IN THE HIGH COURT - STRAND - LONDON
HOME CUISINE ENVIRONMENT INSURANCE HORSES LEGENDS LAW NEWS PRODUCE RIGHTS SITE INDEX TRANSPORT WHISTLEBLOWING
IN THE HIGH COURT Case No.
The Claimant is and has been at all material times the occupier of YOUR HOUSE, hereafter referred to as TSH, a property situated in Lime Park, Herstmonceux in East Sussex.
The Claimant first occupied TSH as his home in April 1982, approximately 22 years ago. At this time TSH was known as "OTHER NAME”. The property has also been known as “Oakwood.”
The date of first occupation can be traced back via a Search Certificate lodged by Hart Read & Co., solicitors with the 1st Defendant on the 2nd April 1982 and issued by the Defendant Council on the 15th April 1982, this certificate being in relation to 4 Lime Park, which at the time included TSH.
Vendor had allowed the purchaser(s) early access to the properties
to allow them to begin clearance works, they being to all intents
The 1st purchaser Mr & Mrs Nikolia Askaroff in turn rented
TSH to the Claimant, and thence transfer TSH to the Claimant, which
had been agreed in principle. The
rental period lasted approximately 8 weeks before the Claimant’s
formal offer to purchase had been accepted by the 1st
provides living accommodation and studio/workshop facilities
courtesy of large garages and an office, which facilities enable the
Claimant, as a design engineer, to work from home.
Claimant is 48 years of age. When
he first occupied TSH he was therefore 26 years of age. The Claimant asserts that these are the most physically
productive years of a person’s life, where the Claimant had
to physically produce prototype designs.
his occupation of TSH the Claimant has suffered interference in the
peaceful enjoyment of his home and possessions, such interference
occasioned by his local authority, being the 1st
Defendant and manifesting itself firstly in the guise of enforcement
action, said action in denial of their duty to protect the historic
first occupation of TSH the Claimant resisted the said interference
and continues to challenge the unrelenting interference. Accordingly, the most productive part of the Claimant’s
life has been burdened with the task of dealing with the said
interference of a building said by experts to be of considerable
local historic importance, which the Defendant’s deny.
the Defendant officers have sought to conceal the said history
attaching to TSH by not advising Members of the relevance and not
consulting generally with local archaeological groups, the County
Archaeologist or English Heritage, for fear such procedure would
reveal the true historic value and they would not then be able to
recover, so as to continue their agenda to enforce against the
Claimant’s occupation in perversity.
By which reason the Claimant asserts, together with other reasons, the
Defendant(s) original enforcement action is inherently defective and
wrong, and about which the Claimant seeks Declarations.
the Defendant(s) have granted beneficial residential planning
consents to other occupiers of redundant buildings in their
jurisdiction, these buildings being without any specific local
importance, thereby operating a policy of discrimination against the
CLAIMANT ASSISTING THIRD PARTY ENFORCEE’S
and in particular concerning the unlawful demolition of stables
situated at Bushy Wood Farm on the A22 in East Sussex, the Claimant
felt obliged to represent the owners and their rescued animals at
Appeal, who would otherwise been unable to defend themselves against
the Horse Sanctuary were ultimately successful in obtaining planning
permission to rebuild their stables, the need for them having been
established at Appeal. However,
the 1st Defendant has neither settled their costs, nor
compensated them as to rebuild, the said unlawful demolition being
merely a device to harm the Sanctuary’s Appeal. Accordingly,
a website was established to expose the 1st Defendant,
which website the 1st Defendant wishes to remove.
the Claimant has assisted other persons (mostly farmers) concerning
enforcement, where the 1st Defendant appears
inconsistent in their planning approvals, on the one hand, and
enforcement on the other. This
taken with the website: www.bushywood.com
warning persons about the 1st Defendant using real case
history and newspaper clippings, has angered the 1st
Defendant and especially so where they have taken legal advice as to
ways of removing the said website in the knowledge it is protected
by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the precedent set in Derbyshire County Council v Times
Newspapers Ltd. 1992 QB770.
THE FIRST DEFENDANT
The 1st Defendant is and has been at all material
times the Claimant’s Local Authority.
The 1st Defendant is a public body as defined by S.
6(3)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, and/or a corporation carrying
out a public function, known as Wealden District Council, whose
offices are located at Vicarage Lane, Hailsham and Pine Grove,
Crowborough in East Sussex.
The Claimant asserts that in their role as his Local Authority, the
1st Defendant owes the Claimant certain duties as set
out by Her Majesty’s Government in Law and as Policy Guidelines
and in accordance with precedent(s) established in a Court of Law or
other officially recognised forum, to be reasonable, present
accurate and balanced reports and to take steps not to harm or
otherwise prejudice the Claimant’s best interests.
The Growth of the power of public and quasi-public bodies over the
lives of individuals, has diluted the power of parliament to
That this is so is stated in a letter from the DETR dated 21st
May 1999. Wherein, it
is confirmed: “….local authorities are …… autonomous bodies,
largely independent of central government”. “Local
authorities are however, answerable to both the Courts and the
THE MEMBER DEFENDANTS
The 2nd Defendant, Nigel Coltman, is the Leader of the
Defendant Council. In this role
the 2nd Defendant holds a special position and is able to exert
influence over any committee he is a member of, or over other members
with whom he comes into contact.
3rd Defendant, Norman Buck, is thought to have some
accountancy experience. He
is also a member of the 1st Defendant’s Executive
Cabinet and it is thought to be a member of the 1st
Defendant’s Finance Committee. As such he is able to exert
influence over any committee he is a member of, or over other
members with whom he comes into contact.
4th Defendant, Jack Gore, is the Chairman of the
Defendant Council and prior to this was a Cabinet Member with
responsibility for planning. In
his role as Chairman, the 4th Defendant is able to exert
influence over the 1st
Defendant and any committee he is a member of, or over other members
with whom he comes into contact.
5th Defendant, Sylvia Tidy, is a former Chairman or
Deputy Leader of the 1st Defendant.
She has also held high positions in the Strategic Planning and Economic
Development committee known as SPED and is a member of the Executive
As such she is able to exert influence over any committee she is a
member of and other members she comes into contact with.
The 5th Defendant is also concerned with conservation
6th Defendant, Raymond Parsons, is a former Chairman of
the 1st Defendant. He
has sat on planning committees for a number of terms and is now a
member of the Executive cabinet. As
such he is able to exert influence over any committee he is a member
of and over any members with whom he comes into contact.
to the positions or rank identified above, the Defendants numbered 2
to 6 are elected Members of the 1st Defendant. These particular councillors, except the 4th
Defendant, are members of the Cabinet, which committee effectively
oversees the running of other committees and the 1st
Defendant as a corporate body, and the appointment of officers, and
as such are the controlling mind of the member contingent of the 1st
a result of recent email communication, the Claimant has learned of
another member of the Cabinet with responsibility for financial
matters, not included as a Defendant in person. This
member, councillor David Logan, has demonstrated unwillingness to
investigate the matters complained of so as to assist the Claimant,
but conversely confirms his willingness to investigate further where
there is the possibility of causing additional harm to the Claimant.
After consideration of the evidence, it may be deemed appropriate to
join councillor David Logan as the 16th Defendant
regarding what appears to be either, wilful misconduct and/or
THE OFFICER DEFENDANTS
The 7th Defendant, Charles Lant, is the current
Chief Executive of the 1st Defendant.
