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
An animal sanctuary on the A22 exchanged hands. The new owners formally applied for a personal consent to be transferred to them. They continued to run the farm as a sanctuary for horses. There were 11 fully equipped stables. The buildings were a permitted development and acknowledged as such by Wealden District Council.
It appears WDC did not like the new owners. For, while the use remained the same WDC decided to oppose the change in owner. To us this smacks of discrimination. However, it is also true that Mr Kay, the assistant district planning officer, had a run in with the former owners who'd beaten Mr Kay at Appeal.
The Council officers must have felt that the Planning Committee would have sympathy with the new owners and a group of Petitioners, for he authorised the chief enforcement officer, Mr Phillips, to demolish the farm buildings to prevent the Committee being able to decide the owners application. This was just 3 days before it was due to be heard.
The owners appealed the application to the DOE, who despite WDC arguing it could not be heard, because the buildings were gone, allowed the appeal to proceed.
On appeal the Inspector could not give permission for the buildings which were demolished, but stated he would have no objection to 9 new stables to be built as replacements. If the Council had been reasonable, the demolition and rebuild costs could have been avoided, along with the cost to the ratepayer of the appeal.
The appellants were awarded costs for the unreasonable conduct of the Council in supplying documents late. The Inspector could not look at the matter of compensation and the owners could not afford to go to law.
Despite the need which had been demonstrated, WDC still pursuing the opposition of councillor Ellwood, made the appellants wait several more months to finally obtain their new permission.
The owners of the Bushy Wood sanctuary were one of the signatories to the Petition where so far, the serious complaints have not been fully investigated.
Tel: 07905 147709 Email: nelson@horsesanctuary.org
Executive Members & Chief Executive
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Lane
Hailsham BN27 2AX FAX REF: 01323 443333
13 February 2003
Dear Councillor
THE TRUTH HURTS
We have been contacted by a BBC reporter regarding the demolition of our original stables by your council. It appears a councillor may have accidentally put a link to pages on the bushywood.com website, which for some reason came to the attention of the media. Our Chairman was asked if we could substantiate the stories on the site and for the record our spokesperson said the stories were well documented and for the most part in the public domain. In fact most pages quote newspaper articles directly. He pointed out he was a trustee of our charity and the charity was set up to provide a home and care for disadvantaged animals.
Unpalatable as it may be to your members, the content of the bushywood website is factual. However, should there be any matter which has not been correctly reported and your chief executive can provide convincing evidence, then we will be happy to make appropriate corrections with apology.
Meantime, it is correct that your Council is not reporting injustices and findings of maladministration as required by Parliament. For our part we would welcome any initiative to give force back to this important legislation intended as a safety-net to keep the members advised as to mistakes their council is making.
With respect, may we suggest that the simplest way for your council to get back on track would be to dismiss the staff responsible for making your Council law breakers and recruit personnel more sympathetic to the enactments of Parliament.
We look forward to hearing if we can assist you in any way.
Yours sincerely Nelson J Kruschandl