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
or
Gale for Sale?
Hi there boys and girls!
Do you have flashing orange beacons outside your school that come on at the busy times? Lots of people do. They are put there to save lives. If somebody knocked one over, do you think the Mums and Dads would make a fuss? I do. They are put there and looked after by a very important man called the County Engineer.
The County Engineer put up some reflective marker posts on his verge opposite Stream Lane, Horam. They were meant to make things safer. Unfortunately, the lorries going to and from Bridge Poultry Supplies knocked them over, and he did not make a fuss. Then one night in October 1986 Kevin Levett came down the hill and drove over that verge and hit a tree. The tree killed him.
The County Engineer has an assistant, Mrs. Gale. She helps when people are thinking of expanding or (re-)building houses or factories. She is supplied with all the information she requires to decide whether people’s ideas are good or bad. You can pay 20p for a copy of her recommendation which is called a HT401.
Horrid Mr. H. used to live near Stream Lane and take lots of pathetic little photographs. He used to ask for the Councillors to be shown these when they were taking decisions about Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd. but unfortunately there were always so many pretty concept sketches to pin around the committee room there was never any space left for his stupid photographs. Anyway, they were seldom helpful or informative.
Take this one. It was a shot of a five car pile up taken on 9/6/84. As you can see it is very uninformative.
Or take another photograph of atrocious quality which Mr. H took on 22/11/84. He maintains it represents a very dangerous event where Miss Errey, coming south down the hill, drove under a Ford D series truck. If the photograph was better quality you would be able to see that these trucks are fitted with pneumatic tanks in the precise position where people drive under them, thus making road straddling manoeuvres by these lorries completely safe.
In June 1984 two cars took evasive action to avoid an incoming lorry. The cars were only slightly damaged, and the injury sustained by an occupant was very minor.
Here is another lorry photograph. I am pleased to say Mr. H. has now learnt how to use a camera. The trees look remarkably fine and the carriageway of the B2203 is obviously well maintained. The lorry? Ah yes the lorry! Well that, is just backing out having visited Bridge Poultry and will not be there for long. The reflective marker posts which used to be on the verge under it’s back end have been flung over the fence for safe keeping. For the technically minded, this lorry is merely a 38 tonner. But look at the age of this photograph! It is over 20 years old!
Now here is a 44 tonner. As you can see it can enter the site with no difficulty. It starts by overrunning the verge where those reflective posts used to be, and then adjusts it’s geometry to straighten up the cab:-
Next it crosses the road and hits the bulldozer which Horrid Mr. H. has parked in his hedge. He maintains that if people need land they should buy it and not steal it, but as this photograph shows, this lorry has plenty of room. It has only taken 1m 23 secs. to get this far.
Now the lorry has hit the fence on the far side. It was a very flimsy fence, and it was probably put up in the wrong place anyway. You can clearly hear the crunch in the video. The time thus far? A mere 1m 45 secs.
After 2minutes 18 seconds the lorry has completed the manoeuvre perfectly satisfactorily as you can see.
=> 
! ! ! Of course, things are much easier if a policeman can be spared to direct the traffic as one can see in this photo. But unfortunately they are a bit thin on the ground these days.
This lorry driver has jumped out of his cab and gone looking for one ... leaving his lorry across the road !
Very special people are allowed copies of the form CE1 which is on microfiche 3 of WD/81/1898. It says “The existing access at it’s junction with the class B Route ( B2203 ) has sub-standard 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 at the vehicular access continue.”
It goes on to say:-
"I am very doubtful of the long term reliability of the applicant's claims 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.."
But that inflammatory language was penned before the applicant directed his capital into property speculation.
Horrid Mr. H asks whether Mrs. Gale is for sale, but as you can see from the information above, Mr. H is out to lunch.
19 Gildredge Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex BN21 4RU Telephone: 01323 437900 Fax: 01323 437909
Our Ref: MSM/sbc/1383
20 March 2001
Dear Mr Hudson
Land adjoining Bridge Farm, Horam (Title No ESX 113609)
1 am acting on behalf of Bridge Poultry Supplies Ltd, the owners of Bridge Farm, who have obtained planning permission for the construction of a new access road between Little London Road and Bridge Farm.