As such he has overall responsibility for ensuring the proper
administration of the 1st Defendant at all times, in
accordance with a fair and balanced performance on his own part and
his instructing Members.
The 8th Defendant, Ashley Brown, was the District Planning Officer and/or Director of Environmental Services, with overall responsibility for planning until very recently. He is understood to be a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute. He is working out time in a different area of employment within the 1st Defendant, to qualify for additional pension rights.
The 8th Defendant is an amateur archaeologist, thought
to have lobbied the Members of the 1st Defendant on conservation
issues relating to a windmill at Argos Hill, concerning the need for regular
maintenance, which windmill belongs to the Defendant Council.
The position of Director of Environmental Services, recently
vacated by the 8th Defendant is presently shared between the 9th,
10th and 11th Defendant, until the 1st
Defendant appoints an officer to this position.
The 9th Defendant, Daniel Goodwin, is the Director of
Corporate Services responsible for financial matters pertaining to
Defendant. In common
with the 10th
and 11th Defendant’s he shares responsibility for
Environmental Services, which includes planning and enforcement.
The 10th Defendant, Michael Fleming, is the Director of
Property Services. In
common with the 9th and 11th Defendant’s
he shares responsibility for Environmental Services, which includes
planning and enforcement.
The 11th Defendant, Mary Clare Deane, is the Director of
Community Services. In common
with the 9th and 10th Defendant she shares
responsibility for Environmental Services, which includes planning and
The 12th Defendant, Victorio Scarpa, is a solicitor
acting for the 1st Defendant since at least 1986 and at
all material times thereafter. He
is currently the 1st Defendant’s Legal Services
The 13th Defendant, David Phillips, claims to be a
member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
He has been the 1st Defendant’s enforcement officer since
at least 1991 and at all material times thereafter. He also holds responsibility for conservation matters.
The 14th Defendant, Ian Kay, is understood to be a
member of the Royal Town Planning Institute.
He has been a senior planning officer and/or Assistant District
Planning Officer with the 1st Defendant since at least
1983 and at all material times thereafter, except in the last year
where he has assumed the position of District Planning Officer, so
having a hands on involvement with the Claimant’s case and in
particular any matter involving TSH property.
The 15th Defendant, Paul Barker, claims to have many
years of conservation experience. He
is listed on the Institute of Historic Buildings (IHB) website. Since at least
1999 and at all material times thereafter, he has been employed by the 1st
Defendant as their conservation officer.
to the positions or rank identified above, the Defendants numbered
from 7 to 15 and identified by name function as the controlling
minds of the officer contingent of the 1st Defendant,
where the Claimant is concerned.
EMPLOYEES OF THE 1st DEFENDANT
So far as the employment of staff is concerned, the 1st
Defendant derives its powers from S.112 of the Local Government Act
1972 (or as amended). This
section allows the 1st Defendant to: “appoint such
officers as they think is necessary for the proper discharge of such
of their……functions as fall to be discharged by them,”
to the precedent set in Hazell v Hammersmith & Fulham
London Borough Council 1992 2AC 1 at p 37, Lord Templeman emphasised: “A
local authority owes a duty to its ratepayers to preserve ratepayers
funds and to arrange for proper administration.”
the members and officers of the 1st Defendant, and those
members and officers identified as Defendant’s 2 to 15 come under
the heading ‘public authority’ as defined by S. 6(3)(a) of the
Human Rights Act 1998 being: any person certain of whose functions
are functions of a public nature.
The Claimant asserts that the 1st Defendant is
vicariously liable for the tortious acts or omissions of its
employees, tortious negligence or for acting without reasonable
concern for the protection of the Claimant, the Claimant’s rights,
or the historic building he occupies, as reckless indifference or
The Claimant asserts that the Defendants identified by numbers 2 to
15 are liable for their acts or omissions in negligence or for
acting without reasonable concern for the protection of the
Claimant, the Claimant’s rights, or the historic building he
Further and alternatively, the Claimant asserts that the member
Defendant(s) identified by numbers 2 to 6 are themselves liable
and/or vicariously liable for their failure to prevent the 1st
Defendant and the Defendants identified by numbers 7 to 15 regarding
their acts or omissions in negligence or for acting without
reasonable concern for the protection of the Claimant, the Claimant’s
rights, or the historic building he occupies.
CLAIMANTS RIGHTS UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
The Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right of the Claimant
concerning the peaceful enjoyment of his home without interference
by a local authority as guaranteed by Article 8 and Part 3 of the
first Protocol Article 1.
The Human Rights Act 1998 also protects the claimants right to freedom
of expression as guaranteed by Article 10.
Human Rights Act 1998 protects the right of the Claimant to a fair
hearing within a reasonable time as guaranteed by Article 6.
Claimant also derives protection from common law as to the restoration of his
civil rights and precedent already established by the Courts and the Secretary
Equally, prior to the enactment of our domestic Human Rights legislation in October 2000, the Courts have had regard to and or directed others to have regard to the European Convention of Human Rights.
OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998
Prior to October 2000, there were only common law remedies
where a local authority failed to adhere to procedural requirements.
This situation offered little or no protection against the acts or
omissions of public bodies that harmed the fundamental rights of the
the Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2nd
October 2000, citizens now have ‘positive’ rights to protection
from violations of their fundamental rights and especially against
the acts or omissions of public bodies.
this matter the 1st Defendant under the control and
execution of the Defendants separately identified and numbered 2 to
15, failed to preserve or take steps to preserve or restore the
Claimant’s fundamental rights as a citizen of the United Kingdom
and as protected by the Human Rights Act in Articles 6; 8; 10 and
Part 3 of the first Protocol Article 1.
this regard the Claimant is now able to insist that he should be
left alone and/or allowed to peacefully enjoy his home or
Whereas, in this case it is the omissions of the Defendant(s) that have
harmed the Claimant in disproportion to their positive acts designed
to punish the Claimant for standing up for his rights.
Claimant asserts that where a breach of his rights prior to the
enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, continues past the point of
enactment into the present, then in those circumstances the
situation preceding the said enactment may be brought within the
scope of these present proceedings and the circumstances described
may then be considered by the Court.
In particular and where the 1st Defendant gained
Injunctions in breach of the Claimants rights as defined by Articles
6, 8, 10 and Part 3 of the first Protocol Article 1, prior to
enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, and continue to uphold and
rely on those Injunctions and to pursue costs in relation to those
matters, the Claimant asserts that S.7(1)(b) may be invoked as a
valid defence or alternatively, where the Injunctions are relied on
by the Defendants to stifle the rights of the Claimant, he is
entitled to seek declarations as to the continued validity of the
said Injunctions or other remedy as may be available from the Court.
Regarding local authority employees, the common law offence of
misconduct in public office applies generally to every person who is appointed
to discharge a public duty and who receives compensation in whatever form;
salary, expenses and the like. This
principle was clearly established in the case of R. v Bowden 1995 Court of
Appeal (98 1 WLR).
It has been established in law that a law enforcement officer,
witness to an assault has a duty to preserve the peace and protect the victim.
A failure to do so is seen as wilful neglect.
