.
The compiler has relied on a number of affidavits which have ( with 3 exceptions ) been drafted, sworn and delivered contemporaneously thus giving WDC the opportunity to challenge them via the Perjury Act 1911 should they have wished to do so. They never have.
Spot audit verification of the WDC evidence in this dossier is all but impossible because of chaotic, secretive and inconsistent filing procedures.
The recurrent themes throughout this dossier are non disclosure and collusion or a combination of the two.
“Councillors were told of complaints about unhelpful staff, in-adequate pre-application consultation, inconsistent communication throughout the process, inadequate customer care and a confrontational attitude between members and planning professionals.
The District Auditor concluded that the council was exposed to serious risks of impropriety in planning matters”.
From a photographed newspaper article encountered in the Bristol Central Library about West Wiltshire Council authored by independent journalist Rod Eldridge when researching the case of Kelly Davis vs. Wansdyke, the largest award to an individual for discrimination in planning history - £790K. This vocabulary sums up WDC to a “T”.
“Just because it isn't physical doesn't mean it's not abuse.” to quote WDC from their “My Alerts” web information dated 2/12/2019.
Appendix 1 is a plan which gives the position of some of the planning applications mentioned in the text.
List of abbreviations.
ADPO Assistant District Planning Officer.
AH Mrs. Anne Harris
APN Area Plans ( North ) Sub-committee of WDC
APS Area Plans ( South ) Sub-committee of WDC
BF Bridge Farm, Stream Lane, Horam,TN21 0BP.
BP Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd, Bridge Farm, Stream Lane, Horam TN21 0BP.
CHH Cripps Harries Hall, former solicitors to WDC.
CMH Chester M Hudson, formerly of Stream Farm, Horam, TN21 0BP.
DPO District Planning Officer.
ESCC East Sussex County Council.
JH John Hoath formerly of Summersales Farm, London Rd., Crowborough TN61UT.
LJM Lord Justice Muskill, who wrote the rules for compiling planning reports.
LPA Local Planning Authority.
MF Microfiche of a planning file.
NJK Nelson J Kruschandl
SF Stream Farm, Horam, TN21 0BP.
SH The Old Steamhouse ( formerly “Oakwood “ ) Lime Park, Herstmonceux.
SL Stream Lane, Horam, TN21 0BP.
SP Sussex Police
WDC Wealden District Council, Vicarage Lane, Hailsham BN27 2AX.
A List of Sussex Police Officers made aware of these shenanigans.
D C Bebb plus his unidentified companion.
C. I. Dennis
D. S. Keith Lindsay
Sgt. Amy Mason
Insp. Tim Mottram
P. C. Sanders
D. I. Torbert
Chief Constable Paul Whitehouse
Chief Constable Giles York
A List of WDC Officers aware of these shenanigans ( appendix 3 ).
D R Holness
A J Brown
I M Kay
T W Dowsett
A list of the Members of Parliament made aware of these shenanigans.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.
Baron Barker of Battle.
Rt. Hon. Huw Merriman M.P.
Storage of information, spectrum of locations.
WDC's information / evidence for planning or Lawful Use applications may be dispersed in a variety of locations. Here are a few:-
Slave file, ( admitted on 17/5/19 ref. 7626- FOI )
Master file, ( admitted on 17/5/19 ref. 7626- FOI )
Strong room, ( Post-It note temporarily on file WD/1999/1474/LD )
Mapping section, ( evidenced 21/1/99 c. 16.55 hrs. )
Mr. Kay's “special cupboard”, ( mentioned once on a microfiche ).
Confidential documents file, ( mentioned on m/f 2/3 of WD/1996/0475 ).
Additional fiche, ( for WD/1985/0388, main set yellow, additional fiche green header. For WD/83/0560/P main set yellow, additional fiche green header ).
Supplementary fiche for WD/98/1369/LD was available on 25/1/18.
Occasionally, you may be supplied with a complete set of slave microfiches and another one from the master file. ( As happened on 27/1/19 with WD/1995/2908 where there were two off 6/6's ( emulsion photograph available) ).
Microfiche headers may be yellow, blue, red, white, cream ( WD/96/1123 “Confidential” ) or one of two shades of green.. Occasionally the main file is yellow and the additional fiche is green ( as on WD/83/0560/P ). Fiches may also have cropped corners.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000 :- “The Officer files being completely confidential contain many incriminating hand written notes & comments. If the Police were to seize these files & compare what is said & done by Officers in private with what appears on public files, reports & statements, I believe the corruption would be proven beyond reasonable doubt”.
Judge Hayward:- “Is it right that apart from not disclosing the report, the Council opposed …... application for disclosure of the report at the initial Magistrates hearing?” ( Lewes Crown Court, A950251 13/1/97 ). Yes, and at the conclusion of the case it was found that WDC had exaggerated the size of the watershed by 100 times and pretended that improvements, ( which would have benefited George Herbert Day of Castrum Lodge No. 7603 ), were maintenance.
Hiding information to secure crucifixion of an enterprise.
“Rodeo Dave” Charnley had a trick riding act on a steer called Bruno the Bull. He was an excellent publicist. He had some land on the north side of Stonehurst Lane, Five Ashes where he kept Bruno. Like all ruminants, Bruno needed a store to keep his hay dry, and a shelter to protect himself from the worst of the weather. WDC was not going to allow this to be constructed. One question they never asked was “Is Bruno capable of drawing a plough?” He was, and therefore having 17 acres of pasture in aggregate he qualified for a small stable under Permitted Development Rights because he was a draught animal, but that information was never disclosed. Suffice to say, that by the time some form of structure had been authorised, the weather had affected Bruno and he died. Unsurprisingly, a Crown Court appearance placed severe financial stress on Mr Charnley, and a number of potential buyers of his land were put off by the adverse Land Charges Register searches.
27/10/1999 WDC v. David Charnley. Mr Charnley was arraigned by WDC in Hove Crown Court case T19990557 before Recorder MacDonald Q.C.. WDC alleged that he had "Failed to stop using the land for the storage of a lorry." Two identical photographs purporting to be taken at each end of 13/4/1999 were submitted by David Whibley of WDC as evidence. The jury acquitted him in less than 15 minutes. The explanation for duplicate photographs was an “error at processing laboratory”. David Whibley explained :-"It has come to my attention that the photographs indicated as being taken at 10.15am and 5.00pm on ..13th April 1999 are identical. I have studied the negatives of the photographs and found that a mistake was made in the processing of the photograph taken on the morning of 13th April. The processors' [sic] exposed part of that photograph and to cover their error printed two copies of the photograph taken at 5.00pm. The only part of the photograph taken at 10.15am which can be printed is shown on the left hand side of the print appended to this Statement marked DGW1.” When Councillor Mrs. Pat Kennedy ( Mr. Charnley's local member ) was requested on 31/11/99 to ask the officer concerned to corroborate this explanation and display the “exposed part” on the back projector at the next APN meeting, she declined to do so.
After the acquittal, Stephen Chippeck Q.C. who represented Mr Charnley commented:- "It became clear that due to the publicity surrounding Bruno the bull that the Council decided to play-dirty and they set about trying to catch Mr. Charnley out. I would like to take this opportunity of suggesting a few steps that Mr. Charnley might care to take in order to assist himself with any further difficulties that they might seek to cause him." ..he keep a diary record of all the "interactions..with the council. ..He should keep with him .... a camcorder. If it becomes apparent that the
Council are hounding him, I would very much like to consider an action of misfeasance in public office. ...if it becomes the case that he is being further hounded by them, it would give me the greatest of pleasure to turn the tables on the council employees and put them in the firing range".
Hiding information in an attempt to crucify an applicant.
Extract from statement by NJK Jan 2001 page 40.
“43. In addition to the above, it appears to me that the Council Officers having long term conduct of the matter and certain Members were aware of my claims that the Council had been negligent in appraising the history of the site in 1995 and 1996. For this reason the Council had a Vested Interest. Once the Council had secured a costs Order, they could continue to frustrate applications in a process of attrition, until they could bankrupt me, from where recovery would be all but impossible. Councillor Jarman had confirmed this and I believe that is the hidden agenda. In order to make this plan work, the last thing they would want to find is a use, least of all the use they had spent thousands of ratepayer's pounds seeking to prevent.”
Getting involved in bad neighbour disputes.
At David Charnley's trial T19990557 before Recorder MacDonald Q.C. On 27/10/99 @ 10C Mr. Gooch said “He denied having been in dispute with the defendant, although he objected to some of his planning applications.” @ 13A Mr. Charnley said “However Mr. Gooch was mistaken, ..., and expressed the view that Mr. Gooch had some ill will towards him.” Mr Charnley's planning applications included WD/95/1525, WD/97/2299 & WD/98/1921.
Promoting bad neighbour disputes.
WD/96/2811 was built so that the guttering overhung the next door neighbour. No notice was served. The neighbour objected. This is what WDC had to say:-”The Council could not have refused the application solely on the grounds that it overhangs any neighbouring property. It would be for the adjoining neighbour to address the situation........Whilst not unsympathetic to your concerns it is considered that there is no action that this Council can take and that the matter is a private legal matter between yourself and your neighbour.” I.E land acquisition by proxy. In addition, the gutter was piped into a soakaway in the neighbour's garden which was already beyond capacity.
At Horam, where as a result of intensification 40 ton lorries over-ran a“neighbouring property”, the “adjoining neighbour” was forced to “address the situation” by firstly placing a Bedford RL lorry, and then a large bulldozer on his land. This obliged over-running lorries to trash the opposite neighbour's fence twice and threaten the foundations of their oast house. The neighbours were unable to protect their asset because they lived in Singapore and their roadside curtilage was insufficient to allow the parking of a bulldozer.
At Hooe, when completely novel fenestration was introduced into a blind wall to overlook a “neighbouring property”, the “adjoining neighbour” was forced to “address the situation” by planting two telegraph posts with a corrugated iron screen between them 20' up. Nevertheless, the “adjoining neighbour” was still awarded their overhanging guttering. Photograph available.
When an overhanging gutter was proposed on WD/00/1502/JF the parish council said it was an “over ambitious use of the site” and WDC said “Notice has been served on the adjoining occupiers”.
Errors of Commission – inclusion of unfavourable material in a committee report.
Frank Wood , applied for another development on his mother's behalf at Craigmore Hall, Crowborough Hill, Jarvis Brook. LJM irrelevant material relating to his challenging a bill of costs ( due in part to the late service of WDC's rule 6 statement ) was included in the officer's report to committee. On the costs issue Robin Johnson swore an affidavit and said :- “under the heading NB it stated the Sub-Committee's attention is again drawn to the applicants clear unwillingness as expressed in his letter to APN members dated 28 October 1996, to pay this Council's costs of the Public Local Inquiry held on 3 April 1991.” “I stated that the reference to the award of costs was out of order and should have been discussed in closed session rather than open committee”.
Errors of Commission – inclusion of unfavourable material in a secret enforcement report contrary to dictum 3 ”taking into account an immaterial factor”.
CMH visited WDC one day and saw an enforcement report on the SH which contained LJM irrelevant material calculated to be prejudicial to NJK. He made notes, was denied a photocopy and sent WDC an affidavit. This they no longer have, and have declined to accept a replacement.
Errors of Ommission – exclusion of favourable material from a committee report. “Failure to marshal the facts”.
Frank Wood, applied for another development on his mother's behalf at Crangmore, Crowborough Hill, Jarvis Brook. LJM relevant material relating to Highways was excluded from the officer's report to committee. 5 councillors, Gillian Rose Skinner (11/11/97), Edwin Rice ( 10/11/97), Bernard Franklyn Brown ( 30/10/97 ), Anthony Edwards ( 31/10/97 ), and Robin Johnson ( 12/11/97 ) all swore affidavits. On the Highways issue:-
Robin Johnson said :- “One of the reasons for refusing the application was based on the “additional traffic hazards to persons and vehicles using Crowborough Hill in the vicinity of its junction with the proposed access road.” I do not consider that the Committee were in a position to make a proper assessment on this issue as the Highways comments were not made available for members consideration as I had requested at the site meeting on 25 November 1996“,
Edwin Rice said:- “The officers made no reference in the report from the County Engineer on Highway matters. I have since seen a copy of the letter from the County Engineer dated 28th November 1996 which states” The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict a grant of consent..”. The contents of this letter should have been included in the report”.
Bernard Brown said:-”Members of the Committee could have been unduly influenced and prejudiced by the fact that the views of the County Engineer contained in a letter dated 28 November 1996 in which he stated that “The Highway Authority does not wish to restrict grant of consent subject to the observations below :-” were not included in the report”.
At David Charnley's trial T19990557 before Recorder MacDonald Q.C. On 27/10/99 @ 7E “and in just that connection the defendant called Mr. Pucknell , an architectural technician, who told you that he did have a number of conversations with Mr. Whibley over a planning application; the question of publicity came up and, according to Mr. Pucknell, Mr. Whibley had said the publicity would only harden the resolve of the Council. It is a term he said he would not use himself. He could not recall the exact date, it was the best part of a year ago, and he did recall the words, he said, because he though it was undemocratic, not a proper thing for a council officer to say”. “I said” said Mr. Pucknell, “that the publicity would go on until the matter was resolved”.
Inviting applicant to engage in an illegal marketing exercise.
Abstracted from a letter dated 15/7/2002.
We refer to your recent letter and your comment that policy DC8 ( which you attached ) has not been complied with.
This policy implies that the property shall be offered on the open market. This has been the policy and interpretation of the Council. However, as you know the property does not have a planning consent for a business use. Enquiries of the Highway Authority and to some extent Wealden District Council are that planning permission is unlikely for business use on Highway grounds. You will be aware of the views of the Highway Authority. We had consulted with them before making any approach to the Council.
This leaves both ourselves and the in a very difficult position. It is one thing to market a property with the hope of achieving a particular use where that prospect seems reasonable. However, given the information we have there does not appear a reasonable prospect. In that case any marketing would be illegal under the Property Misdescriptions Act. Neither we or our client are prepared to face the prospect of criminal proceedings. This is the choice that Wealden appears to be suggesting.
If however the Council are saying that the indication that has been given or that the clear message given to us by the Highway Authority is not a material matter then we believe you should now say so. Alternatively, the Council must resolve the matter taking due notice of the fact that the policy in this case would be asking for our client to break the criminal law.
Yours faithfully, HANDLEYS.”
Inviting an applicant to pay a bribe.
“Mr Rutherford filled in the petition form [ to Lord Newton ] in good time, however, for some as yet undetermined reason, Mr Rutherford's complaint was not included and he was asked to complain directly to the Sussex Police. No doubt a fuller explanation will be forthcoming.”
Unfortunately that explanation was not forthcoming. However, an affidavit containing this vocabulary was forthcoming on 2/12/2019:-
“ Cllr. Marriott Smith [ MS ] called me up and said “There is a way around this; they are still against you”. I went up to see him at his house in Little
London Road, I told him about the circumstances and asked him what our
chances were. He said everyone is adamant against it but there is a way
around it. I asked, “What way is that then?” He said “It can be dealt with
via the back door”. I asked what he meant by that? Financial inducement
if I paid £10K it could be arranged for me to get the required permission. One I could not afford it, two, I didn't agree with it in principle, and three, what is the point of rules & regulations if you can do that? I was nearly bankrupt anyway. I went to see a male Police Inspector in Hailsham and told him about MS, and he said MS had moved away, but he would try and trace him. Then I got a message sent through to say that it never happened, i.e. he denied it.”
There is another hearsay allegation ( not supported by an affidavit ) along exactly the same lines.
Morphing the out planning history inconvenient to the Council's argument. LJM “Failure to marshal the facts”.
Extract from a letter dated 9/7/1997 to Lord Newton.
“When planning officers compiled their recommendations for the APS meeting on June 26th, 1997, they detailed every decision which had gone against me in the previous application. Is it coincidence do you suppose that the May 1995 resolution and Ombudsman's determination , both in my favour, were omitted from the planning history? I note planning officers also excluded the October 1995 resolution which they claimed in the public enquiry was a refusal decision. They seem to be admitting now that this was no refusal decision at all, but an intention to refuse only if I amended my application description!
It is incumbent upon planning officers to include all relevant aspects of the planning history, not to include only those which are convenient to their own prejudices.”
WD/95/2908. Bulk freezer application for BF. “Failure to marshal the facts”.
CMH called at WDC's offices, examined the Planning History and pointed out that application WD/1983/0560/P, which the executive had declined to put before members, ( and then went on to be a dismissal at appeal signed off by the Minister himself, ( because it was a recovered appeal )), was incorrectly recorded as “N.Y.D.“ ( Not Yet Determined ). When he told the receptionist this, she crossed out “N.Y.D.” and wrote in “R” over the top, on the say so of a member of the public. The Minister had dismissed the appeal recommending demolition of the ( by then ) built structure because the access was totally inadequate.
This Planning History was then challenged at the January 1996 committee meeting by Cllr. Robin Johnson who asked for a “full” record of Planning History to be presented at the February meeting. At that meeting, a revised planning history was presented which included items previously omitted and omitted items previously included. The earlier Planning History then disappeared to frustrate a compare and contrast exercise, and Cllr. Johnson was told that he had proposed a vote for a “fuller” Planning History. Planning Histories are attached to affidavits of 10/4/97 and 28/4/97. An original letter from Cllr. Johnson still exists clearly stating that he had asked for a “full” Record of Planning History.
Interestingly, the Ombudsman's decision INV/399/S/80 of 1980 finding Council maladministration in the handling of WD/1977/1449/X has never been recorded on any BF Planning History, nor has the “development not in accordance with the approved plan” element ever been highlighted.
Protection from litigation offered on the rates.
An extract from a transcript of a secret meeting of WDC's APN where Geoff Johnson the Enforcement Solicitor seemingly reassures members that they would be supported on the rates if sued by JH. Mr Johnson does not explain to members that the original enforcement decision was based on appeal presented by CHH who were both the appellant's solicitors and the Council's former solicitors. Compact disc available.
Mr Johnson:- “…….I was explaining to Cllr. Edwards. Also involved in this and had ………made to him in correspondence with Mr Hoath. I think if if a person like Mr Hoath tried to pick off and intimidate individual members by threatening to take proceedings against them for a decision made as a member of the subcommittee I think if if by any slim chance he were to dare to .. and shelled out the money to start proceedings against that individual member. Then I’m sure the Council would support that individual member in defending that proceedings if it that it concerns actions taken by the committee as a whole.
Er He wouldn’t have any grounds to take proceedings, but if he did some spurious decision I say it wouldn’t be left to the individual member to deal with himself I’m sure the Council would support it. But the situation has never arisen um because you don’t’ run across people every day of the week there may be a few like him in the District a small group and he was here this morning with with another member of that small group they are working together on this Mr Hudson together partners in crime as it were.
As I say I don’t think there is any prospect I wouldn’t worry if I was an individual member being threatened by Mr Hoath because as I say the Council would come to protect him …” .
Mr Johnson was asked by Recorded Delivery KK3340 7274 7GB to his place of work ( where he personally signed for it circa 23/7/17 at Eimear Murphy's office ), what “crime” CMH was involved in, but thus far ( 6/12/19 ) he has not had the opportunity to reply.
Advice regarding litigation on the rates.
CMH displayed a notice at his gate saying “Ashley Brown D.P.O. is an accessory to criminal activity within Wealden District Council”. In the P200 section of the accounts, headed “Mr Ashley Brown”, advice was sought on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 - £140 reference code RN5105 charge period 1/4/2001 – 30/6/2001.
CMH offered to revise the wording of his notice unless he received from Mr Brown answers to some specific questions relating to the production of IMK's false instrument at his Lawful Use inquiry. By way of response, Detective Constable Bebb telephoned CMH, insinuated his way into his home on a pretext, interviewed him without representation or compliance with P.A.C.E., and then issued a caution ( for harassment ).
SP have a problem recognising harassment. The Hon. Mr Justice Green suggested that they treated Shana Grices's complaint as being based upon the deliberate supply of false information, and consequently treated her as the wrongdoer who had committed a criminal offence. He suggested that they jumped to conclusions and their position had three potentially serious consequences. First, all her further complaints were treated with scepticism. Secondly, she did not complain again to the Police because she felt her complaints would not be taken seriously. Thirdly, her murderer felt that it was most unlikely that the Police would do anything to stop him. He concluded by emphasizing that his concern lay with the way in which the complaints were handled. The IOPC broadly agreed with his conclusions.
SP are currently perplexed as to how and where to prosecute their case number URN47EE2948719 which alleges that their Chief Constable and their Police and Crime Commissioner were harassed by JH, because he offered to arrest them at 07.16hrs. on 9/7/19 for not properly investigating the issue of three firearms and ammunition ( on receipts 0223607/8 dated 26/6/02 ) by their Sgt. Ash to Winston Leachman, a career criminal ( who the Crown Prosecution Service employed to convict JH in January 2007 ). Issuing firearms to a criminal is an absolute offence, a point which they feign ignorance of. Previous to that, JH had been assaulted on 30/3/94 by Colin Hall and Colin Russell whilst Police Constable Sanders, Sgt. Greenwood and Christopher Hall ( of CHH ) supervised. JH had erected a notice that was instrumental in the closure of CHH branches in both Mayfield and Heathfield.
Defacement of information – photographs.
From an affidavit sworn on 29/7/99 relating to a meeting on 29/7/99, where Cllr Logan spoke to the APN c.13.04 saying:- “I do not like to criticise Officers in open session of the committee, … but Cllr. Sully has pointed out that the top photograph … does not truly represent the position as it is. I complained about this in A.P.(S). .. it is quite unacceptable for information to be put forward which is not accurate.. a picture which is put forward in that way is as inaccurate as a report that does not state the truth .. I think it is a practise which has got to cease, if it doesn't cease by virtue of the behaviour of Officers then I will require a report to S.P.E.D. to clarify the position of photographs and information laid before members of APN.”
Suspected defacement of information – photographs.
"It has come to my attention that the photographs indicated as being taken at 10.15am and 5.00pm on ..13th April 1999 are identical. I have studied the negatives of the photographs and found that a mistake was made in the processing of the photograph taken on the morning of 13th April. The processors' [sic] exposed part of that photograph and to cover their error printed two copies of the photograph taken at 5.00pm. The only part of the photograph taken at 10.15am which can be printed is shown on the left hand side of the print appended to this Statement marked DGW1.” Since Cllr. Mrs Kennedy did not advance a request for confirmation on this point when requested to do so we only have Mr Whibley's word for this.
Photographs. “Failure to marshal the facts”.
If it is known ( or suspected to be ) inconvenient to WDC's argument video photography is not sought. At David Charnley's trial T19990557 before Recorder MacDonald Q.C. On 27/10/99 @ 14C “and they say that other ways could have been, but were not, used [ such as video evidence ] to make you sure”. At 9C Mr Whibley said a “video would be impractical , beyond the Council's resources and impractical to use”. In re-examination he gave a number of reasons as to why video camera surveillance would not have been a feasible option. It is possible that because the enforcement budget had been plundered to provide the funds required to take six top Wealden executive's wives to the Continent on the rates in the mid to late eighties it had not recovered sufficiently to ensure that Mr Whibley was adequately equipped to perform his function efficiently.
Photographs. “Failure to marshal the facts”.
If it is known ( or suspected to be ) inconvenient to WDC's argument aerial photography is not sought. Thus Judge Michael Kennedy in WDC vs. Eddie Russell, was anxious to see aerial photographs and after the Judge's opening inquiry ( 31A ) "If this is ….. all a try on and a delaying tactic?" the exchange continued thus:- "but Planning Officers either know where to get aerial photography that far back or they do not, and if they do, it would take them a week to get it, but five minutes to look at it and they would either know that there was evidence ... or there was not. It is terribly simple .." Mr. Ashwell ( for WDC ) "...I believe the price may be a little higher than your Honour recollected now." Judge Kennedy "Yes. It is probably £20 a throw now". Mr Ashwell "It is not the Local Authority's policy or duty to spend money of that sort." The sums spent on senior officer's wives foreign holidays were conveniently ignored.
Photographs.“Failure to marshal the facts”. WD/96/0043LU inquiry.
IMK "We quite often use access to aerial photography in different forms".
CMH "At Hackhurst Lane, not only did you get aerial photographs, you also got one of adjoining land as a joke?"
11/9/98 IMK to James Sturcke of the Courier ( before the tape recording was released ). “To my knowledge no aerial photograph was shown to the inquiry by the council. We would not go looking for one in a case of this kind [ a Certificate of Lawfulness ] because the onus is on the appellant to prove the land use. We do not have to disprove it”.
However, after the tape recording of IMK's cross examination over an aerial photograph was released, in his letter of 30/11/2001 AJB said to CMH headed “ Allegation of Planning “Fraud / Perjury”: However, since he was not a party to obtaining it, [ the aerial photograph ], he was not able to recall the precise date when it had been taken and, therefore, did not feel in a confident position during his cross examination to dispute your view that it was “1986 or thereabouts” and to confirm to the Inspector the date when it was obtained”.
So, after release of the tape we have an admission that there was an aerial photograph and a cross examination. Mr Brown pretends in his letter of collusion that if you send your side kick off to obtain a stereoscopic colour enlargement of one of your library photographs, you are not “ not a party to obtaining it”. Or should we believe the risible alternative that Miss Spice went out on her own initiative to obtain it? At her own expense? In ignorance of the fact that barrister Sasha White had recommended WDC obtain “third party independent evidence”? If IMK had not employed a defaced version of this enlargement then he would have been “confident …...during his cross examination to confirm to the Inspector the date when it was obtained” on the day. And should we believe that a junior planning officer with her career and reference on the line would delete the three hand written references she had carefully inscribed on the original enlargement and copy off a monochrome false instrument leaving it devoid of a Section 47 copyright stamp? I don't think so. Perhaps we should ask her?
Why the Council went looking for the aerial photograph on file WD/96/0043/LU.
3/11/98 Strategic Planning & Economic Development Committee. Item No. 5(4) on the Agenda.
“AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY OF DISTRICT. REQUEST TO PARTICIPATE IN GROUP PURCHASE OF COUNTYWIDE SURVEY.
1 The Council currently holds a set of stereoscopic prints from 1987. As needed these are viewed using a stereoscopic viewer, and enlargements are obtained when needed for specific purposes such as appeals and exhibitions.
5 Members will be aware of the value of up to date vertical aerial photographs of the District in connection with a number of areas of work. These particularly include consideration of applications for Certificates of Lawfulness, in which cases, such photography can be invaluable in establishing facts of the case.”
Non disclosure of photographs.
On 18/8/96 CMH saw a barrister's opinion on file WD/96/0043/LU. The barrister had been supplied with terrestrial photographs taken by either IMK or Miss J Spice on their site visit in July 1996. The barrister based some of his comments on those photographs which have never been on the file and WDC have refused ( despite multiple requests ) to supply them to the landowner. All information used in the acquisition of a Certificate of Lawful Use has to be retained by law, and the reason is “terribly simple”. Lawful Use consents are the only ones that can be revoked without compensation. That can happen if they were granted on false information. The case law is L.B. Brent vs. Hetherton & Durham relating to a LU at 67 Church Lane, Kingsbury.
Contempt for Copyright Agreements – overt.
A document headed “Mandatory Copyright Agreement.” read “ I, David Phillips, Acting for WDC Agree that all photographic material taken of the land & buildings at / or of XXXX Farm, aerial or otherwise is subject to the copyright agreement below, to wit, No photograph of the premises may be produced, reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means or otherwise without written permission of the owner of XXX Farm.” To which a note initialled by “DP” has been added which reads “This is NOT worth the paper it is written on - Mr. Y present and advised of this, as was Mr. Z DP 30/...”. Mr. Y was a serving WDC councillor and Mr. Z was an ex WDC councillor.
If the proper protocol was followed there will be a copy of this in WDC's files.
Contempt for Copyright Agreements – covert #1 .
When IMK produced a dereferenced false instrument at CMH's Lawful Use Inquiry in September 1997 it did not bear the stamp “This copy has been made by or with the authority of Wealden District Council pursuant to Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright the copy must not be copied without the permission of the copyright holder”. Had proper protocol been followed that would have let in the wet and scuppered IMK's argument.
Contempt for Copyright Agreements – covert #2.
A reproduction of NJK's affidavit dated 9/4/97.
1 I Nelson J Kruschandl of Oakwood, Lime Park, Herstmonceux in the County of East Sussex do solemnly and sincerely declare as follows:-
2 I filed a planning application on the 10th August 1995 with Wealden District Council.
3 During the determination of the application Mr J D Moss signed an Agreement of Copyright ownership under which I allowed him to take photographs strictly for use in determining that application.
4 The Agreement was dated the 14th September 1995 ( 14-9-95 ) and was co-signed by Mr R Thornley.
5 Under the terms of the Agreement Mr Moss was to return all of the photographic material within 14 days.
6 I wrote to Mr Moss on the 24th October 1995 giving Notice to return all of the photographic material.
7 Mr Moss replied by letter on the 26th October 1995 . In this letter he stated that he enclosed all of the photographic material secured on the site visit on the 14th September 1995 and that he posted the letter, photographs and negatives by first class recorded delivery to secure compliance with the terms of the Copyright Agreement.
8 A visit was paid to the Oakwood site under warrant by David Phillips and others on the 22nd February 1996. Mr Phillips and others took photographs during this visit. Mr Phillips is the Chief Enforcement Officer at Wealden District Council. Mr Moss is a senior Planning Officer.
9 Later on the 29th April 1996 Mr Phillips swore an Affidavit on oath concerning the visit in February 1996. In this Affidavit Mr Phillips included photographs as exhibits “DLP2”. Mr. Phillips asserts that the photographs were taken on his site visit of 22nd February 1996.
