This is a list of missing Wealden documents identified with certainty in every case ( except the last two ) by Chester Hudson ( 07836 210363 ). Please help him expand on this list because he has now been banned from immediate access to Wealden’s files. See if you can guess why.
1. The 1:2500 ordnance survey block plan for WD/95/2908 submitted by Alan West ( Ian Kay’s old mate from Hailsham R.D.C. days ) that showed no means of site access. It had been authenticated by the authority’s Section 47 stamp, so it should have been left on file and a replacement invited to supersede it.
2. The first Record of Previous Planning History for WD/95/2908. There was a little spat at committee because it was such an uninformative document and they asked for a “full” one. Ian Kay misheard and supplied a second “fuller” one that missed out items included on the first.
3. The yellow Post It note on a letter dated on file WD/90/3572 ( case officer Ian Kay ). The note modified the line so that it read “do you have anything to say whatever?” Get Lost !!!. An investigation ensued during which the note’s existence was denied, and then Mr. H. came up with a photograph of it.
4. The laser enlarged colour aerial photograph found on file WD/96/0043/LU on 18/8/96. It disappeared completely for the duration of Inspector Wilkinson’s inquiry, ( read Mr. Kay’s string of denials on oath under Pantomime ) and Mr. Holness’s subsequent “investigation”, but then mercifully re-appeared under a Post It note saying “Return to IMK” in January 1999.
5. The monochrome photocopy of a laser enlarged colour aerial photograph found on file WD/96/0043/LU on 18/8/96. It was “the only one we have” for the duration of Inspector Wilkinson’s inquiry, but disappeared completely for Mr. Holness’s subsequent “investigation” during which it’s existence also was denied, but then mercifully it too re-appeared under a Post It note saying “Return to IMK” in January 1999.
7. In order to solve their access problem Bridge Poultry proposed a new road in 1990 via Coster’s. Alan West deposited a revision 95/375 and sent Mr. Hudson notice that his land was now required. Mr. H responded on 24/11/95 ( copy on WD/02/0892 ), but now they pretend that his response was never received ( according to Lord Newton’s inquiry ). After the meeting where BP were given consent for yet another extension without an improvement to their appalling access, Mr H. was told Mr Kay could not mention his offer because of a professional etiquette matter. The fly in the ointment is Ian Kay’s letter of 5/3/96 where he says “It was considered premature to reply specifically to your queries raised as a result of the Notice served on you by Mr West, and I apologise for not advising you earlier.”
8. Fifteen box files of information were submitted in support of a certificate of lawful use ( CLU ) application for The Barn, Cowden Hall Lane, Vines Cross. They are not on file. CLU’s are unique insofar as the consent can be revoked if they were obtained fraudulently, so obviously retention of the information upon which they are based is important.
9. Mr Harris had the temerity to complain to the Ombudsman about the executive’s delegated approval of an application contrary to policy without consulting the neighbours. The Ombudsman said he wouldn’t investigate, and in any case he couldn’t because “the Council’s file on the application [ WD/87/1633 ] has been lost”. If anybody finds it, please let us know.
10. Roger Brown put in three plans of his new entrance at Standard Trees on the A22. At an appeal the Council said they had only received one set. Then at another appeal two years later, in order to score a point, Planning Officer Richard Harbord produced the plans the existence of which had previously been denied.
Well, so what? So you may feel mildly put out if Wealden pretend plans they approved were never received and send round the enforcement mob. Of course it could never happen to you – or could it?
And the human rights aspect? Article 6 rabbits on:- “Disclosure of evidence. In order to properly know the case against him .., a person will need to have access to the relevant documentary evidence known to or relied upon by the other party”. That will be difficult if Wealden claim it never existed, wasn’t received, etc. etc. and then threaten to send in the Bill to arrest you for harassment if you keep asking awkward questions