David L Philips - Wealden's enforcer
Home
Aerial photographs -
and how they use them
Ashley Brown -
The District Planning Officer
'Best Demolition' disposes of
materials for Wealden
Bridge Poultry's Flooding
Bridge Poultry's new road
Bushy Wood Stables get smashed
Bushy Wood Stables own website
Case Law
Civil Rights
Councillors resign because of planning officers' secrecy
Cross examining Ian Kay -
Deputy District Planning Officer
Deception
Discrimination
Enforcement -
the D L Philips enforcer's way
Government policy
Hackhurst Lane piggeries
Harassment
Health and Safety
Local Cases
Local Councillors list -
with email addresses
Missing documents
Lord Newton's Petition
Missing photographs
Pantomime
Planning permission at £ 2k a go ?
Standards - for some
Stream Farm
Survival guide
Sussex Act 1981
'Bully Town' -
an anti-corruption website
(Agenda 21 -
the Solar Navigation project)
ACTION GROUP
Investigating and lobbying against corruption in
Wealden District Council's legal & planning departments
Errata
The appellant is listed as Bridge Poultry Services. It is presumed the agent means Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd. ( B.P.) company number 779042 registered in the U.K.
No S.66 notice has been served on the owner of the access track. No notice under S16 of the 1962 Act was served with K/65/513. Thereafter this omission became a traditional feature of every B.P. application.
The gasholder site to the south was edged blue on the original application. No colouration was on the appeal plan when I viewed it. The D.P.A. has sought confirmation of ownership.
The field displaced one away to the west is also, I believe, in the ownership of B. P.. Convention dictates that this should also be edged blue. Confirmation as to ownership should be sought.
The Local Authority’s case.
It is refreshing to say that Mr. Hudson is in broad agreement with this document.
The Agent
Messrs Handleys of The Estate Office, Mayfield are well known and respected Estate Agents with a reputation for understanding the importance of providing the correct information “in order that inaccurate conclusions are not made”.
The Site
Bridge Farm is a modern brick building under an asbestos roof lying 2 miles south of the thriving market town of Heathfield. Local industry there is served by the congested Station Road Industrial Estate where vacancies are few and leases long. The nearby Ghyll Rd. Estate has high ( £7.23 sq. ft. ) rents as a knock on from the increased construction cost of building in the sloping High Weald. Heathfield is a popular business location because it is central within the High Weald.
The site is accessed along Stream Lane which runs under the Cuckoo Walk in a subway. This is 3.60M wide and tall enough to admit all but the very largest of lorries which do not have pneumatic suspension. If the ramp at the western end was adjusted that defect could be addressed.
The site slopes gently up to the west, and is backed by a pond which catches the watershed flowing from Sharps Corner.
No building on the site ( other than the pole barn lorry shelters ) is older than 1978.
The Planning History
is chequered. The WDC abstract is not chronologically collated and it is incomplete. Significantly, details of the two enforcements have been withheld. I have contributed additional history at appendix 1.
The business left it’s creators home address in the early ‘60’s and established itself at Bridge Farm. Intensification led to a refusal ( K/72/464 ). Thereafter, two major underenforcements dominated the second phase of intensification.
Approximately thirty five years ago, the managing director of Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd., Peter Basil Digweed was convicted of weighbridge fraud.
Approximately thirty years ago, a replacement poultry packing shed was applied for under K/72/464. The building suggested was 40’ * 46’ ( 1840 sq ft. ). On the 4/6/73 GVT, Acting Planning Officer wrote “I am of the opinion that any intensification of use would involve a planning refusal”. Again, on 31/5/72 GVT again wrote “the above planning application stands deferred for negotiations on highway and nuisance problems…. A letter has already been sent by the County Planning Officer asking for comments on the question of traffic generation, hours of working and intensity of existing use. It has been suggested that a meeting should be arranged to take up these points with Mr. Digweed.” It was refused ( unappealled ) Reason 3 traffic.
Approximately 25 years ago a scheme was produced to allow the access to be improved across Mr Hudson’s land out to the B2203. The developer did not fully own the site to which the consent related. Mr. Hudson naively supposed that the officers of the Wealden District Council would act with honesty and integrity. The buildings were demolished and rebuilt with an EEC subsidy ( WD/77/1449/X ), the DPA would not serve a stop notice when it was clear that the development could not comply with the approved plan, the developer offered the sum of £300 for the access improvements he required. This was declined on the basis of Stokes v. Cambridge. The DPA underenforced citing loss of employment.
On 15/4/80 Michael Burrel Q.C. advised Mr. Hudson that his land was liable to compulsory acquisition and that the price he asked should be reasonable ( appendix 2 ).