I understand that you own the land mentioned above and which I have outlined in yellow on the attached Ordnance Survey Plan.
While negotiations have been entered into with other landowners regarding this new road, it occurs to me that there may be an opportunity to purchase some or all of your land to facilitate this. I would see this as being in both parties mutual interests as my Clients would be prepared to pay something more than agricultural value for your land. Having regard to the fact that it is virtually landlocked and has limited access, as well as being very small in size, I would have thought that this might represent a very good opportunity for you and I would be very happy to discuss this with you further.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely
M S McFadden MRICS ACIArb
Director
Email:mmcfaddendshw.co.uk
Heath Close, Old Heathfield, East Sussex, TN21 9BN.
All Fools Day 2001
Re:- WD/96/3134 & 5 and WD/90/3572.
Dear Mr. Kay,
Mrs. Hudson is considering reapplying with three applications as per WD/96/3134/5 and revision 95/375 to WD/90/3572.
I have heard your goodself say that planning applications are sometimes used as a “valuation exercise” and that would be precisely their use in this case, because obviously B.P. would not wish to buy my smallholding if you refused consent for a revision equating to 95/375.
Before doing so I felt it would achieve best value for all concerned if you could indicate the level of obstruction, discrimination and deception your department, and you in particular, will bring to bear.
Under the heading obstruction will you:-
Refuse to countenance any re-applications invoking S.70?
Refund the re-application as per my WD/77/1449 re-run you refused to register?
Refuse to put the applications before the committee ( as per Mrs. H’s WD/83/0560/P )?
Refuse to offer evidence in the event of an appeal, yet claim costs ( as per WD/83/0560/P )?
Under the heading discrimination will you:-
Insist on performance bonds from Mrs. H. whilst requiring none of B.P.?
Articulate, and subsequently promote vocabulary such as “there are no conceivable circumstances under which B.P. would enter into any discussion or negotiation with Mr. or Mrs. Hudson for any reason whatsoever” whilst concealing the facts that B.P. had made the first approach in 1977, 1993 and 1995 and thus conceal their inconsistency?
Refuse to articulate the rationale behind another Unilateral Planning Obligation as per i.iv.99 when you skilfully manipulated the debate by deliberately omitting the vocabulary “This offer will enable your Council to revoke the existing “resolution to approve subject to” on WD/90/3572, and substitute a superior alignment at no cost to council tax payers” because revocation would have jeopardised your preferred option?
Recommend refusal on Mrs. Hudson’s applications having recommended ‘a resolution to approve subject to’ on B.P.’s?
Leave unchallenged another statement from the District Solicitor “Why would B.P. implement Mrs. Hudson’s application?” and not point out that a consent might benefit their successors in title?
Discriminate in B.P.’s financial favour as you did on 10.ii.96 when you frustrated the linkage of entrance improvements to the bulk freezer ( much as an officer frustrated the linkage of entrance improvements to WD/77/1449/X ) by refusing to mention the 95/375 revision, preferring attenuation of your proven maladministration to remedy?
Under the heading deception, will you nurse the lies:-
That a firm with a litany of petty planning deceptions to its’ name can be relied on to perform without a bond?
That a firm that cannot afford a bulk freezer, without which it will “fold”, can afford to build a 340 metre road?
That a firm that cannot afford to maintain an 80 metre road will be able to maintain a 340 metre road?
That a firm that cannot afford to maintain their drains will be able to maintain the drains on a 340 metre road?
That a firm on a 3 day week headed by a septuagarian which did not implement their last ( 1996 ) consent has any intention of implementing any unbonded consent?
That after 10 years, WD/90/3572 whose S106 was “with the solicitors at the moment” ( on i.iv.99 ) has a prospect of being signed?
