Heath Close, Old Heathfield,
East Sussex, TN21 9BN.
19.xi.2001
Planning Fraud - Perjury -WD/96/0043/LU.

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.


12.viii.2001
Planning Fraud WD/96/0043/LU.

Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for your prompt reply.
You claim no document was suppressed. How then do you account for the emergence of the colour precursor of the defaced monochrome copy in January 1999?
If Mr. Kay knew of either the original, or the precursor enlargement when he said of the defaced copy “That is the only aerial photograph we have”, we are looking at perjury.
This is a very serious matter Mr. Brown. If you feel an investigation of this complexity is beyond your resources, call in the C.I.D.
A crime has been committed Mr. Brown, and if you fail to properly investigate you become a party to the offence.

Yours,

Chester Hudson.


3.viii.2001
Planning Fraud WD/96/0043/LU.

Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for your reply of July 24th to my fax of July 20th. I note your anxiety to seek closure.
Your Q.C. said “the plan submitted with the application shows various buildings designated as stores but from the photographs….”.
Those “photographs” have never appeared on the public file. Have they been stolen, or merely suppressed contrary to S.20 of the 1968 Theft Act?
Would you please investigate. If you feel an investigation of this complexity is beyond your resources, call in the C.I.D.
A crime has been committed Mr. Brown, and if you fail to properly investigate you become a party to the offence.

Yours,

Chester Hudson.


20.vii.2001
Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for your reply of July 11th to my letter of April 1st.
You say “no aerial photographs have been stolen as you claim”. Supposing I accept this, how then do you account for the absence of the triple referenced stereoscopic colour aerial photograph from it’s file on the inquiry day?
Quite clearly a crime was committed vis a vis the Theft Act 1968 which reads:-
20. Suppression, etc., of documents
(1) A person who dishonestly, with ….. intent to cause loss to another, …… conceals any valuable security, any will or other testamentary document or any original document of or belonging to, or filed or deposited in, any court of justice or any government department …..
Would you please investigate. If you feel an investigation of this complexity is beyond your resources, call in the C.I.D.
A crime has been committed Mr. Brown, and if you fail to properly investigate you become a party to the offence.

Yours,

Chester Hudson.


1.vii.2001
Dear Mr Brown,
I wrote to you on All Fools Day 2001. You have ignored my letter for three months.
This notice is now displayed at Stream Farm. It is fair comment.
1. A person replaced a Wealden District Council owned colour enlargement of their own aerial photograph with a defaced monochrome copy. Both were removed from the file.
2. On oath at an appeal, I. M. K. said of the defaced copy “That is the only aerial photograph we have”. The Inspector said he would “keep” it.
3. Afterwards Derek Holness said I. M. K. did not “recall a photograph”, and he had found none in “searching the file and … appeal papers”.
4. The colour enlargement & the defaced copy were then found in Wealden’s offices under a note saying “Return to I.M.K.”.
5. The D.P.O. will not agree to invite in the C.I.D. to investigate the two thefts or the defacement.
Someone obstructed a committee, an Inspector, and Mr. Holness’s investigation. Are you being obstructive as well?
Perhaps with a new M.P., a new chief constable, new councillors, and a nearly new Chief Executive, a new approach may be taken to the criminal activities within your department.

Yours,

Chester Hudson.


A. J. Brown Esq. District Planning Officer.
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove,
Crowborough,
TN6 1DH All Fools Day 2001
Planning Fraud & WD/96/0043/LU.
Dear Mr. Brown,
Thank you for your letter of March 20th inst. Perhaps you could re-read the correspondence relating to the aerial photograph. Having done so, I am sure you will agree that an officer within your department is either a thief, a liar, or both.
The evidence you are continuing to ignore is the tape recording and all three photographs found in January 1999.
When on oath, under cross examination, and being tape recorded, Mr. I M Kay told Inspector Wilkinson whilst referring to an unreferenced monochrome photograph, “This is the only aerial photograph we have”. Subsequently, two more colour aerial photographs emerged, both fully referenced, both obtained before the inquiry, and both under a note “Return to IMK”. If you want me to believe those colour photographs were stolen for the duration of the inquiry, there is a thief in your department.
Alternatively, if, when Mr. I M Kay told Inspector Wilkinson ( whilst referring to the defaced monochrome aerial photograph ) “This is the only aerial photograph we have”, he knew of either of the other two, or both of the other two, he is a liar.
Alternatively, if Mr I M Kay removed the two colour photographs and then told Inspector Wilkinson “This is the only aerial photograph we have”, he is both a thief and a liar.
And if an officer removed ( or withheld ) the defaced monochrome photograph which the Inspector said he would “keep” from the inquiry bundle, you need to identify the thief.
Consider two further inconsistencies.
1) I believe Mr I M Kay can now recall the cross examination, whereas via Mr. Holness he said he couldn’t. If he still cannot, you could ask your Mr. Johnson. And if he can’t recall, you could ask the Inspector. If however, Mr Kay can recall, but only selectively, refer to the recording.
2) I believe Mr Kay said to the Courier of an aerial photograph “we would not go looking for one” whereas your Q.C. told your officers to look for “evidence from third parties detailing their knowledge of activities on the site in the ’84-’87 period”.
The colour triple referenced enlargement was found on the file next to her opinion c.19/8/96. Both were then removed. Was your thief active as early as 1996?
If you feel an investigation of this complexity is beyond your resources, call in the C.I.D.
A crime has been committed Mr. Brown, and if you fail to properly investigate you become a party to the offence.

Yours,

Chester Hudson.

Cc D. S. Keith Lindsay, Eastbourne C.I.D.




By e-mail on 9th Aug 2004

Dear Mr. Kay,

You may recall that in June / July 1996 you called at Stream Farm with Miss J. Spice. You were assessing the evidence presented in WD/96/0043/LU. You toured the premises with Miss Spice and Mr. Ashdown.

You may also recall that before you commenced your tour you asked my permission to take terrestrial photographs. My consent was readily forthcoming since I wished to expedite your assessment of my claims.

You will recall that the photographs you took were subsequently used as evidence by your executive in the assessment of my claims.

You will be able to confirm by reference to the ( now ) microfiched file that the photographic evidence you obtained is not on that file.

Where is it?

Yours,



Chester Hudson.