Investigating and lobbying against corruption in
Wealden District Council's legal & planning departments

Aerial Photographs

Dear Mr. Brown,
During the WD/96/0043/LU inquiry in late 1997, Mr. Kay said that an undated aerial photograph was dated circa 1986, but “I have no proof, I can’t prove it”.
During the WD/97/0212/LU determination in early 1997, Mr. Kay said of a caravan, ( presented to him in an undated aerial photograph ), which was claimed to have been kept at Glenmore Farm:- “but not in the same position or at all? see photos in 1991 and May 87”. The refusal reads “..photographic aerial evidence dated 9/5/87 & 10/7/91 would appear to show no mobile home on the site at those times”. Mr. Kay was responsible for the care and conduct of both cases.
So, when convenient, Mr. Kay had the proof to prove a negative from an aerial photographic resource dated 9/5/87, yet a few weeks later, when inconvenient, ( but on oath ), Mr. Kay had “no proof” to prove a positive by reference to the same resource. Or to put it another way, Mr. Kay had certain knowledge of a dated resource when it came to a refusal, but feigned ignorance of that resource when it would have supported an approval.
Was Mr. Kay concerned that if he introduced any colour or dated resource midway through the cross examination it would have further undermined a case that “was not well founded” and shown his earlier statements “That is the only aerial photograph we have”, and response to the Inspector “I , I don’t know when it was taken”, to have been perjury?
Therefore the words “I have no proof, I can’t prove it” were perjury. Would you please call in the C.I.D.
Yours sincerely,
Chester Hudson.

26.x.2001
Planning Fraud - Supression of evidence -WD/96/0043/LU.
Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for your letter of 19.x.01.
In your letter you say: "I am aware that during the inquiry you submitted to the Inspector as part of your appeal case an unreferenced copy extract of an aerial photograph which you had obtained from this Council". I cannot believe that you do not know this statement to be completely false and totally misleading.
With the very greatest of respect, you only have to listen to the tape recording of the Hearing to know this to be the case.
At the Hearing I asked Mr. Kay to "produce a copy of that [photograph] for the Inspector". He said "I do, I have that here". Mr. Kay goes on to say "That was on the file, ... it was me that took it off yesterday".
I did not submit the photograph, Mr. Kay did. The Inspector asked for the date of the photograph and Mr. Kay "did not know", however he knew perfectly well that the original would have had this information. With your admission that the Council did hold the original colour photograph, it is now crystal clear that Mr. Kay suppressed vital information both from the Inspector and indeed the Committee before that. I surely do not have to remind you that the suppression of material evidence in regard to a Certificate of Lawful Use Application (CLUED) is a criminal act.
If the removal of a colour enlargement marked "WD/96/0043" from file WD/96/0043 is not suppression of material evidence, then how would you care to define it?
What is now required is a proper investigation by the appropriate authorities into which officers, yourself included, knew of the suppression of material evidence. It would appear from what you say that this is routine tampering with evidence.
I would therefore ask you please to treat this as a fresh complaint and refer the matter to the Chief Executive and ask for the matter to be fully investigated by the Sussex Police and any other Authority responsible for the Council's obvious misuse of public funds. I also look to you to reimburse my costs of the 1997 Appeal.
Yours sincerely,
Chester Hudson.