10 Two of the photographs in the Exhibit marked “DLP2” are identical to and were actually taken on the site visit by Mr Moss in September 1995, some five months earlier. It is my considered opinion that Mr Phillips used these photographs in an attempt to distort the evidence and obtain a committal sentence for contempt of court.
11 At the very least Mr Phillips perjured himself by saying that the photographs were taken on his site visit.
12 I am disturbed that a high ranking Wealden Council official should twist the evidence in this way. Had Mr Phillips been successful I could have been deprived of my liberty.
13 I am now at the stage where I cannot trust the local authority. Quite simply, these photographs should not have been in the possession of any person at Wealden District Council after Mr Moss claimed he had returned them.
14 At least two officers in the local authority have been caught red handed. I have additional evidence concerning the legal services department where Mrs Christine Nuttall supplied evidence to the High Court under oath on 12th June 1995, which is provably incorrect.
15 Mrs Nuttall's evidence left out buildings known to be on the site. The evidence submitted to the Crown by was of a plan was put together with misleading reference numbers suggesting that an enforcement notice covered more area that it actually did. On that occasion the actual enforcement notice was also smudged so as to appear to cover a larger area and to match the later enlarged insets.
16 No explanation was given to the Judge ( Justice Previte ) concerning lawful developments which may have occurred and it was asked of Justice Previte to expand Injunctive Relief over and above that area of the enforcement notice on the grounds that it would not prejudice my case. In fact that decision deprived me of a home and forced me to purchase a caravan for my accommodation – which in my view has materially prejudiced my case.
17 Additionally, technicalities were placed in my path to appeal by seeking a final Order. This tactic effectively prevents anyone but the very rich ever gaining justice in Courts of the land.
18 All of the above leads me to suspect that Wealden District Council regularly alter or omit evidence as it suits their case. Whereas I believe that a local authority owes a duty of care to committee members and the general public, to produce a full and complete picture in all matters planning or otherwise so as to obtain a proper outcome.
19 I am also of the opinion that if a council officer has been found guilty of altering or in any way shaping evidence so as to influence the outcome of a case, then that or those officers should be barred henceforth from acting in such position of power or seeking similar positions of power elsewhere.
20 I make this Solemn Declaration conscientiously believing the same to be true by virtue of the provisions of the Statutory Declarations Act 1835 and I attach copies of the correspondence cited as exhibits”.
Declared by the above named Nelson Kruschandl at Hailsham in the County of East Sussex this 9th day of April 1997 before me *** Solicitor or Commissioner of Oaths.
Contempt for Section 117 of the Local Government Act 1972.
7 of the 10 columns along line 71 of the Register of Interests and General Disclosures have been partially obliterated with Tipp-Ex ( thereby obscuring the declaration of an honest Councillor ) and a retrospective declaration has been superimposed and signed off by a different witnessing officer. All this was done after IMK, ADPO, had commentated on his father in law's planning application and was intending to retrospectively complete the protocol. The Register can be viewed by appointment with the proper officer Alison.Brook@wealden.gov.uk.
Contempt expressed for another professional via a snide remark.
On WD/87/2089 fiche 1/4, a planning professional ( D J B Evison BA, MSc, Dip TP, ARICS, MRTPI firstname.lastname@example.org ) was introducing himself and his qualifications at the commencement of an inquiry statement. He said “I have extensive experience of planning appeals and Public Inquiries.” The snide remark “and losing them!” has been added.
Contempt expressed for a correspondent via a snide remark .
On the WD/90/3572 file a letter dated 1/12/97 outlining the “Chatham” disamenity argument relating to the alignment of a new road, contained a line that was modified by a Post-It note to read :- “In fact, do you have anything to say whatever in” “Get Lost!!”. Emulsion photograph available. The Chief Executive Derek Holness conducted an inquiry into who was the author which was inconclusive.
Contempt for a critic.
On WD/02/0892 Solicitor Scarpa, replies to Cllr. John Blake MRTPI, and says “Mr Hudson does like to recycle his old false allegations now and again in the hope that someone might believe them to be true”.
Waste of Public Resources – Spectrum “Failure to marshal the facts”.
When WD/1995/2908 was being processed CMH suggested in conversation to IMK that BP's traffic figures were an under-estimate, and the way of verifying them would be via a strip counter across the road. His reply was that it would be a “waste of public resources”. ( The entertainment of six senior officer's spouses at public expense on the continent previously was not however considered to be a waste of public resources ).
An exact re-run of this scenario had occurred in 1981 when BP put in their traffic estimates for WD/1981/1898. They were an obvious under-estimate. CMH commissioned his own survey employing Mark Clements, ( Dr. ) Jan Ringnalda and himself. The results were sent to WDC and the County Engineer. Because they were so alarming, the Chairman of the Highways and Transportation Committee J R Preddy corresponded with the Chairman of the APS in these terms:- “Dear Cllr. Sutton, DEVELOPMENT AT BRIDGE POULTRY FARM 18/12/81. I am satisfied that the Highway Authority has so far done all it reasonably could in the light of information that has been received. However, further information has come to light which indicates that the figures presented by the applicant regarding the number and size of vehicles using the access may not be correct; if, after further investigation, these figures do prove that there would be a material increase in the amount of traffic generated by either of the proposals before your Sub Committee, I would be bound to to instruct the County Engineer to direct on behalf of the Highway Authority that permission be refused unless the required improvements to the access by the the applicant could be achieved”.
The figures were correct, but Mrs. Thatcher was about to take away the County Engineer's power to “Direct a Refusal”, so the talking continued until the power had been lost.
Loss of documents.
WD/77/1449 Re-run. On 14/7/81 CMH asked Julius Weeks R.I.B.A. to submit an application to WDC for the WD/77/1449 development as built ( because it was not in accordance with the approved plans ) “as to whether or not the poultry processing plant and access road will receive Town & Country Planning Consent without the provision of a visibility splay to the main road”. WDC accepted the application, cashed CMH's cheque for £120 via the National Westminster Bank, Hailsham on 17/7/81, refused to register the application and returned a refund saying that the application “did not constitute development”. Analysis within the Ombudsman's report INV/399/S/80 suggested that it did. They now claim to have no knowledge of this application. However, the original copy correspondence with the agent's signature in ink still exists in addition to the original cancelled fee cheque.
Subsequently, WDC obtained Counsel's opinion, who advised it could be argued that “the whole development had been carried out without planning permission because the development did not conform to the plans submitted with the application which were incorporated in the permission”. ( CHH to WDC Ref RPH/epg/WD/84/0557 30/5/84 ). They went on to say “A period of 4 years has now elapsed since the erection of the building ….No further action is now possible with regard to these matters”. The purpose of spending money on Counsel's opinion too late, and declining to process the application he suggested within the time limit seems obscure unless the deliberate intention was to set up the enforcement process to fail and squander ratepayers funds.
Suppression of information. Ombudsman report INV/399/S/80 dated 21/4/1981.
Instead of cutting and pasting a standard condition for WD/77/1449/X which would have achieved proper planning control and consolidated the committee's requirement for an entrance improvement, ( which should have read :- “The access and visibility splays indicated on the submitted plan shall be laid out to the satisfaction of the local Highway Authority before the development commences and the visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to the visibility of vehicles entering and leaving the site to the satisfaction of the local Highway Authority” ( as used on approval K/73/3086, 30/4/74, ( curiously the distribution schedule has a line through “IMK” which rather suggests that Mr Kay was aware of the correct vocabulary ))), the commentating officer “failed to advise” the Committee of the requirement for this established vocabulary and applied a novel, unique, unenforceable and ultra vires condition which read :-
“A new hedge shall be planted within one year of the commencement of development behind the visibility splay to the south of the access to the satisfaction of the District Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that the development does not prejudice the appearance of the locality”, instead of employing an enforceable Grampian condition
It is conspicuous that WDC usurped the position of the “ local Highway Authority” and awarded the responsibility of monitoring the situation to themselves.
There was a subsequent report to the APS ( ref 80C/09APS6-CS76 ) which suggested that the condition had been “poorly drafted”.
The matter remains unresolved after 15,213 days. The Ombudsman, Baroness Serota, commented on page 5 of her report at paragraph 12 that “Counsel said that the case illustrated the care with which planning conditions should be drafted”. She did not investigate whether money had changed hands.
Certain planning applications are on two sets of microfiches and they are not identical. One version of application WD/87/3194 has two letters on it (one from IMK to K D T Tomlinson plus a reply ) whereas the other set does not.
WD/95/2908 is dual fiched. A non digital photograph exists of both the 6/6 microfiches side by side displayed on a newspaper header.
Two individuals together saw two files side by side for the same development simultaneously after they had been given the wrong file, abstracted some photocopies, and then a female planning officer came down with another file ( for the same development ) and said – you should be looking at this one. They do not wish to give evidence, because they feel that it would prejudice their future development opportunities.
NJK went in to view a SH file one day and saw a confidential letter on it from David Phillips to Christopher Lethem at Butters Oleum, solicitors in Bexhill. Then a receptionist appeared and pestered him for the file.
Interference with communications to Councillors #1.
Information that runs contrary to the official narrative is very tightly controlled.
Lawrie Trill owns the RAMSLA site on eastern side of marsh road running north from Pevensey. WDC mounted a spurious enforcement. Enforcement solicitor Geoff Johnson took correspondence addressed to Councillors out of WDC's internal mail contrary to the Representation of the People Act without telling him. At the decision meeting itself, papers put in every Councillor's place by NJK were collected up by Geoff Johnson the Enforcement solicitor.
Article 8 of The European Court of Human Rights reads thus:-
“Everyone has the right to respect for his private ….life …. and his correspondence.
2 There shall be no interference by a a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or the protection of rights or freedoms of others”.
Everyone except Lawrie Trill it seems.
Interference with communications to Councillors #2.
On 9/12/98 CMH attempted to put in the place of every Councillor a pantomime based on IMK's cross examination at the Stream Farm Lawful Use ( WD/96/0043/LU ) inquiry, and the tape recording of that cross examination, wrapped up in Christmas paper and tied with a red bow. His mission was obstructed by Reg, the factotum at Pine Grove, who came round with a basket collecting up these gifts. Since the executive had not been included in the distribution it is unclear as to how they knew what the packages contained. Subsequently, a letter was received from Martyn Garrett, the Member Services Manager dated 11/12/98. It commenced “Prior to the commencement of last Wednesday's Council Meeting I had to caution you against distributing material to Councillors in the Council Chamber, Crowborough. This is the second time this has happened in the last 18 months and following the first incident I was instructed by Councillors to ensure that only official papers were tabled on the day of the meeting. That instruction still applies and I would therefore ask you again to stop this practise. …... You should not therefore leave the public area to approach Members in the main area of the chamber even if it is simply to hand them a letter.”
Crossing “the main area of the chamber...simply to hand them a letter” is precisely what CMH had to do on 20/8/91 ( q.v. ) in order to supply Cllr. Moore with the information that neither IMK nor solicitor Scarpa were prepared to supply to the committee during the discussion.
Covert vindictiveness. Employment of a patsy #1.
When AH was arraigned in Eastbourne Magistrates Court she asked her neighbour, David Hardinge why he had made a complaint about her. He said he had not. When she pointed out to him his statement where he had made a complaint, she re-asked the question. Back came the reply “Because the District Council asked me to in order to help them out”.
Covert vindictiveness. Employment of a patsy #2.
“So that they ( WDC ) could gain redress against the claimant after he reported WDC to the Audit Commission for possible planning fraud”. At the trial of claim no TN200438. Boundary dispute. Excerpt from correspondence from Christopher Heron to another solicitor. “Joint Expert Witness Carl Calvert which proved that your clients had moved the fence and lied about it”. ….The circumstantial evidence indicates that it is likely that Mr. Sisley ( Counsel ), your firm and the defendants were all fully aware of Mrs. Haig McVitty's taping of the trial and you were all guilty of contempt of Court. We request your comments in this regard”. The letter continues:- “Ann Haig McVitty also admitted in Court on the 1st August, 2003 that she had been liaising with WDC Councillor Kirkpatrick and Jeffrey Johnson, solicitor for WDC. It is, therefore, open to question whether Ann Haig McVitty was intending to use the audio tapes to gain her own redress against the Claimant or whether she was handing over the tapes to WDC so that they could gain redress against the Claimant after he reported WDC to the Audit Commission for possible planning fraud. We request you confirm whether this is the case; and whether it is the case that Ann Haig McVitty, who lives in Crowborough where WDC is based, was in fact passing her audio tapes of trial to WDC for transcription and other purposes”.
Covert vindictiveness. Employment of a patsy #3.
During CMH's Lawful Use application, Harold George Wells sent in a letter containing rebuttal evidence. Then, a colour, stereoscopic enlargement of an aerial photograph ( owned by, and kept in-house by, WDC ), triple referenced by Joanna C Spice was put on file ( in response to a barrister's recommendation ) and this photograph conflicted with Mr Wells's assertions. So, for the purpose of procuring their preferred outcome, that photograph was removed from the Lawful Use file after it had been used in an assessment of, and downward revision of, the plan, and a defaced substitute introduced temporarily for the duration of the inquiry in September 1997. Immediately prior to that inquiry Mr Wells's evidence was adjusted to become an affidavit, and the cause of the evidence shift was undemonstrable because the triple referenced “third party independent evidence” triple referenced by Miss Spice had disappeared. Mr Wells chose not to give evidence at the inquiry and render himself available to be cross examined. Mercifully the colour enlargement re-appeared when it could be of no use to the Inspector ( and could not be used to rebut a claim for £5,779.95p costs ) on 21/1/99 c. 16.55 hrs. Thereafter, IMK explained this anomaly to Cllr. Edwin Rice and CMH . ( A compact disc of discussion may possibly be available ).
The evidence was delivered to SP at George Street, Hailsham together with a tape recording on 10/3/98 and a receipt obtained. The matter was investigated by Detective Sergeant Keith Lindsay ( E42-5942-99) and his finding ( of no crime ) was signed off by DI James Torbert, who subsequently stole a bottle of wine from M&S in Portslade in September 2008 ( together with Chief Inspector Sharon Rowe ) and then hanged himself. Sharon Rowe was promoted to Deputy Chief Constable of Greater Manchester. JH, in his letter to SP & Crime Panel, dated 10/4/17, on page 11/24, states that DI Torbert was also involved in the cultivation and marketing of cannabis at Summersales Farm, Crowborough
Distribution of material harvested by WDC supplied to a proxy.
When Mr *** and George Herbert Day of Castrum Lodge ( q.v. ) were litigating, Mr *** saw material contributed by WDC in Mr Day's bundle during an adjournment. Mr Day's stepdaughter Hazel confirmed that Mr Day was a Freemason during an adjournment in the Crown Court trial R. vs. Day.
Distribution of erroneous information to a third party presumably calculated to reduce an income stream.
When David Pursglove and his barrister were invited in to have a supposedly recorded chat with the Benefits Agency under caution, he found WDC had provided them with erroneous information. After a six month wait they acknowledged they had no concerns. The promised recording never materialised.
Distribution of erroneous information to a third party calculated to reduce a rental income stream.
“NJK had a house in Polegate. He'd split up with his then wife and was
living in Herstmonceux. When Mrs Kruschandl surrendered their home to the Building Society without NJK's permission some years after the Black Monday (1987) crash - in negative equity - he was forced to recover the situation
with an injunction restraining the Society and soon to be ex wife from
taking away his rights under the Matrimonial Causes Act.
He could not afford the mortgage, so he rented out the property. WDC's solicitor Mrs
Nuttall phoned up his ex-wife to ask if she had consented to NJK renting
the house out, but that was none of her concern. He held the property
as husband and was entitled to rent it out to service the mortgage. Any
agreement between the ex-wife and NJK was and is not for a third
party to interfere with. Especially a solicitor.
The way it works is that the tenant is the one entitled to housing
benefit. Who owns the property and is entitled to rents is not usually
something for a council to look at, except where fraud is suspected. NJK
had a court order in his favour - so he was of course entitled to all the
usual rights of a property owner, including the right to rent.
NJK's tenants were a family with children, unwilling (as most people are)
to take on a council, though entitled to legal aid, leaving NJK with
little option but to give them notice. He sorted out another
arrangement for another year, until positive equity was established as part of the economic recovery.
At that point he transferred his interest in the property to the ex-wife,
effectively handing her about £15k as a parting present. He had saved her from bankruptcy of course, where negative equity is recovered from both persons on the title deeds.”
Introduction of fictitious vocabulary into a resolution #1.
Officers removed permitted development rights when they issued a consent on Reynauds, TN21 8XG when no such removal had been authorised by the committee.
Introduction of fictitious vocabulary into a resolution #2.
The Committee voted to “defer” enforcement action on Snaefell Barn, Rickney ( 29/4/97 ). The officers recorded that as “defer for one month”.
Introduction of fictitious vocabulary into a resolution #3.
In January 1996 the committee voted for a “full” record of Previous Planning History on applications WD/95/2908 & WD/95/3352. That was recorded by the executive as “fuller”. The fuller history excluded items previously included. An original letter from Robin Johnson who proposed the vote exists.
Introduction of fictitious vocabulary into a draft Section 106 agreement.
9/7/97 “APS considered the resulting amended plans in May 1995 and voted almost unanimously in favour of my application, adjourning the matter so I could enter into a Section 106 agreement with the Council …... Planning officers, in complete disregard of the APS resolution, then added a further restriction in the draft Section 106 Agreement which would have prevented me from using the farmhouse for any activity incidental to the farming business”. The nub of successful
mbudsman investigation INV/95/A/3751.
Can't recall #1.
Extract from statement by NJK Jan 2001 page 39.
“When it became apparent to the archaeological establishment I was not being assisted [ by ] the Council as I should, the Sussex Heritage Trust ( SHT ) offered to act as a go between. Mr Brian Miles, a consultant architect, visited the site and said that there were two possible uses for the building, commercial and residential. …... Unfortunately, Mr Black ( the Council ) declined the suggestion that SHT should mediate. Later, the Council were to suggest that delays to finding a viable use were my fault for not seeking professional assistance. A convenient lapse of memory on their part, when this Council employed the SHT in a professional capacity to compile their own “buildings at risk” database.”
Can't recall #2.
Colin William Sage ( of 44 Courtney Way, Kingswood, S. Glos ) from the Planning Inspectorate rang WDC on 16/11/90 chasing WDC for a late document for appeal APP/C1435/A/97/284830. WDC could not recall the conversation, whereas Mr Sage could, and was able to produce his memo six years later. Mr Sage rang WDC again in January of 1991. WDC could not recall it, and although he could not produce his second memo, Mr Sage was prepared to confirm his second conversation in writing.
Can't recall #3.
Mr Scarpa continued to nurse the lie in correspondence on 19/4/01 when he stated “I do not recall saying that there was a weight limits [ sic ] in the tunnel”. Affidavit relating to weight limit sworn on 8/5/2001 and receipt acknowledged by V Scarpa on 18/5/2001.
Can't recall #4.
By letter dated 3/5/01 Mr Scarpa stated that he “had spoken to Mr Kay and he too does not recall that evidence was given of the existence of a weight limit limiting the size of vehicles”. Affidavit relating to weight limit sworn on 8/5/2001 and receipt acknowledged by V Scarpa on 18/5/2001.
Can't recall #5.
19/11/1998 WDC to CMH. IMK "did not recall making reference to any aerial photograph as part of the Council's case at the Inquiry, nor did he recall any cross examination by you or the Inspector relating to such a photograph." Compact disc of cross examination available.
Can't recall #6.
“Mr Scarpa could not remember on August 20th that which he had written on July 4th “. Affidavit sworn 25/4/97.
Phantom recall ( uncorroborated by 20 members )?
When corresponding in semi secret with Cllr. J Blake ( WD/02/0892 mf 1/4 ), Ashley Brown DPO said many years later that he “personally recalled” that IMK had not been involved “in reporting” on his father in law's planning application on 8/12/87. Unfortunately Mr. Brown's name is not in the minutes, so clearly 20 members did not recall him being in that meeting just one month later.
Late service of Rule 6 statements – spectrum of inconsistency.
Zero hours Notice.
Inspector Johnson commenting about WDC's withholding of evidence at an enforcement appeal over land at Goldings Corner, Three Cups, nr. Heathfield, TN21 9RE.
"Their refusal to submit a statement of case in response to your client's appeal, in breach of procedural requirements, is an important aspect of their unreasonable approach to this case. In the absence of such a statement, the decision in this case was hampered, not least because there was no fully reasoned argument from them as to why they did not consider the new access to be permitted development".
The individual targeted was a petitioner to Lord Newton's panel.
16 hours notice.
Ken ( now deceased ) & Irene Kates, formerly of Cadence, north of B2096, Punnetts Town. “As litigation had exhausted our funds, we were left to represent ourselves at the local plan inquiry on 5th October 1990. We feel that the process was biased against us as Wealden had the advantage of having our detailed proposals for a new housing framework for a year or more, yet they only posted their Objection SW 174 on the 3rd. October 1990, luckily arriving at Cadence on the 4th. As we got home from business at 7pm it was impossible to read, digest and prepare a typewritten defence which next day at 11 am was demanded as part of the system, by the D. of E. Inspector. As a result of this procedure at least eight inaccuracies in Objection SW 174 went unchallenged”. Upon ringing the D. of E. Mr. Kates found that they had received their copy from WDC 8 weeks previously.
According to Inspector Vickery ( q.v. ) the rules were changed in 1988 so it looks as though the late service of this Rule 6 statement was quite deliberate.
2 days notice & “how local agents operate”.
Supplying the statement 2 days before. Bushywood appeal commencing 2/12/97. Delivered by hand by IMK to Stream Farm where Mr. & Mrs. Punter were staying. Senior Inspector Vickery took WDC to task over this perversion at the inquiry. CMH produced an affidavit of Inspector Vickery's comments by recording his exact vocabulary. The affidavit was sent to WDC and is now accepted by their acquiescence. Mr Vickery said :-
“Mr. Scarpa, I am very concerned about your statement to me that your Council habitually relies upon exchange of proofs, I wonder if you could look in the Planning Encyclopedia and point me to the particular section in the Inquiry Procedure Rules that countenances such a procedure?”
Scarpa “I, I appreciate it isn't referred to in the, the rules, but that is how local agents operate....on the basis that they don't wish to disclose...”
Inspector Vickery "..Can I just say for the benefit of people who don't know that, prior to 1988 what Mr. Scarpa is describing actually happened, which is that proofs of evidence were exchanged, sometimes at the last moment, between Council and Appellants. It was found that this made inquiries difficult to handle and Inspectors were faced on the morning of the inquiry with documents such as this, which made their task, and that is after all what the inquiry is about, to help the Inspector to come to a fair decision on the proposals, it made their task very difficult in the time if not impossible. So in 1988 the Inquiry Procedures Rules were ... changed, in order to outlaw the practice of exchange of proofs of evidence and instead proofs of evidence were required to be exchanged three weeks before the date of the inquiry irrespective of whether or not ..the opposing side had sent their Proof of Evidence in. Failure to do that could open the Council or the appellant to an award of costs. I feel that the Council has
acted wrongly, and irresponsibly, and I would have expected better of them as professionals, I would have expected them to comply with the Inquiry Procedures Rules and to have ensured that both myself and the appellants had Proof of Evidence, and the appendices, in advance, as required by the Inquiries Procedures Rules, I am very concerned to hear from Mr Scarpa that some nine years after the rules have been changed the Council are still habitually using the old rule. This is wrong, it should not happen, and I will be making a report into the matter to my superiors at the Inspectorate after the Inquiry has closed....."
So 9 years after the rule change, Wealden still had not quite got the hang of it because the appellant had only "got the appendices yesterday."
6 days notice.
Supplying the statement 6 days before, ( 3 of which were Bank Holidays ). Frank Wood of Jades Farm, Horney Common, Nutley, took on WDC singlehanded in the High Court before Lord Denning and won. Then he applied for a development on his mother's behalf at Craigmore Hall, Crowborough Hill, Jarvis Brook. Four councillors swore affidavits about the exclusion of relevant material and inclusion of irrelevant material in the report ( which was his challenge about a bill of costs for an earlier inquiry ). He was disadvantaged by the late service of the Rule 6 statement that gave him 3 working days to check out WDC's case AND get an affidavit sworn by his elderly mother ( four Councillors swore affidavits in protest )).
Given the current information abstraction protocol a researcher would currently lose at least another day out of the 3 allowed to Mr Wood.
Malice. Manipulation, partiality and discrimination in the delivery of a Rule 6 statement to advantage an applicant and disadvantage an appellant.
This is the transcript of an affidavit sworn by Lee Chappell on 15/9/97. “I, Lee Chappell, of Longmore Cottage, Bosham Hoe, Chichester in the County of Sussex make Oath and say as follows:
In October 1990 Mr. Wood agreed to give me an option to purchase the land leading from Cornford Close to the Fairfield site in Crowborough, East Sussex. The purpose behind this was to protect my interests in owning the covenants which control the access to the land and the Fairfield site. Mr. Wood advised me not to submit my application on White Gates and part of Craigmore Hall. I replied that Mr. Kay had advised me that my application would proceed quickly. Furthermore Mr. Kay said that on the question of Mr. Wood's appeal, he would hold back the Rule 6 statement until two or three days before the enquiry.”
Malice. Manipulating the delivery of enforcement notices to maximise stress and inconvenience.
Extract from claim HQ02X00013 Brian Goodacre vs. WDC before Master Leslie in the High Court on 7/8/2002. This text is Master Leslie's summary.
5. “. …...the Wealden District Council were extraordinarily active in trying to stop Mr. Goodacre using his land for unauthorised purposes. In May 1998 and August 1999, they served three enforcement notices under Section 172 and 171(a) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990, as amended, requiring Mr. Goodacre to get rid of a caravan, to stop storing building and other waste materials on the land and remove them and demolish two buildings that were on the land. Mr. Goodacre appealed against those enforcement notices as far as the High Court in all three cases but he was unsuccessful. The last such appeal being dismissed on 2nd October 1990.
6. On 14th June 2001, the defendants wrote to Mr. Goodacre telling him that they were going to come onto the land and exercise their rights and powers under the Act. That they would seize any items,that they would hold those items for three days and then sell them unless Mr. Goodacre paid the defendants their costs,which at that stage were estimated to be just short of £13,000.
7. It must be remembered that these enforcement notices were, in one case, three years old and in other cases, nearly two years old. Mr. Goodacre was told that they were going to enforce them on 14th June. No notice was given as to when they were going to do so, although WDC, by their counsel, Miss Lindsay, submit correctly that they were not obliged to give any notice, but they chose to. However, they did not actually post it until 19th June and they posted it then second class, so it did not arrive, I think, until 22nd or 23rd June, which was the Friday before they started clearing the site on 25th June 2001.
8. I have said already that I think this is absolutely outrageous. It is writing in water what admittedly does not have to be written at all. But in order to preserve good relations and to try to make things work properly, one would have thought proper notice would have been given of at least 14 days, given the fact that these notices were themselves so old. But there we are, they were not.”
Curiously, according to the P200 recharge in the accounts, WDC had spent £1,085 on advice for Greenwood Farm in the charge period 1/4/01 – 30/6/01 ( item MG422 ), so it would be interesting to know if they were given bad advice or ignored good advice.
Malice. Manipulating the delivery of enforcement notices to maximise stress and inconvenience.
Bushywood animal sanctuary.
“Evidence of the uses permitted is clearly outlined by a combination of a letter from the council dated 13/1/81 concerning permitted development and withdrawal of an enforcement notice , and the Inspectors report dated 28/6/84. The council's enforcement team consistently offered poor planning advice to Mr & Mrs Punter. During a series of negotiations between enforcement officers they were firstly talked into selling one mobile home, then later advised by councillors that if they disposed of the other, that a kinder appraisal would be given to continuation of the animal sanctuary. All of this advice was detrimental, for the simple reason that you cannot have an animal sanctuary without someone being on site permanently. It is a pre-condition of operation of an animal sanctuary.
Enforcement notices were served against the mobile home use and the animal quarters, in a most unreasonable fashion, by leaving on a muddy step while the Punter's were away on holiday in Scotland. The council then refused to allow a one day extension for an appeal lodged late, to be accepted.
Instead of allowing the late appeal, a planning application was invited and accepted. Three days before it was due to be heard [compare and contrast Aysgarth Farm ], in a surprise morning raid, the buildings were demolished [ by Best Demolition ]. The applicants were thus deprived the opportunity of the application being seen by councillors. The buildings were destroyed despite the fact that only the use as an animal sanctuary was in question, not the use of the buildings for other purposes. The destruction was thus unlawful, a resulting criminal damage. The officers proceeded under delegated powers without the knowledge of the councillors.”
There was however some good news. IMK appeared on television that evening reassuring us that the material had gone to re-cycling. However, a parish councillor whose testimony was confirmed in November 2019 followed one Best Demolition lorry load into the Arlington tip, ( which was not re-cycling ). Others may possibly have followed.
Manipulating the enforcement process to procure real estate for cronies.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“…...I allege that Enforcement Notices are served and / or added to in order to procure goods free of charge or at a fraction of their value for selected third parties.
Finally, I allege that the contractors selected by officers to carry out direct action are paid far in excess of their normal rates by W.D.C. ( the monies are then reclaimed from the owner of the land / goods enforced on ) which leads me to believe that officers are taking a kick back from the contractors in cash or in kind.