On 10/7/81, Mr. Hudson concurred with Messrs Cripps Harries Hall & Co ( solicitors to the Council ) who said considered the WD/77/1449 development had been erected “without planning permission”
( enforcement interest C/61/79 HRM ) and submitted a professionally ( appendix 3 ) prepared third party application for the development as built. Wealden returned this application with a refund.
Approximately 22 years ago the developer, aware of an Ombudsman’s finding ( INV/S/399/80 ) against the Council in respect of WD/77/1449/X and an intervening Direction to Refuse from the County Engineer on a proposed development ( WD/82/0191 ) off Stream Lane, extended his new facility by 40% with no consent whatever. The DPA would not serve a stop notice. When he was eventually persuaded to submit, his application was flawed by the traditionally absent S.27 notice ( on the access track ) which he refused to remedy.
Approximately 21 years ago Mrs. Hudson made a application twin identical to the above which WDC refused to agenda. Upon a recovered appeal The Rt. Hon. Patrick Jenkin dismissed it with a recommendation for demolition. The DPA underenforced, allowing the unauthorised extension to remain, citing loss of employment.
Approximately 18 years ago, a company director, Paul C Digweed bought the land adjacent to the gas-holder site from the owner of Oak Glen. This could have enabled a partial connection towards the A267,
Approximately 16 years ago Mr. Hudson bought a land-locked small-holding from Mrs. Spiers. This land offered a potentially superior parallel alternative road alignment to Paul Digweed’s adjacent field.
Approximately 14 years ago, the company bought Oak Glen and it’s land which was adjacent to both Paul Digweed’s and Mr. Hudson’s smallholding. Thus the family controlled a potential 340 metre new access westward to the A267. The Company’s indebtedness to Lloyds Bank rose by £199K at this point, presumably as a consequence of buying Oak Glen. Oak Glen was refurbished and Paul Digweed ( a director of the company ) moved in.
Approximately 13 years ago, the company installed an industrial bellmouth on the A267 masquerading as an agricultural access ( WD/89/4371 ). This reputedly cost £34K.
Approximately 12 years ago, Mr Hudson applied for a land link from the new “agricultural” access to the factory under application WD/90/3492. Despite being a direct competitor to the application received by Wealden a few days later, it was not recommended on a “resolution to approve subject to” basis as per WD/90/3572 but refused. This was upheld at appeal, since a “resolution to approve subject to” was not of course within the Inspector’s gift.
Approximately 12 years ago, the company applied for the predicted land link, sensibly adding an element of diversification ( bottled L.P.G. ) under application WD/90/3572. This application received a favourable resolution to approve subject to. Unfortunately, it was not realised for several years that the application was fraudulent since it was not initially disclosed that ownership was discontinuous as a S.27 notice was not served on Paul Digweed in respect of his land. WD/90/3572 was withdrawn c. 26/2/03.
Approximately 10 years ago, Shaun and Peter Digweed approached Mr Hudson and asked if they could by-pass Paul Digweed and re-route their proposed road through his land locked small-holding. He told them that it was clear from the company accounts that they were still heavily overdrawn, so if he could achieve any beneficial use of the land that would reduce the price. In pre-application talks WDC were not very forthcoming, and the resulting application to use a barn as holiday accommodation was refused.
On 20/11/94 Mr. Hudson was approached by Peter Digweed ( appendix 4 ) and Alan West who revised WD/90/3572 via drawing 95/375. This revision employed the Hudson smallholding. Ian Kay ADPO still pretends that Mr Hudson’s S.27 response was not received. It was, and in addition he was advised about it by a second source within 3 days of receipt. This revision was a fall back position in case the committee demanded entrance improvements linked to the latest intensification ( WD/95/2908 bulk freezer extension ). The commentating officer manipulated the debate away from a full disclosure about the entrance improvements agreed to, and the committee was told the company would “fold” if the extension was not approved. It was approved, never built, and the company did not “fold” for another 5 years.
Approximately 5 years ago Peter Digweed died, leaving his shares to his wife Jean Digweed.
On 29th April 1998 Jean Digweed bequested 18 shares to her daughter Linda and c. 35 shares to Shaun Digweed.
On 24th August 1999 Jean Digweed altered her will ( appendix 5 ) to give c 51 shares to Linda, and 2 to Gary Grancis ( her husband ). This meant that Paul Digweed in Oak Glen had virtually no financial interest in the company, and therefore his tolerance to any disamenity generated by the new road diminished, and with it his enthusiasm to contribute the essential land link which he controlled.
