Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex,
BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311 (dead)
FAO Trevor Scott
Fax ref. 01892 602223
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove, Crowborough
15 February 2012
Dear Mr Scott,
Article 8 and Section 6 Unlawfulness – Breach of
Duty to the Historic Environment – Reasonable & Beneficial Use
Thank you for your letter dated the 10th of February 2012.
Naturally, your council will seek to avoid the consequences of maladministration, where you have a duty to the taxpayer to save the public purse, but then you also owe a stronger duty to myself under article 8 of the human rights act 1998.
So, it’s cash or life? I think the courts will decide that life is far more important. Especially where, by its actions it is the council’s failings various, or indeed,
vendettas, that are responsible for making wrong decisions.
I think we can agree from the recording of
Mr Phillips and Mr Scarpa during a planning committee meeting to decide an application on this property, that Article 14 was breached. That where I, for the first time introduced
credible evidence as to the history attaching to the building in question, that your council refused to determine the application, or to make the proper enquiries of the
County Archaeologist or
English Heritage – as required at that time by PPG15 and 16. The planning inspectorate could not help me with this – for they accepted your council’s misinformation in good faith. Thus, the application route to correcting your errors has been tried and the system found wanting and has in the past cost me a small fortune.
With this is mind the correct route to formally recognising the status of this building is to strike the enforcement notice and/or thus obtain a Lawful Development Certificate.
Unfortunately, and as I said in my reply to your earlier letters (by recorded delivery), it takes both parties to a Consent Order (agreement), to cancel such an agreement. I take the view that your council is in contempt of court, in breaching the Agreement. However, now that you say that this agreement is in dispute, then we may proceed to review the lawfulness of the Enforcement Notice and the subsequent Injunction you refer to.
I am advised that I am entitled to assert my basic human right to peaceful enjoyment of what has been my home since 1982, and should do so.
I’d rather hoped that with so many years ruining my life, with blatantly discriminatory policies, that you’d have wanted to make amends. Especially where I’ve just suffered another gross injustice, which, is still under appeal – hence my trial is still in progress as per: “Delcourt v Belgium EHRR 355”. Your unlawful enforcement ruined my
marriage and a second long-term relationship, as you drove myself and family from The Steam House, unrelentingly, causing tremendous mental anguish and financial hardship in the process. You were lucky that the
Human Rights Act 1998 was not then in force, and once it became law, you then fought shy of enforcing – with the Agreement, that you are now seeking to deny.
The facts are that in 1986 your officers obtained an enforcement notice by
deception. It is thus ultra vires, as per the settled precedent in “R v Canterbury City Council (ex parte Spring Image Ltd) 1991” and the “Samuel Smiths Old Brewery 1998” case, since your officers failed to consult with English Heritage or the County Archaeologist, and told the planning committee that this valuable historic building was of “no historic significance”. As you seem intent on continuing with such deception, the
Fraud Act 2006 applies at section :-
4 Fraud by abuse of position
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
(b) dishonestly abuses that position, and
(c) intends, by means of the abuse of that position —
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2) A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.
As I recall, your council’s Vic Scarpa told Inspector Danreuther that the building held “no historic significance”, whereupon the Enforcement Notice was upheld by the Secretary of State. At another appeal, your council’s
Doug Moss and Ian Kay said much the same thing to
Inspector Michaels in 1997, calling a so-called ex
English Heritage expert (Chezel
Bird) - who also bore false testimony, saying that these buildings were of no historic significance.
As to your duty of care in the Wednesbury sense, you appear intent on causing yet more financial losses, by subjecting me to the risk of enforcement, even though you know the enforcement notice you refer to is ultra vires. Clearly, this invokes section 4 (1) (a) and 4 (2) of the Fraud Act, where you could simply declare your own notice void and recognise my rights under the 4 year rule, or seek a declaration from the court to that effect.
I would say that in the spirit of the Agreement, and knowing that as an occupier of this unique historic building, I am entitled to a reasonable and beneficial use, after consideration of the Monument Protection status of the property, and the survey by Archaeology South East, independently commissioned by the County Archaeologist.
Further, Article 8 and Protocol 1, Article 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, guarantees me interference free enjoyment of my home:-
Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
Part II The First Protocol
Article 1 Protection of property
Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.
Further, Article 14 prohibits discrimination. I can’t think you’d have tried to enforce against me prior to my conviction in February of 2008. This must then me a trigger, possibly brought on by complaints from local residents. Where you will be acting as an agent for such residents, in breach of your duty to the historic environment and myself as the occupier, having used such property as a dwelling for many years:-
Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination
The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.