This decision was upheld in the case of R. v Dytham 1979 (467 3 WLR)
Court of Appeal. This case
established that an officer of a public body so omitting to take steps to
protect the private person, or to arrest his assailants or otherwise bring
them to account, constitutes the crime of failing to carry out a duty of his
In law it is an offence to do anything, which the ordinary man in
the street might regard as harassment. This
is seen in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 in
Section 1 – A person must not pursue a course of conduct a) which amounts to
harassment of another; and b) which he knows or ought to know
amounts to harassment of the other. It
is further stated in Section 2. – (1) A person who pursues a
course of conduct in breach of section 1 is guilty of an offence.
Whereas, the Defendant(s) ought to have known: 1) that the repeated
(181 recorded) visitations on the Claimant at his home and threats as to
bankruptcy, and 2) that the abject refusal or failure to do anything to
correct the perceived injustice, or 3) the failure to address or review the
imbalanced reports, so as to perpetuate decisions appearing to be ultra vires,
is tantamount to abandoning a victim of mental and/or actual assault, hence a
failure to carry out a duty of office.
the criminal element of the above may not be within the
jurisdiction of the Claimant’s Claim in the High Court, however in
this event the Claimant asserts this may be addressed via the
interference with the Claimant’s peaceful enjoyment of his home.
Additionally, a civil claim may be otherwise pursued.
Hence, the elements of a Malicious Prosecution generally associated
with criminal proceedings may transmute to a Course of Malicious
Conduct in this present civil action.
It is averred this is so where to prosecute is to instigate legal
proceedings against, pursue or carry on, hence become the prosecuting party in
any legal proceedings, and that this description would include the initiation
of bankruptcy proceedings as part of the said Course of Malicious Conduct.
Should this not be the case, the Claimant would ask the Court for leave
to amend his Particulars, such as to perfect his Claim(s).
JURISDICTION, COMPENSATION & ARTICLE 13 OF THE
Section 8(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998, gives the
appropriate Court a wide power to grant such relief, remedies, or
orders as it considers just and appropriate.
virtue of s. 8(3) damages may be awarded to afford ‘just
Section 8(4) provides that in determining whether to award
damages and the amount to award, the Court must take account of the
principles applied by the European Court of Human Rights in relation
to awards of compensation under Article 41 of the Convention.
the case of a violation of Articles 6 and 8, then according to the
requirement of Article 13: where the member states should provide a
real and effective remedy in a domestic Court, it may be appropriate
in the circumstances described herein to order an investigation
capable of leading to the identification and/or punishment of
the/those person/persons responsible for sustaining the injustices
complained of herein as per Edwards v United
kingdom 2002 35 EHRR 487.
the member and officer Defendant(s) believe and continue to be
assured by their legal department they may continue to harm the
Claimant with complete immunity as to the consequences of their
actions or failure to act, such immunity appears not to be
compatible with Article 13, for if there is a blanket immunity
against tortious neglect or reckless indifference, then there may be
no effective remedy. The
perpetrators remain aloof as if they had no part in it, whereas they
were themselves directly responsible for perpetuating the injustices
described elsewhere in this document.
the Claimant is recently advised by the District Auditor, that their
power to apply Surcharges for wilful misconduct, has been repealed
by the Local Government Act 2000. Hence
at this time, it appears this safety net to effective remedy is
gone, about which the Claimant seeks confirmation.
an effective and proportionate remedy in this matter may be to
prevent the persons directly responsible from holding office, where
compensation alone may not be effective or in the wider public
interest, which might leave the said responsible person(s) at
liberty to cause harm to other members of the public, and where the
1st Defendant owes the Claimant as a member of the
public, a duty to appoint staff suitable to fulfil their
administrative function. This
was formerly part of the District Auditors function as seen in the
Audit Commission Act 1998 S. 17 (2) (a) and (b).
and in proportion to the harm occasioned the Claimant, compensation
alone may be a sufficient remedy for the injustices complained of
provided the sum of compensation is sufficient to reflect on the 1st
Defendant(s) such as to cause them henceforth not to neglect the
Claimant concerning his Human Rights. However,
it is noted that in all cases the requisite remedy must be effective
in both practice and law and not be unjustifiably hindered by the
acts or omissions of state authorities as per Aksoy v Yurkey 1996 23 EHRR 553.
The Claimant as a litigant in person, is given to understand and believes that the High Court is the proper forum recognised in law in which to present his Claims as set out in this document and as may be set out in other documents, with the leave of the Court and in the interests of ensuring a fair hearing.
6 (3) (a) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes Courts and Tribunals
public authorities, and so subject to their own primary duty to act
compatibly with the Convention and where necessary, develop the law.
Should the High Court not be the correct forum in which the
Claimant should seek corrective injunctions and damages as described
elsewhere in this Statement of Case, then if that is identified by
the Court, the Claimant will seek the leave of the Court to transfer
these proceedings or to apply in the appropriate Court, and on this
issue the Claimant respectfully seeks the assistance of the Court,
by way of directions, in the interests of ensuring a fair hearing.
per the preceding paragraph, and especially concerning the
possibility of Judicial Review, if that is considered to be the, or
more appropriate cause of action to pursue, then on this issue too,
the Claimant respectfully seeks the assistance of the Court, by way
of directions, in the interests of ensuring a fair hearing.
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST PUBLIC AUTHORITIES
The Claimant asserts that S. 7 of the Human Rights Act 1998
gives the victim of any act or omission of a public authority, which
is incompatible with the Convention, power to challenge the
authority in court using the Convention to found a cause of action
The Claimant asserts that the time for bringing this present
action falls to be considered by the Human Rights Act 1998, where
Section 7(5) imposes a limitation period of twelve months for
bringing proceedings under S. 7(1) (a), which may be extended with
the leave of the Court.
Claimant further asserts that the matters complained of are ongoing,
in that the Defendant(s) continue to deny the Claimant his civil
rights and continues to act in a perverse and/or oppressive manner,
or alternatively irrationally and/or unreasonably having regard to
the circumstances herein set out separately and/or collectively
contrary to the requirements of the Human Rights Act 1998.
that the matters complained of are ongoing, the Claimant asserts he
is not time barred, which might otherwise restrict his cause of
action, subject to an order of the Court so extending the or any
time limits, in the interests of ensuring a fair hearing or of
securing justice as per S.7 of the Human Rights Act.
In so far as time limits may prevent the Claimant obtaining
justice, if such time limits are inflexible, this may prevent the
Claimant securing an effective remedy as per Article 13 of the
In so far as the Claimant’s present Claims may be subject to time
limits, he relies on the fact that the course of conduct complained
of may have begun some time ago, but that the 1st
Defendant will not relent and is unrepentant.
Had the 1st Defendant acceded to the reasonable request
of the Claimant to agree to mediation or indeed for their Monitoring Officer
to compile a Report as required under the Local Government Act, the injustice
complained of could then have been identified and subsided.
Equally, where it is the 1st Defendant’s intention to
bankrupt the Claimant it must be the case that the Defendant(s)
continue to escalate their chosen course of conduct and in so doing
confirm the Claimant’s Claims concerning live issue and
PARTICULARS OF THE
CLAIMANTS EFFORTS TO NEGOTIATE
Claimant will produce evidence both oral and documentary to
demonstrate that the Defendant(s) routinely acted without regard to
the rights of the individual and also produced reports to committee
heavily biased, and that in that event also refuse to prepare a
report or fully or properly consider complaints and that in this
regard on the rare occasion when a complaint has been put to the
Local Government Ombudsman and upheld the complaint, the Defendant(s)
have failed to fulfil their statutory duty as laid out in the Local
Government and Housing Acts.
the Claimant continues to assert that should the Defendant(s) have agreed to
reasonable negotiation, the matter could indeed have been disposed of without
the need for litigation, but that the Defendant(s) are not disposed to be
The fact that the Defendant(s) issued a Statutory Demand with the
intention of stifling the Claimants civil rights and causing further harm, is
testament to the Defendant(s) mind set in the matter.
