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.
FAX REF: 01323 443333
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 Councilís legal manager has confirmed this to Committee.
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold
Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR), where police constable Bowden failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.
POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty correctly may be a new skill for your planning team to learn if they keep missing the bowl or forgetting to flush, or maybe even fumble the paperwork. Being patient and firm with them will help them get it right eventually, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person is entitled to a toilet no matter how much their legal team are out to harm a challenging member of the public - and yes we know how irritating it is to be caught out consistently by some members of the public - and yes of course that makes you hate that/those members of the public more - leading you into trying another dirty trick. But will that lead to more spillages?
So, if you are going to plan a vendetta, hoping to harass someone to vacate Wealden land for the benefit of someone else locally, be sure that you don't get caught with your trousers down, forget to flush, or even pull your trousers up too soon. Be careful to stay in the groove by following statute to the letter and don't hope that all Judges or Inspectors will turn a blink eye with a funny handshake - there are many who are not members and these are the airings that are sure to come back to haunt you to reveal what you did and why you did it. Sleep safe at night by doing the right thing. Do not try to deprive anyone of their state granted rights and put the lid down.
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
LINKS & REFERENCE
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.