In addition to the above and as to maladministration, in failing to inform the members in 1986, or the Inspectors various in several planning appeals, of the rarity of such early
generating industry remains – you did myself and the history of our country a disservice. Leaving this historic building sitting on your doorstep, rotting away for years while you fuddled to obtain the property for my next door neighbour – and yes I have a copy of Mr Phillips letter, clearly advocating acquisition and sale of the property to
Mr Townley, which invokes the Theft Act 1968: as in obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception.
Article 17 applies to all of the above, where it is your activities that have destroyed my right to peaceful enjoyment, broken up my relationships and caused financial hardship in the process:-
Article 17 Prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in this Convention may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein or at their limitation to a greater extent than is provided for in the Convention.
According to section 6 of the HRA, as you have breached several Articles of the HRA, which are convention rights, you have acted unlawfully and continue to do so:-
6 Acts of public authorities.
(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right.
The fact is that as an occupier of a historic building, I’m entitled to a reasonable and beneficial use. I’m concerned that in all of this, that your council, who have a duty to protect the historic built environment, appear content to deny the
historic status of this valuable building (evidence of man’s development) simply because it is me.
It should be the other way round. Instead of telling me that you intend to try and stop me using the building, you should be encouraging any use that would incentivise any occupier to invest in the maintenance of the structure – such as roof repairs, guttering, etc. I would therefore invite you to evaluate the history of the building as part of your investigations as part of the enforcement process.
BEST VALUE PRACTICES
Please also consider that we are in a recession with austerity measures in several EU countries. You should therefore be sure of the facts of this matter before proceeding to drain yet more of the public purse, which action is almost bound to end up in the
European Court by way of a human right claim.
I will be grateful if you will acknowledge receipt of this letter and trust that this letter clarifies the legal position from the long history of the matter.
Once you’ve had time to consider the above, I’d welcome your observations, should there be scope to resolve issues without the need for litigation.
Thanking you in anticipation.
Nelson J Kruschandl
legal officer was sure to have handled the Judicial Review against WDC
brought by Robert Clapson and John Cooper with The Firle Estate as an
interested party. You can see from the above that the Area Plans South
Committee were again duped by the planning officers handling this
application, into granting planning consent against wrongly interpreted
policies. It is thought that Kelvin Williams
played a big part in this smoke and mirrors illusion.
Scott was also implicated in trying to stop a water
mill near Heathfield from being rebuilt where his band of merry men
had persuaded the Area Plans South to again authorize enforcement against
a wooden cabin that was needed on site for security and storage, etc.
players also involved Beverley Boakes,
Geoff Johnson and Vic
Scarpa as you can see from the reference numbers. These days Wealden's
officers do their best to hide behind a veil. If you visit their website
you will not find the name of any officer, not the contact details for any
officer - they are that afraid of the consequences of their
of which have been proven to be unlawful - and a waste of public money to
public money seems to be one of the hallmarks of this Council. That is the
same as wasting energy in a world where climate
change is high on the United
Nations agenda for 2030.
F.A.O. Trevor Scott
Head of Democratic & Legal Services
Your refs. BJB/C/04/0496/HFD
Wealden District Council
18 March 2005
Dear Mr Scott
Thank you for your letter dated 15 March 2005, a copy of which I have passed to Planning and Civil Rights Limited for comment.
Your council is already on Notice as to the unnecessary interest payments, legal and other costs, attaching to my project as a result of the protracted delays occasioned by your council's threat of enforcement and refusal to answer reasonable questions in good time, or at all.
I cannot see how you or any other person in your council could possibly argue these delays are warranted, or that any competent administration would keep a developer waiting, when all those concerned in your council are fully aware of the cost implications. The irresistible conclusion is that officers conspired by various means to undo the planning permission members approved. Accordingly, these officers have used their influence to obstruct the lawful development of my Mill project with malicious intent.
Having brought the above issues to the attention of the heads of the Council, I hold them personally responsible for my costs in rebuttal and consequential losses arising howsoever from the obstruction I have experienced.
It must be therefore, in your council's best interests to limit its liability. I hope you will agree this may best be achieved by securing the Counsel's Opinion on a 'by return' basis. You cannot simply fire off another holding letter to buy yet more time, when this matter should never have begun in the first place. You've had ample time to obtain several Opinions. Indeed, it is rumoured that you are in receipt of an Opinion already, but that the Opinion you have received is not to your liking, in that it supports my position.
I have offered you on many an occasion a way of resolving the impasse, both amicably and informally by meeting or via my agents. On every occasion your council have refused to communicate. Whereas, I have been both patient and reasonable with no result to show for it.
As a consequence of the above, if I do not hear from you by the close of business on March 23 2005 with bona fide supported rebuttal, I will take it my observations are indeed correct, and that will legally end the obstruction.
Sent by the Appellant
c.c. Members DCS
& COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
171B Time limits.
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
(2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach.
(3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach.