Further and subsequent to Issuing this/these present Claim(s) the
Defendant(s) indifference to the Claimant’s complaint(s) is
demonstrated by the emails from councillor Nigel Coltman dated 16th
December 2003 and David Logan dated 1st January 2004.
However, it is known to Cllr. Logan that officers of the 1st
Defendant frequently paint an inaccurate picture of evens, about
which he personally complained during the Area Plans North committee
meeting on the 29th
July 1999, such outburst noted by Mr Chester Hudson. Whereas, concerning the Claimant he was/is not prepared to
make any investigation at all, save to inflict harm to the Claimant.
OF ENFORCMENT AND PLANNING APPEALS
It may assist the Court to look at a chronological history of the
relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant over the last 22 years
beginning in 1982.
During 1983 the 1st Defendant issued Tree Preservation
Order, number 34 on dangerous and diseased Sycamore trees encircling
The Old Steam House. The
objective being to hamper the Claimant’s conservation works by
preventing the Claimant from removing trees whose root growth and
general encroachment via leaf dropping and overhanging branches was
accelerating the decay of the wooden structure of the historic
building and courtyard walls.
Between 1984 and1985 the 1st Defendant enforced against
the Claimant, seeking to prevent a commercial use of the historic
building in question. The
Claimant was not served with this Enforcement Notice, but came to
know of its existence some considerable time after expiry of all
rights of appeal.
Between May and April of 1986 the 1st Defendant issued
an Enforcement Notice requiring the Claimant to cease using TSH as his home.
The Secret Session Reports authorising said Notice reveal bias in that
they include information not material to the planning process but designed to
colour the minds of the committee against the Claimant.
For this reason the authorisation was/is defective or flawed, hence
Further, in respect of the 1986 Enforcement Notice the Secret
Reports to committee failed to accord the building with any historic interest,
which interest alone would be justification for conversion.
For this reason also the authorisation was/is defective or flawed,
hence ultra vires.
94. It should be noted: at that time, Appellants had no means of accessing said Secret Reports. Therefore, the Claimant appealed the Notice to the Planning Inspectorate unaware of the reasoning behind the enforcement, hence unable to challenge it as to balance.
However, that the history of TSH had not been admitted as a factor
where the Defendant Council authorised enforcement, is further
reinforced by them arguing at Appeal, the building possessed no
Additionally, the 1st Defendant’s assessment of the
historic value was supported by Inspector Dannreuther in his
Decision Letter, who also incorrectly concluded the building was
constructed of corrugated iron. However,
subsequent archaeological Reports refute this. Accordingly,
the Inspector compounded the unlawful issue of the Enforcement
Notice with further incorrect conclusions.
During 1987 the 1st Defendant prosecuted the Claimant
for breach of the extant Enforcement Notice dated April 1986, despite the fact
the Claimant had by then moved to a house in Polegate.
The Claimant was fined in the Magistrates Court but the case was
quashed on Appeal to the Crown Court, hence the prosecution is/was the first
of a pattern of malicious prosecutions and/or the beginning of a malicious
course of conduct, the member Defendant(s) have not halted.
In 1988 the Claimant applied for planning permission with
application WD/88/4640/P. The
Claimant asserts that the 1st Defendant here failed to carry out
any consultation as directed by Circular 22/80.
Accordingly and despite assertions by the Claimant as to the history of
TSH, Inspector Wareham upheld the conclusion of Inspector Danreuther.
Between 1995 and 1997 the 1st Defendant enforced against
the Claimant repeatedly seeking to prevent a/any residential or indeed
reasonable or beneficial use of the historic building, he having re-occupied
The said further enforcement steps took the form of Injunctions
seeking to repair what the 1st Defendant perceived as
weaknesses in their 1986 Enforcement Notice. Said
weaknesses identified by the Crown Court in recognising parts of the
building were not included in the 1986 Enforcement Notice.
1995 and 1996 the Claimant was party to planning applications
WD/95/2284/F and WD/96/1767/F. These
applications were for conversion of TSH to residential use and B1
commercial uses respectively. As
with application WD/88/4640/P, the 1st Defendant failed
to consult either the County Archaeologist or English Heritage as
directed by Planning Policy Guidance note 16 (PG16) part B (c) 23,
issued in November 1990, despite the Secretary of State stating they
will be: “particularly concerned to ensure that local planning
authorities take full account of the policies set out in this PPG”.
above 1995/96 applications became joined at Appeal at which the 1st
Defendant’s conservationist, Chezel Bird, denied the early
electricity generating origins of TSH. Inspector
Michael, in dismissing the Claimant’s appeals agreed with the
Claimant that his decision: “would result in an interference
with your home and private and family life”, with reference
to his conclusion at 42–44 of his decision letter.
In the same paragraphs 42-44 of his decision letter, Inspector Michael
says that TSH: “is a building of no inherent architectural or
historic merit, …” Inspector Michael’s decision is/was
based on the same incorrect premise that TSH is not a historic
building and for this reason the Claimant asserts his decision is,
as with the above authorisation to enforce against the residential
use, subsequent Appeal and application/Appeal number WD/88/4640/P,
During 1996 the 1st Defendant secured an Injunction denying
the Claimant his right to occupy or otherwise establish a lawful
occupation via the Four Year or Ten Year Rules, in any part of the
Wealden District, contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998, where
subsequently the Defendant(s) recognise and have advised their own
planning committees that such oppression constitutes discrimination.
the Defendant Council enforced against the Claimant between 1996 and
1998, in parallel they also enforced against Maria Smith and her son
Mark Smith then aged 9, seeking to remove domestic items in her
ownership being stored at TSH and to remove her and her son from the
property, in the process making them homeless.
Smith became the Claimant’s girlfriend, also taking an interest in
TSH, so investing time and money to improving the property, with the
intention of establishing a permanent residence.
Despite the fact Ms Smith had made improvements to the property, the 1st
Defendant insisted the Claimant should remove her personal effects
and the improvements made by her, about which he was not empowered.
Smith was forced to engage Mayo & Perkins solicitors, to
represent her in the High Court regarding the 1st
Defendant’s application for Injunctions. The
cost of her representation ran into several thousand pounds. The Defendant Council did not seek an Order for costs against
Ms Smith, nevertheless she suffered loss as a result of the
enforcement action. Ms
Smith also required advice from a Planning Consultant for her Court
stress of the litigation and the refusal of the Defendant Council to
deal with Ms Smith fairly concerning TSH, was the cause of much
disharmony between herself and the Claimant, and eventually led to
and became the cause of the dissolution of the relationship.
As mentioned above and more specifically, during 1997 the 1st
Defendant secured Injunctions requiring the removal of all toilet and washing
and food preparation and storage facilities, contrary to the clear requirement
of the Health and Safety regulations 1992, which evidence was not put
before the Court, it coming in too late and being disallowed.