On 20th March 2001 the Company expressed an interest in purchasing Mr. Hudson’s land locked small-holding ( appendix 6 ). A deal involving the gasholder site proved unacceptable.
During the financial year ending April 5th 2001 the Company became insolvent ( appendix 7 ).
C. Jan 2002 the gates closed. In March WD/02/0892 was submitted.
On 26/2/03 WD/90/3572 was withdrawn and on 28/2/03 WD/02/0892 was appealed.
On 24/3/03 a meeting of B.P.’s creditors was held in Worthing.
The marketing exercise.
The D.P.A say “the Council would reiterate it’s concerns in respect of the loss of a rural employment site …..in the absence of any evidence to substantiate that the site is redundant for such purposes”.
Since they were the agent, Messrs Handleys of the Estate Office, High Street, Mayfield may recall that planning permission was granted on ( WD/01/0033/F ) 8/11/2001 for the change of use of two buildings to B1 ( business ) uses at Oakhurst Farm, just south of Horam, ( pages SF1 - SF4 of the DCS Sub Committee agenda of 8th November 2001 refers ). Messrs Handleys may also recall being told that in assessing the merits of their other application for the conversion of buildings to residential use ( WD/01/2837 ), Policy DC8 of the local plan places an onus on the applicant to have made every reasonable attempt to secure a suitable business re-use of the buildings and to support the application with a statement of the efforts made.
Messrs Handleys of the Estate Office, High Street, Mayfield may recall stating the efforts they had made to sell Oakhurst Farm on 5/7/2001 ( WD/01/0033/F appendix 8 ). They had issued to that date a total of “299 sets of sale particulars”. It would be interesting to know how many ( if any ) sets of sales particulars they have issued for Bridge Farm, and whether these particulars were in a comparable format to those supplied for Oakhurst Farm.
Messrs Handleys may also recall being told that their “marketing exercise had not been satisfactory in demonstrating that ‘every reasonable attempt’ had been made to secure suitable business re-use. Accordingly, …. members resolved to defer consideration of the application on a “without prejudice” basis to:-
(i) Enable the Council’s independent consultants to undertake a full and thorough assessment of the legitimacy of the marketing exercise to promote the sale/use of the buildings for commercial use ( falling within Use Class B1 ) in line with policy DC8; and
(ii) Establish, in the light of point (i) above, whether a further promotional period is required which is targeted specifically and solely at the application buildings, particularly in the light of the recent approval of planning permission for the conversion of the application buildings to four small commercial units…..
A report has now been received from the Councils consultants, which is summarised below for Members’ information.
The consultants consider that the buildings lend themselves to conversion to B1 office use and possibly to B1 ‘light industrial’ use……
CONCLUSION
The consultants report concludes that the premises have been advertised at too high a reasonable price reflecting the intended use; and that the means of promotion and advertisement were not sufficiently far reaching and targetted to promote the commercial use of the buildings.
Furthermore, there has been a very short period of time between the granting of planning permission for B1 use of the buildings and the submission of the application for residential use.
It is concluded that, to date, the evidence submitted does not satisfactorily demonstrate that ‘every reasonable attempt to secure a suitable business re-use has been made’ Accordingly it is recommended that planning permission be refused for the reason set out above. The property could however be re-marketed on the basis of the suggestions contained in the consultants report. This would need to be for an adequate period of time ……….”
In order to assist in the marketing of Bridge Farm for a B1 business re-use Mr. Hudson has placed the sign in appendix 9 on his land and on the internet. He has advised all those who rang in the period indicated that Messrs. Handleys were the agent, and suggested that they to make contact with him and each other. You may imagine his surprise when he was told by those, ( and supplementary ) enquirers, that particulars were not forthcoming, in some instances despite reminders. Indeed, one enquirer used the word “evasive”. Mr. Hudson is not a professional land agent and therefore would not know whether not sending out particulars when they are requested or being “evasive” amounts to a bona fide marketing operation. Furthermore, the withdrawal of WD/90/3572 two days before this appeal was lodged would seem to be very curious given that substantial enterprises such as Hendry Exhibitions, Swan Timber, P. Allison Demolition and Delta Construction had made approaches. Knowing as we do that the company is insolvent ( according to the latest ( April 2001 ) accounts ) it is hard to reconcile this devaluation of the site with that of directors intent upon realising the maximum for the assets in their custody. This action is consistent with a skipper deliberately jettisoning cargo and then scuppering his ship in order to claim on the insurance.
Drainage
The D.P.A suggest the condition ( 5 ) “No development shall take place until full details for the means of foul and surface water drainage….”