I believe that I have been a victim of these corrupt practices & I subsequently suffered severe harassment when I became a whistle blower and encouraged other victims to do the same. I believe that in 1992 after W.D.C. took enforcement action against his “change of use” of Blackbarn Farm buildings Mr. David Anscombe instructed Donne Mileham & Haddock of Lewes to act for him in planning matters. Their the planning solicitor was an ex W.D.C. man Mr. Geoff Johnson. He later returned to W.D.C. as enforcement solicitor. I believe that Mr. Anscombe sought advice on how to maximise the value of Blackbarn ( since the Enforcement required him to cease conducting his business in the buildings ) & how to ensure that the new business premises he was buying would have no planning problems.
I believe that Mr. Anscombe purchased an assurance from W.D.C. that if he harassed us ( his tenants at Blackbarn Farm bungalow ) that W.D.C. would not prosecute him or serve a notice on him to repair the damage he did to our home ( i.e. not to take action under the Protection from Eviction Act 1977 ) as was their duty.
I believe Mr. Anscombe purchased an assurance from W.D.C. that when he bought a new business premises that there would be no problem with him knocking down all existing buildings & replacing them with modern commercial buildings ( in the middle of a picturesque village ).
I believe that Mr. Anscombe purchased an assurance from W.D.C. that they would abuse their powers and misuse public money to keep us too busy to pursue our civil claim against him until he had finished hiding the proceeds of his VAT fraud & various criminal activities abroad.
I believe that the £25,000 identified as a cash asset by the Court ( in the VAT assessment of assets for confiscation hearing ), which Mr. Anscombe explained away by saying it was stolen from his house in Nash Street, Lower Dicker, was in fact his slush fund. I believe he used cash, as he boasted, not only for ensuring business deals went his way, but also for buying immunity from prosecution from W.D.C. & purchased their services in setting up complaints against our business & then pursuing these trumped up complaints against their own expert advice.”
Manipulating the enforcement process to procure chattels for cronies.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“I first began to realise that Wealden officers were not naïve fools allowing themselves to be manipulated by a criminal, when they began presenting false, selective & misleading evidence to support the notices they had served on me. I saw the opportunity, while disproving such a false statement in court, of exposing publicly, information I had been given suggesting an event I had witnessed was a corrupt practice. I asked for a police officer to attend Eastbourne Magistrates Court in late 1995. D. C. Ling attended. I was appealing a notice served on me in 1994 listing items to be removed from my site under an Untidy Land Notice. W.D.C. wished to remove £1,000 worth of plumbing & drainage equipment from my site as one of the 51 items on the 1994 notice. In the presence of D. C. Ling I cross examined Mr. Pettigrew of W.D.C. Enforcement Department. I asked if that equipment was on my site in 1994. Mr. Pettigrew was unsure if it was. I asked if he would accept that W.D.C. should not remove £1,000 of my goods if they did not form part of the notice. He accepted this. I asked if he would accept that I acquired the goods in 1995 from a nearby business after the tenant had been served with an enforcement notice requiring the removal of all his goods & all the plumbing goods of the site owner within 28 days ( or they would be removed by W.D.C.& he would be charged £1,500 for the removal work ). He accepted this. I then asked if he would be surprised to learn that I was not the only farmer to benefit to the tune of £1,000 worth of free goods as a result of this other W.D.C. enforcement notice, & that I had been told that the other farmer I had seen loading up fittings and diesel tanks from the site was the son in law of one of the W.D.C. enforcement officers involved in serving the notice on that site. I asked D. C. Ling to investigate the allegation that plumbing & drainage equipment, fuel tanks and other equipment useful to a farmer had been added to an enforcement notice served on the tenant for car breaking & storage in order to acquire these goods for an enforcement officer's relative & that when the tenant ( who didn't own these goods which had been on site for years before he rented it without causing complaint ), gave half the goods to me W.D.C. tried unlawfully to add them to a notice they had served on me in order to get a second chance to acquire them.
1 I put it to D.C. Ling that W.D.C. enforcement department was abusing enforcement notice procedures to steal to order. Sussex Police declined to investigate & I have since found that it is regular practice for goods removed from sites to “go missing” or to be carefully & expensively removed with a clear view to re-sale or re-use, and then to be accounted for as “dumped but the tipping receipt is lost”. Contractors used are paid much more than their usual charges & are selected by officers as they see fit. W.D.C. have said that the favoured firm “Best Demolition” that is usually selected has no connection with the family of the same name which includes the wife of the Deputy District Planning Officer Ian Kay ( an officer regularly accused of improper practices ). I wonder...
1 A I feel that if my 1995 complaint had been investigated it might have resulted in evidence of widespread criminal corruption within W.D.C. coming to light and preventing further crimes.
Procuring a planning application fee by deception #1.
Bushywood. “Instead of allowing the late appeal, a planning application was invited and accepted. Three days before it was due to be heard, in a surprise morning raid, the buildings were demolished”.
Why invite an application if you have no intention of hearing it, or calling an emergency committee meeting to consider it?
Procuring a planning application fee by deception #2.
Extract from defence pleadings in Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves.
“During this period there was correspondence between WDC and myself, which included a specific use for the sand in conjunction with other materials to create a safe area for the covering of mares in the spring when the ground can be very slippery. I was told by Mr Bradshaw of WDC that this would require planning permission and he sent me a set of forms for this purpose. ...At a meeting between Mr Whibley, Mr Phillips, Mr Keen and Mr Bradshaw and myself on 3/12/01, held by the sand in the field, I was still protesting that the sand was not specified in the Enforcement Notices, and was not a builders material, to which Mr. Bradshaw replied that the sand would not be an issue if I had applied for planning permission to use it. This I promptly did and I telephoned Mr Bradshaw to confirm that I had done so. His comment was that it would need to be a complete and correct application to be any good and he thanked me for letting him know. It was a complete and correct application and the official Planning Notice was placed outside the farm in Ballsocks Lane on the 8th December 2001. When Best Demolition and WDC's Messrs. Phillips, Keen and Whibley arrived on 11th December without Mr Bradshaw, I was told that they were intending to remove the sand despite the Planning Notice. Having included £200 fees with the planning application I was incensed by the abuse of the Council and refused to allow the sand to be touched until Mr Bradshaw arrived on site to explain why the sand was still being taken. When he did arrive I confronted him with what he had said and he looked away and denied ever having said anything of the sort. The contractors then commenced to remove the sand”.
Manufacturing delay in order to procure an outcome. Maladministration INV/96/1478.
Millbank Farm, Hooe. A complainant complained to the Ombudsman that WDC had dragged their feet when processing a Lawful Development application for a naturist colony next door and ensured that it achieved consent via excessive delay. The Ombudsman agreed and awarded costs in favour of the complainant. Total payout £7,485.99p. There are a lot of site photographs on MF 6 of file WD/96/1123/LU ( but none on WD/96/0043/LD even though they were taken and sent to a barrister for assessment ).
Manufacturing delay in order to procure an outcome.
Judge Michael Kennedy speaking at the trial of WDC vs Eddie Russell “I am not going to decide the matter on half evidence” ….."If this is ….. all a try on and a delaying tactic? But Planning Officers either know where to get aerial photography that far back or they do not”.
Manufacturing delay in order to procure an outcome.
Extract from defence pleadings in Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves.
“The sand was, however taken to the premises of a Mr Magner...He does not have a waste/scrap license. The Council told me they would have the sand stored for three days during which, if I paid their bill for enforcement action, I would be allowed to recover it. As I have shown, I expected their bill to be substantially less than the original estimate so I waited for their invoice. They posted it after 2 days and sent it second class in the Christmas post. I received it 8 days after the enforcement by which time Mr Magner had been told he could keep the sand.”
Manufacturing delay in order to crab a sale.
“21st September 1994
I wish to sell my property, but I am unable to do so because of mis-information from your planning department.
I wrote to the planning officer on the 6th August, asking him to correct the situation.
So far, the planning department has failed to respond to my initial letter within the time indicated on the acknowledgement card, lost the correspondence, and although Mr Moram White agreed with me on the telephone that I was correct, has failed to respond in writing as requested.
I have already advised the planning department that this is costing me lost interest of £34.85 a day.
If I do not receive a written reply to my letter of 6th August by Friday 23rd September, I shall apply to the Ombudsman and claim compensation for my lost interest. If I lose the purchaser for my property, I shall claim the sale price together with all the expenses I have incurred.
To :- The Chief Executive. WDC.”
Quite clearly G. Moram White hadn't got the memo, in just that same way as he hadn't got the memo when he sat mute through Mr. Kay's commentary on his father – in law's planning application on 8/12/87 having been the case officer for the previous Sandcastle application WD/87/2089 ( and marked up the file in his own handwriting “No IK involvement please speak G.M.W. – father in law” MF 3/4 5th frame along on the top row ).
Manufacturing delay in order to procure an outcome for a crony.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“As a result of my two appeals against W.D.C.'s notices in 1996 we were awarded record damages on each count against Mr. Anscombe. However by this time, his assets had been frozen by H.M. Customs for VAT fraud. In 1996 the Local Authority Ombudsman found W.D.C. guilty of two counts of maladministration i.e. 1) Failing to require the landlord Mr. Anscombe to repair our home to a habitable condition between October 1992 & July 1995 ( for which we were awarded £1,500 against W.D.C.) and 2) failing to take proper legal advice as to whether to prosecute the for the criminal offences of harassment & attempted illegal eviction under the 1977 Protection from Eviction Act. Despite the fact that the complete illegality of everything Mr. Anscombe had done to us, where the judge ( Kennedy ) said it was the worst case of harassment he had ever seen, W.D.C. have consistently refused to even consider prosecuting Mr. Anscombe. I believe this is because such a prosecution would result in him exposing the complicity of W.D.C. officers in his hiding the proceeds of his crimes by “buying him time” with their failure to prosecute him & malicious prosecution against us. ( He could face 2 years prison if prosecuted ).
In 1996 Mr. Anscombe was jailed for VAT fraud with additional time for refusing to disclose where he had hidden his assets. During his hearing he accounted for £25,000 by saying it was stolen in cash from his house & when questioned 3 times by the Judge as to why he had bought a Victorian agricultural merchants premises in Bodle Street ( for about £100,000 ) he proceeded to demolish it apparently making it unusable & almost valueless he said because there was going to be no problem getting planning permission for new modern industrial buildings. Having discovered corrupt practice in W.D.C. I felt it my duty to do my utmost to expose the practices and get them stopped. I was contacted by others who had had similar problems & noted similar improprieties & we formed the Wealden Action Group ( W.A.G.).
In 1997 we put a a public petition with 12 signatories to the full Council asking for an independent investigation into the allegation that “W.D.C. officers use false, misleading and selective information to Committees, Courts & Inspectors in order to obtain and / or maintain the planning or enforcement result of their choice”.
As a result of this first petition ( signed by 12 people who felt they had been damaged by these practices ) being publicised in the press and on T.V., a further 30 people came forward wishing to any such independent investigation. These second petitioners mainly wanted to give evidence of decision rigging for the benefit of third parties, most had no personal involvement other than local knowledge which allowed them to realise that factual information supplied by W.D.C. officers was false or that material facts had been suppressed in order to ensure that decisions went according to officer recommendation. Lord Newton was appointed ( 12 years on the APS Committee ) along with two other councillors to assess whether there was need for an independent investigation.
Legal advice was sought by both Lord Newton and the officers. This Counsel's opinion was paid for from public funds but neither the advice given nor the advice sought was made available to the public or even to the elected Councillors. Two of the second petitioners wanted to draw attention to a series of very valuable & extra-ordinary planning permissions given to a private enterprise in which Lady Newton had an interest”.
Manufacturing delay in order to harass a victim # 1.
33 years delay.
“In 1982 a historic building just outside a little Sussex village stood rotting away bereft of beneficial use, leaning precariously in prelude to imminent collapse. The building was purchased by a local engineer who sought to restore the asset.
The local authority knew of the building but cared not to preserve or catalogue archaeological remains for fear of expense to their coffers, where a grant system at the time meant paying out to the occupier for restoration works, a person they had decided to deprive of his development and grant rights, despite it being a Human Rights violation and a dereliction of duty.
Wealden District Council embarked on a series of enforcement campaigns in denial of the facts, the aim being to ensure that their victim would not benefit from a reasonable use or their ruse discovered, assembling a core of officers who were prepared to work as a team to deceive the secretary of state at public inquiries and lie on oath to High Court judges.
They kept up the charade for the next 17 years until 1999, until a London University was commissioned by East Sussex County Council to survey the site, the Survey proving the extant archaeology. From which point on Wealden were obliged to amend their records to reflect the finding as per Local Land Charges Rules & Regulations, but declined to do so, instead seeking to charge rates as if the correction had been
made, in so doing falling foul of the Fraud Act 2006.
In an effort to destroy their victim Sussex Police groomed a vulnerable person to make a complaint of sexual assault, following the breakdown of a relationship. They managed to gain a conviction with the help of a local barrister failing to properly challenge false medical testimony, resulting in their victim being jailed for a crime
that was fictitious.
The charging of rates for a building that could not lawfully be used to benefit the occupier(s) subjected the victim to a demonstrable loss and risk of further losses.
A criminal complaint to the Magistrates Court ensued in 2019, subsequently passed to the CPS, reporting Wealden's fraud under Section 4 of the 2006 Fraud Act. This, coupled with their target helping other affected persons locally, resulted in the arrest of the victim on bogus grounds as to a charge of a malicious communication, as more of the same tactics that Sussex Police have been party to since the matter was reported as a criminal complaint to DS Keith Lindsay in 1997. When in fact the supposed 'communication' was true, in that Kara Tombling had failed to investigate a reported crime in her role as a serving police officer - hence the communication could not be deemed malicious, but rather accurate reporting that the officer had been aware of since at least 2016”
CMH has seen the defective Enforcement Report that started these shenanigans, and sent WDC an affidavit based on his observations which they lost and then subsequently declined to accept a replacement. The defect had no relevance whatever in planning terms and could only have been incorporated into this secret report in order to manufacture prejudice. It represented an abuse of office.
Extrapolating from a limited sample of audits of the P200 recharge account in the early 2000's, it is calculated that WDC's expenditure on this site is in the region of £350K. It has generated over 150 enforcement visits, and the enforcement is ongoing.
The lack of funds for restoration probably resulted from six senior officers taking their wives to France on the rates at about the same period. Convictions followed in Doncaster for similar offences ( Operation Danum ). However, SP have always refused to investigate planning fraud despite multiple complaints from different sources.
The fact that the structure would have been eligible for a grant gave WDC an interest in the outcome of the application.
The appeal dismissal that commenced this saga was authored by a Mr. Dannreuther whose family came from Battle. Apparently, both he, and the neighbour next door to the SH, Peter Gwynne Langford Townley, had served in the naval / marine armed forces during the war and Inspector Dannreuther may have failed to declare an interest.
Manufacturing delay in order to harass a victim # 2.
3 years delay.
Master Leslie extract from claim HQ02X00013.“7. It must be remembered that these enforcement notices were, in one case, three years old and in other cases, nearly two years old. Mr. Goodacre was told that they were going to enforce them on 14th June. No notice was given as to when they were going to do so,...but they chose to. However, they did not actually post it until 19th June ….second class, so it did not arrive, I think, until 22nd or 23rd June,... before they started clearing the site on 25th June 2001.”
Manufacturing delay in order to harass a victim # 3.
1.5 years delay.
Enforcement Solicitor Geoff Johnson addressing the APN in secret session.
“The notice er the letter makes clear that the owner of the site lost his appeal in August 1998. The last day for compliance was Oct 1998. The residents adjoining the property are now extremely annoyed that this is now over 15 months from that date and no action has been taken to remove the containers despite assurances from the Council. Since that time more containers have arrived on the site together with additional hardcore and rubbish. With regards to the appeal decision they point out that this is within an area of AONB. And that er the they fail to understand why the District Council continues to delay action and it seems to them that wishes of the residents in the area supported by the DOE have been ignored due to the Council’s lack of resolve to stand up to one individual who obviously feels that he is in a position …… the law. They have written on several occasions and they understand that yet another Council committee meeting – I assume that to be this one – is due to take place shortly when we hope that at last action will be taken to comply with the decision of the Inspector and the wishes of local residents. And that is signed by the the residents of three er nearby sorry four nearby properties.”
Manufacturing delay in order to harass a victim # 4.
1 years delay.
When WDC was seeking to renew an injunction against Eddie Russell of Little Hackhurst Farm, Judge Michael Kennedy was mightily unimpressed by their request to renew it after it had been unused for a year and he said :- “An injunction is a sharp sword, use it or hand it back”.
Refusal to investigate by SP #1.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“2. I suspect that public money was spent asking Counsel's opinion on how best to avoid an independent investigation and that an investigation would have exposed criminal activity on the part of some officers & considerable negligence and / or complicity among the elected Councillors. Police were asked to assist by investigating source information not available to the public or concerned elected councillors. They declined to assist any of us. Lord Newton set the remit of the three man panel so as to exclude most of the allegations & to avoid any overview that might incriminate W.D.C. There was only one interview of accusers & accused by the panel. There was no investigation, no checking of source material, no corroboration sought from contemporary witnesses ( mainly Councillors ) & no external opinion sought on the propriety or legality of officers conduct. ( All that evidence was taken from the accused ).”
Subsequently, one of the 3 man panel, Cllr. Jack Gore of Framfield, failed to declare an interest and resigned from the Council.
Refusal to investigate by SP #2.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“Within 3 months of the publication of the Panel's report, which I believed saved the officers of W.D.C. Planning Dept. from the criminal prosecutions there would have been if there had been a proper independent INVESTIGATION to discover if they were decision rigging, the short list of development sites for Sussex waste tips was finalised. Three of the four proposed new land raise sites were within a mile of each other between Golden Cross & Halland. All three were clearly unsuitable but two of the three were absolutely ridiculous.
Site One. Upwind of, and directly adjacent to, a large residential caravan site next to an airstrip & accessed by a long narrow lane from a dangerous turning off the A22.
Site Two. On a site designated ancient protected woodland with 5 separate owners, access off a blind corner off the A22 down a very narrow lane.
Site Three. Upwind ( but half a mile away ) from East Hoathly good safe road access from East Hoathly by-pass. Site owned by Lord Newton, purchased shortly after he became Chairman of W.D.C. Strategic Planning & Economic Development Committee ( S.P.E.D. ).
Lord Newton announced that he would, because of conflict of interest, stand down from the Chair of S.P.E.D at once, & would not be standing as a Councillor again when his term was up in May 1998. I 'phoned a national waste management company & discovered that the short listed sites would be worth approximately £1 million, ( & his firm was very interested ), & that depending on capacity & expenses with environmental / access requirements the site selected might eventually be worth £10m or more.
I phoned East Sussex County Council & discovered that recommendations on proposed sites were made by Local Authority Planners after suitably central areas had been identified by waste collection services.
I smelled a rat. I complained to the Police. I was put on to the Fraud Section. They were rude and refused to investigate. I contacted the Chief Constable's office. I was told to contact Chief Inspector Dennis. He asked me to document my concerns. I made a brief history that filled a file & took me ten weeks to compile.
3. The result was that the Police did not investigate. I believe that if the Police had made proper investigation of E.C.C.C files and background papers they would have found that Lord Newton's site was put forward with two no-hope sites on the recommendation of the very Planning Department he had saved from investigation a few months before, i.e. W.D.C. ..Planning Dept. ( I suspect ) set up Lord Newton's site on E.S.C.C.'s short list with every intention of recommending it in preference to the other two nearby sites when the matter came up before S.P.E.D , i.e. they were setting up a situation which succeeded in manipulating his property value up by £1m and could have increased it's value by £15m.
3 A. The result of my complaint was that I received a letter from Lord Newton objecting to my making the allegations ( he must have had a Police contact ). I persisted & completed the dossier for Chief Inspector Dennis. The Police did not investigate but Lord Newton's site was removed from the shortlist quietly before all the expensive protests caused the other two sites to be abandoned. Who organised the quiet deletion of Lord Newton's site?”
Refusal to investigate by SP #3.
CMH displayed a notice at his gate saying “Ashley Brown D.P.O. is an accessory to criminal activity within Wealden District Council”. CMH offered to revise the wording of his notice unless he received from Mr Brown answers to some specific questions relating to the production of IMK's false instrument at his Lawful Use inquiry. By way of response, D C Bebb came and interviewed CMH and issued a caution ( q.v. Shana Grice ). In an article published in “The Daily Telegraph” of 2/4/19 you will read that the Police no longer investigate fraud because it does not “bang, bleed or shout”. That view was reinforced by retired Detective Chief Inspector Mike Neville MCSFS on B.B.C. Four's “You and Yours” programme on 3/4/19 entitled “You are on your own Jack”.
Feigning ignorance of Permitted Development Rights to secure a demolition #1.
Mr P A Russell had a 17.3 HA smallholding at Pygmy Farm, Crouch Corner, Churchsettle Lane, Wadhurst and a part time job portering at Heathfield Market. He built a barn and a WDC enforcement officer David Phillips arrived. He expressed dissatisfaction with it's appearance and reappointed to view the alterations he required. He returned to view the alterations, was still unhappy and requested demolition of the structure. Mr Russell duly complied. Then some books came into the Market and Mr. Russell realised that his smallholding was entitled to a barn under permitted development rights. An application was lodged and an inexperienced female planning officer visited to agree the location. They walked the holding rejecting site after site until it was decided that the old location was the best option. The replacement barn was therefore built on the previous site but larger. The application WD/96/7028/AD under The Planning & Compensation Act 1991, Part 6 Schedule 2 was for a barn 12.2m * 9.2M * 3.5m. In answer to the question “Has an agricultural building been constructed on this site in the last 2 years?” the answer is “Yes, demolished”. WDC's and Google's year on year aerial survey photographs will confirm the sequence of these events.
Feigning ignorance of Permitted Development Rights to secure a demolition #2.
Mick & Val Punter bought Bushywood stables on the A22 from Gordon Worcester. It had been run as a stables by Dave MacInernie under a personal condition having been to appeal. At the conclusion of that appeal, the Inspector wrote to Messrs. Cutner Bond, the agent, explaining that “for the avoidance of doubt” if the use should cease that would not preclude the use of the stables for agriculture ( either cattle or draught horses ). Mrs Punter went, sometimes with a witness ( of whom a telephone conversation recording exists ), to WDC three times seeking advice, and she was given the correct advice on the second visit by a very junior officer ( Paul Lemar ), which was contradicted on the third visit. The correct advice was to put in a change of condition application ( £50 ). She put in the wrong application and WDC seized the opportunity to demolish the structures on 26/2/97 three days before the committee heard the application. WDC's helpful handbook that was available free in the foyer and indicated that planning officers would give advice was withdrawn shortly afterwards.
Feigning ignorance of permitted development rights for a utility.
In August 2000 the applicant's agent approached Eimear Murphy, a Planning Officer at WDC with regard to a change of use from an interior design business which had run on the site since 1987 to a water bottling business employing a source on the site. Ms. Murphy was all for it and explained that there was provision for it in the local plan ( on pages 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 47, 48, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 399, 400 – 403 ).
“An application to demolish a 1200 sq ft building and install a small water bottling plant was made and refused on 16/11/2000. The reasons for refusal:- “( 1 ) The site is located outside any development boundary, and that it had not been demonstrated that there was an overriding and essential need for the plant to be located in the countryside.
(2) In the absence of any overriding justification the proposal would represent an …......... and sporadic development.
(3) The proposal would result in an intensification of use of an existing access which has substandard visibility and width and which is situated close to the junction with the C26.”
No site visit was made by either a WDC Planning officer or a Highways officer. The local plan is all for economic development in the countryside. The planning application was submitted with proof that the EEC required water to be bottled at source. Additionally the change of use would dramatically reduce the number of lorries from to one 7 ton lorry per day, whereas previously there were approximately 3 lorries per day, two panel vans and up to 6 cars a day.
Puzzled by this June Gale was contacted and she said that there was no CLU on the site and without it she would not approve. On a later visit to County Hall the documents were sighted and one of these was a note from WDC officer Douglas Somerset Moss who said “No CLU, no permission”. The agent said “You do not need a CLU because you have been trading for well over ten years but perhaps we should apply for one”.
At the time as the bottling plant application was resubmitted, a request for low key evidence of ten years use plus “to supply such evidence as one could supply, this should take the form of letters from people aware of the existence of the business, also that a case officer would visit the site to discuss the project. None ever came.
Six letters were supplied, two from large companies who had delivered regularly over the last ten years, two from staff of 15 years standing and 2 from local clients of local standing. Mr. D Moss then wrote criticising every piece of evidence. Now invoices were required to provide additional proof as to ten years of trading. They were told that the statutory requirement was only 7 years so they would have known that neither our, nor any other business would keep records for 10 years.
Then it was suggested that if two or three expanded versions of the evidence submitted, and the Council's solicitors would be more prepared to accept evidence that took the form of a sworn statement. Three expanded versions were submitted and one affidavit”. [ Compare and contrast the identical modus operandi in WD/96/0043/LU ].
“During these discussions, a complete stranger put in a planning application on my property for an equestrian centre 4 times the size of the existing building without telling me”.[ Note the modus operandi, no notice served on landowner ] .
“A notice of application went on the gate 2 weeks before the committee date. Planning permission was issued within 5 weeks and then they made an offer for the property.
After almost a year, on 2/11/2000, the CLU was refused. The reason was “Insufficient detailed information had been submitted”. WDC had been given everything they asked for. Consequently, the resubmission was also recommended for refusal.
During the meeting the Chairman commented that he thought the reasons my be slightly flawed. He thought that the need to bottle at source had been demonstrated, that it did not think it would create extra traffic, and he was concerned about a potential denial of Human Rights.
One Councillor voted for deferral to find out more facts. The vote was 6:4 in favour.”
The application was subsequently refused. A solicitor was engaged and an appeal for a public inquiry lodged. At this point a visitor appeared one Saturday morning and left the text transcribed below. The WDC folded but there was no recompense for the costs incurred.
“Then there were inexplicable problems over the abstraction license. Wendy Rogers visited on 19/7/2002. Then Fergus McLintock called on 20/9/2002 to help with filling out the forms and receive payment. When the license was eventually granted it was for 11,000 litres, just over half the amount requested. After a protest and a check with the East Malling Environment Agency an inspection of the Register was suggested.
That was attempted, but Worthing had lost the Register. Upon appeal to the Secretary of State for the requested amount the Environment Agency folded and agreed to the requested amount.
WDC's officer Mr Robert Crouch called to give advice on 16/1/2003. Despite there being 5 years of stability tests, a further 2 years are demanded which is reduced to 17 months. That still amounts to a killer blow. Surrey Environmental Health say that 6 months is sufficient. A scientist at Eclipse Laboratories says it is unnecessary as it already a proven stable product and should allowed to market straight away. The FSA say that if it was down to them two years would be sufficient, but the final word is “At the discretion of the Local Authority”.
The reason WDC gave was that one ingredient of the water was outside the parameter for stability, however, it was not a required item for testing in the first place and was in any case an immeasurable amount. Eclipse Laboratories said that it was such a minute amount that no existing machine could measure it more accurately, that each laboratory would come up with different results when assaying a quantity with so many decimal points and it was the Council's self confessed ”lack of knowledge” that led to this incorrect decision. This unnecessary action cost the company £20K and deprived it of income for 3 years”.
An unsigned letter was delivered one Saturday morning direct to the hand of a director by it's author on WDC headed notepaper.
I cannot disclose my identity for obvious reasons, but I feel so badly about the malicious behaviour over your recent planning applications that would normally have been passed. There is a conspiracy against you that involves Mr. Moss and a lady called June [ Gale ] at the County Hall Highways Department. Mr Moss is trying to publicly discredit you. I have never witnessed such awful behaviour. If you can afford a good agent and a solicitor they will clearly see where the wrong doing is and your plans should be passed, as long as this Mafia style behaviour does not reach as far as the Planning Inspectorate.
I wish you good luck and shall watch, with interest, for the outcome.”
( A photocopy of this letter was given to CMH by the director together with the name of it's author. If WDC contest this and deviously suggest it is a pretty little fiction involving the skilful use of a photocopier to achieve a blank sheet of WDC headed notepaper, CMH would suggest that they contribute the letter written on SP notepaper and read to the Full Council at the conclusion of Lord Newton's investigation into the Petition and we will subject that to scrutiny as a pretty little fiction involving the skilful use of a photocopier which was intended to deceive the Full Council, ( unless that evidence has disappeared too.) )
At the end of this saga, a letter arrived:-
“ Mr. Frank Ludlow,
I have just looked through the paperwork that you copied for me and I would say you have good justification to take your Local Authority to Court. The clauses they are trying to impose on you would be impossible for ANY company to comply with.
However, I believe your Local Planning Authority is Negligent in trying to force you to conform to a Commercial Planning Consent; when they are perfectly aware that **** ** is Water company. You are registered as Natural Mineral water – and this is also known to the Council as they have inspected and signed off this source through their trading standards.
Any Company that is involved with the Extraction and Bottling / distribution of water is a Utility. And this means that you come under Utility Planning which DOES NOT NEED ANY PLANNING PERMISSION OF ANY KIND. You are obliged to comply with Building regulations.
I have had 28 years of full time employment in the Bottled Water and soft Drinks Business and for the last 5 years among other things I was in control of the regulatory department at Silver Spring Mineral Water Company Ltd. and I was responsible for Developing a Spring Water source and bringing it over 1 mile by pipe into the Factory.
The source was in a wildlife reserve which was also a National Heritage site – which I thought in the beginning would be impossible to develop. However with the Utility legislation it was very easy to do – even running pipes through private land was easy. Even building a well head within 10 metres of the Original 1840 reservoirs that supplied Folkestone was easy. And although we had no intention of upsetting any wildlife nobody had any power to stop the development. Even 4 * 250,000 litres were installed without Planning permission at the Factory site – without Planning permission. These tanks are 18 metres tall and 5 metres in diameter.