In the face of further additional threats of enforcement action and
multiple visitations at all hours of the day, the Claimant became
compelled to remove Ms Smith’s property and remove the said
toilet, washing and food preparation and storage facilities, and to
remove improvements to an outbuilding not covered by the extant
Enforcement Notice, which outbuilding she had occupied after the
Defendant Council had been granted the Injunction above, requiring
her to move out of TSH.
In respect of these acts, the Claimant was obliged to in part
compensate Ms Smith for the damage occasioned thereby.
the 8th May 1998 the Claimant applied for planning
consent citing proof as to the historic value of TSH.
In accepting this application number WD/98/0996/F the 1st
Defendant again confirmed they would “carry out consultations”
as seen in their letter dated 13th May 1998.
However, they did no such thing. Instead,
the 1st Defendant decided to invoked S.70A of the Town
and Country Planning Act 1990, which allows Councils to decline to
determine an application within a two-year period, provided that
there are no planning considerations of importance newly identified.
respect of WD/98/0996/F the officers of the 1st
Defendant advised the planning committee that the history they had
previously denied, although now confirmed in the Affidavit of Ronald
Saunders dated 16th
July 1997 and by letter from the Sussex industrial Archaeology
Society dated 14th May 1998, was nevertheless nothing
new for the committee to consider, which decision appears contrary
to the advice given in Circular
14/91, hence perverse.
16th April 1999 the Claimant again applied to the 1st
Defendant for planning consent citing further proof as to the
historic value of TSH. In
accepting this application number WD/99/0810/F, the 1st
Defendant again confirmed they would “carry our consultations”,
on which subject the Claimant wrote to the case officer Mr Moss and
received reply that it was not a duty.
contacting English Heritage, the Claimant was advised no
consultation request had been received. Whereupon
the Claimant again wrote to Mr Moss and discovered that a purported
request from the 1st Defendant to English Heritage, was
so garbled, English Heritage had been forced to write seeking
clarification as to what the Defendant Council wanted. Accordingly,
the Claimant pursued the consultation in place of the 1st
Defendant, which resulted in Monument Protection status, an
independent Report and other letters of support from the
application WD/99/0810/F met with further serious obstruction in the
form of a failure to advise concerning earlier rejection of B1
conversion proposals. Hence
a recommendation to the Claimant that he should nevertheless
re-apply for a commercial use, before the 1st Defendant
would consider any application from him for residential conversion,
in these circumstances, appears to constitute a blatant obstruction
of the planning process.
March and September 2000 the then Leader of the 1st
Defendant, Cllr. Rupert Thornely-Taylor, suggested Ms Smith (not the
Claimant) should apply for permission to erect a replacement
This application was refused by the 1st Defendant as time
wasting but not so, until many more (9) months delay had been
March 2000 and October 2000 the Claimant pursued the commercial use
the Chairman of the 1st Defendant’s Planning Committee
(Councillor Hubbard) had invited, until the Economic Development
Manager refused to assist the Claimant further as seen in his letter
dated 4th October 2000.
time later on reviewing the files, the Claimant finally realised the
planning officers had put doubt in the members mind, in the full
knowledge they had argued a commercial use in this location would
not be appropriate, even photographing their vehicles to prove two
cars could not pass in the drive, and supplying other County policy
documents to qualify their argument.
1st Defendant, via its members and officers, in
suggesting the Claimant should pursue inappropriate development
is/was time wasting and incurred him in unnecessary cost.
October 2000, the Claimant, realising he would be unable to achieve
a fair hearing until the 1st Defendant’s earlier
maladministration was rectified, has lobbied the members and
formally requested a Report as to the perceived injustice from the
Claimant’s Monitoring Officer as seen in the Claimant’s letter
December 2001 and follow on correspondence.
This is the correct procedure as far as the Claimant is aware.
10th October 2001, it came to the Claimant’s attention
that the 1st Defendant were able to and did indeed
abandon Orders it had made, where these orders were based on
of this is produced in the Report compiled by Graham Kean, an
officer of the 1st Defendant, concerning a footpath
under reference number JT2320.0101b.
appears therefore, to be accepted practice of the 1st
Defendant, that where they have made an order based on incorrect
information, they have “no choice” but to abandon said
Consequently, the 1st Defendant could have put the matter
right by this route, but chose not to.
or about April or May of 2002, the Defendant Council through their
agent, the 13th Defendant, David Phillips sought to
enter TSH under a Warrant dated 29th April 2002.
Three other officers of the 1st Defendant, and Police
Constable Crichton accompanied Mr Phillips on this occasion, the 181st
The Claimant challenged Mr Phillips as to his authorisation, which authorisation he was unable to produce as required by the provisions of Article 6 (HRA) and the Planning and Compensation Act(s) and indeed the Local Government Access to Information Act(s). When Mr Phillips was asked if he knew what a malicious prosecution was, he replied: “no comment”.
Accordingly, the Claimant refused entry and formally complained to PC Crichton as to harassment and malicious prosecution. With reference to this complaint the Police confirmed in writing that this matter was planning related, hence civil, and that the Claimant should seek civil redress.
The Claimant wrote to Sheelagh Douglas in a letter dated 27th May 2002, again seeking a Report from the Defendant(s) Monitoring Officer as to the original enforcement notice, from whence David Phillips claimed his authorisation, however the Claimant heard nothing further and shortly after Ms Douglas resigned suddenly from the 1st Defendant, without working out her notice.
Ms Douglas’ replacement, the 7th Defendant was appointed directly from the ranks, without any advertising of the position. Whereas, Ms Douglas had come to work for the Defendant(s) after a rigorous advertising campaign and selection process in line with equal opportunities practices.
On or about the 11th September 2002 the 1st
Defendant obtained an Interim Charging Order in the High Court seeking
possession of TSH. On the 4th
October 2002 the 1st Defendant via their agents Sharpe Pritchard
solicitors, abandoned the proceedings after discovery the Claimant has applied
for Legal Assistance and meantime lodged a Counterclaim in the High Court.
On or about the 11th September 2002 the 1st
Defendant obtained an Interim Charging Order in the High Court seeking
possession of TSH. On the 4th
October 2002 the 1st Defendant via their agents Sharpe Pritchard
solicitors, abandoned the proceedings after discovery the Claimant has applied
for Legal Assistance and meantime lodged a Counterclaim in the High Court.
The said abandonment was agreed between the Claimant’s solicitor and
1st Defendant. The
Claimant being advised of the arrangement after the event and was contacted by
his Eastbourne solicitors by telephone, who then advised him if he did not
agree to vacating the hearing, they would advise the Legal Services Commission
he was being unreasonable. The
Claimant received no documentation at all from his solicitors and had to
obtain copy of Sharpe Pritchard’s letter dated 4th October 2002,
directly from the High Court.
Shortly after the conclusion of the Charging Order matter above, the
Claimant discovered the 1st Defendant had terminated the employment
of Christine Nuttall. The
Claimant believes her conduct led to her dismissal and that the then Leader of
the 1st Defendant, Rupert Thornely-Taylor, sought to
act in the interests of the Claimant and the ratepayer, alas without
The cost to the 1st Defendant in pursuing its claims as to
costs, is out of all proportion to the sums claimed, running at something like
£10,000 per year. In addition,
further sums have been allotted to pursuing the Claimant by way of their
Recharge Budget. It appears
therefore, the 1st Defendant is prepared to throw unlimited public
money at interfering in the Claimant’s private life and peaceful enjoyment
of possessions, contrary to best value practices.