cc Monitoring Officer
Sussex Police
Rt.Hon. Charles Hendry MP
By fax to 01892 602220 13.39hrs.
19/10/2001
Dear Mr. Hudson,
Re: Allegation of 'suppression of evidence'
Certificate of Lawful Use - Stream Farm, Horam Application no. WD/96/0043/LD.
I refer to your letters to me dated 12th and 27th August and 11th September 2001 which, despite my letter of 7th August advising you that, in the light of lengthy correspondence with you since your appeal Inquiry in 1997, I would not be replying to any further correspondence from you regarding your unsubstantiated allegation, you are clearly intent on ignoring.
I am aware, however, that you copied your letter of 27th August to certain Members of this Council. In these particular circumstances, therefore, and for their information and clarification, I am prepared to offer my following final comments to those which you have already been given in previous correspondence. I would repeat my earlier comment that no photographs or other documents were stolen or 'suppressed' at the Inquiry as you claim, and neither do I consider that Mr. Kay is a 'thief and/or a 'liar' as you allege.
For your information, it is normal and accepted practice for a local planning authority to decide what evidence to submit to an appeal Inspector in support of its case and to challenge an appellant's evidence at an Inquiry. Since there was no dispute with you over the existence of the polytunnel identified as no.7 on your land, the submission by the Council of an aerial photograph which showed its siting was not considered to be relevant or necessary.
However, I am aware that during the Inquiry you submitted to the Inspector as part of your appeal case an unreferenced monochrome copy extract of an aerial photograph which you obtained from this Council prior to the Inquiry. I have seen a monochrome copy of that photograph to which you refer, as well as this Council's original colour version from which it was obtained; however, since this aerial photograph was not part of the Council's evidence, neither of this Council's representatives at that Inquiry held in September 1997, Mr. G. Johnson (Principal Solicitor) and Mr. I. M. Kay, had it readily available before them at the Inquiry. Accordingly, I am not surprised that Mr. Kay could not be specific at that time as to the precise date when it was taken.
Mr. Scarpa has already advised you that it is not our normal practice for this Council’s aerial photographs to be kept on individual planning application files, although it would appear that at the time you came into this Council’s offices at Pine Grove to see the file on your CLUED application, you were able to view that file and obtain a copy.
Since neither Mr. Kay nor Mr. Johnson recalled having seen any other monochrome photograph of that size or scale showing that part of your land, I can fully understand why the appeal Inspector was advised at the Inquiry that, as far as they were concerned, it was the only aerial photograph like that we had.
This is now the last time I will be replying to you about this particular allegation which is totally without foundation.
Yours sincerely,
District Planning Officer.

The WD/96/0043LU aerial photograph vis a vis your budget.
Dear Mr Brown,
If we accept the logic of your string of denials, and Mr. Kay still cannot “recall”, one can only conclude that an expensive colour enlargement of an aerial photograph was obtained after the inquiry.
If this absurd situation prevails, ( which I refuse to believe ), may I suggest a simple economy? Assemble high quality evidence before inquiries take place.
This would have the three-fold advantage of dispelling the stench of criminality, completely eliminating some inquiries, and obviating the need for you to seek legal advice at public expense regarding The Protection from Harassment Act, ( the perceived harassment in question being my unwelcome post inquiry questions ).
Alternatively you could admit the enlargement was obtained before the inquiry in response to counsel’s opinion, and face the consequences for yourself and your department.
This letter will be transmitted to all councillors by the Council’s internal mail and to some by other methods. This is because your economical internal mail has previously proved insecure from interference by officers.
Yours,
C. M. Hudson.

As our hallowed executive know only too well, aerial photographs can be an invaluable asset in examining the merits of a case. Since professional memories can be somewhat mercurial, especially when giving evidence under oath, here is a list of bodies which hold aerial photographs. If you come across any others, do please text us with accurate details on 07836 210363.
Just for a laugh, you could try asking your case officer where you can get photos from. See how helpful and constructive his answer is. After all, he and his mates will be using them regularly.
Wealden District Council 01892 653311
East Sussex County Council
Ordnance Survey 08457 330011
Marcus Blaber, Marley Lane, Battle.
Skyscan, Gloucester 01242 621357
Sky Add Ltd 0121 434 3433
Air Photo Services 01249 891411 / 01223 572063
Cartographical Services 01794 344700 / 1
Geonex ( UK ) Ltd, Mitcham
English Heritage 01793 414600 / 414606
ADAS 01902 693199 / 693400
Aerofilms 0208 207 5433
BKS Surveys 028703 52311 / 57637
Cambridge University 01223 334578
O S Mosaics 0207 412 7702
N R S C 01455 849214 / 841785
Photair 01733 241850
R A F Brampton 01480 52151
British Bookshops 01273 328032
W.A.G.’s doing what the anchors ought to be doing - but for free!

Investigating and lobbying against corruption inWealden District Council's legal & planning departments

Aerial Photographs

Investigating and lobbying against corruption in
Wealden District Council's legal & planning departments