I therefore find it incredible that your local Authority has firstly been so obstructive and secondly insisted that you Conform to the wrong Regulations. I would say they are negligent and this is professional misconduct.
You asked if I knew on [ sic ] any other case similar to *** **? I can't think of one Company involved in Water Bottling ( or Extraction ) that has not used the Utility planning regulations.
Some examples are …........
Wells Softs Drinks ( Aqua Pura ) - now known as Well Well Well Ltd. They built on a Grrenfield site in Cumbria without the National Park. Protected areas are Idea [ sic ] as the water catchment area has long term protection. They were also involved in water Bottling at Tenbury Wells – all Boreholes were put in without planning.
Hazeley Down ( 464 ) Bottling factory installed by Southern Water in Hazeley Down – put in an Area of Natural Beauty and Green Belt.
Princes Gate ( Spring Water ) - Water Factory Built on Farm in Pembroke.
Here is a list of ALL the NMW registered with the FSA;
To my Knowledge all these Companies are operating Automated Bottling lines and you will see many are in very scenic areas. They will have used Utility Planning.
Hope this helps,
A list of 74 well sites follows.
The observant reader will see that exactly the same modus operandi to manufacture obstruction and delay was applied here. “Insufficient detailed information had been submitted” as at the Stream Farm CLU, where 47 box files were offered and “insufficient detailed information” was selected from them by the planning officer who could have taken the lot and put them in the “strong room”. See also:- “Malice. Deliberately harvesting insufficient evidence in order to justify a malicious prosecution.”
Feigning Ignorance of Permitted development rights 1 ( and continuation of the above saga from another director's perspective ).
In 2004 your council insisted on us submitting a planning application for a temporary caravan to be used for toilet and tea making facilities for builders. We were sure it was a “Permitted development” as we sought advice from your Council and we argued long and hard, yet we were bombarded with bullish demands, that we applied and aid the fee in the sum of £220, and then we receive a request for an additional £110 as it was a commercial application, we sent this money also, no receipts for these payments were ever received.
Do you consider that you council was right to vigorously demand a planning application, and are your officers aware of the rules on “Permitted Development”?
At the end of all this we appear to have reached deadlock but whatever your council considers failures by this company, it surely only requires a little help and common sense, why make life so difficult for us, surely a little guidance and advice would be more constructive, but now we are being told “reapply and you will get your permission”, so why go to a lot more wasted time and expense to get something a second time, that we have already, that we fought for many years for, in order that we achieve such a simple goal?
Surely someone can accept that the Secretary of State was in error when he used the word “Detail” or that someone in your very busy offices failed to send out confirmation of receipt of the brick and tile?
I have enquired at your offices and it would seem that you don't have an area where bricks and tiles are stored from the thousands of building projects that go through your offices, in fact I was told that no such store room exists and even more that you rarely request bits an pieces of building material unless it is of a controversial nature, …..indeed some builders say that on very rare occasions they may be asked to provide a sample of an unusual material never ( to ) leave them at your offices, but simply show them and take them away again. Perhaps you would clarify this matter? How does this system work?
I have enquired from several other councils in other areas and read some case law on this subject and discovered that EVEN IF THERE ARE CHANGES FROM THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS PASSED, IT DOES NOT NECESARILY MEAN REAPPLYING, AS LONG AS THE REASON FOR THE BUILDING IS THE SAME AND THAT IT IS IN THE SAME PLACE, MADE OF THE SAME MATERIALS AND THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE BUILDING HAS NOT CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENTION, THAT COUNCILS ARE BEING ENCOURAGED TO EXCERCISE DISCRETION AND GIVE THE BENFIT OF THE DOUBT.
I apologise if you feel that this is an over long, complicated and even irrelevant letter.... it is however necessary to highlight the overall picture, encompassing all of the events surrounding this company's years of struggle and we believe it is our only way of drawing attention to what is not just an isolated incident, but a well orchestrated, relentless, even systematic barrage of unhelpful behaviour by your officers in different departments, over very many years.
Indeed you are crippling this business by not allowing it to operate, we have orders subject to the new factory being built and other ones that we are unable to fulfil because of this constant threat of closure / stoppage /or Enforcement that arrives with monotonous regularity from one or the other of your council's departments, then when one has had a go it is quickly followed up by a different department.
You will of course forgive me if I am of the opinion that this is not just bad luck or coincidence or even par for the course.
…..................... In view of the many years this project is taking and the huge amount of money invested, we are not in a position to reapply, such action will condemn this business to further years of application and appeals, and there are no funds to pay for this a second time in any event.
…........... We are hopeful that you may be able to intervene, as the financial losses inflicted on this company are now racking up , ….... failure with the XXXX Group contract for example, rests entirely on us being able to move forward right now, the losses from this alone will be around £100K in the first year of having the new factory. It may well be that your council is asked to cover these losses if your council are found to have been unhelpful or obstructive.
…....we do not want confrontation, just to be treated justly, correctly, and ( be ) allowed to get on with this very exciting enterprise.”
A quick compare and contrast.
“WDC's officer Mr Robert Crouch called to give advice on 16/1/2003. Despite there being 5 years of stability tests, a further 2 years are demanded which is reduced to 17 months.”
The extract above would suggest that WDC's Environmental Health Department operate an extremely stringent regime. That is not a universal experience.
In the early 1970's, the slaughterhouse at BF was not connected to mains drainage. Therefore the disposal of liquid effluent was always a problem. If a garden barbecue was in prospect at the week-end, CMH would ask the operator not to contaminate Waldron Ghyll with blood because it was unpleasant. Indeed, on file WD/77/1449/X you will see that the only point CMH raises centres around the disposal of blood.
Unfortunately, when the plans were checked the falls were not verified on the “general arrangement plans” ( to quote IMK ), and an uphill drainage run was approved, constructed and an unplanned pumping station inserted without planning permission on land which the developer did not own, at the lowest point along Stream Lane. Things were “regularised” via application WD/79/2955 which involved the construction of a square underground chamber topped off with a hut protecting the “unchokeable” 3 phase pump.
Servicing this sump and pump was a very unpleasant job, and consequently there was a litany of failures, particularly since some of the surface water from the factory apron drained through the facility. Suffice to say that the regular breakdowns triggered much correspondence with the Environmental Health Department, but smells and floods photograph less well than lorries, and it became obvious that if nothing was ever going to be done about the one, the same would apply to the other. However, whisps of evidence survive as to the conditions that prevailed. A tractor drawn vacuum tanker was used to empty out the sump when there was a failure, and it's contents went on the field at the back of the factory. A photograph of that tanker, standing detached from it's tractor in the carriageway of the B2203 survives. As does a memo from the sewer gang which attended an overflow at night. A photograph of egg yolks floating beside human faeces in a bloody lagoon spanning the access track was on Wealden.org.uk a long while back, and some copy correspondence to the factory from the Parish Council survives with the return remarks from one of the company directors ascribing the failure to vandalism. The real reason was discovered upon the sale of the premises. Having descended into the emptied chamber, a cornice of fat and feather was chipped away from the walls and it was clearly this material which had compromised the float switch. The floor was covered with 10” of coarse grit which had been washed from the poultry gizzards and that had compromised the pump. The possibility exists that the facility had been kept in this lamentable condition deliberately in order to annoy the downstream neighbour and blight Stream Farm.
On every occasion that BP requested an increase in premises size these matters were raised via the planners but never acted upon, however, one should not be too surprised because WDC's laissez faire attitude was replicated up the road along Mutton Hall Lane in a dense residential district as Cllr. Dick Angel ( 01435 864977 ) will attest to as he was the author of the following quote. ( Cllr. Angel came in to local politics as a result of his involvement with the Mutton Hall Lane Residents Association ). Here are two paragraphs from his 29 paragraph letter:-
“21 The APS duly met and approved Outline Planning Permission during the autumn. I was sent a copy of the planning conditions and was astounded to find that, in spite of all the problems caused by the ambiguous wording of WD/76/3420, Conditions 10, 11, and 12 had been repeated verbatim on the new document. No attempt had been made to clarify what was meant by “plant” or “operating”.
22 Consequently, I went to see Cllr. Donald Chidson, Councillor for Heathfield and a new member of the Planning Sub-Committee. He informed me that the Outline Planning Permission had been granted six days previously, but he had no recollection of any discussion on the subject during the Committee meeting. In other words, he, as a new member of the Committee, was totally unaware of the long history of problems associated with the plant.”
Surprisingly, given the assiduity of the Environmental Department when it came to insisting on the detection of sub-homeopathic concentrations elsewhere of a substance that Eclipse Laboratories had never been asked to test for before, there was a big gap in the Environmental Health Records at BF's hand – over in 2004. The cupboard was virtually bare! The normal Chemical Oxygen Demand records from Southern Water Services and colony counts from Dynamco, but nothing from WDC. A germane letter from Mrs Tedham at Horam Parish Council dated 15/7/91 read:-
“Horam Parish Council has recently received several complaints relating to the pollution of Waldron Ghyll by “blood and faeces”. Following recent heavy rains the stream overflowed its banks into gardens neighbouring Stream Bridge and Paynes Bridge when “pink froth” and “raw sewage” were clearly evident according to the complainants.
In view of the proximity of your processing factory to the stream, members of the Council wondered if the heavy rains may have caused your drainage system to overflow into the stream.
In view of the complaints and the potential health hazard such pollution represents, this matter must be properly and professionally investigated and recommendations made for preventing any recurrence. We write to advise you that the matter has therefore been referred to the body responsible for water courses, namely the National Rivers Authority.”
By way of response one of the company directors commented on 25/7/91:-
“...The company takes very seriously the accusation of spilling raw sewage into the river ghyll and would like to put clear the record as the company sees it.
During severe rains we experienced severe flooding of storm water ditches on the embankment of the Cuckoo Walk behind Stream Farm. This caused over septic tank to over run and the motor to malfunction, as soon as this became apparent to us we installed a tanker to resolve the problem. I must insist that there has been no spillage from the plant into the river ghyll. At this point I would like to point out that the company is experiencing various forms of sabotage to the pump and plant..........”
This is a remarkable observation from two perspectives. Firstly, the “ditches … behind Stream Farm” were lower than the pump house by Stream Lane, and secondly, when Stream Lane was made up in 2006, the contractors discovered an existing buried Victorian culvert uphill of the pumping station, which, when excavated out so that the 9” gulley 16” below the road surface could once again fulfil it's intended function, caught any water draining through the subway that tended to pond by the pumphouse. No maintenance had been carried out for decades. WDC had plans in-house that would have contributed a partial solution to this problem had they been consulted. The author of this reply was a plumber by trade.
Again, incredible insensitivity was shown by the Environmental Health Department at Stonegate Farmers as Cllr. Angel relates :-
“12 On 21st September 1982 I had a meeting with the District Council Planning officers and the Principal Environmental Health Officer, all of whom were well aware of the nature and extent of the problems, because of the repeated complaints to their departments. I was informed that I would be required to submit documentary evidence of alleged breaches of planning conditions and details of nuisance complaints, before enforcement action could be taken......
13 In mid – October 1982 I submitted comprehensive evidence in the form of listed complaints, records of violations of planning conditions, photographs, letters from residents, and other supportive documents. I was duly informed that my evidence was being studied by the Council's legal advisers, …. In the meantime the District Planning Officer wished to know whether there had been any significant changes in the operation of the plant since the takeover of the premises by Webb & Webb …..
14 I wrote to our District Councillor ….. No reply was ever received.
15 In December I wrote to the Planners again, stating that there had been no significant change in the operation and that the situation was judged to be as bad as at any time that year.
19 ….local residents were invited to examine and comment upon proposals for modification and expansion of the plant. These included …. an effluent treatment plant ( The blockage of the sewer by factory effluent as [ sic ] another long standing problem ).
21 … I was astounded to find.... had been repeated verbatim.”
So, residents were “required to submit documentary evidence …. and details of nuisance complaints” 3 miles up the road, but curiously, not in Horam. And the EHO was aware of foul sewage problems at both sites. That shows inconsistency of evidence harvesting and consistency of inaction. Inconsistency again prevailed when a Parkwood screen ( to remove suspended solids ) was required in Heathfield but one was not required at Horam.
Remarkably, WDC are sometimes sensitive to comments on drains, as WD/97/2869/JIN's consideration shows on 23/7/98 :- “ NF8 HISTORY (4) addressing neighbour concerns on foul drainage...Head of Environmental Services: Not aware of any existing foul sewer for the overflow to be installed into and has not been provided with drawings showing the proposals. ( Note: The original concern at the treatment plant was in connection with the possible annoyance being caused to the neighbouring occupier. This detail has, however, been approved by the Head of Environmental Services and any problems would be controllable under pollution legislation. Noise is not anticipated to present a problem and an alarm system will be provided to warn of any failure of the plant. The proposed conditions provide additional safeguards ). NF9 A management contract will be entered into ….to assume responsibility for maintenance of the sewage plant and the visibility splay areas …..”.
Here WDC were nailing things down via a “management contract” for both the drains and the visibility splay. This would appear to represent double standards. Clearly the Salmonella and E. coli 0157 risk at BF was one they were happy to ignore with the primary vector ( Waldron Ghyll ) running within 100 metres of two old people's homes ( Oaklands Court and Millcroft ).
It is strongly suspected that the BF drain disamenity was deliberately and maliciously attenuated.
Ignorance of Permitted development rights.
WDC v Secretary of State for Environment and Colin Day: CA 1988. Courtesy of Swarb.
“Land was in an area designated to be of outstanding natural beauty. The Council sought the removal of a caravan used to provide weatherproof storage for cattle food and shelter for the farmer, saying that this amounted to a material change of use. The inspector quashed the Enforcement Notice on the grounds that as the caravan was used for animal feed preparation and shelter. Such uses were ancillary to the agriculture use, and stationing the caravan was not a material change. The Council now contended that the caravan amounted to a new primary use of the land, and was not incidental to the existing use, that the use now was a mixed use, and that the change was material because the caravan was objectionable visually.
Held: The Council’s appeal failed. The court should consider not just the placing of the caravan, but also the purpose of its being so placed. The use was incidental to the main purpose of use of the land and so was exempted under section 22(2)(e), and therefore there had been no material change of use.”
Feigning ignorance of access rights & Permitted Development Rights.
Abstract from a letter dated 7/8/97 supplied to Sgt. Amy Mason of SP as item 34/36 of the bundle.
“In the summer of 1994 we bought 24 acres of agricultural marshland immediately adjacent to our cottage. The land is only accessible via our long private driveway, one end of which passes through our neighbour's farm. We bought the land with the intention of farming it traditionally and with conservation in mind, and to prevent it going the way of other surrounding farms …..
As marshland is mostly suited to haymaking and livestock grazing, on 9th September 1994 we applied to Wealden District Council for approval to erect a barn on the land for hay storage, machinery storage and possibly lambing. To do this we first obtained a copy of the planning legislation relating to agricultural buildings to see what was required and permitted. From this, we ascertained that our “agricultural determination” would be something of a formality as long as it met certain criteria such as distance from the nearest neighbour and watercourse, being of an acceptable design, being made of appropriate materials and being actually needed in connection with agriculture. We believed our proposal met all these criteria. The building itself was a second-hand steel framed barn with a weathered asbestos roof and new dark green cladding on three sides. Our interpretation of the legislation was that if the Council approved the application or failed to respond to it within 28 days, then we could commence work. This understanding was confirmed in the paragraph on the reverse of the guidance notes from the Council that accompanied the application form, which also stated that the Council could instead ( during that 28 day period ) require us to submit a full planning application which would take up to 8 weeks to decide. If a full application was refused, we could appeal to the Department of the Environment against that decision. We also understood that before making their determination, the Council would need to carry out a site inspection. We considered our land to meet the definition of “occupied land” as we would not have been happy to find someone approaching it along our private driveway or wandering around on it a few feet from our house, unannounced. This is in contrast to “unoccupied” land such as a vacant field somewhere beside a road that can be inspected without causing offence to the landowner. We understand that the law requires the Council to give notice of its intention to inspect “occupied” land, at least as a courtesy.
When about three weeks had expired from the date of our application, I rang the District Council's planning department to ask when they anticipated visiting the site as their 28 days was rapidly running out and we had not heard anything from them. To my surprise, the officer I spoke to said that he had already visited the site, without notifying us first. To do this, he would have to have trespassed. He did not seek to explain this action by saying that he had not realised the land was not occupied ( although this was apparent anyway from the plan we submitted with the application; or give the impression that he was even aware of the legal difference this made to his powers of access. When I pointed out that our land was in fact occupied, he neither contradicted me nor offered an apology; and when I queried whether his actions had been proper, he informed me quite firmly that officers of his department never needed to make appointments when carrying out planning-related inspections.
I knew this statement to be wrong but didn't press the matter as we needed the Council's consent and this department has a reputation for being difficult if “crossed”.I then asked if there was some problem with our proposal that was causing the delay, as we had not yet had a reply even though the inspection had apparently been done some while before my 'phone call. The officer replied that the Council needed to know that our application was genuine and financially viable before approving it. When I asked why the Council thought our application might not be genuine, I had some difficulty in getting a straightforward reply but it eventually transpired that the officer might have spoken to our neighbour in the case of his unlawful site inspection ( though not to us ) and that for reasons of her own, our neighbour might have suggested to him that we intended the barn for some use other than agriculture. The officer did not, however, seek to clarify this point with us. He then advised me that most of the delay was being caused by waiting for a report from the County Estates Surveyor, who had been asked by WDC to comment on the financial viability of our proposal. Financial viability is not one of the criteria that has to be met before a barn can be erected if it meets all other criteria, but I believe that because the Council had unconfirmed suspicions about our intentions, it exceeded it's authority in an attempt to find grounds for rejecting our application.
Because we believed we had interpreted the legislation and the paragraph on the Council's guidance notes correctly, I asked the officer to confirm what would happen if the Council failed to reply in writing to our application within 28 days. He informed me quite positively that we would have to appeal to the Department of the Environment if we thought the Council was taking too long. I asked whether we wouldn't just be able to commence work, and he replied that if we did so the Council would take immediate enforcement action against our unlawful development. ( In contrast, I have a large file of correspondence relating to our complaints to the Council about it's reluctance to enforce the extensive unlawful development at the XXXXX opposite us.
I was concerned about the planning officer's advice, because our dismantled barn would be arriving shortly and assistance had been arranged for erecting it. A long delay whilst we appealed unnecessarily to the DoE might mean commencement of the barn's construction being put off by bad weather until the following spring. This in turn could cost us thousands of pounds if next summer's hay crop became ruined because the barn wasn't finished in time to put the hay under cover. I therefore rang Rother District Council's planning department to confirm whether I had understood the legislation and WDC's guidance notes correctly. I did not initially say that I lived in another Authority's area. They confirmed that we would be able to start erecting a barn after 28 days if we had not had a written reply, before asking where in their area the proposed barn was. When I said that I lived in the WDC area and was confirming this point with Rother because I doubted the information I had been given by Wealden Council, they immediately declined to discuss this point further which was understandable.
Believing that financial viability was not an issue the District Council ( or County Council ) was empowered to take into consideration when determining our application,my partner rang the officer dealing with this matter in the County Estates Surveyor's Department to discuss his involvement. He sought to justify it until my partner pointed out that he was not legally entitled to lodge an objection to our application on financial grounds; and that if viability was a valid issue, enforcement action would have to be taken to-morrow to to shut down half the farms in Britain. The officer eventually agreed that he was not in a position to lodge an objection and made no adverse comments to WDC.
Thirty – one days after submitting our application, we received the District Council's by-then-superfluous written consent. I was, and still am, concerned at the planning officer's apparent misunderstanding of the law that governs their advice and actions. Specifically, that they appear not to know that they are required to give notice of their intention to enter occupied land ( or even feel obliged to do so as a courtesy ), or to understand the proper criteria for determining agricultural applications, or the correct procedure to be followed if they fail to act within their time limit. If they were uncertain on these points, they should have consulted the Chief Planning Solicitor for advice. It is difficult to imagine, however that they could have carried out their duties for any length of time without becoming aware of these fundamental gaps in their professional knowledge. This leads me to assume that that in our case the officers might not have acted out of ignorance but out of a deliberate intention to ( 1 ) mislead us and ( 2 ) exceed their authority in order to ensure that our application was rejected, because of their unfounded and unconfirmed suspicions about it. I believe this attitude only changed when it became apparent that we were perhaps better informed than the average planning applicant and couldn't be easily manipulated.”
Feigning ignorance of access rights.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000 when commenting on foot & mouth.
“They have refused to comply with their government rules and guidelines on proper practice & thereby put my stock at disease risk”.
Helpful advice from a Planning Officer.
Planning Officers are sometimes helpful and give applicants useful advice, such as Julian Black ADPO. When NJK went in to WDC for a meeting and an inspection of the accounts circa 1998 / 9 he advised NJK with words along the lines of “Stop wasting your life because you will never get it”. Mr. Black meant that he would never get planning permission.
Inclination by SP to countenance harassment rather than investigate harassment.
Extract from a letter from AH to Inspector McCartney of SP 31/1/2000.
“4. I have asked for Police protection against harassment by W.D.C. officers. Most of the 12 petitioners have suffered harassment from the officers achieved by misuse & abuse of their powers. In my case they have threatened me if I object to them entering my property, buildings & home whenever they chose without notice or warrant. They have refused to comply with their government rules and guidelines on proper practice & thereby put my stock at disease risk. They have moved heaven & earth & broken every rule & guideline in order to try to bankrupt my business and render me homeless.
I have every reason the believe that they have entered into my home in my absence & stolen papers marked “W.D.C. Complaints 1”.
I have every reason to believe that they have investigated false complaints against me & may have instigated the campaign of vandalism & threats against me, malicious hoaxes & forged confession of tax fraud. Inspector Mottram has has assured me that no-one can enter into my home without warrant, he says if I have a murder suspect living in a car even the Police could not enter that 'home' without a warrant. W.D.C. officers have written to me saying they have the right to enter into my home whenever they please. Adjacent factory owners are willing to make statements that they have seen W.D.C. officers hiding in their car park waiting for me to leave before entering my site.
Wealden refused not only to prosecute Anscombe but to acknowledge that what he was doing was criminal harassment & attempted illegal eviction, even where they had the Court & Ombudsman rulings. It appears that the very solicitor that was advising Anscombe then, is now in charge of Wealden's attempts to improperly evict me & harass me. Many others have complained of his conduct. When in 1992 I appealed to the Police for help after receiving a threatening letter from Anscombe they said “we can't act until after he has done something”. The Court ruled that everything he then did was unlawful – the Police were there and failed to stop him because he claimed ( falsely ) that he had the right to do it. The Court awarded us damages but the money had by then been hidden. The offences were criminal but the prosecuting authority ( W.D.C. ) refused to prosecute. The Police refused to investigate the possibility that the refusal of the Local Authority to prosecute might be because of complicity with the criminal. The Local Authority wrote a threatening letter to me. I appealed to the Police, they said “We cannot act until after they've done it”. I've been down that road, I know where it leads. The Police are wrong, they can now protect me under the Protection from Harassment Act”.
Paraphrased “In 2004 two members of your council were found looking around the grounds at ****** , they made no appointment but said they were using their powers during an emergency, when it was enquired as to what that was, they replied that there was an environmental incident on the land next door resulting in water supplies to caravans being polluted with oil. They harassed for a good many days and searched the property at ****** very thoroughly, both inside and outside all the buildings.
Eventually, they gave up and nothing more was heard about it. It was months later, when we requested the result of their findings that they wrote back saying it had all been a mistake and that the fault lay elsewhere. There were no apologies.
Within a few days a letter was received from your council claiming that there had been complaints of dark smoke coming from a bonfire on the land at ******.
Only tree cuttings are cut off at very widespread intervals, they are never burned if the wind is in the direction of other people and even then they burn out quickly. Within a few days another letter appeared from your council complaining of the smell of horse manure, hardly surprising as there were two horses here.
Next it was the turn of an infestation of flies, after that it was black smoke emanating from the site, then it was an infestation of rats, once again officers appeared to search inside all the buildings.
No explanation was ever given but after this they ceased their harassment for a while.
So it was in early 2007 ( expiry was due in October that year ) that we employed the services of a planning agent to put in our Building Regulations application and he also sent in a brick and a tile.
This went without a hitch, apart from the fact that your council never sent confirmation of receipt of the building materials, in fact Mr Wickham, our builder took a second brick and tile to your offices, although each of them had a form that was filled in at your offices, it would appear that these items were subsequently lost.
Then in July we made commencement, five months within the time limit, your building inspector Mr Lacey visited the site with our builder present.
He passed the work and said “Let me know when the concrete is in and I will return”.
Then the company received an invoice for the whole amount covering the entire building process from commencement to completion, it even made reference to the regulation and gave a reference number.
We are still reeling from the shock of receiving a letter from one of your officers suggesting that our planning had expired, the reason given as “we did not comply with a condition of our approval” and that this condition was “before starting building work you must give details of the outer surfaces of the building”.
We did this by submitting a brick and a tile through our planning agent Mr Howell and again by our builder, although the latter of the two was only a month or two ago.
But let us have a look at this condition closely, it simply requests that we “Submit details”. We contend that we have fully complied with this condition in our planning and building regulation applications, the former in the year 2000 and the latter in June 2007.
The problem appears to be that your council have neglected their duty to confirm submission of these details and the burden was then on this company to chase up something that should not require chasing up, because there should be an automatic response from your offices.
It would not be too paranoid to suggest that they sat back, quietly watching the days tick by until one year later, they spring their trap, very clever, but not very helpful. Why would someone not give us a call and point out the impending problem, is it perhaps to gain additional fees?
The word “detail” is a word that refers to a written submission, something perhaps to do with a drawing, description, certainly not a material one at all, the detail given was very clear “The outer surfaces were to be of brick and tile to match existing outbuildings”.
How much clearer does it need to be? This is not just “detail” but a precise description”.
Withholding an evidence photograph at a CLU inquiry.
At the SH Certificate of Lawful Use enquiry in January 2003, NJK asked for a photograph of a lathe off the Council's files and Inspector Morris was clearly labouring under the delusion that Wealden keep "open" files. The photograph was never obtained. A transcript of this exchange was made contemporaneously and is elsewhere in this text.
Feigning ignorance of Permitted Development Rights to obstruct the relocation of an agricultural access.
David Phillips pretended that moving a gate along a bridleway required planning consent. He enforced and the appellant employed Kember Loudon Williams ( KLW ) to represent him. David Phillips rang the appellant, ( not KLW ), the day before attempting to withdraw the inquiry with each side meeting it's own costs. David Phillips denies this. The appellant declined this totally unethical suggestion, won the inquiry and was awarded costs against WDC. In their final letter KLW wrote this brutal comment to WDC on 6/2/96:-
Re:- Costs letter attached to enforcement appeal T/APP/C/94/1435/635137.
"We regret to advise you that this is the second time in as many years that we have had the experience of Wealden District Council having served enforcement notices in respect of development which on appeal was determined as not requiring planning permission. We respectfully suggest that certain members of your enforcement staff may need re-education as to matters which either do not constitute development or which constitute development which is permitted by order."
Jonathan Williams of KLW had been a WDC planning officer before he went into private practice.
Feigning ignorance of Permitted Development Rights to provoke a casus belli.
A resident improved an unmade road which served three properties, turning it into a metalled road with kerbstones. WDC pretended that planning permission was required and threatened to enforce. They later withdrew the threat of legal action and a successful complaint was made to the Ombudsman about the inconvenience, anxiety and wasted costs involved in the preparation of a defence against a spurious legal action. The finding was in the complainant's favour. Additionally, the Policy Committee were most disturbed at the complainant's ( successful ) claim for interest.
Feigning ignorance of the proper enforcement procedure.
At an enforcement visit in Hammer Lane near Vines Cross, NJK came early and parked out of sight. WDC plus SP with a dog arrived. NJK boxed them in and demanded to see their authorisation. WDC showed their neck tag, NJK showed them a laminated Section 196 of the Act and said that this is what was wanted. WDC did not have it. NJK then produced his handcuffs. The policeman was the same one who had been present at the Bushywood enforcement and he was quite clearly ignorant of the proper protocol.
Feigning ignorance of the proper application of the East Sussex Act #1.
An applicant had a run in with WDC at Coggers Cross. He moved north of Heathfield and asked WDC if they wanted anything done to the drive before he re-surfaced it. They did not, so he re-surfaced. Then he wanted to extend two rooms. WDC approved and then enforced under East Sussex Act requiring road improvements. In court it was explained to WDC that extensions do not increase the fire load, therefore the road improvements they were insisting on were not required. A letter from Fire Officer Cox that was seen in WDC's court bundle commenced “I am pleased to say” and went on to say that he could not get his appliance down the lane. The applicant explained that his wife's horsebox was larger in every dimension than Heathfield's largest fire appliance, and she could get down the lane, turn around and exit in forward gear. He questioned from where F.O. Cox was coming from. Outcome :- Acquittal. WDC's wasted enforcement expenditure – c. £45K.
Feigning ignorance of the proper application of the East Sussex Act #2.
