Having observed from afar enforcement action at Bushy Wood, Aysgarth Farm, Mr. Brown’s, Mr. Goodacre’s, Mr. Trill’s, Mr. Kruschandl’s, Mrs. Harris’s, Mr. Charnley’s and the Ellis’s establishments, a few salient points emerge.

You will not get advance warning of Wealden’s visit, so the contractors may quote in summer and arrive in winter. You may find there is a police presence which could manifest itself early on with your firearms being taken to a place of safety. Mr. David Phillips and his enforcement staff will have pocket recorders because obviously they discourage inappropriate behaviour, and you may be alarmed, nay despairing, at the scope and coverage of the little word “etc” at the bottom of your enforcement schedule. Mr. Goodacre found it covered a perfectly serviceable 3 cylinder Ferguson 35 plus loader which he was distraught to see being dropped as it was being loaded. No matter, there was a happy ending for it at the end of Greenwood Lane, where it was sold for £70 cash.

Wealden planning dept enforcement manager David L Phillips has admitted in Court under oath and before witnesses that;   he has given misinformation to a D.o.E. Planning Appeal Inspector, rewritten a Planning Inspector's decision letter in his own words for Wealden's planning commitee in 'secret session', served legal documents too late according to the rules for planning applicants to have them in time for an Appeal, removed documents from files before a Planning Appeal hearing and replaced them later, demolished property a few days before a D.o.E. Planning Inspector was due so there would be nothing to see, disposed of saleable materials from planning appeal sites saying they were worthless, and inserts an "etc, or all other materials" for example in his enforcement orders so he can take whatever he wants, but Wealden haven't sacked him they've promoted him.

Statute law ( such as obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception ) does not apply to Wealden staff when enforcing. You may get an enforcement quote of £3,800 for lifting concrete that was never lifted, but if you think the matter has ended there you would be wrong. You may receive the news that there is a new charge on your land from your bank manager for how much? – that’s right you’ve guessed it - £3,800! If you discuss the matter informally you will be told that they took an old caravan away instead and introduced that as a substitute charge. You may admire the concrete that wasn’t lifted at Bushy Wood, and the charge that was made on the Land Charges Register.

Neither do the Council’s own enforcement rules apply to Wealden’s staff . Check out what those rules are and you will be given a load of all flannel about goods being held for 3 days before being sold. Horlicks ! Mr. Goodacre’s tractor wasn’t, Aysgarth Farm’s sand wasn’t. Mr. Brown’s concrete wasn’t and neither were Mrs. Harris’s irrigation pipes.

Transmutation also occurs to material once it has been taken from your land. Consider the 8 lorry loads of sand school sand taken from Aysgarth Farm. Expensive stuff to buy, but it was waste material when it was loaded because it was contaminated with Terram membrane. Much to everyone’s surprise it was taken not to a registered tip ( where a tipping receipt would have been obtained ) but to an equestrian establishment in Burwash! In other words, just like aquavit, it improved with travel. Mr. Brown had a similar experience. He discovered that concrete taken from his holding was not taken to the nearest tip but to a concrete crushing plant further away where clearly it was a raw material!

Well, you might say to yourself, time for a little forensic accounting. We do after all live in a democracy do we not? Up to a point Lord Copper. You could ask to see the vouchers relating to the Aysgarth Farm event at the proper time, and you would find that they are conspicuous for their absence. Items such as the 8 tipping receipts ( absent ), or 8 bills of sale ( absent ), or storage charges for 3 days ( absent ).

So what can the Action Group do to help? Well, we can provide mobile ‘phones pre-programmed with a telephone tree of numbers, so that when our friendly enforcement staff hove into view, we can be rung, and we can pop along with our cars, cameras, videos, phones, tape recorders and bright smiley faces. And what good will that do? Well, we can follow the battered Ferguson up the lane and film it’s sale for £70. Or follow the sand in lorries to Burwash and confirm that the absence of a tipping voucher is due to the fact that it didn’t get to an authorised tip. Or follow the concrete to the crushing plant, and film the other drivers getting paid for their loads. And that will leave you with lots of time to argue the scope and coverage of the word “etc” with Darling Dave back at the ranch.

Armed with a video recorder you might be able to ask a few pointed questions. Mr. Kruschandl aimed an empty one at Mr. David Phillips during his 141st enforcement visit and asked about harassment. Mr. David Phillips has not been near the place since. Mr. Charnley even spent good money on the opinion of barrister Stephen Chippeck who advised
“It became clear that due to the publicity surrounding Bruno the bull, that the Council decided to ‘play dirty’ and they set about trying to catch Mr. Charnley out. I would take this opportunity of suggesting a few steps that Mr. Charnley might take in order to assist himself with any further difficulties that they might seek to cause him.
5 I would advise that he keep a diary record of all the ‘interactions’ that he has with the Council about his land … It should include timings and the details of any conversations had.
6. If possible he should keep with him … a camera which records the date on the photographs so that he can take ‘photos of the council employees. Even better if he were to have access to a camcorder!
7. If it becomes apparent that the council are hounding him, I would very much like to consider an action of misfeasance in public office against them.
8……if it becomes the case that he is being further hounded by them, it would give me the greatest of pleasure to turn the tables on the council employees and put them in the firing range”.

You will note that Mr. Chippeck uses the word “misfeasance”. This is an expensive word for Council’s to hear in a judgement. Observe what Master Leslie the Judge (on 7/8/02) said when declining to oblige Wealden by having Mr. Goodacre’s action (case no 13 of 2002 in the High Court) against them struck out :-
“the defendants, in breach of their own guidelines and probably in breach of the Data Protection Act, fed, because that is the right word, fed information to Mrs. Bates which they ought never to have given out to anybody and which was clearly, says Mr. Goodacre, with reasonable grounds for saying, were confidential and should have not been given out. That in my judgement, supports his claim ( which I find to have reasonable grounds for bringing ) of malice in support of the claim for damages for misfeasance in public office. In those circumstances I shall not strike this claim out or any of it.”

You will be surprised at how generous Wealden will be with your confidential information once they have obtained it. That obtained from Mr. Pursglove was passed to the Benefits Agency and he was summoned to his first ever interview under caution. Non enforcement related information was passed to both Robert Harris’s and Richard de Rivaz’s neighbours when they were litigating. The R.S.P.C.A. seem to follow Wealden like night follows day (as Mrs. Harris and Mr. Trill will confirm ), but Wealden do not consider animal welfare when it is inconvenient to their purpose. Bruno was kept waiting in the rain for so long that he was too ill to enjoy his shelter when it arrived. And why was planning permission demanded when none was required? Because Wealden sucked an ingénue into their machinations by not asking whether Bruno was a draught animal (his shelter would then have been a permitted development not requiring planning permission). There’s nowt wrong with a good application fee Grommit! But you would not expect a planning officer to know when planning permission was required would you? To quote Kember Loudon Williams on the subject ( 6/2/96 ):-
“We regret to advise that this is the second time in as many years that we have had experience of W.D.C. having served enforcement notices in respect of development which on appeal was determined as not requiring planning permission. We respectfully suggest that certain members of your enforcement staff may need re-education as to matters which either do not constitute development or which constitute development which is permitted by order”.