PAUL BARKER

  PAUL BARKER WAS A CONSERVATION OFFICER AT WEALDEN WHO FAILED TO ADVISE OF A REGISTER  DEFECT

BARKER PAUL | BIRD CHEZEL | BROWN DR ANDREW | COSSINS SIR NEIL | JOHNSON CASPER | MAGNUS SIR LAURIE | WOODCOCK DR ANDREW

PAUL BARKER

Can you imagine a conservation officer who does not know what he or she is looking at. Of course not. It must be then that Paul Barker, as Wealden District Council's conservationist was well aware of the origins and originality of the Generating Buildings at Herstmonceux.

That being the case and as a professional conservation officer he not only had (and has) a duty to the court to provide factual evidence, but also to other agencies or services that his employers provide(d) to other agencies such as the Inland Revenue, Land Registry, English Heritage and the County Archaeologist.

There is a duty to keep data accurate and up to date. The moment that the Report from London University's Archaeology unit was supplied to his Council he had a duty to ensure that all records relating to the property were aligned to take on board this new information.

In respect of Councillor Hubbard's request to put in a B1 (light industrial) planning application, Mr Barker would have known that Inspector Raymond Michael had already considered such use alongside a proposed residential use (the was ongoing) and dismissed the B1 use as being inappropriate in the Lime Park setting. He would also have known that Inspector Raymond Dannreuther had been fed incorrect information by George White with Ian Kay as his long time work associate, also in the picture.

Given that he was an adviser to the Area Plans South sub committee, he should properly have advised the chairman that his suggestion was effectively taking the applicant in circles. We assume that Councillor Hubbard would have been advised by Vic Scarpa, Ian Kay and other officers to make this suggestion, in the full knowledge that Inspector Michael, as the Secretary of State had already ruled on the matter.

You would imagine that Paul Barker would have been overjoyed by the Report by Archaeology South East from 1999 that confirmed that the Generating Station was original and not a later pump-house as had been suggested by Chezel Bird during a public inquiry. This was of course the lie put to Raymond Dannreuther, that his Council were nursing.

Deliberately forcing an applicant to revisit that which had already been visited is a tactic that is used by Wealden's officers to frustrate lawful development. Such tactic is immoral, unlawful and when the misfeasance is repeated, illegal - for then it constitutes a course of conduct that is discriminatory. In this case, given that the discrimination extended to every department in the council, it became institutionalized.

ATT: Paul Barker                                                                                              FAX REF: 01323 443333
The Council’s Conservationist
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Road
Hailsham BN27 2AX                                                                                                     23 October 2001

Dear Mr Barker

REDUNDANCY & RE-USE

I understand Dr Morrice has copied his letter to me dated 22nd October 2001, to you. With reference to this letter I think we might agree that electricity generation ceased shortly after 1936, once the Baron received compensation from the Weald Supply Company. Equally, where the Lime House estate became separated in stages into a number of stand alone residential planning units, finally in 1982, The Old Steam House became a stand-alone planning unit. I understand your Council’s legal manager has confirmed this to Committee.

I note from other similar applications to convert historic buildings to a residential use your Council require an applicant to make reasonable efforts to re-use historic buildings favouring a B1 industrial use. I note also that where such uses have been explored and shown to be inappropriate, an applicant should tender a “Statement of Justification.” 

In respect of Cllr Hubbard asking me (Mar 2000) to consider a B1 application, I undertook a detailed evaluation of such a proposal. The evaluation looked at finance and viability balanced against cost of conversion to sufficient units to yield a reasonable return; the effect on the structure of the original generating building; a marketing exercise was undertaken; your Council’s arguments in respect of similar proposals were revisited. With reference to the evaluation I am now in a position to prepare such a Statement and wondered if you could supply me with an example of the form a Statement should take or otherwise guide me?

Last Thursday I was interested to hear you explain to the APN Committee considering application WD/01/1745 that the Council had a general duty to protect the historic built environment. You know from my 1998 and 1999 applications that this building is without a beneficial use and at risk. As a conservationist I realise this will be of some concern to you. Equally, English Heritage say this is your Council’s responsibility but remain available to assist with any application where they can. Hence, I am copying this letter to Dr Morrice EH’s Inspector of Historic Buildings and I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely 

Nelson J Kruschandl

C.C. Cllrs: Executive Panel 
Blaxland, Coltman, Gore, 
Kirkpatrick, Parsons, Thornely-Taylor, Tidy, West.

Clrs: Brown, Hubbard, Whitehead.

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.