An applicant bought and unsuccessfully applied to WDC ( WD/1995/2754 ) to rebuild the old bakery down Clockhouse Lane at Nutley, Fern Hollow. He succeeded at appeal ( T/APP/C1435/A/26082(5)? ) on 22/4/96. Having rebuilt the structure he requested a signing off certificate so he could convert his bridging loan into a mortgage. WDC declined to agree and said Clockhouse Lane was not compliant with the East Sussex Act and needed to be widened. Cllr Ray Tester ( 01825 712519 ) supplied a quote for the widening. The applicant exploded, threatening to expose WDC to the press and take them to the Ombudsman. The complaint would have been inconsistency, and this would have been particularly unwelcome for WDC because The Herbert Smith Affair, coupled with the Yew Tree Lane Affair centred around inconsistency ( WD/90/0823 DoE to WDC “Dear Sir, Consistency of planning decisions at Rotherfield and Ninfield” ), as did the 1995 Ombudsman finding 95/A/3751. WDC very sensibly capitulated on the steps of the court and extracted a gagging order ( so as to avoid any adverse publicity ) which read:-
“Forest Bank Cottage,
4 November '96
Re ** -v-Wealdon D C
In consideration of an agreement reached between myself and WDC as evidenced in a letter annexed hereto from my solicitors to the Council dated 15 October 1996 I hereby undertake to withdraw the complaint made by me to the Ombudsman against WDC if the same is still outstanding and / or I will not make further complaint to the Ombudsman in connection with the Council's handling of my planning and building regulations approval for Forest Bank Cottage or the Council's application of Section 35 of the East Sussex Act 1981 in relation thereto.
I further confirm that I will not divulge the details to any third party the details of the terms of settlement as set out in the said letter from my solicitors dated 15th October 1996, without the consent of the Council, save always that this shall not preclude me from stating that the matter was satisfactorily settled provided always that the details are not divulged.
Yours faithfully, ***”.
The name Forest Bank Cottage was changed to Fern Hollow.
Inconsistency. Proven Maladministration, inconsistency INV/95/A/3751.
Committee resolved to approve a farmhouse for “Mr James” in the spring subject to special conditions. The executive introduced vocabulary into the Committee's conditions. The applicant baulked initially then reluctantly agreed. The committee then refused that which they had previously agreed upon. IMK failed to advise the committee of the distinction between incidental B&B ( which was applicable in this situation ) and commercial B & B.
Feigning non receipt of building materials details.
“….........your council never sent confirmation of receipt of the building materials, in fact Mr Wickham, our builder took a second brick and tile to your offices, although each of them had a form that was filled in at your offices, it would appear that these items were subsequently lost”.
Feigning non receipt of a building commencement notification #1.
A farm on Ashdown Forest was owned by Mr. * and Mrs. *. They had consent for a bungalow and knew it would expire in a few days so Mrs. * faxed WDC to advise of commencement of work.
They commenced over a week-end and a few days later George Moram White ( GMW ) pitched up. He asked them to re-apply because their consent had expired.
He was told that WDC had been notified. He said that no notification had been received.
Upon returning to her office, Mrs. * looked in her drawer and found the notification fax with a red dot on it. Mrs. * subsequently rang GMW back and explained that she was ringing from her business address where every outgoing fax was automatically marked with a red dot upon transmission. She explained that this was done because her office was at a local solicitors where she was a practising solicitrix. She asked GMW whether he wanted to take the matter of non notification any further? He said he did not.
Feigning non receipt of a building commencement notification #2.
“We are still reeling from the shock of receiving a letter from one of your officers suggesting that our planning had expired, the reason given as “we did not comply with a condition of our approval” and that this condition was “before starting building work you must give details of the outer surfaces of the building”. …...”
Feigning non receipt of plans.
Standard Trees put in three sets of plans showing their proposed entrance ( plan 1 ), their proposal in the context of the A22 ( plan 2 ), and their proposal in the context of the internal road scheme. Then Mr Phillips informed told them in writing that plans 2 and 3 “were not in the file”. Then, two years later, during another appeal, ADPO Richard Harboard produced plans 2 and 3 in order to score a point.
This of course begs the question as to whether the plans were deliberately removed and then replaced. Or perhaps they were not working from the “master” file in order to procure an outcome?
Feigning non receipt of plans and just a coincidence? Boarswood Farm, Little London.
WDC came up with a novel enforcement clause to remove ( supposedly unapproved ) fenestration, after potential boar meat producer Bob Ellis had committed substantial capital sums to purchasing, importing and erecting a Swedish turned log barn. Unsurprisingly, missing doors enabled vandals to walk in and switch off the freezers containing boar meat. An officer within WDC witnessed the fenestration plans. Peter Sefton ( who both put in, and took out the windows ), was in the Horam Hotel one lunchtime with Max Samuels and Lawrie at the bar when an individual seeking enforcement uprisings came in quite by chance. The individual was asking for directions to the “log cabin for sale?” ( the Ellis's very expensive imported barn which was in prospect for enforcement ). Clearly he had been supplied with inside information.
Just another coincidence? At what became Lanesmead Farm, Vines Cross.
Quite by chance, another purchaser pitched up at exactly the right moment to acquire an enforcement asset and had a house on it within 18 months. From Albert Rutherford's affidavit of 2/12/19.
“We lost the Bibby's contract. Maureen was very upset over it, we dispersed the animals at no profit. Out of the blue a Mr Lane came along and said “Do you want to sell? I will buy it for £20K”. I was extremely confused. It was not on the market, so how could he have known? The lady next door to the the mushroom farm was interested in leasing part of the land for her horses, but Maureen said that would be detrimental because it reduced our acreage. Charlie Reed wanted it for his cows. Because of the commute to and from Herstmonceux we gave it up. Mr Lane had a place built shortly after.”
Malice. Deliberately harvesting insufficient evidence in order to justify a malicious prosecution.
At David Charnley's trial T19990557 before Recorder MacDonald Q.C. On 27/10/99 @ 13F “So members of the jury, that is the evidence. In brief summary, what the Prosecution says to you is this: the lorry was stored on that site between those five days, on those five days, most of the time. They say: on the defendant's own evidence it was there for about fifteen hours out of each twenty-four hours. And they say it was actually doing something, in the sense of unloading twenty odd bales of hay that were actually required for feeding, in that timeframe, for only a very short time.
The Defence, on the other hand, say that because the monitoring was so restricted the Prosecution witnesses simply missed the lorry's movements to and from Home Farm, and to and from Frant where the hay had been purchased that was being brought to the site. They say that temporary parking each day is not storage; and they say that other ways could have been, but were not, used [ such as video evidence ] to make you sure that the lorry was truly stored on the site for those five days.” Mr. Charnley was acquitted of storing a lorry ( and severely affected financially by the expense of the trial ).
Malice. Introducing a fictional “fact”.
At the WD/96/3136&7 inquiry, the District Solicitor V. Scarpa said “The suggestion was floated by Mr. Hudson that there should be a new easterly access.....it would be far less satisfactory than the [ proposed ] westerly access because it doesn't overcome the problem of the size of the tunnel which would impose an upper limit on the height and the weight of vehicles visiting Bridge Poultry”.
No mention had ever been made of this fictional weight restriction applying to Stream Lane in Mr. Kay's pre inquiry Rule 6 statement or at any of the previous committee meetings or inquiries. If it had not been introduced by IMK on the day of the inquiry as a surprise, the appellant could have referred the Inspector to a consultation sheet on file WD/95/2908 dated 5/12/95 where a planning officer, Mr. Patrick Coffey, had declared in response to the question “Access O.K.?”, “up to 44 ton” P. Coffey. Subsequent inquiry to the County Engineer failed to confirm this fictional weight restriction, but this false fact combined with the executive's unalloyed prejudice ensured that there was no entrance improvement in prospect when BP finally went into receivership and sought an alternative owner before closing with the loss of 6 jobs ( and the waste of a substantial E.E.C. Grant ) on 31/3/02.
Mr Scarpa continued to nurse the lie in correspondence on 19/4/01 when he stated “I do not recall saying that there was a weight limits [ sic ] in the tunnel”. This continued when by letter dated 3/5/01 Mr Scarpa stated that he “had spoken to Mr Kay and he too does not recall that evidence was given of the existence of a weight limit limiting the size of vehicles”. An affidavit entitled “In the matter of the fictitious weight limit on the tunnel along Stream Lane leading to Bridge Farm, Horam, advanced at the inquiry into application WD/96/3137” was sworn on 8/5/01 by CMH and sent to Mr Scarpa under recorded delivery docket RW 4905 2937 8GB together with a compact disc recording of the event.
When enquiries were made on the appellant's behalf some time later, as to whether WDC would countenance a re-application to re-consider improvements to this entrance, IMK advised by letter dated 24/6/1999 that he would “decline to determine a planning application” because it would be “within two years of a dismissed appeal on a similar application...Inspector Daly's decision....dated 22/4/98... where there has [ had ] been no significant change in …. any other material considerations to warrant different conclusions being reached”.
Now that we have established that IMK's previous behaviour encompassed nepotism ( with Past Master D B Best ), conspiracy ( with three officers in the chamber on 8/12/87 ), subsequent co-ercion or conspiracy ( with Mrs. S J Harvey ), employment of a false instrument and serial perjury ( both before Inspector Wilkinson ), might it be timely to re-analyse the phrase “ no significant change”? After all, one retired and one practising solicitor both levelled the same criticism, that the Sandcastle application that Mr. Kay had commentated on displayed no significant change to a preceding application, which was dismissed at appeal.
Seventeen days before Inspector Daly published his decision BP published their accounts ( 5/4/98 ). Their profitability had decreased by £18,905 to a loss of £13,396. Their borrowings had increased from £105,666 to £109,302 with bank loans and overdraft at £36,221. By 26/4/2002 their overdraft alone was £48,285.13p. They never made a profit thereafter. Either IMK considered that to be “ no significant change ”, when declining to consider a resubmission on 24/6/99 or he had failed to remember the words of Lord Denman:-
"…..he was not honestly blundering and careless, but that he must have had a suspicion that there was something wrong and that he refrained from asking questions because he thought in his own mind - 'I suspect there is something wrong, and if I ask questions and make further enquiry, it will no longer be my suspecting it, but my knowing it, and then I shall not be able to recover,' - I think that is dishonesty."
It is now known, courtesy of one document that was supplied in 2019 and subsequently disappeared, that IMK had every means of knowing the financial facts. It would seem he either “refrained from asking questions” or fobbed the potential applicant off with a lie and ensured both the attenuation of Stream Farm's blight and the crucifixion of his protégé.
Supply of land assets to a protégé.
Acquired amongst the assets of BP there was a copy letter dated 25/7/91 to Mr. J Deller of the Surveyors & Valuers Dept. at WDC. from a BP director. There is no reason to doubt it's authenticity. The director writes:- “I have noticed that the embankment fencing has been removed [ along the Cuckoo Walk ] and the ditches filled in giving the appearance that the people at stream Farm are using this as an extension to there [ sic ] property.....I must insist that the boundaries are rectified to the correct position and the ditches re-instated and the account for this work be paid by people at Stream Farm and not the rate payers”.
This letter displays pretty staggering hypocrisy since BP directors firstly built a sewage pumping station without planning consent on land which they did not own in 1978, and secondly eradicated the Cuckoo Walk post and board fencing behind what is now Unit 2 at BF, filled in the ditch with rubble, put up a gate, and have used that encroachment to date as the sole vehicular access to their plumber's store and field ( which became landlocked after the EEC slaughterhouse curtilage rules kicked in ( subsequent to their accepting a grant for the 1977 rebuild )). This encroachment was acknowledged via the service of S.27 notices with planning applications. A photograph exists of the agents who did the encroachment ( as they did a more minor but more essential encroachment along the northern boundary of Stream Farm ). It is very likely that the supremely accurate plans that WDC acquired when ownership of the Cuckoo Walk was transferred would corroborate this.
Obstruction of access to information #1.
At NJK's Lawful Use inquiry before Inspector Morris in January 2003.
NJK to Council Officer :- “...you do have photographs of the lathe, I will have to forward that to the Inspector”.
Morris:- “No you can't Mr Kruschandl, it has to be produced at the inquiry, it can't be forwarded”
NJK:- “It, it's in the Council's possession I am going to have to request it...w..we'll find it in their files”.
Morris:- “The files have been available to you before now haven't they? They're open files, they're not closed files”.
NJK:-“They're not open files, that's the point”.
Morris:- “ I, I, I,...I presumed they were, if they're not ...”
NJK:- “The point I'm making here is that ...”
Morris:- “The evidence has got to be on the table now, it can't be considered after the inquiry has been closed”.
Obstruction of access to information #2.
Below is a reproduction of a contemporaneous affidavit sworn by CMH from which the final page has become detached. The points 1 – 6 may be incorporated into an up to date affidavit if required.
“1. I make this affidavit in respect of the loss of farm buildings and mobile home units at Bushy Wood Farm in Hailsham, the property of Michael and Valerie Punter.
2. On 19th May 1997 I met Michael and Valerie Punter at the council offices in Crowborough. I wished to view the information relating to the planning history of Bushy Wood Farm. I was concerned that the buildings had been demolished without warning, despite an application which was due to be heard by committee only three days before the destruction.
3. The receptionist in the foyer put me through to Mr David Phillips. I explained to Mr Phillips that he had not supplied the information requested of him, in his letter of reply. I asked Mr Phillips why he could not supply the information requested. Mr Phillips gave several reasons as to why he could not supply the information requested. I said that none of those reasons were relevant. Mr Phillips said “we would normally as persons to write in, in these circumstances”. I said that I'd already done so. All three of us went away discontented.
4. I returned the next day the 20th May. I asked for a copy of Inspector Donaldson's appeal together with all it's appendices. I went into one of the interview rooms. The request was to Douglas Moss a senior planning officer. Soon Mr Moss returned and explained that he could not supply the information. I said that this is the first time I had been denied sight of an appeal with appendices. He referred me to Mr Phillips. Soon Mr Moss returned to the small interview room with Mr Phillips. At that point I said ”I do not like small interview rooms”. This was because I knew of Mr Phillips reputation, that Mr Phillips preferred territory was behind closed doors. I got up to lead the twosome into the entrance foyer to bring the matter into the open. As I made for the door Mr Phillips laid two hands on my forearm in an attempt to restrain exit. I shook Mr Phillips off and settled myself in the main foyer.
5. After a long delay, Mr Phillips and Mr Moss came out and said that there was a call for me on my mobile phone. At that time I said that I had not been formally introduced to Mr Phillips. I enquired whether he was the Mr Phillips accused of perjury and breach of copyright in the Statutory Declaration of Mr Kruschandl dated 14-5-97 which, I displayed to him. Mr Phillips did not answer, he did not seem in the least concerned. I then asked if Mr Phillips was the head of the enforcement department accused of soliciting complaints in the Statutory Declaration of Anne Harris. Mr Philips appeared to smirk. I was annoyed by his attitude. I asked if Mr Phillips had “O” Level English. This was a reference to a letter requesting the 13/1/81 Wealden admission to Messrs. Cutner Bond that the stables were “permitted development”. Mr Phillips the made a quip about “O” level woodwork. The interview concluded with no firm assurance that the letter would be supplied.
6. Mr Hudson returned to his researches within the small interview room, leaving his possessions in there when he left the room around noon for a short break. Upon his return, he found a letter of apology on the desk signed by Ian Kay Esq. A.D.P.O. Enclosed was the letter that had caused all the aggravation.”
If the boot had been on the other foot and if CMH had placed two hands on the arm of a female planning officer he would have been banned from the building.
These are two excellent examples of how WDC give one the run around via obstruction and unhelpfulness.
Malice. Not correcting a mis-statement of fact.
Transcript from an affidavit sworn on 25/4/97 relating to an AP(S) meeting on 20/8/91.
“B) In response to this paragraph in my letter of August 19th 1991 and circulated to all committee members, “3) Your executive have already claimed costs of the WD/90/3492 applicant in advance of the inquiry on 30/10/91 although the WD/90/3572 applicant will be summonsed. Do you authorise this intimidation?”
Ian Kay Esq. contradicted the thrust of this paragraph and gave members a generalised overview of the costs mechanism saying the executive usually claim costs at the end of an inquiry.
C) V. Scarpa Esq. was in attendance and offered no comment or interruption to Mr. Kay's advice.
D) Part of the last paragraph of V. Scarpa's letter of 4th July 1991 was then read to the committee by Adrian Moore Esq. because the Chairlady, Mrs. M. Honey, countenanced a breach of committee protocol and allowed me [ CMH ] to walk across the room with a letter which Cllr. Moore was prepared to read. The letter read:-
“The Council, will therefore be applying for an Order of Costs, against your wife, unless of course, the Appeal is withdrawn forthwith. May I, therefore, ask you to advise your wife of the contents of this letter”.
E) This specific contradicted the generalised overview which Mr. Kay had just told the committee.
F) I conclude that either:-
Mr Scarpa was not paying attention to the proceedings,
Mr Scarpa could not remember on August 20th that which he had written on July 4th .,
Mr Scarpa intended the committee to be misled by Mr. Kay's narrative, and as a consequence did not interrupt to either correct or advise both him and the committee.
G) I am of the opinion that all officers of the Wealden District Council owe a duty of care to both committee members and the general public to produce a full and complete picture in all matters both planning and otherwise so as to obtain a proper outcome.”
The irony in all of this petty collusion is that, unbeknown to officers at that time, one of the ( effectively ) twin applications ( either of which would have remedied INV/399/S/80 ) was fraudulent, and ultimately BP's inability to implement WD/90/3572 led to their bankruptcy. So, the executive were helping to shoot their protégé in the foot, and instead of advertising that a resolution of his Council's maladministration was in prospect, for some extraordinary reason Mr Kay opposed it and chose to conceal Mr. Scarpa's intimidation.
Malice. Adjusting the evidence #1.
At the Stream Farm Lawful Use appeal WDC defaced their high quality triple referenced stereoscopic colour enlargement ( obtained at public expense ) and adjusted both it and the terrestrial site photographs off the file.
Malice. Adjusting the evidence #2.
On 6/2/03 at an appeal relating to No. 5, Belle Vue, Hailsham Road, Hankham ( APP/C1435/C/02/1093603-4 ). The issues were the storage and sale of cars. The exhibits mention a “Council volume of Photographs” including air photographs 1987 and 1999. Although they had colour photographs in 1987, they presented black and white in order to obscure the variety of colours in the cars and aid their pretence that the cars were sheds.
Contempt for statutory notices. Spectrum of inconsistency.
Occasionally Wealden do the right thing:-
WD/79/823 Retention of caravan in connection with a smallholding. Accessed via Stream Lane, Horam, TN21 0BS. 21/3/1979 Andrew Stanhope Planning Scrutineer Officer ref. AS1/AMP/WD/79/823/X to Coles & James. “but to ensure proper consideration of it by the Council, it is first necessary for you to sign and date the certificate of ownership.
If you do not know the names and addresses of ANY of the owners of the soil of the private road, you should give notice of the application in a local newspaper in the form shown in notice 2 ( form WD/M19 ). This newspaper advertisement should be published not earlier than 21 days before the date of the application. You should then complete certificate “D” ( form WD/M18 ) and return to me. Forms NES.2, NES.3, WD/M17, WD/M18, and WD/M19 are enclosed for your use.
Although Coles and James eventually withdrew the application they established that the owner(s) of the subsoil of the private road ( Stream Lane ) had probably emigrated to Canada.
And yet again with WD/81/1898, the committee chairlady was told about the defective site notices just before the meeting started, and Cripps Harries Hall & Co., The Broadway, Crowborough wrote to WDC. Date stamped WDC on 1/3/1982 “He delivered to us a packet of title deeds …. The documentary evidence [ they mean the deeds ] has not persuaded us that either Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd. or Mr. Peter Basil Digweed is the legal owner of that part of the application site as constitutes the accessway leading to the main highway [ Stream Lane ] and to that extent the Certificate under S.27 accompanying the planning application would seem to be inaccurate”. The application was never made complete and Wealden allowed it to “lapse”.
And yet again. Let us consider Julian Black's letter ref. JRB/WD/00/0587/O of 5/7/200 to Ms. Collins “In my letter dated 3rd April 2000 the second paragraph sets out the requirements under the Town and Country Planning Act ( General Development Procedure ) Order, 1995 wherein it is encumbent upon an applicant to state his / her interest in the land the subject of a current planning application. In this respect I asked you certain specific questions relating to your ownership of such land. Despite this being a statutory requirement you have failed to supply satisfactory evidence of your ownership of the land. In view of this I would be greatful [ sic ] if you would supply the name and address of your Solicitors in order that I may obtain verification from them regarding the current land ownership position........As regards the unregistered area of land edged blue, on your submitted plan, which signifies that this land is in your ownership, I would again request that you confirm when you purchased this land and provide documentation in support of your claim. Once again I would ask that your Solicitor confirm this. Alternatively this land should be deleted from the application.”
Now let us consider how the procedure is modified when either a friend or a relation of IMK was involved:-
Contempt for statutory notices, assisting a relation.
WD/87/ 3194 The Sandcastle, 46 Val Princeps Road, Pevensey Bay was rushed to committee for the December meeting on 8/12/1987. David Randall Sinnatt of Bexhill, representing a group of local residents, was threatening a judicial review of any decision because the correct procedure had not been followed and a newspaper advertisement had not been served in relation to a portion of the private road ( owned in most part by Leaptwo Ltd. ) in unknown ownership. IMK gave the commentary on a planning application by a former director of Leaptwo Ltd. ( who was his father in law ) and the proper notice procedure was then followed retrospectively by Peter G V Kenward, formerly of Gooch Kenward and subsequently Master of Tyrian Lodge. There is a detailed letter from the District Solicitor, V. Scarpa, on file, concurring with Randall Sinnatt's assertion and agreeing that “unfortunately” the outcome of Main vs. Swansea C.C. applied to this scenario.
The killer letter dated 20/11/87 reads DPO to P G V Kenward
“Whilst it is noted that a certificate was submitted with the application serving notice on the Secretary of Leaptwo Ltd, the representations consider that further notice should have been submitted in respect of an area of land at the junction of Val Princeps Road and the private access road, As [ sic ] ownership is apparently open to question advertisements should have been placed on the site and in a local newspaper.
I shall hold the matter in abeyance until these matters are satisfactorily resolved”.
On MF 2/5 there is a handwritten note “The Council's principal solicitor has confirmed that in case law, any decision taken following incorrect notification procedure could be held to be invalid”.
It would be interesting to know why WDC were not prepared to “ hold the matter in abeyance” after David Randall Sinnatt put them on notice on 12/11/87.
Contempt for statutory notification period, assisting an officer's Masonic relation.
WD/85/2918 The Sandcastle, 46 Val Princeps Rd, Pevensey Bay. Applicant D B Best. MF 1/4, “..with other residents in the area notification was received on Friday the 1st November 1985.... in view of the very short notice viz. 1 working day in which objections have to reach your office”.
Contempt for statutory notices, assisting an officer's Masonic ex-colleague.
Alan West, an old Masonic colleague of IMK, submitted a replacement plan WD/03/0572 for WD/02/0914 ( where the covering letter commences “Dear Ian” ) for 6 floodlights on poles at the Wealden Football Club, Eastbourne Road, Palehouse Common. The plan on mf 3/5 shows no means of access. Ownership of the access track was well known, because the football club paid a small sum to Watney Mann ( a/f 19/10/72 ) and subsequently Watney Combe Reid & Co ( a/f 2/12/82 ) annually for it's use, and the leases were publicly available documents available from HM Land Registry. It's dimensions were also well known, totally inadequate for an emergency vehicle to enter whilst fans were evacuating, and in consequence the East Sussex Act kicked in ( access for emergency vehicles S.65 ). So, when a letter dated 21/8/03 from a concerned neighbour was received by the Parish Council saying:-
“It would appear that the football club do not own the land between the field and the Highway or even have a legal right of way. An S66 should have been served”,
the Clerk wrote to Mr Kay forwarding a copy of the letter on 12/9/03. This was received by way of response:-
“ask for Mr. I. M. Kay
29 September 2003
1. The planning application form submitted by Alan West, as agent acting on behalf of the the applicant, the Wealden Football Club, indicated that the applicant was the freeholder of the application site edged red on the plans.
2. The applicant's agent did not claim on the application plans that the football club owned any other land in the vicinity of the site, and no other land was edged blue on the plans. Hence, it was assumed by the case officer that the access track was not in the club's ownership. However, no development was proposed on this access track or on any other land outside the application site edged red on the plans, so this Council was not aware of any legal requirement for the applicant to serve notice on any other person / party.
3 Whilst I would be surprised if the football club does not have a legal right – of – way over the access track serving the club's car park and football ground, this Council has no evidence available to confirm whether or, not this is the legal position. In any event, in the context of the application for 6 floodlight poles around the football pitch, this was not a relevant planning consideration and is a private matter between the parties concerned” .
Note it was “assumed by the case officer that the access track was not in the club's ownership”, whereas at the SH no assumptions are made as to ownership by Julian Black :- “Despite this being a statutory requirement you have failed to supply satisfactory evidence of your ownership of the land.” No assumptions are made at the SH, a clear indication of double standards.
Increasing hours of evening play on a pitch in the winter, on a site served by a single track road which it did not own, exiting through another business's car park onto a busy “B” road where fans regularly parked on the verge, was “not a relevant planning consideration”. Others might beg to differ, as might a Fire Officer had he had the opportunity to comment.
Then, most unusually, the case officer, Chris Elphick, despatched a reassuring photocopy of the back of the PA1, signed by Alan West. In the top margin he had written “I certify that this is a true copy of the reverse side of application WD/03/0572 as contained in the application file. CE 14/11/03”. That is the only example of C. Elphick's handwriting on this photocopy. Unfortunately, another photocopy exists of the same document with nothing in the top margin, but in the bottom margin there is a cropped annotation “Detail awaited !” in C. Elphick's handwriting and a curved arrow leading to the empty “Date notice served” box. So, quite clearly the “certified” copy despatched together with a “With Compliments “As discussed.! Chris Elphick”” note on 14/11/03 was a canard designed to deceive, economise with the actualité and it originated from another copy of the PA1. Probably one of the copies that should have been either sent to the Fire Service or the Ambulance Service for the evaluation of a chronically dangerous access and was being maintained off “the application file”.
When CMH sent C. Elphick a letter about the defective notices and a File on Four recording about Council corruption in Flintshire, he received this by way of rebuke on 30/3/04. “I refer to your letter of 8 March 2004 enclosing a CD for our attention. Mr. Elphick, in common with other officers of the Development Control Section is extremely busy with the processing of of heavy caseload and will not have the opportunity to listen to it.....Your continued allegations and insinuations are deeply resented and I am sure you would not appreciate being similarly treated”. These interesting observations conveniently ignore the time wasted by minimally paid Councillors who consider applications which are then found to be defective and the ( convicted fraudster ) developer refuses to put them right ( as in WD/81/1898 see below ). And the time spent by Inspectors considering and refusing substitutes for defective applications which WDC have resolved to approve, or an application where the Assistant County Engineer's secret comments in a fax, ( and not on the public file ), were predicated on a chain of non existent site notices ( WD/89/4371 ). Honesty and adherence to Statute have much to recommend them.
As regards “allegations and insinuations”, Noel Edmonds summed this sneering attitude up very nicely via his YouTube video. “When dealing with the producers of Noel's HQ regarding the Joe Townsend case, [ WDC's Jim ] van den Bos apparently "sneered" down the phone that Wealden District Council did not appear on entertainment shows. Whether or not anything Edmonds broadcasts can be considered entertainment is a moot point, but what is certain is that this rattled Edmonds's cage like it had never been rattled. On Sunday night's show he delivered a blistering tirade aimed at Van den Bos claiming he was at the heart of what was wrong with this country.”
WDC had refused Joe Townsend, an Afghan war veteran confined to a wheelchair, an extension to his accommodation in Peelings Lane, Hankham, and had earned themselves yet another mention in Hansard for so doing.
Extract from WD/83/0560/P appeal APP/C/1435/A/84/10564.
“ 52 The position regarding application WD/81/1898 – which was not a retrospective application [ it was ] is that it had been allowed to lapse since it was defective with regard to the S.27 notices. A Section 52 agreement was considered but the negotiations came to nought and at the end of the day the Council felt they could take no further action and the “application died”. Thus it became a deemed refusal.”
Assumption and presumption.
Parliament provides statutes that enable LPA's to take the guesswork out of planning. IMK does not always use them. Here are two examples:-
“29/9/2003 Hence, it was assumed by the case officer that the access track was not in the club's ownership.”
19/6/79 NOB/JH/WD/77/1449/X “I understand that building works are still in progress and presumably these will, in due course, include alterations to the access road” ( Signed off by IMK ). Unfortunately these “works” did not “ include alterations to the access road” and the opportunity to employ statute and serve a stop notice was passed up.
Contempt for statutory notices when it serves WDC's second agenda to manufacture or eliminate delay – compared and contrasted where the same private road / access track is the common denominator.
Now let us consider WDC's cavalier approach to site newspaper advertisements when there are different applications along the same access track – Stream Lane, Horam, TN21 0BP.
WD/1979/823 We have discussed. A. Stanhope correctly refused to process the application until he was satisfied the application was correct. As the scrutineer officer that was his job.
And again:- “ 12/6/2002
PLANNING APPLICATION WD/2002/0892/O BRIDGE FARM, HORAM. DEMOLITION OF EXISTING BUILDINGS AND ERECTION OF TWO DWELLINGS
I refer to my previous letter of 10th May 2002 and subsequent facsimile in respect of the ownership details for the above application. As previously advised WDC is the owner of land forming art of the access to the site and included within the application site boundary. The Certificate of Ownership details at part 11 of the application forms are thus incorrect and the matter remains outstanding. As notice still has not been served on the District Council. As required under Section 65 of the 1990 Planning Act ( as amended ). I am now advised that other parts of the access road [ Stream Lane ] may not be in the ownership of the applicant and may in deed be unregistered. If this is the case, then the proposals must be advertised in the local press and Certificate D completed in accordance with Articles 6 and 7 of the Town and Country Planning ( General Development Procedure ) Order 1995. You will be aware that any application is considered to be incomplete if it is known that ownership details are incomplete or inaccurate.