Perhaps you could enquire whether Mr. Paul Digweed intends to obstruct the permanent closure, because if so, we are back to 1977 and considering revisions to the easterly access.
Planning seems akin to a casino where the odds are stacked, the tables rigged, the punters fleeced and the “professionals” operate with impunity.
I enclose a copy of my letter of i.iv.2001 to Mr. Brown to Mr. McFadden to emphasise that in this case we are dealing with a true professional.
Yours respectfully,
Chester Hudson.
In 1963 Peter Digweed moved his business off his kitchen table to Bridge Farm, Horam. He prospered, and in 1972 he applied for permission to rebuild. It was refused on access grounds. He therefore knew he had to improve his access. In 1977 he applied for the same thing, and he agreed to improve his access. He never did. In 1981 he added an extension with no consent at all, a twin went to the Minister who dismissed it at appeal ( on access ), and it was enforced against, although it was permitted to remain. The District Solicitor commented in these terms:-
V. Scarpa to D.P.O. 20/11/85. “I fully appreciate that because it has been resolved to “under-enforce” against the breach of planning control the owners of Bridge Poultry may feel that it is unnecessary for them to make any concessions to the Council or Mr. Hudson. However it should be pointed out to them that as the chiller plant extension represents unlawful development, it is in their interests to have the matter regularised and that without improvements to the access it is unlikely that any further development or redevelopment of the site would be permitted.”
The County Engineer had some pretty robust views on the point:-
I am very doubtful of the long term reliability of the applicant’s claims about the numbers of vehicles using the access [ 4 cars p.d., 3 lorries p.d, 2 skip lorries p.w. ], partly because they could increase, or possibly increase in size, and partly because the applicant is showing a flagrant disregard for highway safety by seemingly directing his capital into business improvements rather than essential improvements at the access.”
He than went on to threaten a Direction to Refuse, and just to show he was not messing Directed a Refusal on another development using the same access.
It appears that Mr. Digweed took these hints, because in 1989 he bought the house on the turnpike that controlled his alternative westerly access. It did not come cheap. The company accounts record an overdraft a whisker over £199K. He then installed a new entrance in the adjacent field which reputedly cost a further £34K. Then he applied for a change of use on the gasholder site ( which had a tenant, Southdown Gases ) and for a new road linking his two businesses to the turnpike. The gods smiled upon his enterprises and resolved to approve his application “subject to”.
Then the wheels started off his wagon. A misdeclaration concealed the fact that Mr. Digweed’s son controlled part of the new road’s route. So he approached Mr. Hudson, who also owned land to substitute for that part, and was prepared to be more co-operative than his son. Mr. Hudson put in a road application but was refused.
On March 20th 2001, Mr. Digweed’s company made a last desperate attempt to buy Mr. Hudson’s land, but were rebuffed. They then published their final set of accounts showing that the firm was insolvent.
On March 23rd 2003 Bridge Poultry’s liquidators published an abridged account of the devastation. The indebtedness was stated as £298,583.37p but in actual fact some creditors were understated. The directors are owed in excess of £98K.
The planning numbers are pretty impressive too. There were eleven applications to improve one access or another, and six appeals. These too cost time and treasure.
But now the goalposts have moved. The County Engineer seems prepared to countenance traffic figures [ “less than about 40 vehicles a day would be acceptable to this Authority ]using the eastern access that were not acceptable in the early 80’s. This intelligence would have come in handy in 1989. And what has precipitated this volte face? A less busy B2203? No. Absence of accidents? Definitely not. Improved geometry? No. Perhaps a by-pass is coming? I think not. A reduced speed limit? Now someone is being silly. The fact that somebody has been concealing this good news appears to have cost Bridge Poultry the company.
It seems likely that Bridge Farm will be getting a new owner very soon. It is an operating centre for five lorries. But the troubling element is the inconsistency. Will the County Engineer revert to his earlier demands sooner, later, or never? Will we have prosperity for posterity or will the new owner find “that without improvements to the access it is unlikely that any further development or redevelopment of the site would be permitted”?
.jpg)
.jpg)