The E H O’s observations dated 20/3/2002 answers the question “Have any complaints been received by your department relating to any relevant problems at the application site or neighbouring land?” with a “No” ( appendix 10 ). This response is inconsistent with the truth. Nigel Taylor’s letter at appendix 11 of 7/12/2000 headed “Sewage Discharge, Bridge Poultry, Horam” is evidence of this inconsistency. A more detailed analysis of the problem is on www.wealden.org.uk click on “Flooding”. The environmental clear up squad were invited out on one occasion, and their report is available.
The problem was caused by the fraudulent sewer fall misrepresented on drawing 2616B of WD/77/144/X. This gross error necessitated the construction of a single pump facility which has proved consistently unreliable. Clearly the most expedient approach is for this insolvent company to ignore the problem, then “sell up and put it behind them”. Unfortunately, after Mr. Justice Astill’s decision in McMeekin vs. Long, ( as reported in the Guardian on 4/3/2003 ( appendix 12 ), this immoral approach is also illegal.
A spade is a spade, and qualitatively there is very little difference between a turd from a factory and a turd from a house. It’s destination should be the same. It’s captivity in the system should not be dependant on servicing, weather, electricity, mechanical breakdown, it’s producers insolvency, reluctance to pay a wayleave, or any combination of these factors. A lagoon of blood and effluent spanning a road is unacceptable at any time in any place. There will be an “atmosphere of constant confrontation” unless this problem is addressed. If two houses are approved there is scope for a labyrinthine litigation trail. This stupid argument must be killed stone dead by the imposition of a Grampian condition.
Highways.
“..the Council would welcome appropriate improvements to widen and resurface the access and junction with the B2203, where possible. However in the absence of such improvements, the Council considers that it is unacceptable and inappropriate to permit proposals for new development on the site, which would perpetuate the existing highway safety hazards, contrary to adopted SP and LP policies.”
……As would the neighbours. A synopsis of the existing highway safety hazards is on www.wealden.org.uk click on Bridge Poultry’s new road. The verge on the eastern side of the B2203 was identified as being “out” in 1972. This indicates that the standard delivery lorries have been unable to ingress ( or egress ) this site without breaching lane discipline for over thirty years. It is hoped that Mrs. Gale will not prove coy about contributing her suggestions as to improvements ( appendix 13 ) which her predecessor willingly volunteered.
Conclusions
B.P. commenced in the sixties and their operation was authorised. A refusal in 1972 identified intensification. Two underenforcements followed together with an Ombudsman’s finding. Throughout the eighties they further intensified and prospered in a local niche, picking up the residual trade left by departing operators such as Golden Produce ( Burwash ) and Webb & Webb ( Heathfield ). They waxed fat and enjoyed the patronage of local politicians. They considered a Cambridge valuation to the east a waste of money for there was better value to the west. An attempt was made to diversify into LPG, but this foundered due to their disastrous property speculation. Instead of asset stripping Oak Glen’s field, getting consent for their new road and dumping the unimproved house, they retained the house. Profits declined, tensions grew within the family, and a final codicil delivered the unexpected. The minor director resident in Oak Glen saw insufficient incentive to tolerate the Chatham disamenity inherent in an adjacent 24 hour industrial access, and demurred over his consent. An alternative route was explored, but an identical Cambridge price tag on this missing link made it too unaffordable. The company became insolvent and withdrew their lifeline ( WD/90/3572 ) to the outside world and destroyed their site’s saleability to large firms.
It now remains to be seen whether the agent can persuade an Inspector that
· the intensifications produced by under enforcements should be consolidated
· a modern building standing in a sound courtyard should be considered redundant, incapable of re-use by the smaller firms cited ( given that entrance improvements to east or west and gravity drainage are available ), is unworthy of a bona - fide marketing operation,
and should therefore be pulled down.
Line by line response to Messrs Handley.
3.1 (1) narrowness of the access There is no evidence that the appellant sought to improve the width of the access except by unauthorised development.
lack of adequate sight lines at the roadside There is no evidence that the appellant sought to improve the sight lines after 1983.
The risk of catching high sided vehicles in the tunnel Pitching and yawing of large vehicles can be eliminated by maintaining the road surface in the tunnel, and reducing it at the western end.
the difficulties of turning round on site was not a problem when WD/90/3572 was introduced or revised, because if it was it would have been addressed. So why is it now? And could the gasholder site not contribute a turning head?
3.2 No official reason was given for withdrawal but traffic difficulties were cited. No approach was made to me by any prospective purchaser wishing to acquire land for road improvement.
5.6 Even if they had updated they had a major problem in respect of the access which is available to them under the railway line and out to the B2203. A ( revised ) A267 option was available at that time, so there is a lapse of logic here.