I would therefore, be pleased to receive clarification of the ownership details and for Notice to be served on the District Council as an owner of some of the application site as a matter of urgency. I am unable to progress the application further until the matter is resolved.
George Moram White.”
So, there you have it, in 1972 WDC knew how to get things right, and likewise in 2002. They put a block on the applications. An audit copy of the newspaper advert. is on the file. Unregistered land can go to being Registered, but it cannot revert to being Unregistered. Therefore you can prove a negative. Let us see what transpired in the 1972 – 2002 interval and thereafter.
WD/81/1898 We have discussed. It somehow slipped through the net. One would expect WDC to flag up Stream Lane, but no, they registered a defective application and permitted the undetermined application to “lapse” once the development was complete.
WD/90/0167 Somehow slipped through the net and came to committee against a barrage of protest because there was no newspaper advertisement for the private road. The protester was publicly contradicted by Mr Kay and the District Solicitor, Mr Scarpa. He contradicted the written advice that he had given to officers on MF 3/5 of WD/87/3194. Two enquiries to the Land Registry revealed that there had been no change in ownership since the 26/2/82 investigation into Stream Lane so a negative was proved. The committee had been spun a lie. The protester was 100% right. An affidavit sworn on 10/4/97 refers.
WD/95/2908 A bulk freezer addition of 3,000 sq ft. Somehow slipped through the net. The agent was Alan West, the old Masonic colleague of IMK. His original submission fee was undercharged by two thirds, and the plan showed no means of access to the highway. That plan disappeared after the detail was highlighted. However, since the proposal was to erect a cold store to group product for collection by external contractors ( whose lorry size could not be controlled by the applicant ), the Wealden Football Club excuse used for highways that “ this was not a relevant planning consideration” does not seem to apply because the adequacy of the access was clearly relevant.
WD/2017/2930 A new house on the Stillyans Oast site. Somehow slipped through the net. The plan showed no means of access to the site. The executive were told and ignored the protest. Again, the “ this was not a relevant planning consideration” excuse would seem spurious because new houses generally attract traffic.
WD/2018/ 2738 A replacement garage on the Stillyans Oast site. Somehow slipped through the net. The plan showed no means of access to the site. The executive were supplied with a 15 page treatise explaining their inconsistency and completely ignored the protest. They were also supplied with a copy of “The Town & Country Planning ( Development Management Procedure ) ( England ) Order 2015 NOTICE UNDER ARTICLE 13 OF APPLICATION FOR PLANNING PERMISSION ( Notice 2 : This notice is for publication in local newspaper if Certificate C or D is completed )”, but they did not take the hint.
The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy ( CIL ) has thrown up an interesting ( thus far ) hypothetical scenario. Because it is predicated on the supposition that Local Authority's do not play fast and loose with Site Notices, if the CIL remains unpaid, a payment timetable kicks in and ultimately the executive can enter a Local Land Charge for the full amount against any landowner within the site envelope edged red. Given WDC's contempt for land ownership details prior to and in committee, the possibility exists that one day a landowner kept in ignorance of his responsibility will attract a charge.
Manipulation of statutory notices when it serves WDC's second agenda to manufacture delay.
Extract from statement by NJK Jan 2001 page 37 onward.
“24 Wealden caused further delays, see in their letter dated 1st July 1999 at page 194 of the exhibit bundle; they now claimed that I had not served Notice on the owners of the building where none appeared to be required in respect of a long tenancy. This is the same ruse Mr Kay employed to give Frank Wood the run around. I contacted the Inspectorate for advice, who confirmed that I did not need to serve where I had a long tenancy. I explained the position to Mr. Moss in my letter dated 5th July 1999 copy of which is seen extracted from the Council's secret file at page 197 of the exhibit bundle. The officers have written on my letter. One comment reads “But we have good reason to believe other exists.” It appears to me that the Council knew of Mr York and Ms Collins ownership interest.
25 However, I took the Council's advice seeking to short circuit the delays and served on every person I could think of with an interest in the land. Mr Scarpa then suggested that I should withdraw these notices and declare myself the owner. A letter of mine copied from the Council's secret file received 14th July 1999, bears a handwritten note saying “We know there is one owner to add to the list”. With this in mind I must conclude that Mr Scarpa knew these persons held an ownership interest and must have been aware that I could not be the owner. His suggestion therefore appears to be inciting me to act unlawfully, in order that my application might continue. I believe he did so in order to claim later that service was invalid.”
The unintended consequence of a defective site notice.
The Inspector who wrote the tract below was unaware that the "solution to the access problems ... in co-operation with the owners of the land" had attracted “a resolution to approve subject to” by a committee ignorant that an undeclared dissenting landowner was involved, and therefore there was “one owner to add to the list” and they were denied the option to add a second rider to their resolution because the PA1 was a fraud. The "compromise solution acceptable to both parties" then, was ultimately unacceptable, because of dissent. Had a land ownership rider been added to the first application, in the absence of implementation, it would have been logical and non discriminatory to do likewise the same for a second application. In short, the Inspector was led up the garden path because the committee had been. Yet more public money was squandered by this deception and BP's bankruptcy came a little closer simply because of WDC's inconsistent approach to site ownership. CMH knew about the defect inherent in WD/90/3572 but did not mention it after the public humiliation Scarpa and IMK had delivered to him before the APS over WD/90/0167.
"The Council have strived to achieve a solution to the access problems to the site, in co-operation with the owners of the land. A consensus of view has now emerged which would provide a compromise solution acceptable to both parties, if not to you. It is only the land owners who are able to realise the completion of the scheme in an acceptable way because it is they who have a controlling interest in those elements of the scheme, essential to it's satisfactory implementation. In the planning balance I would regard the harm which the road construction would undeniably have upon the appearance and character of the area to be capable of being outweighed by the benefits that would accrue from it's provision in terms of the highway considerations to which I have already referred."
BP first suggested purchasing the land referred to above in order to solve their access problems on 20/11/94 via a direct approach and secondly via Stiles Harold Williams in a letter entitled “Land adjoining Bridge Farm, Horam ( Title No ESX 113609 )”on 20/3/01. The logic of BP extending their property portfolio when the premises was all but closed and indebted in excess of £109,302 would seem obscure unless both they and Lloyds Bank were certain that the discriminatory opposition extended to all the Hudson westerly new road proposals across this land would be withdrawn once they were the beneficial owners. Clearly, this land was seen as a solution to their insolvency. Logic dictates that land ownership was going to influence the successful transfer of their existing ( initially fraudulently obtained ) approval WD/90/3572 and they would not be expected to justify their proposals at an appeal. They would not have embarked upon these negotiations with an expensive professional if they did not have a measure of confidence approaching certainty that their proposal would be approved, but it is interesting to note that they did not engage the planning process and proceed via a northerly revision to WD/90/3572 prior to their acquisition attempt. That would have clearly advertised WDC's discrimination and put the price up.
The price suggested for this “landlocked … very small in size” smallholding was “something more than agricultural value” on 20/3/01. When BF was marketed by Handley's the next year there was interest at £400K for the premises without a field and any prospect of a new access ( which was the downfall ). When Numerica sold BF with a field it fetched £240K. That suggests a value c.£160K ( less road construction costs ) for title ESX113609.
Once they were the landowners they would have been “able to realise the completion of the scheme in an acceptable way because it is they who have [ had at long last ] a controlling interest in those elements of the scheme, essential to it's satisfactory implementation”.
Subsequent to the sale of BF in 2004, Burden Bros. the John Deere dealers approached CMH expressing an interest in renting BF, but the idea was scuppered by the absence of the new westerly road.
Another unintended consequence of a defective site notice.
At the acquisition of BP in 2004 the following confidential correspondence was found on file. The WD file reference must be invalid because the drawing number 4344/1 relates to WD/89/4371.
23/10/1989 ESCC Highways Ref WD/88/3085/ RLR/DCM From Assistant County Engineer D C Mulrenan to David Osborn of Costers by fax. "I confirm that the layout on your plan 4344/1 is considered to be the best available for the existing farm access through this property...... However it is considered that this can be accepted inthe [sic] overall interests of providing a better access at this point and reducing the use of the seriously substandard access onto the B2203".
" 30/10/1989 David Osborn to P. C. Digweed "You will note they refer to a "farm access" and I therefore feel the same wording should be used on the application, as previously discussed".
The scenario was, that BP had ( nearly ) achieved it's ambition to control a land link westwards from the factory to the A267 on the Little London Road by the acquisition of Oak Glen and it's adjacent field ( hatched blue on appendix 1 ). Rather than frighten the horses and apply for an industrial road up from the factory, they were going to do things incrementally, and the first stage was to improve the existing access. So, David Osborn of Costers put in for the improvement, which went from a standard 10' gate up to a 6.5m minor width expanding to 30m adjacent to the carriageway ( and encroaching on the curtilages of both the adjacent properties to boot ). The problem with Mr Mulrenan's analysis was that no notices had been served on either P C Digweed or the unknown owner(s) of Stream Lane, which would have involved a newspaper advertisement, and that would have blown the deception apart.
So, the Assistant County Engineer at ESCC was fully aware of the circumstances but was going along with the deception, and it seems from his 30/10/89 correspondence that Mr Osborn was anxious to nurse the lie.
In the finish, the enhanced entrance was constructed, but both constructing it and mending the house absorbed funds and time. The market turned and a fire sale occurred in 1991. The industrial road proposal did emerge ( WD/90/3572 ), after it was flushed out by the CMH proposal WD/90/3492, but it relied on co-operation from P C Digweed who eventually dissented, and it was never built. The losses accumulating from this point on were a major factor in BP's failure.
Inconsistent evidence abstraction parameters.
For Mel Pocock's Certificate of Lawful Use ( CLU ) application, “Geoff Johnson” accepted “13 (?) lever arch files” of information and they were put in the strong room “Not date stamped”. For his CLU, CMH called on 5/3/96 and offered 47 lever arch files of information ( representing 5,600 records ) and from these the junior planning officer Paul Lemar abstracted a very limited selection of individual vouchers despite persistent encouragement to take many more. It would seem that CMH's application was being set up to fail. The report to committee said CMH had submitted insufficient information on repairs. Since Mr Kay had previously toured the site in the company of Miss J Spice and William Ashdown who was employed to do the repairs, it is quite clear that since the documentary evidence had been ignored, either 1. Mr Kay had failed to ask Mr Ashdown about repairs, or 2. Mr Kay had asked, been told, and was not going to relay that information to committee. Evidence on repairs was there in abundance, but for some curious reason it was never properly assessed by a decision maker until the day of the appeal.
Contempt for proper protocol - assisting a friend.
Acting as a developer's agent:- “In a conversation with Mr. Ian Kay, it was suggested that Mr. Tony James of G L James ( Heathfield ) Ltd. was the best person to contact in respect of submitting a plan for the redevelopment of the …. land”. Mr James is a prominent local Freemason.
Contempt for proper disclosure: Conflict of Interest #1.
Cllr. Jack Gore of Framfield sat on Lord Newton's panel hearing the 13 petitioners planning complaints and would regularly interject “I don't see anything wrong with that!”. He did not see anything wrong about concealing a relationship with Mr. Edmondson of New Place Farm, Framfield either, and resigned when it was pointed out to him. There were three people on Lord Newton's panel and it seems that the moral compass of one of them was compromised. When telephoned and asked point blank “Are you a Freemason?”, Jack Gore responded, “I don't think that is a reasonable question to ask anyone!”
It is only to be hoped that Cllr. Gore's moral compass was not defective during his chairmanship of the APN.
Contempt for proper disclosure: Conflict of Interest #2.
Extract from a letter dated 31/05/05.
“When the plans … went to the planning committee I attended and noticed that neither the police nor the fire service had been consulted, I asked why this was so, Mr Kay replied “quote” because I did not consider it necessary. This was the second application, the first was turned down, it was slipped in as a “late item” giving only one working days notice. It was not even on the Parish Council's planning agenda at all “very strange”. However surprise surprise the plans were passed on this occasion, our ward member was conveniently “abroad” for a few days and according to our M.P. this member was against the plans as Wealden District Council actually support this club. Our MP said it would be a serious impropriety, a conflict of interest, as you cannot be both applicant and decision maker.”
[ There is no declaration of interest in the Register relating to this application ].
“I later tried to purchase the tape recordings of both applications, but was told that the first one had “gone missing” the second one was of such poor quality sound recording that not one word could be deciphered, all very strange don't you think. I wonder if anyone will do anything about this behaviour by officers in all sorts of departments entrusted with the upholding of standards and honours and laws”.
In a letter dated 17/12/03, Miss J Craddock from WDC comments to the correspondent:- “As previously mentioned, the recordings are not designed for relaying to the public and are therefore not always of a high quality, due to the amount of background noise”.
Which rather begs the question what earthly purpose these £40 recordings fulfilled in 2003 if they were inaudible? V Scarpa District Solicitor seemed most unhappy in 2002 in his letter headed “Use of recording equipment on premises used by the Council.” and commented on the audible “CDR of my closing submissions made at a public inquiry”. It would appear that WDC sought to control the monopoly of recording ( and information ) by selling inaudible CD's.
Contempt for proper disclosure: Conflict of Interest #3. Uninvestigated.
The Ombudsman made a decision ( reference 15 012 078 ) on 15/1/2016 not to investigate a complaint about a Wealden councillor.
The Ombudsman's final decision:
Summary: This complaint is about the Council's decision on a Members code of Conduct complaint. My view is that there was no fault causing an injustice with the main issue under complaint. And further investigation of the other parts of the complaint would not achieve enough to warrant the public expense of the Ombudsman's further investigation.
The complainant, who I will refer to as Mr. X, complains that a councillor, who was a member of it's planning committee:
Voted on a planning application where he had a prejudicial interest he did not declare;
Had done the same in other planning applications;
Breached the Members' Code of Conduct; and
the Council's decision to take no further action was based on a faulty investigation.
Contempt for proper disclosure missing 5 opportunities: Conflict of Interest #4.
When the bulk freezer application ( WD/95/2908 ) was submitted by BP, CMH submitted an identical twin. The two applications came to committee in January '96, and again in February '96. WD/95/3352 went on to appeal. It now transpires that there are two non identical files for WD/95/2908, and the difference between them is information that should have triggered a declaration of interest. However, there is no declaration of interest in the Register for any one of the four committee appearances, nor is there any mention of a declaration of interest in the Inspector's decision letter. IMK gave the commentary at committee and presented evidence at the appeal. The normal thing for an officer to do in such circumstances is to declare an interest and invite the opposing party to object or acquiesce Decisions on this development are therefore tainted by perceived bias ( R. v. Sussex Justices ex parte McCarthy 1924 ) where the LPA were an interested party occupying a twofold position. It would appear that the costs awarded here too should be revisited ( Sharland v. Sharland ).
Contempt for proper disclosure: Conflict of Interest #5. The Herbert Smith affair.
Councillor Herbert Smith, a builder from Ninfield, was Leader of the Council and Leader of the Conservatives. According to a letter on file, without declaring an interest, he voted against Mr Piggot's planning application WD/88/5085 on a site adjacent to one of his own along Marlpit Lane, Ninfield and put in his own application prepared by Kenneth Higgs of Bexhill. It was the only application decided by the Full Council after APS and the Strategic Planning Committee refused to countenance it. Apparently, according to an ex councillor who voted, “there was a clear Masonic influence”. Then the Secretary of State called in the decision after it had been mentioned in Parliament and it was revoked. Cllr. Smith was awarded £42,750 compensation from the public purse. A D. of E. letter reads thus:-
Date stamped 19th April 1990.
CONSISTENCY OF PLANNING DECISIONS.
The Secretary of State's attention has been drawn formally to two separate decisions of your Council which are alleged to have been inconsistent with previous decisions, and where applicants for similar permissions in similar circumstances have been treated differently. The Secretary of State has been asked to activate his default powers under S.276 of the 1971 Town and Country Planning Act in both cases.
8. The second case relates to planning application 89/3522, concerning a site at Marlpits Lane, Ninfield. This we understand was approved on 7 September 1989 against a background of two previous refusals ( 87/1341 and 87/2834 ), the latter refusal being upheld on appeal by a decision dated 19 June 1988. Furthermore it is alleged that similar developments on the adjoining site ( 88/5085 ) and near ( 88/4123 ) had both been refused, again with the refusals upheld on appeal. The allegations state that the successful applicant is a district councillor, a past leader of the Conservative Group, and a past chairman of the of the Council, and that the approval is seriously inconsistent with past decisions of the Council on the site, with a recent appeal decision on the site, and with decisions by the Council and on appeal on neighbouring sites. We therefore request your comments on these allegations. As we do not have copies of the planning applications, decision notices, official reports, and committee resolutions on this site, would your reply please include copies of these items.
A R Chetwynd.
A letter on the file runs:-
“This presents the worst possible example by a Council member being able by lobbying and manipulation to get his way against planning policy – the objectors, the Council Officers and the Minister.
The applicant Councillor H. Smith was for part of the time Chairman and or Leader of the Council, and was therefore the last person to gain from his position and failed to uphold his Council's policy.
The facts are purely that the same application was refused twice by the Policy Committee and an appeal dismissed. As it appeared to Smith that his greatest support was from the Planning Committee a move was orchestrated to change the rules to give this committee more autonomy over the policy Committee. I am informed that much lobbying took place with the result that in July 1988 the new procedure was adopted. Smith then submitted a third application which after considerable argument, as shown in the attached minutes, went to the Full Council, was approved causing a serious split with some members resigning the whip.
Before Smith submitted his third application the Planning Committee refused two similar applications one on the adjoining site, 88/5085 and the other, one hundred yards away 88/4123 both of which were dismissed on appeal. This surely must be bias on behalf of a Council Member?
For a long time it was public knowledge that Smith was trying to trace the owner of the site adjoining his, owned by Piggot who had disappeared. In the first week of March 1989 Piggot appeared on the site and posted a notice of his intention to apply for Planning Permission. On that occasion, Mr. A. Hartley, South Winds, Marlpits Lane, the adjoining house, states that Piggott informed him that Smith had made an offer for the site and showed Hartley a letter apparently to this effect.
This application 88/5085 was refused by the Planning Committee at which meeting Smith was present but did not declare an interest.
The Council now finds itself in the position that if Smith succeeds in purchasing this site and either he or the present owner submit a satisfactory application, planning must be given, given the precedent set on the adjoining plot and the whole of the Council's planning policy torn to shreds.”
Abstract from a letter to Dr. D C M Yardley, Local Government Ombudsman.
“I would confirm that when Mr. Piggotts's outline application WD/88/5085 for two semi detached cottages was considered by APS and refused at the sub committee meeting held on 14th March 1989, Councillor H Smith was in attendance.”
However, the Register does not record a declaration of interest as it should:-
WD/88/5085 was determined on 14.8.89 at APS with Cllr. H C Smith in attendance.
This is an abstract from the Register of interests:-
Line 120 Cllr Mrs E M Gabriel 13.6.89 APN WD/89/10190/P
121 Cllr Mrs Carver 8.8.89 APN WD/89/1683
The Smith declaration should appear here, as line 122 on 14.8.89 but it does not.
122 Cllr H C Smith 22.11.89 WDC WD/89/3522
It will be noted that the executive did not manufacture delay with this application. Furthermore, the involvement of Timothy William Dowsett, District Secretary ( South ) is interesting. On microfiche 3/6 of WD/89/3522, he told the Ombudsman Dr. S F Yardley that if a “formal declaration of interest was not made at a meeting of the Planning Committee..... then the question is one for the Police and the DPP in the first instance”. There is no record of either authority being engaged.
Contempt for proper disclosure – conflict of interest #6.
And now we come to the Granddaddy of all conflicts of interest. Ian Kay, ADPO, had married Suzanne Best, daughter of Denis Best, who was a restaurateur, developer, founder of Best Demolition and a Freemason. He took an interest in Summer Hill, Broad Oak, ( adjacent to the Heathfield Show site ), Corins Restaurant, Selmeston, and the Sandcastle, 46, Val Princeps Way, Pevensey Bay ( which had previously been the asset of a Masonic Grand Master ). Four applications went in over two years for The Sandcastle ( appendix 2 ), and for every one of the six “Best” applications submitted, IMK sent in a declaration of interest notification religiously to his section leader, from his home address, explaining that he could take no part in the processing of these applications because of his relationship with Denis Best. All the letters were c.c.'d to various officers and members. Most of these letters are still on file, but inexplicably critical correspondence on file WD/87/3194 became unavailable after first viewing on or around 23/3/16, probably because the master file had been supplied in error and the subsequently supplied slave file has been 'adjusted'. In total 33 written advices had been sent out to members and senior executive officers prior to the day. And what happened on 8/12/1987? Ian Kay gave the commentary. It beggars belief. Then, at some subsequent unknown date, The Register of Disclosures & General Interests was corrupted by the simple expedient of Tipp-Exing out an honest Councillor's declaration and superimposing IMK's retrospective declaration along line 71. This action was witnessed by Mrs Susan Harvey, née Mealing.
It is questionable as to why the application had been registered in the first place for two reasons. Lord Newton was considered a suitable chairman for the petition panel and had considerable planning experience. He took the trouble to scrutinise the application and wrote a critical letter which is on file. The first point he made was that this application was too similar and too soon after a recent appeal dismissal. In other words, the committee was being bullied with repetitive applications as per Herbert Smith at Marlpit Lane. Secondly, the site notices were known to be defective. The executive knew this and the Council were being threatened with Judicial Review by Mr Randall Sinnatt. Mr. Scarpa did not disagree with him. Let us see what he had to say on 20/10/1987:-
V Scarpa to DPO WD/87/3194, M/F 3/5.
“The legal position relating to Section 27 certificates has, in the past, been that, as long as a Certificate was completed and submitted with the Application, a local planning Authority could rely on that and issue a valid planning permission, if it was minded to do so. Indeed, the Courts had held that an error or irregularity in the Certificate had no legal affect, excepting for gross irregularities, for instance, when the Certificate was fraudulently issued. However, a Court of Appeal case heard in 1984, Main vs. Swansea City Council, reported in the Journal of Planning Law ( see attached copy ), has changed the legal position. That case held that, if a certificate was incorrectly issued by the Applicant, e.g. where he had not given notice to the owner of a small parcel of land forming the application site, that would invalidate the planning permission. In practice, that would be done by applying to the High Court for a declaration that the planning permission in question was invalid, The judgement in that case stated that whether or not the Court would make a declaration of the invalidity of the planning permission depended on all the circumstances, but unfortunately there has been no subsequent case law to indicate what limits the Courts would put on themselves in dealing with such cases.
I understand from Mr. Coffey of your Department that, although the Sub Committee resolved to grant permission [ 27/10/87 ], no such permission has been issued, and the application is to be referred back to the next meeting of the Area Plans South Sub-Committee [ 8/12/87 ]. The applicant should be advised that he should follow the statutory procedures in Section 27 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as to the giving of notice in respect of the application and re-submit the application with a new Section 27 Certificate.
In conclusion, the Court of Appeal ruling would appear to be unfortunate in that it enables residents in the vicinity of a proposed development to try to seek to invalidate a planning permission on the basis of the applicant's defective Section 27 Certificate, and can lead a Council into expensive High Court litigation in defending the validity of a planning permission, in circumstances where the only error has been the inadvertence or carelessness of the applicant”.
P G V Kenward eventually did on 31/12/1987 that what he should have done in the first place by putting that essential but expensive notice in the Sussex Express.
So this basically means that the executive were put up two fingers to protocol by scheduling this application for December 8th when they had been told it was unfit for consideration on October 20th. What other conclusion can be drawn from this sequence?
Then we look at the Masons in the mix. The applicant had been Master of Tyrian Lodge circa 1987. The agent's father had been Master circa 1982, and the agent went on to become Master subsequently. It was well known that the Leader of the Council and Leader of the Conservatives, Herbert Smith was a Mason, and the committee chairman, Tom Woodward, tried to recruit someone to Freemasonry. A former colleague of IMK recalled in 2017 that IMK was twice considered for a Peacehaven Lodge.
By reference to appendix 2 let us schedule the spectrum of certain knowledge prevailing on the day at the start of IMK's nepotistic commentary. Derek Holness, Chief Executive, had received 4 written advices, Ashley J Brown District Planning Officer had received 4 written advices, K D T Tomlinson had received 5 written advices, Herbert Smith had received 2 written advices, Tom Woodward, chairman, had received 2 written advices, G Hinder, former chairman, had received 2 written advices, C Prangnell, ward member, had received 2 written advices, Bernard Trew had received 2 written advices, and both Patrick Coffey and George Moram White knew because they had co-processed the preceding Sandcastle application ( WD/87/2089 ). But the most interesting officer who was “in the loop” was Timothy Dowsett, District Secretary ( South ). He had received 3 written advices, and was the officer responsible for resolving conflicts of interest. He went on to suggest ( in Herbert Smith's matter ) that either the Police or the D.P.P. should be involved if there was an undisclosed conflict of interest. He did not seem to think so here. Finally, the proper officer, Susan Harvey, the administrative assistant, had signed off Mr Kay's previous declarations in The Register, and consequently she must have known.
If this was not a conspiracy of silence, how would one care to define it?
Ashley Brown, DPO, offered his explanation dated 12/1/98 ( on WD/02/0892 mf 1/4 ) which runs thus :- “Council records indicate,and I personally recall, that at the time of the submission and when reporting … Mr Kay acted at all times, in a proper and professional manner, declaring his interest in such matter, both in writing to the Council and verbally at Committee, and at the appropriate time, left the Committee room and took no part in the discussion at Committee”. Three things let in the wet here, because firstly he has claimed in writing that he was in the meeting, but the minutes, ( signed off by 20 committee members ), do not confirm this, secondly because there is a sequence of declarations in writing on the five previous applications and none for WD/87/3194, and thirdly because CMH's returned affidavit confirms the “in writing to the Council” statement but the currently available green microfiches do not, because the yellow set containing the declaration is being withheld and it is not identical to the green set which has been tampered with. So by reference to the current set of microfiches one can only conclude that either Ashley Brown DPO supplied Cllr. Blake with an untrue statement of fact or the files have been tampered with. This rather undermines Mr Brown's statement in a letter to CMH ( dated 27/2/97 on MF 2 of WD/95/2908 ) “I would totally refute your allegation that Mr Kay operates a policy of non disclosure of information and / or fails to advise the APS of relevant information”.
Correspondence about file tampering was routine. The following letter is typical:-
“ File Tampering.
Dear Mr. Lant,
1. Further to my letter of 6.iv.2018 may I take you to an abstract from the Strategic Planning and Economic Development Committee report for 20th January 1998. On page16 at point 8 I read:-
2. “The 1:2500 block plan that accompanied Bridge Poultry's application WD/95/2908 for the proposed bulk freezer extension showed no means of vehicular access to a public highway. The Council ought not to have accepted this application. Plans have been tampered with”.
3. “This appears to be outside the Panel's remit. Mr. Kay totally refutes Mr. Hudson's allegation that plans have been tampered with by Council officers. He says that when revised plans are received which supersede the original plans submitted, then these are properly and clearly stamped “superseded” for the avoidance of doubt. The failure to show any means of vehicular access to a public highway in respect of application WD/95/2908 was rectified by the agent on 7 November 1995”.
4. I enclose a partial photocopy of the planning application form PA1 that accompanied the original WD/95/2908 application. In order to validate the explanation in 3 above, would you please send me a certified copy of the complete version of this PA1 ( which I am expecting to be stamped “superseded” ) and a copy of the original plan that it accompanied showing no means of vehicular access to the public highway ( which I am also expecting to be stamped “superseded” ).
5. If you cannot provided either of the documents requested in 4 then I will be disappointed to conclude that your files have been tampered with and the panel were misled.
6. I will transmit this letter by hand and under Recorded Delivery docket KF 1166 7904 0GB for the avoidance of doubt.
Yours, Chester Hudson.”
CMH's affidavit, drawn up outlining the Sandcastle evidence loss, sworn on 13/4/16 and sent to the executive under recorded delivery and received on 15/4/16, has been acknowledged in writing as being received, but currently the story is that the executive do not know who it was logged out to ( or where it is ). Since over three years has elapsed since it's reception the executive can now be deemed to have accepted it's contents by acquiescence. The supply of corroborating photocopied evidence to support this document merely required 6 letters over 78 days to the then Chief Executive, Charles Lant, plus a request from a barrister which cost £300.
A discreet and snide remark relating to this episode is on WD/02/0892 where Solicitor Scarpa, replying to Cllr. John Blake MRTPI, says “Mr Hudson does like to recycle his old false allegations now and again in the hope that someone might believe them to be true”. ( see Pulling the Wool ).
But you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. There is a letter from David Randall Sinnatt on file WD/1987/3194/T date stamped 12/11/87, written less than a month before Mr. Kay commentated on his father-in-law's application. Quite apart from anything else, a defective S.27 notice rendered it unfit for committee consideration on 8/12/87. He suggests that:- “your Council must have been influenced by non-planning factors.” As CMH commented:- “Perhaps this is custom and practice within your Authority. Since there was such a clear failure to marshal the facts from BPS, should I conclude that these three cases, The Old Steamhouse, WD/1987/3194/T and WD/1977/1449/X, have the same two elements in common, wilful blindness and obstruction?” Sent Recorded delivery AI423084526GB. Received 16/12/16 08.37 hrs. signed for by Barber.
Contempt for proper disclosure conflict of interest #7.