The Defendant(s) are fully aware the Claimant is not a man of means. Accordingly, any bankruptcy they intend will not yield sums
to justify prosecuting the matter, but will rather have the effect of further
interfering in the Claimant’s private life and peaceful enjoyment of
possessions, such interference being disproportionate in terms of the harm to
the individual. Where such test
is a balance of the harm to the state against the harm to the citizen and who
is proportionately affected the more.
Additionally, the Defendant(s) seek to remove themselves from any
counterclaim, as any bankruptcy would have the effect of transferring the
interference directly from themselves to a Trustee.
By this means the Defendant(s) hope to dilute the Claimant’s rights
under the Human Rights Act. These
it appears is/are the Defendants objectives.
THE DEFENDANT’S LOCAL POLICIES –
The 1st Defendant is bound to operate within the terms of
its Local Plan and other Policies derived from National Policy and Planning
Policy Guidance notes issued from time to time by the Secretaries of State and
in accordance with the Town and Country Planning Acts.
Whereas, the 1st Defendants Local Plan has at all material
times contained sections devoted to the conversion of redundant farm buildings
or other buildings of either architectural or historic interest.
These policies provide that where a historic building is redundant (hence without a reasonable or beneficial use) conversion will normally be permitted to either a B1 class industrial use or a residential use.
These policies also give precedence to the industrial use over a
residential conversion unless for practical reasons this is not appropriate.
With regard to the re-use of historic buildings and the 1st
Defendant’s duty to protect the historic built environment, English Heritage
produce a number of publications to guide local authorities and the public.
The Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR)
confirms in a letter dated 20th May 1999 that: “the term
archaeology applies not only to what lies underground but to what may be
present in a standing structure”. PPG
16 supports the DETR in this regard.
However, this statement by the DETR is expressly denied by the 12th
Defendant (Monitoring Officer) and the 8th Defendant (former
District Planning Officer).
It is noted that concerning other historic buildings in their area, the
1st Defendant regularly consults with English Heritage.
PARTICULARS OF FAILURE TO ENFORCE AND ARTICLE 6 FAIR HEARING The Claimant occupied TSH as his home before October 2000 and continued after October 2000 and presently continues to assert his civil right to occupy TSH as his home.
The Claimant asserts the 1st Defendant was aware the
Claimant continued to occupy TSH as his home, but for the avoidance of doubt,
the Claimant put the 1st Defendant on Notice of his occupation of
TSH as his home, via letters to their various Chief Executives, to include the
After service of the said Notices, the 1st Defendant did
nothing to prevent the said use of THS by the Claimant as his home, as they
had prior to the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.
The Claimant asserts that where the 1st Defendant had
refused to review the validity of the extant Enforcement Notice dated April
1986 and other committee decisions based on incorrect information, the 1st
Defendant is/was required to enforce to uphold the said Notice and that the 1st
Defendant as the Claimant’s local authority was required to, or otherwise
charged with a duty to enforce against the occupation of TSH by the Claimant,
in the circumstances described.
The Claimant asserts that the failure of the 1st Defendant
to enforce constitutes an omission or a failure to act, which omission or
failure to act was a deliberate effort on the part of the 1st
Defendant designed to deny the Claimant his right to a fair hearing, to
challenge the 1st Defendant’s as to their continuing oppression,
as is his right as prescribed by Article 6.
The Claimant asserts the Defendant omitted to enforce as required, and
despite their numerous and consistent efforts to prevent the Claimant
occupying TSH as his home, prior to enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998,
because they were fully aware of S. 22(4) that the Claimant could use S. 7 (1)
(b) as a defence whenever the act in question took place, hence bringing the 1st
Defendants previous enforcement actions into time for a Human Rights defence.
Consequently, the 1st Defendant sought other means by which
to attack the Claimant, still designed to deprive him of a fair hearing
concerning his occupation of TSH as his home.
These other means include the issue of an Interim Charging Order in the High Court dated 11 September 2002 and the insolvency proceedings presently in the County Court, by which the 1st Defendant hoped to dispossess the Claimant of his legal standing regarding TSH and deprive him of his home via the back door, as may be described elsewhere in this document. The aim being to cause disproportionate harm to the Claimant.
Effectively, the Defendant(s) had or have made a series of bad
judgements and now expect the Claimant to pay for their mistakes.
Additionally, the Defendant(s) seek to cover up their mistake by
destroying the Claimant and also hope by this means to prevent accurate
reporting of their conduct to the general public via their Auditors, or at
PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANT’S STATUTORY
The Claimant asserts that where the Defendant(s) claim costs by issue
of a Statutory Demand dated October 2003 and served on 3rd December
2003, that these costs arise from the Defendant Council’s long-term
unwillingness to reasonably assist the Claimant to secure a recognised
beneficial use for the historic building, he occupies as his home, against
which it is their function and duty to protect the historic built environment.
The refusal to so assist the Claimant is therefore perverse and not in
the public interest.
The costs the subject of the said Statutory Demand could not have
arisen if the Defendant Council had taken a balanced view instead of “looking
to enforce” such as to deal with the Claimant’s applications in a fair
and balanced manner. Indeed, the
Claimant’s costs relating to the many appeals and Injunctive proceedings
could have been prevented, and amount to unnecessary expenditure of both time
In respect of the costs orders the subject of the said Statutory
Demand, the Defendant(s) should have appreciated that they were not entitled
to the value of their claim in view of the manner in which the order(s) were
In addition to the above, the
Defendant(s) should have known they were
not entitled to the value of the order(s) in view of the compensation likely
to be awarded to the Claimant in relation to his complaints to the Defendant(s)
such compensation being such as to extinguish the Defendant(s) claim(s).
Whereas, it has been clearly established in the case between Associated
Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation 1948 that the
Defendant(s) being a local authority, owes the Claimant a duty to act
reasonably and not irrationally, and must not make a decision or initiate an
action or sustain a refusal to act that is perverse, and especially so where
such actions or decisions are to the disadvantage of, or prejudicial to the
Claimant or otherwise exhibit bias.
Where the Claimant has applied to the 1st Defendant, on a
number of occasions, for planning permission to attain recognition for his use
of The Old Steam House, the Claimant has been unhelpful and consistently and
deliberately obstructed the Claimant’s application(s) contrary to the
principle established in Davis v Wansdyke District Council 2001 (Bristol
PARTICULARS OF INTENTION TO BANKRUPT – TO OBTAIN POSSESSION
Defendant has aided and abetted and encouraged third parties to seek
possession of the Claimant’s home.
The 1st Defendant has itself sought to take possession of
the Claimant’s home as per the Application for an Interim Charging Order
dated 11 September 2002.
The 1st Defendant via their agents has made it clear to
persons on separate occasions that it is their intention to bankrupt the
Claimant to resolve the planning stalemate to their satisfaction, should they
fail to remove him from his home by other means.
The Claimant intends to call witnesses to provide oral evidence to the
facts in the circumstances where a written statement in not considered
appropriate and may compromise said witnesses.
Whereas, the intention to attain said possession for such purpose is
contrary to the Human Rights Acts 1998, the intention being to interfere with
the Claimant’s peaceful enjoyment of his home.