5.7 Approximately 10 years ago a scheme was produced to allow the access to be constructed through other parties land ( including other members of the same family ). I suspect this is a mis-statement of fact. There was only one other party, Mr. Paul Digweed ( whose obstruction could be by-passed by negotiating with Mr. C. Hudson ). This fact was concealed from the committee for four years by a fraudulent certificate A on the PA1.
Various attempts have been made to implement this access but the reality is that it has never happened Perhaps a fresh approach is required.
Bridge Poultry Supplies are in no position to enforce this agreement What agreement? None exists.
Additionally, in recent years it has become clear that the cost of this new access was too great when added to the cost of any refurbishment of the buildings. This cost pleading was the rationale behind Mr. Hudson’s application on his smallholding, and that was not in recent years. If the refurbishment of Oak Glen had not preceded the new access it might not have been too great .
5.9 The owners of the site considered alternative uses of the site including the possibility of converting the buildings into B1 use. However this idea was not taken far … more traffic to the B2203… But this idea was floated when the alternative access was proposed. WD/90/3572 was for a Change of use on the gasholder site and would have taken traffic to the A267. And they knew an intervening landowner was prepared to accept a Cambridge Valuation. So why were no particulars sent to those who responded to Mr. Hudson’s advertising? And why was the approved change of use application withdrawn? There is a lapse of logic here.
5.11 there can be few if any sites which appear to be industrial by nature and are constrained by a 19th century access I would respectfully suggest that the Inspector visits the Station Road Industrial Estate, Heathfield, and imagines he is an artic driver delivering to the large unit at the far end, then returning. To deprive the community of an industrial site given local congestion on this scale is absurd. The constraint referred to can be relieved by the necessary investment which B.P. has simply refused to undertake.
substantially tidied the Bridge Farm site is tidy, and nature is winning on the gasholder site ( which is omitted from the appeal plan ).
5.13 Similarly the property to the south will not have the constant concern This property is constantly concerned about the effluent leakage from B.P.’s drains which is amplified on www.wealden.org.uk click on ‘Flooding’. This topic has been air brushed out of the agent’s agenda entirely.
Clipping the boundary to the property This occurred in the late 70’s. The developer widened the bellmouth southwards ( appendix 14 ) and reprofiled the pavement without planning permission ( appendix 15 ) in the early 80’s. A Bedford RL was installed on the corner, and when it was found that departing lorries towed this out into the road, a Bristol bulldozer was substituted. That and some old tins of paint thrown over the hedge periodically have made boundary clipping a thing of the past. Stillyans however have not been so fortunate. The sequence on the internet shows their fence being demolished, but this of course is a replacement fence which was erected within the curtilage of the old. The old fence was close boarded with a grass verge to the south, as photographed on 26/11/81 in appendix 16. The metal post erected by Mr. Kirkham is clearly visible.
Even if an alternative access was provided onto the A267, ( and it is believed that this would simply be too expensive ) too expensive for who? Too expensive for substantial firms such as Swan Timber, Delta Construction, Hendry Exhibitions or Allison Demolition? Well established firms of good repute. Let the market decide. Perhaps one of these firms could reapply along the lines of WD/90/3572 as revised by revision 95/375.
A267 … push further traffic into an area which is renowned for accidents There is an old army maxim - Time spent in reconnaissance is seldom wasted. Unfortunately B.P. did not do some reconnaissance before they spent £1/4M trying to access a road which their new agent considers unsatisfactory. If their judgement really is so poor it might explain their current financial predicament. Had they spent sooner a fraction of that sum on a less ambitious project to the east they might still be trading with a diversification and Kevin Levett might be alive.
5.15 This is an unusual site but it is not complicated. It is a restricted site with a restricted access that has been crucified by it’s owner’s “flagrant disregard for highway safety” ( appendix 17 ), public health, neighbour’s sensibilities and his disastrous diversification into real estate. With some minor infrastructure improvements it can enjoy a bright future.
I respectfully request that the Inspector dismisses this appeal.
In accordance with circular 15/96, if the Inspector is minded to approve this application, I would respectfully suggest the following Grampian conditions to ensure that the current blight is eliminated:-
a) no development be permitted until the drainage system has been connected by gravity to the main sewer.
b) no development be permitted above one dwelling until the entrance geometry at the junction of Stream Lane with the B2203 is improved.
Yours,
C. M. Hudson.
( P.S. Please may I have a copy of the decision ).
The Planning Inspectorate APP/C1435/A/03/1111177
3/40A Kite Wing
Temple Quay House,
2, The Square,
Temple Quay, Bristol
BS1 6PN
