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
(Wealden District Council Officers using false, selective and misleading information in their reports
in order to obtain the planning or enforcement results of their choice.)
In 1997, in line with government guidelines, the elected councillors of Wealden District Council initiated the facility for public questioning and public petition with more than ten signatories, to be presented to full council meetings.
The question or petition had to be lodged with the council two weeks before the meeting, and then if it was accepted, the questioner or petitioner had to read it out in person, in public at the meeting. The following is what I (Anne Harris) read out on behalf of the twelve signatories of the petition to the public meeting of Wealden District Council on 16th July 1997. The first part (in bold) was the written petition, the second part (in italics) I added at the presentation. All of it was spoken in public before all councillors, recorded by Meridian television and BBC local radio and broadcast.
"We the undersigned insist that the elected councillors of Wealden commission an independent public investigation into the following allegation: -
Wealden District Council Officers use false, selective and misleading information in their reports and/or commentaries to elected Councillors, Planning Inspectors and Courts in order to obtain and/or maintain the planning or enforcement results of their choice."
"The call is for a full, independent public investigation into the prevailing situation not a piecemeal appraisal of the merits of individual cases.
Enough documents demonstrating instances of the alleged malpractices are available in the Council antechamber to convince you, and other interested parties, of the need for an independent investigation. One of the allegations is that officers use enforcement notices and unfavourable recommendations to target individuals, disrupting their businesses and causing them huge expense. Clearly, most people with evidence of this, who intend to continue to live and work within the District, feel they be unwise to put evidence forward to anyone other than a completely independent investigator."
The Councillors were then asked to take the matter most seriously and the Leader of the Council assured the petitioners they would. The petitioners said they consider the petition open and mentioned others who wished to put evidence forward.
A second petition of forty signatories wishing to offer further evidence of officer impropriety was lodged with the Council two weeks before the next full Council meeting, but they refused to accept it.
Wealden District Councillors are, on the whole, a collection of well meaning but gullible retired gentlefolk who believe that all council officers are jolly good chaps who would never deliberately do wrong things.
Having taken advice from the council’s officers and insurers they set up a panel of three councillors to deal with the petition. The Chairman of the panel, Councillor The Lord Newton, began the “impartial” enquiry by announcing publicly that he was quite sure that the officers had done nothing wrong. He then set the remit of the panel to be so narrow that almost all of the evidence was excluded.
The panel’s findings, with summaries of the petitioner’s cases, were published in January 1998. It can be viewed at the Wealden Council offices at Crowborough and Hailsham and is well worth reading. It shows the enormity of what the councillors were prepared to ignore. The phrase ‘beyond our remit’ appears more than sixty times in this report.
The councillors voted never to accept any more petitions or deal with any more complaints on this subject but voted for funding for bouquets of flowers for the panellists wives.
The matters alleging criminal actions had been deemed beyond the remit of the panel and referred to the Police. At a full public Council meeting the WDC Chief Executive, Derek Holness, handed the Chairman, Raymond Parsons, a letter received by him from the Police to read out in public. The press reported it’s contents i.e. the Police had investigated the petitioner’s complaints and had found nothing untoward.
Some long time later an Action Group member was at a Police station with a senior district councillor making further allegations. One of the two police officers present was a very senior officer, he mentioned in passing, with apology, that the Petitioner’s complaints had not been investigated. When asked about the letter sent to Derek Holness by the police, this senior police officer said that Derek Holness had drafted that letter himself and had asked the police to send it to him on their headed notepaper.
The WAG member went home and wrote to the senior police officer accepting his apology and detailing the content of their conversion. This letter was acknowledged and no part of it contradicted.
The new Chief Executive of WDC, Sheila Douglas, when confronted with these facts refused to refer the apparent collusion to the appropriate authorities for investigation. She also refused to provide a copy of the original Police letter, though it had been read out at a public meeting and was therefore in the public domain. Shortly afterwards she resigned.
The panel's report clearing the planning department of misconduct was published in January 1998.
Sequel
In February 1998 East Sussex County Council prepared a shortlist of sites for an above ground rubbish tip for East Sussex. The advice they took on sites was solely from WDC - from the refuse department re convenient central location and from the planning department re specific site locations.
Three sites were short listed for the above ground tip: -
One was later deemed unsuitable, not just for poor road access, but it was adjacent to a working airfield and a large residential caravan site and would therefore be a nuisance and a danger. The second site also had poor road access but was also in five ownerships and was protected woodland criss-crossed with footpaths. The third site had excellent road access and though very far from ideal, was the only real contender.
This site belonged to Councillor The Lord Newton, Chairman of the panel.
When the shortlist was published in the summer of 1998 both WAG and a locally formed independent anti-tip pressure group sought estimates of the increase in value of short listed sites and the eventual chosen site. The results were consistent; £1million for short listing, up to £10 million once planning consent is given (by WDC).
Councillor The Lord Newton, also Chairman of the planning committee and strategic plans committee denied all knowledge of how his site had been chosen and said he didn’t want a tip on his land.
He resigned from both committees due to the conflict of interests.
Local objections eventually scotched plans for all three sites.
Foul play thwarted? Or a good man set up?
In July 1999 I supplied the Chief Constable of East Sussex with a huge dossier for his personal attention. He would not investigate. I have formally complained about the Chief Constable’s refusal to investigate. Such a complaint has to be investigated by an officer of equal rank i.e. another force. So far the Police refuse to progress the complaint for investigation by an outside force.