Since November 2002 the Claimant has written to the Defendant Council
offering to negotiate in the hope the matters complained of might be resolved
without the need to litigate. The
immediate response to his letter to the Defendant Council’s Chief Executive
dated 21st July 2003 (and copied to their Executive Cabinet) was
for the 8th Defendant, the former District Planning Officer Ashley
Brown, to reply on the Defendant(s) behalf by email refusing the offer out of
hand, thereby short circuiting the usual channels of communication.
By this means the Claimant put the Defendant(s) on Notice that his request(s) for action (a Report to the full Council) by their Monitoring Officer was live and an omission actionable in law. The Claimant asserts that not to prepare a Report as to the incorrect historic assessment is, when considering the harm to the Claimant, both unreasonable and breaches of Articles 6, 8 and Protocol 1 Article 1 (HRA).
However, it is noted that neither the Chief Executive to whom the
letter dated 21st July 2003 was addressed, nor the Leader of the
Defendant Council, challenged Mr Brown as to why he had taken it upon himself
to deal with such an important issue. This
is particularly puzzling where Mr Brown had already
been relieved from his former position as Director of En vironmental
In addition to the reasoning given above, a secondary objective of
certain officers of the Defendant Council in pursuing the Claimant to
bankruptcy, appears to be to prevent the Claimant pursuing claims against them
in respect of the above described prejudicial and unfavourable treatment about
which there is evidential reference herein.
The Claimant relies on independently made recordings as transcripts,
and other information overheard in the course of pursuing planning
applications lodged with the Defendant Council.
This information is supported by witness statements for the most part,
but where no statement is available, witnesses are available and will be
called to give oral evidence in support as mentioned above.
In particular and during the course of pursuing a planning application
made in 1998, cited herein, the 12th Defendant Victorio Scarpa,
allegedly authorised by the Defendant Council to make the Statutory Demand
dated 15th October 2003, was overheard speaking with the
Claimant’s Local Member, Councillor Jarman and Councillor West, after a
planning meeting where the Defendant Council had declined to determine the
application he had made, despite bringing proof to the table of the
building’s historic origins.
During the exchange between the 12th Defendant Councillor Jarman and Councillor West, Councillor West mentioned to he was aware of the history of the building, to which Mr Scarpa stated: “the matter would only finally be resolved when they had bankrupt Kruschandl to take possession of the building or put him in prison”. This statement by Mr Scarpa was echoed by Councillor Jarman, now deceased. However, the Claimant will call Councillor West to give evidence of this exchange.
As fact the Defendant Council sought an Order for Committal. However, the 13th Defendant, David Phillips, had put photographs in evidence they should not have had in their possession, having claimed to have returned them, also attributing an incorrect date to the photographs seeking to mislead the Court as to the facts and in so doing perjuring himself. The Claimant avers this demonstrates malice on the part of the 13th Defendant.
the 1st Defendant has produced reports to committee designed to
gain and sustain authorisation to enforce, the officers had failed to mention
to members the historic origins of the TSH building or suggested that this
historic building held no viable use, contrary to expert opinion.
to caselaw cited elsewhere in this document this kind of unbalanced or
one-sided report invalidates any decision the Defendant Council may have
reached. It follows that any
enforcement based on an invalid decision, is itself invalid or ultra vires. To sustain such an argument the Claimant needs to demonstrate
that on the balance of probabilities, this is how a report was prepared and
the Claimant’s first occupation of the TSH in February 1982 until August
2000, he had no idea the officers of the Defendant Council had not informed
the members that a building of local historic interest was devoid of a
reasonable and beneficial stand alone use.
However, the Claimant now holds evidence to show the 1st
Defendant had known since at least 1984 they were dealing with a historic
building, as may be seen from the Statutory Declaration of Chester Hudson
dated 14th August 2000.
1986 the Defendant Council has concealed the truth about the TSH history and
failed to properly consult with English Heritage or the County Archaeologist
– as they are charged to perform, claiming it is not a duty they must
perform. However, such an
argument may not be seen as reasonable, when considering the harm the
Defendant Council was/is knowingly sustaining concerning interference with his
home and peaceful enjoyment of possessions.
Defendant Council has argued consistently in one enforcement and four planning
application appeals before the Secretary of State, that TSH building was
devoid of any historic interest, as seen in the various Inspectors decision
letters produced as evidence.
OF AUTHORISATION TO BANKRUPT AND ADVICE
and in relation to the Defendant Council’s claim for costs, the Claimant is
aware of a conversation between Councillor Ryde, formerly head of the
Council’s Finance Committee, relating to an Opinion the 1st
Defendant had obtained in relation to recovery of costs.
The Claimant’s recollection is that the content of this Opinion
spelled out the difficulty in obtaining such costs, which might attract
discrimination claims, where the Council had acted in such manner as to
attract a claim against negligence or obstruction.
It would seem reasonable that the timing of the Defendant Council’s
Statutory Declaration would have been based on this Opinion so as to limit or
eliminate the possibility of counterclaim.
Claimant asserts that this Opinion is material evidence of the Defendant
Council’s knowledge they are now acting unlawfully, where the manner of
instructing is suspect and indeed demonstrates the mind-set of the Defendant(s)
as to the malice in their present course of action.
A sum for this and other Opinions is shown in the Council’s accounts
against which the Claimant would ask the Court for an Order for Discovery.
Defendant Council had ample opportunity to pursue this matter when the
Claimant asked their former Chief Executive, Sheilagh Douglas, to do so
several years ago. The timing of
the 1st Defendant’s Demand comes after refusal to mediate and
after the Claimant asked them to confirm statutory limitations relating to a
stable they demolished unlawfully, now rebuilt, which timing is designed to
maximise the disturbance to the Claimant’s life and interference to the
occupation of his home.
may be that the 1st Defendant is statute barred from further
recovery proceedings and indeed the Defendant(s) are required to account for
the extraordinary delay in pursuing these matters, if not for the purpose of
escalating their demand and limiting counterclaims, to suit their stated long
term intention to bankrupt the Claimant.
and in consideration of the loss of peaceful enjoyment the Claimant has
suffered and having regard to the circumstances herein described, so
perpetuating a situation where the Claimant is unable to resume the said
peaceful enjoyment he is entitled to, until the matters above are effectively
resolved, the Claimant respectfully seeks the assistance of this honourable
PARTICULARS OF THE MONITORING OFFICER,
ARTICLE 6 & NEGLIGENCE
The Defendant’s Monitoring Officer is required to make report to the
full council in any matter involving or likely to sustain an injustice as seen
in the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (C42) at S. 5 subsection 2
It shall be the duty of a relevant authority’s monitoring officer, if
it at any time appears to him that any proposal, decision or omission by the
authority, by any committee or officer of the authority or of any joint
committee on which the authority are represented constitutes, has given rise
to or is likely to or would give rise to –
Whereas, the Claimant entered into correspondence with the Chief
Executive and Monitoring Officer of the 1st Defendant on a number
of occasions, formally requesting that the Defendant(s) Monitoring Officer
should investigate and make report as to their Council’s failure to identify
the Claimant’s home as a building of some historic importance, which history
the Monitoring Officer, Chief Executive, former District Planning Officer,
Conservation and Enforcement Officer’s and lately the Leader of the Council
(the 2nd Defendant) denies. That this is so is a matter of evidence
and for the Court to consider.
However, despite the clear requirements of the Local Government Act
1989, the Defendant(s) refused to investigate or compile a report, or to
ensure that their Monitoring Officer fulfilled his statutory duty/function.