And now we come to the Great Granddaddy of all non disclosures. This is an extract from the Criminal Witness Statement of John Martin Edward Hoath dated 13/12/17. “g) Cripps Harries Hall ( CHH ) were caught by the informant's ( JH 's ) investigations as committing industrial fraud against their deceased clients Estates for personal gain.”
CHH had been both WDC's solicitors and were JH's Father's estate's solicitors. So, when it came to an enforcement appeal on a hauliers yard at Summersales Farm TN6 1UT, one would have expected a declaration of interest from someone. But none came, and the appeal was lost through lack of historic evidence. Since the appeal site was in close proximity to two former army camps, one would have expected an abundance of aerial photographs. Most of us know that the Luftwaffe based their Baedeker Raids on aerial 'photos harvested in the late '30's, but it appears that none of this evidence was sought. Which has overtones of Judge Kennedy's observations “But Planning Officers either know where to get aerial photography that far back or they do not” and the defacement of an aerial photograph at the Stream Farm L.U. appeal.
CHH and WDC co-conspired in this fraud by not declaring their interest, and set the appeal up to fail by not researching the evidence. There should be an entry in the Register of General Disclosures relating to this appeal and there is not. T W Dowsett may have been the officer responsible for resolving this conflict of interest.
Pulling the wool and nursing the lie.
When Numerica advertised BF after BP's collapse, various interested parties approached CMH because he controlled the access. One of those parties was a builder from Eastbourne who was looking for premises. CMH wrote to him, and the contents of the letter disturbed him so much that he contacted his local member, the only professional planner who was also a committee member – John Blake MRTPI. Cllr. Blake wrote a concerned letter to Mr Scarpa ( which is on file WD/02/0892 dated 21/8/02). He asked three pertinent questions, the true answers ( contested by AJB ) are in bold. “a) Whether the applicant was related to Mr Kay.” Yes. “b) Whether Mr Kay disclosed the relationship”. Not verbally, but he had in writing to 7 individuals present who were at previous meetings, amongst a total of 43 written declarations. “c) What part, if any, Mr Kay took in the processing of the application”. He gave the commentary.
Mr Scarpa's reply marked “CONFIDENTIAL” is dated circa 22/8/02. It reads:-
“Dear Cllr. Blake,
Re: Mr Hudson – False accusations.
Thank you for your letter of 21st August received on 27th August 2002. Can you clarify who faxed you this “information”. Was it Mr. Hudson or the recipient of the letter? I have spoken to Ian Kay who advised me that this ?matter? was last raised by Mr Hudson in late 1997. Mr Hudson does like to recycle his old false allegations now and again in the hope that someone might believe them to be true.
Mr Hudson has a grudge against the Council and Mr Kay in particular dating from the early 1980's concerning a recommendation to members that no action should be taken in respect of a breach of condition ( which had required the carrying out of works to secure improvements to visibility at an access ) on a planning permission for development at Bridge Poultry Farm which is near his property at Stream Farm, Horam. Mr Hudson was also unhappy at how subsequent applications were handled. His continuing interest in what happens at Bridge Poultry Farm is evidenced by the fact that he submitted applications for development on that site which he pursued to appeal in an attempt to try to persuade the Inspector that the Council had mishandled previous applications at the property. Mr Hudson was unsuccessful in those endeavours.
The allegations against Mr Kay are wholly untrue and were refuted in a letter from the District Planning Officer to Mr Hudson dated 12th January 1998, a copy of which I enclose and which Mr Hudson did not successfully challenge at the time. The last application submitted by Mr Kay's father in law was in the 1980's and that was refused planning permission.
As regards any action by the Council subject to the clarification referred to above I am happy to write to Mr Hudson to warn him against making false allegations but from past experience such correspondence has limited effect.
Solicitor and Legal Services Manager”
N.B. Note the modus operandi here. Mr Scarpa, who had no first hand knowledge of the event in question, retails AJB's fiction who claimed first hand knowledge many years after the event, a fiction uncorroborated by 20 Councillors 30 days after the event. This smacks of collusion, just as Mr Scarpa colluded with IMK's weight limit fiction, colluded in silence during IMK's costs treatise, and solicitor Geoff Johnson colluded in near silence during IMK's cross examination before Inspector Wilkinson.
You will note Mr Scarpa makes no mention of his Council's unresolved maladministration INV/399/S/80, the blight imposed on Stream Farm, the consequent threat of compulsory purchase in Michael Burrell Q.C.'s 18/4/80 opinion ( which was supplied to WDC ), that CMH had also purchased the most superior road alignment of the three possible routes one which he had offered to BP free of charge to remove the 24 year old blight on his property, that CMH had funded a series of alternative “Hudson” road applications which WDC refused and opposed at appeal ( with intimidatory applications for costs ), or WDC's success in reducing BP to unsaleability ( as a going concern ) and consequent squandering of an EEC grant for a specialist building. But he does nurse the lie that Mr Kay didn't do what he did do with supreme economy of the actualité and distortion of the facts.
Mr Scarpa also mentions a “grudge”. Perhaps he is suggesting CMH was “intending to …. gain redress against” WDC, as Pegram Heron suspected of WDC in case No. TN200438? Had he considered IMK's possible motive for a “grudge”, he would have explored the unattractiveness to another LPA of a case officer from a pariah authority with one ( or perhaps two ) maladministrations to his name, and established whether IMK was that officer. He would have also considered what had motivated IMK to procure a false instrument and deliver a sequence of perjuries to Inspector Wilkinson in 1997, or deliver a commentary on his father – in law's planning application, and then either direct, or co-conspire in, the defacement of the Register contrary to the Local Government Act 1972. Then he would have considered the matter on something approaching full evidence and pondered whether these were the qualities valued in a District Planning Officer nationally ( or just “local”ly to a pariah authority ).
Manipulation of a notice to ensure retention of a valuable enforcement uprising.
Extract from defence pleadings in Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves.
“The Council told me they would have the sand stored for three days ….. so I waited for their invoice. They posted it after 2 days and sent it second class in the Christmas post. I received it 8 days after the enforcement by which time Mr Magner had been told he could keep the sand.”
Misappropriation of enforcement uprisings case #1.
Tony Reeves ran Aysgarth Farm, Ballsocks Lane, Vines Cross breeding Dales Ponies with his wife. His neighbour was the distinguished ex-diplomat, Sir Hugh Cortazzi. Foreign Office rules prevented Sir Hugh from going into debt, so he was precluded from raising a mortgage to buy the adjacent holding when he bought Ballsocks. Sir Hugh litigated against Mr Reeves and Judge Wingate made it blatantly obvious at the start of the case that he was not on the defendant's side. WDC enforced ( C/00/025/HRM ) against Mr Reeves for the “Unauthorised storage of cars, caravans and builders' materials” and circa 1/8/2001 obtained quotes from 3 contractors who were required to submit their price that would “include transport to a licensed tip or scrap yard and disposal charges at that location”. There was a considerable quantity of high quality silica sand-school sand on the site which had been obtained from St. Bede's. Since it would have been invaluable for filling an arena for covering Dale Pony mares, Mr. Reeves paid £200 and put in a planning application for an arena. A Council officer posted the site notice on 8/11/01. On 11/12/2001, this material, mis-described on the enforcement notice as “building sand”, was removed by the contractors clearly at a time specifically selected to frustrate this application ( as per Bushywood ), not to the appointed authorised location ( Pyecombe Quarry run by Robins of Herstmonceux some 27.6 miles distant ), but to John Magner's equestrian establishment and unauthorised tipping location, Rock Hill House, Burwash Road, Broad Oak, 4.8 miles away, by Best Demolition ( who employed IMK's wife ). ESCC confirmed that this location was not a registered tip on 29/4/2003, so one would suppose the transport of ( potentially re-useable ) “waste” material from one unauthorised location and tipping at another would have been contrary to the Environmental Protection Act and / or the Waste Management Licensing Regulations Act 1994. One would also suppose that Sir Hugh's chum, Ken Tomlinson M.I.C.E., C. Eng., the WDC Director of Technical Services ( who had came from The Metropolitan Borough of Kingston upon Hull, one of the 4 pariah authorities considered ineligible for supplying a candidate when ESCC appointed their first female chief executive ) ), might have spotted that this was not “building sand” as he only lived 450 metres away, but apparently his talents were not recruited.
Mr Reeves' planning application for the level fenced arena across which this expensive sand would have been spread posed a threat to WDC's asset acquisition plans so they had to act quickly, and at a very unsuitable time of year. No matter, either Mr Reeves or the ratepayer would be paying.
The demolition crew arrived three days after the planning application was received and slithered about loading material. Sand was spread in the ruts to give the loader a better grip. Mr Best expressed disappointment when he saw that the horsebox had gone ( John Magner dealt in horseboxes too ).
WDC paid Best Demolition's bill reference 102467 for £7,520 authorised by David Phillips on 11/1/02 and then attempted to recharge Mr. Reeves for the transport to Pyecombe and the tipping charge amongst other things. He refused to pay. The District Auditor was invited to scrutinise this case and his letter is transcribed in part here :-
11/11/2002 “”Is any income due to the Council, which has not been brought to account, following the removal under planning enforcement powers of approximately 6 – 8 lorry loads of sand from Aysgarth Farm?” “I have looked into this question and obtained satisfactory answers from the Council. My view … is that there is no income which should have been brought into account in this instance. The Council's view is that the landowner's title to the contaminated sand ended at the moment the goods were disposed of and no income arose from the disposal.
I understand the Council's approach has previously been upheld in the Eastbourne County Court in respect of clearance at a different site. On that occasion the landowner sought to argue that the materials resulting from the demolition were saleable and should have been sold and any proceeds properly accounted for. I understand that the Court accepted the Council's submission and that the Council was entitled to dispose of them.
In reviewing this matter I have seen the authorisation for carrying out the works and associated documentation. This indicates that none of the materials was considered to have a commercial value. The Council's legal officer has provided an opinion explaining how the Council exercised it's powers in this instance.”
So, information “provided by the Council's solicitor” could perceive no loss to the public purse. ESCC confirmed that Rock Hill House was not a registered tip. The invoice for £7,520 was paid and a year or more later a repayment of £3.5 K was negotiated of which Mr. Reeves paid £1K and then stopped. After two desultory letters WDC did not bother him again. The material was most welcome at Rock Hill House because the newly completed sand school was awaiting some very expensive high silica sand. WDC had supplied John Magner with a scrap item supposedly of “no commercial value”, and left the ratepayer to foot most of the bill.
The ratepayer paid for illegal tipping. Is any other conclusion available?
Misappropriation of enforcement uprisings case #2.
Emily Gallard had placed a Stately Albion caravan ( recently purchased for £30K ) on Eddie Russell's Little Hackhurst Farm. WDC enforced against it, but instead of following normal protocol they decided that there was no need “to store anything for three days ( as is often the case in such work )”. So, instead of it being removed to the Council depot at Jarvis Brook, it was transported to Stately Albion's works in Newport, South Wales, and WDC refused to tell her where it had gone so she could not reclaim it. Subsequently, it transpired that when Mrs. Gallard bought the caravan from David Anscombe's son, Carl, he did not pay his bill to Stately Albion, so WDC had helped Stately Albion out on the rates by returning their caravan. They gave Mrs. Gallard a council house.
Misappropriation of enforcement uprisings case #3.
Brain Goodacre's land was at the end of Greenwoods Lane, Punnetts Town. This dead end sees around 15 cars a day. Completely by coincidence there happened to be a tractor dealer passing as WDC's contractors, Cleary & Downey, were tidying his land, and they loaded a three cylinder Massey Ferguson 35 tractor with a foreloader and delivered it to him for £40 “which was shared between six of them.” Master Leslie ( RCJ 7/8/2002 case HQ02X00013 ) explains the significance:-
13 “...the defendants, by their contractors, clearing everything off the land. One matter of complaint which Mr. Goodacre made, if I may say so very temperately, was that it was always acknowledged that this land was properly being used by him for forestry and agricultural purposes. The defendants completely cleared the land as far as I can see, except for an electricity post, including a great deal of agricultural implements which, according to Mr. Goodacre, in the list at page 174 of the bundle before me, included matters of great importance to him. They were important a) because he used them in and about his agricultural activities which were authorised on the land. But more importantly, he had no means of getting them back on the land because he had given an undertaking to the Court that he would not cross the land belonging to Mr. Clements and which cut off his land from the main highway, except by a footpath and another narrow path that he had a right to use by way of usage at one end of the land. That means, and as far as I am aware the defendants knew this full well, that he would not be able, except with great difficulty, to be able to get his agricultural machinery back onto the land”.
14 “I think on that ground alone, Mr Goodacre has reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for trespass to goods in respect of the agricultural machinery and implements that were on the land and were on the land but not in breach of any planning obligation or in defiance, if that is the right word, of an enforcement notice”.
15 “….. it seems to me that there is something in what he says and sufficient in what he says to say there are reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and not striking it out. For instance, although he has said and given some evidence in his submissions to me, it seems to me on the material I have seen as admissible evidence , that it is at least arguable that the defendants, and there are reasonable grounds for claiming that the defendants owed him some duty in exercising their powers to take these goods, if it was not a trespass, to look after them for at least three days, to tell him how much he owed, to give him the opportunity to pay it. They did not. They simply dumped it. Somebody seems to have made a rather half – hearted effort, says Mr. Goodacre, I think he has reasonable grounds for saying this, to try and sell these goods privately. There is some evidence that a rather fine old Massey Ferguson tractor, although I suspect it was not in very good condition, was simply knocked out almost for scrap. That is not good enough in my judgement, and Mr. Goodacre has reasonable grounds for making that claim”.
16 “I should also add this. Mr Goodacre makes a claim for damages for misfeasance in public office. It appears to me that there are reasonable grounds for him to say, with a sufficiently real prospect of success, that in doing what they did, the defendants, by their servants, were actuated by the sufficient malice and types of malice required by the law to make out a claim for misfeasance in public office. The way in which notices were served at the very last minute, I have given but one example in this judgement. That was in which the defendants, knowing that the Crown was involved, because they wrote a letter two days before they moved in, to the Treasury solicitor, not seeking consent under the Act but simply giving them some sort of notice. The way they acted in that way. All that is, in my judgement, sufficient for me to say there are reasonable grounds for making this claim and not striking it out.”
Put simply, this was state sponsored crucifixion of another small enterprise.
Misappropriation of enforcement uprisings case #4.
WDC attempted to crucify another rural concern on the Dicker. which remains to this day. Having constructed a building which was a permitted development, WDC enforced against it demanding demolition. The landowner cleaned off the concrete blocks which had an obvious resale value, and Best Demolition removed these, leaving behind the rubble and charging him for clearing the site. The précised information presented to Lord Newton's panel reads:-
“Despite the applications for similar building works, the council's enforcement officers proceeded. The method of procedure is the complaint. The council's enforcement officers relied on late service and general confusion to advantage themselves in the eyes of the Inspectors. They provided factually incorrect evidence. They destroyed or caused to be destroyed foundation components that were not to be removed. Recovered building materials were removed, while debris was left on site.
The site was to cleared of debris and rubble, not good re-usable materials. The reasons given by planning officers for this state of affairs is inconsistent. The overall handling of the case by the officer's concerned,has been riddled with inconsistencies and untruths. The chief enforcement officer at WDC is David Phillips. The information of this case is to be found in the council's own files.”
Misappropriation of enforcement uprisings case #5.
JH's solicitors CHH contested and lost an enforcement appeal c. 1988 against the use and storage of skips at Summersales Farm, Crowborough. The appeal was lost because of “Lack of evidence of established use”. JH refused to pay the bill of £13.5K and asked for a breakdown. CHH made him bankrupt whist he was lorry driving abroad, despite holding assets which exceeded the value of the debt by 1,624%. CHH did not disclose their conflict of interest – they had been WDC's solicitors as well. At the secret enforcement meeting that authorised contractors to clear the land of debris and containers Mr Philips said that the proceeds JH would realise would likely amount to “buttons”.
Adjustment of enforcement uprisings on the day – chattels #1.
Extract from defence pleadings in Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves.
A H Reeves “One other item that attracted their interest was a stack of ten internal stable partitions which came from Sky Farm....When I argued that these were not builder's materials I was told “we can take what we like””.
Another item that Mr Bradshaw was now targeting was my Ford Cargo Horsebox which he had classified as scrap without discussing with me the reason for it's temporary non-use. With a value of £4K it was worth taking”
“At the same meeting on the 3rd December Mr Phillips was listing to Mr Keen all the materials he wanted removed and I asked Mr Keen if I could have a copy of the list. The reply was “only if I am told that I can”. The lack of any list would suggest he was told that he could not”.
“I would now like to comment on the Council's version of events as they happened on the 11th December. My refusal to allow the sand to be moved until I could speak to Mr Bradshaw does not appear in the list of events”.
“My confrontation with Mr Bradshaw does not appear in the list of events”.
“The interview with Mr Phillips by the BBC reporter does not appear in the list of events yet it did appear on the BBC's South East To-day programme”.
“Another omission from the list of events is the discussion Mr Phillips had with me regarding a cylindrical steel tank 20 feet long by 6 feet diameter which he offered to remove at no cost to myself. I accepted their offer but it seems it was not profitable to them and the offer was withdrawn. There is no planning permission for this tank but I am allowed to keep it there”.
“..there were 6 concrete stanchions. They fall well within the description of builder's materials. I have been allowed to keep them”.
A cynic would suggest that they were just picking out whatever was saleable.
Adjustment of enforcement uprisings on the day – chattels #2.
AH “I then asked if he would be surprised to learn that I was not the only farmer to benefit to the tune of £1,000 worth of free goods as a result of this other W.D.C. enforcement notice, & that I had been told that the other farmer I had seen loading up fittings and diesel tanks from the site was the son in law of one of the W.D.C. enforcement officers involved in serving the notice on that site. I asked D. C. Ling to investigate the allegation that plumbing & drainage equipment, fuel tanks and other equipment useful to a farmer had been added to an enforcement notice served on the tenant for car breaking & storage in order to acquire these goods for an enforcement officer's relative & that when the tenant ( who didn't own these goods which had been on site for years before he rented it without causing complaint ), gave half the goods to me W.D.C. tried unlawfully to add them to a notice they had served on me in order to get a second chance to acquire them.”
Adjustment of enforcement uprisings on the day – chattels #3.
Master Leslie 14 “I think on that ground alone, Mr Goodacre has reasonable grounds for bringing a claim for trespass to goods in respect of the agricultural machinery and implements that were on the land and were on the land but not in breach of any planning obligation or in defiance, if that is the right word, of an enforcement notice”.
Adjustment of enforcement uprisings on the day - land.
NJK “it was asked of Justice Previte to expand Injunctive Relief over and above that area of the enforcement notice on the grounds that it would not prejudice my case. In fact that decision deprived me of a home and forced me to purchase a caravan for my accommodation – which in my view has materially prejudiced my case”
Milking the ratepayer – invoice inflation.
Extract from defence pleadings in Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves.
“The next day I called at Mr Best's office and asked how much his bill to WDC was going to be. He said he was not sure. I said that I thought the cost of the men and machines, including the delivery to the site, would be, at the most, £1500. He agreed that this was a reasonable estimate. I then asked if that was what he would be invoicing to WDC and he said that he would invoice the amount that WDC would tell him to. …. The Council's Planning Department paid Best Demolition £6400, £4900 more than the job cost and then set about trying to make me pay for Mr Best's windfall.”
Milking the ratepayer – theft of bogus Enforcement Uprising.
“..the silica sand, the Council's specification, … specified that all materials removed were to be taken to a licensed waste /scrap site...The sand was, however, with the Council's approval, taken to ….Rock Hill House, Broad Oak, … a known dealer in equestrian items. He does not have a waste /scrap licence. ...The sand had been taken from me under an Enforcement Notice and “given” to a dealer who had no right to receive it with the Council's Planning Department's blessing. Quite frankly I think this stinks. Especially as the sand was not a builder's material and should not have been taken in the first place”.
Milking the ratepayer – Misappropriation of public funds?
When you write to WDC you usually get a response but seldom a reply. This letter was sent to two senior ex WDC officers last year, and thus far not even a response has been received.
Would I be correct in saying that you went to France with a group of Wealden District Council executives between 1982 and 1992, the purpose of your visit being a “twinning” exercise?
Would I be correct in saying that your personal expenses were paid for from the public purse and this expenditure had previously been duly authorised by a vote?
Would I be correct in saying that you took your wife on this twinning trip?
Would I be correct in saying that your wife's expenses were paid for from the public purse and this expenditure had not been duly authorised by a vote?
If I do not receive a reply from you within fourteen days I will assume that your answers to these four questions is “yes”.
C M Hudson.
No reply received as of 4/12/2019.
Non investigation of evidence inconvenient to the executive's narrative.
If Albert Rutherford had been permitted to give evidence to Lord Newton's panel he would have said fleshed out his written statement about “the offer to grant us planning permission via Mr Councillor Marriott Smith of Horam for a cash settlement of £10,000 through the back door” on what is now Lanesmead Farm, Laundry Lane, Horam. He supplied an affidavit on 2/12/2019.
Disposal of physical evidence inconvenient to the executive's narrative.
1. Ray Nice gave evidence to Lord Newton's inquiry. After he had given it some evidence was redacted from his transcript using a black marker pen. The petitioners were not told beforehand that their evidence would be censored. The redaction of this evidence prevented SP from making enquiries. An emulsion photograph exists of the redaction.
2. CMH supplied Ashley J Brown with a copy tape recording of IMK's sequence of perjuries to Inspector Wilkinson. AJB returned it on 24/12/1998.
3. CMH supplied to Chris Elphick on 8/3/2004 a CD of a BBC File on Four programme detailing planning corruption within Flintshire County Council ( Recorded Delivery RA8816 0492 0GB ).
4. When CMH asked why the colour, stereoscopic aerial photograph marked WD/96/0043/LU was not on the WD/96/0043/LU file, he was told it was used for the assessment of other applications. They refuse to keep this evidence on the file. WDC have a duty to maintain the integrity of approved Lawful Use files. The reason for this is simple, if any of the original evidence was fraudulent, the consent can be revoked. Revocation can be frustrated if the authority do not maintain the integrity of the file.
5. Circa 1998 CMH was supplied in error with a confidential enforcement report on The SH and raised an affidavit based on misfeasance within that report. He sent an affidavit based on his notes to WDC. On 24/1/17 Ms B Boakes from WDC's Local Authority Legal Services Department wrote “It appears that, in line with this Council's Retention Policy, files relating to the site in question, namely The Old Steam House, have been destroyed. This would have included all Affidavits so I confirm your original document is not lost, but is no longer part of the Council's records.“ Since WDC are still enforcing against the SH, it would be interesting to know their criteria for the disposal of evidence from a current enforcement file.
A replacement affidavit has been offered, but WDC did not accept the offer. As a “Legal Officer”, Ms Boakes will be aware that the loss of evidence from a current enforcement file can be construed as a perversion of the course of justice ( R. vs. T ).
6. On 15/4/16 CMH supplied WDC's District Solicitor with an affidavit relating to IMK's commentary on his father in law's planning application on 8/12/87. They no longer have it. It was addressed to the “District Solicitor” and the envelope is marked “Benefits”, “Caretakers” and “Corporate Services”. The covering letter is initialled “KW” ( DPO ) and “APA”. WDC acknowledge receipt but profess ignorance as to where it went internally.
Manipulating the decision process to ensure a refusal.
Abstract from a letter to the Ombudsman dated 12/9/02. A similar letter on the same topic was sent to The Chief Constable of SP on the same date.
The applicant, via his agent, had been attempting to re-employ a flint byre under a peg tile roof with an open front that was now redundant for agriculture and stood in a group of less substantial buildings which it had had been agreed could be demolished.
Patrick Coffey suggested policy DC8(a) had not been complied with ( which reads :- “the applicant has made every reasonable attempt to secure suitable business re-use, and the application is supported by a statement of the efforts which have been made”.)
That suggestion ignored correspondence dated 28/3/02 ( q.v. ) which declared promotion was impossible if not illegal due to the attitude of the Highway Authority. Mr Coffey knew, or ought to have known, that any attempt at compliance would have breached both civil law and the Property Misdescriptions Act 1991. “It could be argued that Mr Coffey was inciting us and / or our agents to commit a criminal offence which conduct is itself a criminal offence.
Mr Coffey was advised of this appalling situation in … correspondence dated 15/7/02 ..Mr Coffey chose to ignore this communication. He also chose to refuse putting our application before the democratically elected members of the APS. Instead he chose to exercise delegated powers to refuse the application!”.
Attempted crucifixion of a small enterprise.
CMH started a small horticultural machinery spares and repair business at Stream Farm, Horam in 1978. He was refused consent WD/1982/0191 for a mail order warehouse despite offering to improve the entrance for all business users into Stream Lane. The County Engineer intervened and Directed a Refusal. By 1995 there were caches of machinery scattered all over the 3.25 acre site. When he submitted a Certificate of Lawful Use for this site, the committee were invited by IMK to approve a Certificate for a greatly reduced area bordering Stream Lane. That reduced area would have been further reduced had an under-running fatality at it's junction with the B2203 triggered a compulsory purchase order. The reduced area was served by one uphill access onto the B2203 whose lack of use was evidenced by a 3.5” willow blocking the road. ( The clue is in the title, Certificate of Lawful Use ).
In an attempt to justify his proposal Mr Kay procured a defaced and de-referenced copy of an aerial photograph because the original would have supported CMH's case.
The Inspector considered that Mr. Kay's case was “not well founded” and granted a Certificate for 3.25 acres with two entrances.
Letter not received #1.
Diary of events from file WD/96/2789/F.
21/7/97 See our letter to WDC.
22/7/97 See acknowledgement / note re: meeting.
4/8/97 See letter from Mr Parsons.
5/8/97 See letter from WDC.
15/8/97 Our acknowledgement.
Report sent and receipt acknowledged by WDC on 24/9/97.
25/9/97 WDC sent letter advising that they had not heard from us since the 15/8/97, sent them a copy of the acknowledgement of our report dated 24/9/97.
Letter not received #2.
** went to court against WDC over an enforcement ( Contravention Ref: C/20/94/PVY ). The District Solicitor said a completed enforcement questionnaire about Squires Field had not been received. ** said “Yes it has, and there it is in your file, I recognise it!” The Solicitor closed the file.
Letter “not received” #3.
When BP's third incremental area increase was being considered, instead of advertising the possibility the resolution of his Council's eighteen year old maladministration was in prospect, for some extraordinary reason Mr Kay concealed it. When questioned later, he claimed the critical letter was “not received!”. However, well before the meeting, a copy had been handed to the agent Alan West on 30/11/95 who said “I am going to see Ian on Friday”.
Letter not received #4.
A housing association was developing the “ski slope” in Horam. The parking standard at that time was 2 cars per household plus 1 for visitors. Mr. Reeves, a resident at 18 Highfield Road viewed the plans in the Council Offices at Pine Grove and immediately wrote a letter which he posted via WDC's internal mail ( having made a copy ). Highfield Road was short of parking and he had to park in the hammer head overnight. It was clear from the plans that the new development would inevitably aggravate this situation. Just prior to the committee meeting, it seemed that Cllr. Marriott – Smith ( coming from Sandwich Bay ) would not be in attendance, so Mr Reeves tackled Douglas Moss the case officer. Mr. Moss said that Mr. Reeve's letter had not been received, so he was shown the receipt ( which had come on a post card ) and a copy of the letter. At the last moment Cllr. Marriott Smith arrived, spoke up at committee, and the matter was deferred. It is believed that the Housing Association doing the development had given WDC an interest insofar as some units were being promised for WDC tenants ( but the Register is silent on this ). ( Evidence discussed with Mr Reeves at 07.04 hrs. on 13/11/19 )
Employment of a false instrument supported by serial perjury.
Frequently, evidence inconvenient to the executive's argument disappears. Occasionally a defaced substitute miraculously re-appears very briefly, even in Certificates of Lawful Use or Lawful Development ( which are special ). Geoff Johnson, the Enforcement Solicitor explained their unique status to the APN on 13/1/200. From an affidavit sworn 12/2/17.
“.... there is a special provision in relation to these applications... ( it is ? ).... an offence under the Town and Country Planning Act to make a false statement, or give false information with the purpose of procuring a certificate, it doesn't matter how that statement was made, whether it was in a letter or even verbally, there is an offence specific to Lawful Development Certificate applications ….. it is as wide as you want it to be”.
This means that an officer who proposes granting a certificate for a much smaller area, rubbishes or ignores the appellant's evidence, presents defaced evidence, lies about it's provenance and hides material that corroborates the appellant's evidence ( with Geoff Johnson in attendance throughout ), is committing an offence if he is found out, and IMK was. However, Wealden District Council will never prosecute their own no matter how egregious the offence and neither will SP.
The following transcript was an exchange, on oath, at CMH's Lawful Use inquiry.
17/9/1998 IMK lies on oath about the provenance of an unreferenced very poor quality monochrome copy of the triple referenced stereoscopic colour laser enlargement of the 9/5/1987 aerial survey photograph that appeared but once on the file and presents it to Inspector Wilkinson as a false instrument ( which the Inspector said he would "take" ). He fails to advise the Inspector about 1) the alternative versions available, 2) when it was taken, provable from the alternative versions available 3) that Wealden "commission" aerial photographs, & 4) the origin, knowing that since it lacked a date stamp CMH could not have "put it in".
CMH ".... aerial photograph that was referred to in my letter of 20/8/1996. Are you able to produce a copy of that for the Inspector?"