(4) The preceding subsections do not prevent—
(a) the service of a breach of condition notice in respect of any breach of planning control if an enforcement notice in respect of the breach is in effect; or
(b) taking further enforcement action in respect of any breach of planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority have taken or purported to take enforcement action in respect of that breach.
SIGNING - Nus Ghani MP,
Cllr Bob Standley (Leader of Wealden District Council), Charles Lant (Chief Executive WDC). Top Right: Chairman
Cllr Chris Hardy and Vice Chairman
Cllr Pam Doodes. Bottom Right: Tony McCord (Sussex Fire & Rescue Services Borough Commander) Inspector Tony Wakefield (Wealden’s Neighbourhood Policing Team), with them is Trevor Scott (Wealden District Council Corporate Director).
CROWBOROUGH LIFE NOV 25 2016
- A Pledge to Speak-out against Domestic Violence. Today on White Ribbon Day Nus Ghani MP and other senior figures in public service in the Weaden district signed a pledge to oppose domestic violence in all its forms today.
Front line staff in the Council’s services have received training in how identify domestic abuse and encourage people not to tolerate it. The Council is also planning a number of campaigns to raise awareness about the issue in the wider Wealden communities.
Councillor Claire Dowling, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Community Safety, said:
Domestic violence and sexual violence affects men, women and children, but particularly women and girls. It is a problem which affects everyone.
I am sorry to say that we have seen a steady rise in the number of domestic abuse crimes in Wealden over the past four years. They have risen from 315 in 2012/13 to 580 in 2015/16.
Increased awareness has led to better reporting of these crimes but, as by definition, so much domestic abuse takes place behind closed doors, it is difficult to gauge the full extent of this problem.
We hope by encouraging everyone, including men and boys, to become more aware, we can create a safer, fairer climate in our homes. Domestic abuse is also a critical cause of homelessness, accounting for between 5-8% of all homeless applications in Wealden during the past two years.
Domestic abuse is not just violence. It can involve many kinds of controlling behaviour including physical and sexual intimidation, as well as economic and emotional abuse. In many cases people are unaware they are the abuser. Self-awareness is so important. We hope through the White Ribbon campaign we can raise this as an issue more and more people will be willing to talk about.
A number of senior figures in Wealden District Council, including the Chairman, Councillor Chris Hardy, and the Leader, Councillor Bob Standley, have volunteered to become White Ribbon ambassadors.
East Sussex Fire & Rescue Services Borough Commander Tony McCord and Inspector Tony Wakefield of Wealden’s Neighbourhood Policing Team also made a pledge today on White Ribbon Day.
Wealden District Council has been awarded White Ribbon Status and at the Full Council meeting earlier this week, Councillors were encouraged to sign the pledge to their opposition to domestic violence.
Where domestic abuse is an issue, members of the public should contact Sussex Police on 999, if it is an emergency, otherwise use 101.
A new website, The Portal and a freephone number 0300 323 9985, has been set up to provide advice and support to people suffering domestic violence in East Sussex.
Refuge provides a 24 hours emergency hotline on 0808 2000 247.
The Council also provides a Sanctuary Scheme which provides an alternative to relocation through enhanced security measures to an existing home. Contact the Council on 01323 443380.
You can also make your own pledge against domestic violence at the White Ribbon Campaign’s website
cannibalism in humans is commonplace where the (UK) state still pays
bunny-boilers to fabricate allegations - despite the untenable ratio of
false allegations. This is called Noble
Cause Corruption, so named because the cause (more convictions of
rapists and perverts) is noble, but the means (convicting significant
numbers of innocent men) is corrupt. A decent justice system is one where
convictions are safe; where an appeal is guaranteed and where the court
system does not refuse appellants the evidence for their barristers to
perfect grounds of appeal. Unlike most European countries, the right of
appeal in the UK in not mandatory and the discretionary single judge paper
system is open to startling abuses. This book is based on a real case
study, that reveals the fatal flaws in the English justice system. No man
in England is safe until these issues are dealt with - it could happen to
10 extract of a Consent Order in Case No: SD16 of 2003, in the
Eastbourne County Court. This is an Agreement that Mr Kruschandl alleges
this council have breached concerning recognition of and the future of Herstmonceux
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black,
Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold, Patrick Coffey
Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas
Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant, Beverley Boakes
Trevor - Alcock
Charmain - Ditto - Arnold
Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh
Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending
Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw
Clifford - Brigginshaw
Marina - Brown
Ashley - Coffey
Patrick - Douglas
Dowsett Timothy - Flemming
Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett
Martyn - Goodwin Daniel
- Henham J - Holness
Thomas - Johnson
Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay
- Barbara Kingsford - Lant Charles - Mercer
Mileman Niall - Moon
Craig - Moss Douglas, J. - Nuttall
Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips
David - Scarpa
Victorio - Scott
Kevin Stewart - Wakeford
M. - Whibley David - White,
George - Williams
Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White