K ( On oath ) "I do that, have that here," Mr Kay produces a black and white unreferenced photograph to which neither a “WDC Planning & Building Control” date stamp nor a Section 47 stamp which would have said:- “This copy has been made by or with the authority of Wealden District Council pursuant to Section 47 of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988. Unless the Act provides a relevant exception to copyright the copy must not be copied without the permission of the copyright holder”.
Inspector. "what was the date of the aerial photograph?"
K. "That is the only aerial photograph we have". Perjury 1. IMK has two more that he does not want the Inspector to know about.
K. "I, I do not know when it was taken".
Perjury 2. He knows very well when it was taken. He has been using the reference set regularly and his assistant obtained a colour enlargement that was copied in monochrome, de-referenced and brought to the inquiry in an attempt to sustain a perversion of the course of justice.
Inspector. "Can you make ou... do you know a period when it may have been taken?"
K " I think Mr. Hudson is claiming it was 1986". ( Note the skilful transfer of provenance to Mr. Hudson ).
Inspector. "Orientate me, I don't know where I am".
Inspector. "Oh I see, that's the Cuckoo trail".
K "There is Stream Farmhouse, ... polytunnel, there is the oast".
Inspector to H. "Do you want to come and have a look?"
K "Sorry, let me start again".
CMH. "It's a very useful piece of evidence."
K " That is Stream Farmhouse .... the drive where we parked yesterday, that is the Maynards Green road, there's the Cuckoo Trail, there is Bridge Poultry site, that is the polytunnel number 7, that is the open field ...I think that is the track or path, a mown track that Mr. Hudson referred to this morning, which goes "
CMH "back of area 22".
Inspector. "But we don't have a date on this?"
CMH "Well I am sure we do if we look in the Council's archives".
Inspector. "Well, put it another way Mr. Kay, do you know what the date of this is?"
K "No I don't Sir". Perjury 3. Yes you do Mr. Kay.
Inspector. "There is not point in me taking, ... I mean I will take it, but if I don't know the date it doesn't help me a lot".
K "We have, we don't commission any aerial photography of the area". Perjury 4. Yes we do Mr. Kay. Read the S.P.E.D. report.
Inspector. "Where did this come from? Was it? D...do you know where it came from?
K "I thought it was submitted by Mr. Hudson". Yet it has no Wealden Ditrict Council Planning and Building Control date stamp so why are we thinking that? To mislead?
CMH ( EMPHATICALLY ) "I'm sorry, you are quite wrong there Mr. Kay".
K "Well I don't know". Perjury 5. Yes you do Mr. Kay. You copied, or caused it to be copied off the triple referenced original enlargement obtained by Miss Spice ( probably on your or Geoff Johnson's instructions ) and you are uttering a false instrument.
Inspector. "Well if ... if neither side recalls having it and I don't know the date, where did you come across it Mr. Hudson?"
CMH "In the Council's files on the eighteenth of Sept...August 1996, and I wrote to them received by them on the 22nd. August to say "I enclose a revised plan which eliminates the lorry body marked six on the previous plan. It is quite obvious from the aerial photograph that this is a mis-declaration for which I apologise?"
K "Yes, I don't dispute that".
K "You obviously came into the office, saw the application file .. "
K "That was on the file, I don't dispute that either because it was me that took it off yesterday",
K "And as a result of that you deleted lorry body number five".
CMH "If that had got a flag on it saying 1979 then quite clearly I would not have written to you in such emphatic terms admitting a mis-declaration would I?"
K "No, I wouldn't have thought you would".
CMH "No, so something gave me to indica.. gave me a clear indication that this was a 1986 photograph".
Geoffrey Johnson, solicitor to WDC. ( who had read the barrister's opinion having initially supplied the instruction? ) "What is the relevance of this?"
CMH EMPHATICALLY "A great deal Sir!"
Inspector. "Well, well it is relevant to the period if I've got a date, but if I haven't got a date I don't know what I can draw from it, and both sides say they did'nt produce it".
CMH "Well I took a photo-copy of it Sir and it was dated [ emphatically ] approximately 1986".
Inspector. "Where did, where did you first see it ?"
CMH "In the Council's files."
Inspector. "When you say it was dated, what was dated?"
CMH "Um there was a covering letter there was some indication alongside of it that it was 1986 or thereabouts".
Inspector. "Which file was it in?"
CMH "WD 96 oblique 0043 LU. The file the subject of this inquiry".
K "That I do not dispute Sir, that's where it came from". Theft? It is not there now.
Inspector. "But how did it get there, that is what I am trying to find out?"
CMH "It was commissioned Sir by the Council, they do not wish to admit that to you because it is useful evidence that rebuts much of what Mr. Wells has to say. Is th..that not correct Mr. Kay?"
K "I am of the opinion that it probably is about 1986 ... when it was taken. I have no proof, I can't prove it". Perjury 6 You can prove it Mr. Kay by comparison to the reference set that you do not want the Inspector to know about.
Inspector. "But you're"..
K "I don't disagree with Mr. Hudson if he says he thinks it was taken abut 1986. It was of his land, it was, it does show certain things. We are not relying .."
Inspector. "Well that is for you to say, if both sides say it was 1986 I'll keep it and record the opinion that it was 1986".
K "I have no evidence to dispute the date, well not the date, the rough year when it was taken". Perjury 7. Yes you do Mr. Kay, you have evidence to confirm the exact date on which it was taken and you are suppressing it to pervert the course of justice.
K "I would suspect, and I am only surmising here, that the Council does have access to the County Council's aerial photography in East Sussex". The whole truth? The whole truth is that Wealden have access to their own aerial photography taken at the same time as East Sussex's, and Mr Kay knows that. Had the reference number on Mr. Kay's false instrument been retained everyone would have known that. This information was however concealed to aid Mr. Kay's perversion.
K "and it may well have been that the case officer tried to find an aerial photograph from that knowledge of the survey could throw up something so it could have been the case officer ... who sought to do it. That's just me surmising, I have no evidence to prove that.." Perjury 8. Yes you do Mr. Kay but you have suppressed it on your false instrument in order to deceive the Inspector. The reference on your set ends in "180", and the reference on the County Council set ends in "100". The proof that it was "the case officer" is in her unique handwriting.
Inspector. "That's the case officer for this current C.L.U.?"
K "that's right Sir, yes".
CMH "The Council's policy in other applications has been not to go to the expense of getting aerial photographs, is that not the case?"
K "Unless there is an appeal"
CMH "Unless there is an appeal". SPED report refers.
K "We quite often use access to aerial photography in different forms".
CMH "At Hackhurst Lane, not only did you get aerial photographs, you also got one of adjoining land as a joke?"
K "Am I to be permitted to finish my answer?"
CMH "please do".
K " to your first question. We do have access to aerial photography. Aerial photography has sometimes been taken by people on our behalf, ( Like the firm commissioned in 1987 ) one or two of the officers do have flying licences and will overfly sites if they know there is an appeal coming up and there is an inquiry date scheduled".
C MH "So did someone overfly in 1986 because they knew there was an appeal coming up?"
K "Oh no, not in this case"
CMH "So you went to a library, you commissioned a reprint of that photograph and now you are saying you don't know anything about it and you don't know what date it refers to?"
K "You really are putting words into my mouth".
CMH "Well, I am asking you, is that the case?"
Dialogue overlaps here.
K "I have not said that, no. I just surmised as to how that photograph came onto the Council's file. I have no evidence to confirm that". Perjury 9. Yes you do Mr Kay, you have evidence and you are suppressing it.
K "I surmised it".
K [ Unclear ] "I think we've probably achieved it".
CMH "Well, perhaps your accounts, if they are as detailed as mine, might give you a very clear indication, without very much difficulty. Would you like to do that in the interval this afternoon?"
Inspector. "To do what".
K "There are no accounts to check". Perjury 10. There is an account for c. £3.5K to check for the group survey, and another for the enlargement that Miss Spice obtained.
CMH "Well, you can find the date".
Inspector. "Well, there is no point, it's been accepted that we may record this as happening in 1986".
11/9/1998 IMK to newspaper reporter James Sturcke "To my knowledge no aerial photograph was shown to the inquiry by the Council".
3/11/1998 SPED Committee report commissioning another set of aerial photographs. "The Council currently holds a set of stereoscopic prints dating from 1987. . A necessary these are examined using a stereoscopic viewer, and enlargements are obtained when needed for specific purposes such as appeals..."
19/11/1998 WDC Chief Exec. to CMH, IMK "did not recall making reference to any aerial photograph as part of the Council's case at the Inquiry, nor did he recall any cross examination by you or the Inspector relating to such a photograph."
24/12/1998 Pantomime script and tape recording of cross examination returned to CMH by Ashley Brown DPO who refused to put it on file WD/96/0043/LU.
On 21/1/99 c. 16.55 hrs. CMH called at WDC's planning department and was given 3 documents from the Mapping Section by Christine Rummery. One was the small scale stereoscopic group survey original, another was a colour stereoscopic enlargement marked with a date, attribution and “WD/96/0043/LU” , and an unreferenced black and white enlargement. They were examined in minute detail and established that the enlargements were quite definitely derived from the WDC owned photograph set reference ES II /87 180. On top of the three images was a Post It note saying “Return to IMK”.
Planning and Compensation Act 1991 - ( 1 ) If any person for the purpose of procuring a particular decision on an application ( whether by himself or another ) for the issue of a certificate under section 191 or 192
(a)knowingly or recklessly makes a statement which is false or misleading in a material particular;
(b)with intent to deceive, uses any document which is false or misleading in a material particular; or
(c)with intent to deceive, withholds any material information,
he shall be guilty of an offence.
Evidence that rubbishes IMK's statement to James Sturcke of the Courier. “We would not go looking for one in a case of this kind [ a Certificate of Lawfulness ] because the onus is on the appellant to prove the land use. We do not have to disprove it”.
Instances of when the Council went looking for an aerial photograph.
File:- WD/2016/2572/LDE Starnash Farm, Camberlot Road, Upper Dicker, BN27 3PY .
Date viewed:- Available on the internet
Relevant documents:- Succession of year after year Google Earth aerial photographs to verify the applicant's claims.
File:- WD/2000/0722/LD Oak Tree Farm, West Street, Maynards Green.
Date viewed:- 7/6/2019
Relevant text:- Copy letter from Robert Shepherd of Costers dated 15/7/2000 page 2 :- “copy photographs 1968, 1994”. No photographs on file.
Supporting evidence:- DSC00265, 00267
File WD/1996/0043/LD Stream Farm, Horam.
Date viewed 18/7/1996
Relevant text:- Letter from barrister Sasha White to WDC recommending action that WDC should take “obtain third party, independent evidence such as aerial photographs”. A triple referenced, colour, stereoscopic aerial photograph was on file. Now no longer on the file.
Supporting evidence:- Photocopy of contemporaneous notes, photocopy of the triple referenced, colour, stereoscopic aerial photograph dated 10/5/87 and referenced WD/96/0043/LU.
File WD/1997/2543, WD/1997/2542 Meadow Farm, Wellbrook Hill, Mayfield.
Relevant text:- Letter from Eimear Murphy of WDC, “Turning to WD/97/2542/LD, departmental records indicate that this section of the building was in existence in 1987, as shown by aerial photographs”.
No photographs, aerial or otherwise on either file.
Supporting evidence:- WDC's group survey.
Glenmore Farm, Sliders Lane, Danehill, TN22 3RU. WD/97/0212/LD. CLUED for a residential caravan / mobile home. One line of a letter date stamped 12/2/97 runs “.. I am pleased to inform you in writing that throughout that time, from 1970 to date, a caravan / mobile home has been kept and used at Glenmore Farm”. IMK's annotation at the end reads “But not in the same position or at all? See 'photos in 1991 & May 1987.” Subsequently Reason 1 for refusal in the report reads:- “Photographic aerial evidence dated 9/5/87 & 10/7/91 would appear to show no mobile home on the site at those times”.
Supporting evidence:- WDC's group survey.
Noble Gate Yard, Bells Yew Green, Nr. Frant, TN3 9EA. WD/99/1389/LD. USE OF LAND AND BUILDINGS AS CONTRACTORS COMPOUND FOR THE STORAGE AND REPAIR OF PLANT, EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLES, THE STORAGE OF MATERIALS RELATED TO THE BUSINESSES AND THE MANUFACTURE OF FENCES. The report to Committee under “contradictory evidence” at NB3 which went to committee on 13/1/2000 reads:- “inspection of an aerial photo enlargement from 7/9/88 indicates the central building A, a vehicle, and a surrounding open area, apparently unsurfaced and having very little stored on it ( certainly in the main part of the site which was out of shadow ).” Case officer C. Elphick responded verbally to a question about aerial photographs at the meeting.
APP/X196/C1435/002595 The Pingle, Crowborough Road, Nutley. Uckfield TN22 3HU. Application WD/96/0370/LU, a site extending to 1.75 acres, the application was considered within less than three months and on page NG13 ( microfiche 6/7 ) there is the comment "aerial photograph dated 10th May 1987, although of small scale, it is apparent that some 2/3rds - 3/4 of the site ..." .Subsequently at the appeal we encounter ( in the case for the L.P.A. presented by C. Elphick ) the vocabulary:- "The aerial photograph ( doc 9 (1)) showed the delineated area to have been meadow like."
Supporting evidence:- WDC's group survey.
21/3/94 Two emulsion photographs exist of a handwritten file note in a file authored, dated and initialled by Chris Elphick minuting a meeting with two individuals to discuss a planning application. It ends with the sentence “Worthwhile to get a blow -up of the 1987 aerial photo?”
Supporting evidence:- 2 emulsion photographs.
APP/C1435/C/02/1093603-4. The issues were the storage and sale of cars. The exhibits mention a “Council volume of Photographs” including air photographs 1987 and 1999.
Supporting evidence:- WDC's 1987 group survey.
File:- WD/1996/0043/LD Stream Farm, Horam.
Date viewed:- 18/7/1996
Relevant text:- Letter from barrister Sasha White to WDC discussing photographs taken when IMK ADPO toured Stream Farm with Miss Joanna C Spice and William Ashdown :- “from the photographs”. No photographs on file.
Supporting evidence:- Photocopy of contemporaneous notes.
File:- WD/99/0927/LD Anthony Eyres, Lakedown Farm, Swife Lane, Broad Oak.
Relevant text:- Envelope inscribed “Photographs” in Miss J Spice's handwriting.
No photographs on file.
Supporting evidence:- Photograph of envelope.
T/APP/C1435/C/99/1023026 20/12/99 Lawful Use appeal relating to Brooklands, Cowden Hall Lane, Vines Cross. Appendices – Photograph 1-13.
Supporting evidence:- Appeal decision document.
Yet more tampering with evidence on Certificate of Lawful Use files.
Abstract from a letter to Mr. Marsden at the DoE dated 12/11/02.
“I am entirely unhappy with the Inspector's decision to disallow my costs and wish to appeal against it.
I gave compelling evidence to support my claim, even so far as to providing proof that documents critical to my case were removed from my file, these documents comprised additional evidence, requested by Wealden District Council to acquire my planning permission and C.L.U. I understand that this on it's own is a criminal offence, yet your Inspector completely disregarded my evidence. He also raised the points in his written decision, that W.D.C. had made several attempts to cancel my appeals, yet he did not ask any questions as to the conditions imposed or the serious implications had I accepted this offer. I feel this very important issue should have been “aired” at the appeal and not just in the report.
As I now have to sell my property to pay these costs …...”
APP/C/1435/A/84/10564 showed WDC's enthusiasm for costs. Having firstly maladministered, they then refused to register a professionally prepared application to regularise it, they then watched a 720 sq. m. extension being built on a 1,770 sq. m. slaughterhouse ( which was itself arguably still without planning permission ), countenanced an invalid application for the extension, refused to determine a valid application for the extension ( claiming ( in paragraph 45 ) that it was submitted by a “non bona-fide” applicant, ) then refused to give evidence at that inquiry and claim costs of the appellant. This was a litany of obstruction topped off by malice.
Misinforming Councillors over costs.
At the conclusion of the Stream Farm Lawful Use Inquiry costs were awarded against CMH. At the 9/12/98 Full Council Meeting report ( NLA ), page 592 ( PED 9806/15 ) Councillors were told “Members noted that the costs were expected to be in the order of £1,000 although the exact amount of this Council's costs to be paid by the appellant is currently being calculated” However, six days earlier on 3/12/98 Mr T Abbott had written to CMH ref TA/MM “I herewith enclose, by way of service, a copy of the Council's Bill of Costs. You will note, that it is drawn, in total, for £5,777.95p”. These costs could not be challenged because evidence central to any appeal was missing from the file. Fortunately however, it did re-emerge when it was evidentially unusable on 21/1/99 c. 16.55 hrs., but it has never been kept on the ( publicly available version of the ) file.
“Dear Mr Hudson,
I refer to your letter dated 14th April 2000 to Mr Kay requesting a 20 minute meeting with him and …. Mr White to discuss “matters relating to routine office practice”.
….I have to say that such matters of an internal nature are not something that we would normally discuss with members of the public. Secondly, your letter is not specific as to what particular matters you would wish to discuss......Certainly, I cannot see why routine office practices are of interest or concern to yourself or other members of the public, unless a particular problem has occasioned a problem. Unless such a problem, if one exists, involves a legal point, I see no reason why Mr Hoath or any Solicitor should be present, unless you intend such a meeting to be a further opportunity for you or others to make threatening accusations against the officers.”
Accordingly, I am not inclined to accede to your request, but perhaps a short telephone conversation with Mr Kay or Mr White would suffice.”
What a neat solution, just have a chat with Mr White, one of the case officers for the previous Sandcastle application who sat mute during IMK's commentary on his father-in-law's planning application on 8/12/87. In other words discuss it with a collaborator and a colluder.
Schedule of anomalies / Schedule of inconsistency – Stream Lane, Horam.
K/1972/464 Reason 3 for refusal said that the access was unsuitable for industrial traffic.
WD/1977/1449 “Access, however, is wholly unsatisfactory, being narrow, with poor visibility, ….. and is not considered adequate for industrial traffic.”
“The Highway Authority are very concerned to note that the APS at its meeting held on 24 September 1980 resolved that no further action be taken for the time being to enforce the requirement of the visibility splay condition in the planning consent. …... It is hoped therefore, that your Committee will be able to reconsider it's decision , because it is felt that continuing action to enforce the requirements should produce the necessary improvement to the present situation which is undoubtedly a serious threat to highway safety, principally by the intensification of vehicles using the access, and by articulated vehicles in particular”. Assistant County Engineer WD/79/4083 DK/HW C/61/79/HRM 5/11/80
“I am of the opinion that there can be no doubt that the access is very seriously substandard and the intensification of it's use, which, it is reasonable to assume has come about as a result of the extension of the factory, must result in increased hazard to traffic on the highway”. Inspector A D Hawkins.
Schedule of information and affidavits relating to traffic management issues at the B2203 junction / Stream Lane junction leading to BP and BF.
25/8/78 WD/77/1449 deferred for negotiations BP's over access improvements.
13/4/78 WD/77/1449/X approved with a defective condition number 6.
13/4/78 Blight on Stream Farm commences.
18/4/80 Michael Burrell Q.C. advises CMH that he is at risk of compulsory purchase in the event of a fatality at B2203 / Stream Lane junction.
21/4/80 Complaint INV/399/S/80 upheld by Ombudsman over defective condition.
18/2/81 Preddy / Sutton correspondence on traffic estimates.
21/8/81 Ref RPH/EPG/WD/81/1898 …. additional information requested.
County Engineer to DPO.
“The Highway Authority strongly recommend that consent be refused for the following reasons: The existing access at it's junction with the class “B” route ( B2203 ) has substandard visibility, width and radii, and serious interference with the free flow and safety of traffic on the B2203 will be prolonged and perpetuated while existing hazards caused by vehicular movements at the access continue.
I am very doubtful of the applicant's claim about the number of vehicles using the access, partly because they could subsequently increase, or possibly increase in size, and partly because the applicant is showing flagrant disregard for highway safety by seemingly directing his capital into business improvements rather than the essential improvements at the access”.
8/12/81 R Gasson of South Eastern Gas confirms in writing that a SEGAS marker post, erected in 1976 and removed in 1980 “was removed due to its being damaged twice in this period” A photograph of this marker post exists, and it was damaged by lorry traffic cutting the southern corner of Stream Lane at it's junction with the B2203.
2/2/82 WD/82/0191 Mail order warehouse revised access to B2203. Direction to Refuse from County Engineer not lifted despite offer to revise entrance geometry into Stream Lane.
21/8/82 CMH to BP scheduling 11 lorry to boundary hedge collisions over 28 days.
25/8/82 Mark Clements witnessed collision sworn 2/6/97 ( DC375014001GB).
?/?/83 Suffolk Sovereign 44 ton lorry spanning road from hedge to hedge across the B2203. Sequence of emulsion photographs taken. Sketch supplied to APS committee.
29/9/84 Dismissal at appeal of extension to BP. “I am of the opinion that there can be no doubt that the access is very seriously sub-standard and the intensification of it's use, which, it is reasonable to assume has come about as a result of the extension of the factory, must result in increased traffic hazard to traffic on the highway. ...the development the subject of this application should not be retained”. Inspector A D Hawkins at Recovered Appeal on behalf of the Minister the Rt. Hon. Patrick Jenkin.
22/11/84 Most lethal scenario enacted without fatality at the B2203 junction when Miss Saunders coming south downhill from Heathfield under ran the platform of a BP lorry turning north at 09.15hrs. Photograph available. H W Saunders left his card.
23/9/85 CMH purchases landlocked smallholding ESX 113609 from Mrs A Spiers.
5/12/95 “Access O.K.?”, “up to 44 ton” P. Coffey [ ADPO].
7/7/97 Offal lorry driver & passenger alight leaving lorry platform spanning the road. Sworn 23/7/97 ( DC375016943GB ).
10/7/97 Offal lorry with photographs sworn 3/11/16 ( DC375016974GB ).
11/7/97 Offal lorry with photographs sworn 15/7/97 ( DC375016988GB ).
22/7/97 Flatbed lorry entering via jack knifing manoeuvre sworn 25/7/97 ( DC375013995GB )
28/7/97 traffic survey with photos sworn 4/8/97 ( DC375014001GB ).
07/08/97 Refrigerated lorry with photographs sworn 15/8/97 ( DC583325350GB ).
10/11/97 DAF out of lane sequence sworn ( DC878831025GB ).
10/11/97 BP's lorry + offal lorry sworn 12/12/97 ( ).
1/12/97 Flatbed jack knifing sworn 22/12/97 ( DC375016991GB ).
c. 1/08/2003 Paul Harrington C.Eng., M.I.Struct.E., emailed the Highways Department at ESCC inviting them to indicate how much land they would like to be subtracted from the Stream Farm site in order to make the access into BF safe for 44 ton vehicles. Highways never replied.
Quaint and archaic practices.
Abstract from a letter from V Scarpa District Solicitor to CMH dated 21/2/2002 headed “Use of recording equipment on premises used by the Council. …...you left a slim black case in one of the interview rooms....The case was opened ...Inside were found two mini disc recorders connected to a microphone … The fact that you have fitted the case with recording apparatus and brought it onto the Council's offices does raise questions as to your motives.... Indeed you sent me a CDR of my closing submissions made at a public inquiry.... As you are aware the Council do not allow tape recording of any Council or committee meeting by members of the public.... In the circumstances the Council reserves the right to ask you to open any case or bag which you bring into any room used by councillors and Council officers for meetings to check for the presence of recording apparatus. If any apparatus were found you would have to leave the case or bag and apparatus with the receptionist for safe keeping. If you did not want your case or bag opened you would be required to leave it in reception”.
Are mobile phones required to be left in reception in 2019? I don't think so.
Evidence Bundle Supplied to Sussex Police on 15.iv.2018.
Letter dated 14/4/2018 CMH to Rt. Hon. H. Merriman M.P.
Letter dated 14/4/2018 CMH to C Lant “Corrupt professional facilitators”.
Letter dated 14/4/2018 CMH to A J Brown 8 questions.
Letter dated 8/4/2018 CMH to Horam Parish Council.
“The Times” 3/4/2018 article “Police trained to hide vital evidence”.
Letter Dated 25/3/2018 Barrister S. Chippeck to Mr. Lant “No reply & Mr Hudson wants to photograph Register”.
Letter dated 15/3/2018 CMH to Dr. Staples, UGLE, 60, Great Queen Street. Containing appendices 1 – 6, plus line 71 from Register of Disclosures, plus page 41 from Sussex Provincial Grand Lodge for 1985-6 yearbook and page 119 & part page 198 from United Grand Lodge of England Masonic Yearbook 2008 / 2009.
Letter dated 13/3/2018 CMH to Charles Lant.
13/4/2016 Affidavit on Sandcastle to District Solicitor initialled by Kelvin Williams “You may sue me for perjury”.
Western Gazette article 30/5/2002 Dorset Police Freemasonry.
Letter dated 9/4/2002 CMH to A J Brown Discriminate? RA881604757GB
Letter dated 2/3/2002 CMH to V Scarpa “Have any WDC officers ever withheld evidence?
Letter undated circa 26/2/2002 D C Richard Bebb to CMH Caution.
Letter dated 26/2/2002 D C Richard Bebb to CMH
Letter dated 22/2/2002 CMH to A J Brown Audit WD/96/0043/LU
Letter dated 21/2/2002 V Scarpa to CMH “Use of recording equipment”.
Letter dated 1/2/2002 CMH to A J Brown “AJB DPO is party to criminal activity within WDC's Planning Dept”.
Letter dated 24/1/2002 CMH to A J Brown
Letter dated 18/12/2001 A J Brown to CMH
Letter dated 10/12/2001 CMH to A J Brown Suppression of evidence.
Letter dated 30/11/2001 A J Brown to CMH “Concur with your understanding”. RA881604757GB
“The Times” article 17/11/2001 £790K for “consistently obstructive and unhelpful fashion”.
Letter dated 26/10/2001 CMH to A J Brown “completely false / totally misleading”.
Letter dated 19/10/2001 A J Brown to CMH “thief /liar”
Letter dated 11/9/2001 CMH to A J Brown “Perjury or Suppression?”
Letter dated 3/8/2001 “photographs” never appeared on a public file. Have they been ..suppressed?”
WDC Audit Advice, 6/4/2001 appeal etc. re CLEUD Stream Farm
David Guppy appeal 17/2/2000 altered aerial photograph.
Letter dated 11/2/2000 CMH to G Johnson Enforcement Solicitor conspiring with Kay?
Geoff Johnson 13/1/2000 Enf. Solic to AP(N) on CLUEDS “verbally .. it is as wide as you want it to be “.
Letter dated 3/1/2000 Mrs. Anne Harris to Sussex Police Complaints.
WDC vs. David Charnley 21/7/1999 plus Cllr. Kennedy correspondence.
Letter dated 19/11/1998 D Holness to CMH ESCC aerial photos.
Letter ******* To Anne Harris 7/8/1997 evidence of deceit & obstruction.
c.18/8/96 Aerial photograph taken on 9/5/87 WDC ref. 11/87/180 as hand referenced by Joanna C Spice.
1991 Panning & Compensation Act “by making records readily available”.
Peripheral Planning perversions.
Non-Disclosure of interest used by an Executor in a successful attempt to generate a distress asset via the planning system.
John Hoath's ( JH ) solicitors, CHH, contested and lost an enforcement appeal c. 1988 against WDC's enforcement notice for the use and storage of skips at Summersales Farm, Crowborough. The appeal was lost because of “Lack of evidence of established use”. JH refused to pay the bill of £13.5K claiming that it was inflated and CHH had played to lose by not researching the evidence properly ( activity had started with his grandfather ). JH asked for a breakdown. CHH made him bankrupt whilst he was lorry driving abroad, despite holding assets which exceeded the value of the debt by 1624%. CHH did not disclose their conflict of interest at the appeal – they had recently been WDC's solicitors as well.
Non Disclosure of interest used by a Parish Councillor in an apparent ( and unsuccessful ) attempt to generate a distress asset via the planning system.
WD/94/2575/O Comment received by WDC on 19/10/94 from Parish Council “6 ….. one reason given in report is what would happen if scheme abandoned is no cause of concern as purchasers available.”
Parish Council to DoE rec'd 20/6/95 ” The applicants sited [ sic ] on their supporting documents that if they were unable to build a house, then the site could fall into disrepair, we would state that there are many locals who would be willing to purchase the land and not use it for fish farming”.
“When the farm was advertised as lots, the vendor received a call on his ex-directory number ( which was not in the advertisement ) from a 'phone. Upon inquiry, it transpired that the call had come from The English Timber Supply Company, director, - Mr Peter Hammersley, who by coincidence was also Chairman of Hartfield Parish Council Planning Committee and who had voted against the vendor in committee ( without declaring an interest ). The Chairman of the Parish Council, Jim Lusted, was contacted at the time by letter to complain about this, and after several exchanges of letters where it was denied, finally it was admitted to, saying that it was not personal but he was acting on behalf of persons who wanted to purchase the land to stop the application.” This paragraph was supplied by the landowner on 29/11/2019. The possibility exists that he was attempting to use his office to manipulate the price for his principal.
“Can do / take what I / we like."
Case no. EA201710 WDC vs. A. H Reeves. “One other item that attracted their interest was a stack of ten internal stable partitions which came from Sky Farm.. When I argued that these were not builder's materials I was told “we can take what we like””.
Many years ago, CMH encountered Andrew Stanhope the planning scrutineer officer, who checked means of access and site notices very carefully before registering an application. He had just come back from a good lunch, and told CMH “We can do what we like!”.
When David Anscombe was harassing Anne Harris with a view to getting vacant possession on Blackbarn Farm Bungalow he explained to her that he had a very good solicitor who was an ex WDC man, and he could “do what he liked”