The said request(s) for a report were copied to members of the
That the Defendant(s) Monitoring officer must investigate is further
reinforced in a letter from the DETR dated 25th October 1999,
wherein it is stated: “The monitoring Officer must investigate and report
to the council any case where maladministration or injustice has occurred.”
The failure of the
Defendant(s) to ensure their Monitoring Officer
makes a report as to injustice, or omission, has caused the Claimant harm,
where the injustice could have been identified and put right, but that in this
case the Defendant(s) appear not to want their Monitoring Officer to
investigate the matters complained of so as to perpetuate the injustice, or
for fear the or any identified injustice might lead to claims of compensation.
In this case the Defendant(s) Monitoring Officer is also the 1st
Defendant’s solicitor and legal services manager, apparently having conduct
of this matter since at least 1986.
The Monitoring Officer is clearly important in this matter, for the
Monitoring Officer sitting in his role as legal adviser to the Planning
Committee, has introduced the identity of the applicant, being the Claimant,
as a material consideration. Whereas,
a solicitor is an officer of the Court bound to present balanced reports to a
committee, not containing irrelevant information likely to cause misdirection,
a committee being a quasi court. This
is so even where such balanced information may be detrimental to his
The identity of a person applying for planning permission is not to be introduced as a Material Consideration, after the findings of the Local Government Ombudsman in his Report investigating complaint numbers 94/B4989 and 95/B/2327 against Castle Point Borough Council.
Equally, the issue of bias or apparent bias has been ruled to
invalidate any decision reached by a planning committee, as per R. v
Bassetlaw ex parte Oxby (Dec 1997) wherein the High Court declared as
illegal and void a grant of planning consent tainted by actual or
The Claimant asserts that a planning refusal or indeed an enforcement
report tainted by actual or apparent bias should be declared illegal or void,
where the general principle applies to any decision reached by a committee of
a local authority.
In that the Monitoring Officer, in failing to make report as required
by the Local Government Act(s), as to the apparent bias he personally
introduced, not only are the Defendant(s) in breach of a statutory
requirement, but the Defendant(s) through their Monitoring Officer’s refusal
to fulfil his statutory function, are also knowingly perpetuating a situation
where the Claimant may not enjoy the use of his home either peacefully or
without interference contrary to the Human Rights Act, Article 8 and the
Protocol 1, Article 1, and/or after the decision of the Secretary of State in
Duffy v New Forest District Council 2001.
That the 1st Defendant’s Monitoring Officer was/is live to
the issues raised herein is confirmed in correspondence where he refuses to
release closed session reports, or to reveal his root authority relating to
enforcement issues. In so doing
depriving the Claimant of a truly fair hearing, in any matter bound to
traverse the chronology of previous planning decisions, contrary to the
Claimant’s Convention rights under Article 6.
Whereas, it is recognised in the circumstances where the right of freedom to information under Article 10, or the protection of a persons right to a fair hearing under Article 6, arises as a consequential requirement of protecting another Convention right as per Gaskin v Untied Kingdom 1989 12 EHRR 36, this case relating to an Article 8 issue and discovery of file documents.
Equally, as in the above decision involving the New Forest District Council, the matter of bankruptcy or causing the family concerned to face possible bankruptcy was considered by the Secretary of State to be an unlawful interference in the Duffy family home.
The 1st Defendant’s Monitoring Officer personally advised
the Area Plans South planning committee that TSH was a stand-alone building.
At this same meeting he advised the members that the use they (the
Defendant(s)) recognised for the building was an ancillary use.
The 1st Defendant’s Monitoring Officer personally advised
the Area Plans South planning committee that TSH was a stand-alone building.
At this same meeting he advised the members that the use they (the
Defendant(s)) recognised for the building was an ancillary use.
The Claimant here asserts that a stand-alone building may not be
enjoyed in an ancillary capacity where no other building is occupied
alongside. Hence, the logic applied where the Claimant is concerned is not
consistent with other decisions of the Defendant(s) implying either: perverse,
unreasonable or irrational decision-making or the modern day equivalent of
this, being discrimination.
The Claimant further asserts that the
Defendant(s) failure to identify
a reasonable and beneficial use for TSH, is contrary to the public interest,
where the overriding public interest must be to conserve the local historic
built environment as per the recommendations of the English Heritage Monument
Accordingly, and in the circumstances where it is/was known to the
Defendant(s) that their Monitoring Officer could not act impartially where, he
personally and his department and other long term colleagues would be the
subject of the/any investigation, it appears to the Claimant that the
Defendant(s) also failed in their duty to ensure officers capable of carrying
out their function were appointed to the task.
The Claimant here asserts that in the interests of good housekeeping,
it is vital that local authorities appoint pro-active Monitoring Officers
sufficiently removed from the day-to-day administration as not to become the
subject of any complaint, hence maintain impartiality.
PARTICULARS OF THE DEFENDANTS CONSERVATION EXPERTISE
As to the duty of the 1st Defendant to the historic built
environment, the 13th Defendant, David Phillips, is the 1st
Defendant’s National Parks representative and conservation officer.
Hence, he is cognisant as to archaeological and conservation issues.
The 5th Defendant,
Cllr. Mrs Sylvia Tidy, is thought to be a
member of the South Downs Conservation Board and work closely with David
Phillips on conservation issues. Hence,
she is cognisant of archaeological and conservation issues.
Councillor Tidy was also Chairman of the former Strategic Planning and
Economic Development committee known as SPED.
In this position she had responsibility for planning issues and could
have used her authority to order a review of the Claimant’s case by the
Concurrent with her Chairmanship of the SPED committee, Cllr. Tidy sat
on the Area Plans South Sub Planning Committee (APS).
She spoke in favour of the Claimant exploring the commercial
application. Councillor Hubbard
and other councillors were suggesting on officer recommendation so as to
obstruct the Claimant’s 1999 planning application WD/99/0810/F.
During the consideration of the application WD/99/0810/F, Cllr. Tidy
referred to TSH as a “storage shed” also stating that “This is
not a building worthy of conversion”. Whereas
the floor area is greater than most modern bungalows and the layout lends
itself easily to conversion without disturbing the original structure.
The 8th Defendant and former District Planning Officer,
Ashley Brown, is thought to be an amateur archaeologist, remembered for
lobbying Members for funds for a Windmill in need of general maintenance at
Argos Hill. This windmill being
in the 1st Defendant’s ownership.
The Claimant’s former Local Member, Councillor Jarman, was an amateur
archaeologist (as reported in his obituary).
Yet he declined to speak with the Claimant or represent him. Cllr. Jarman lived next door to Herstmonceux’s local
historian. The local historian
published articles in the ‘Parish Pump’, the local magazine, confirming
the origins of TSH.
The Claimant alleges the relationships between officers and members are
cosy and may impair the said officers’ and members’ duty to render
impartial decisions. This will
best be achieved by oral examination of the Defendants under oath.
PARTICULARS OF DUTY TO HISTORIC BUILDING & NEGLIGENCE It is the duty of the 1st Defendant to protect the historic built environment. Where a historic building is unlisted and unscheduled, the Council should seek to protect a building of local interest via the planning process.
That this historic building should be protected via the planning process, is clearly stated in the Step 4 Report of a Monument Protection Programme, compiled by English Heritage dated June 2000.
On receipt of a planning application, it is every Council’s duty to
consult generally. On receipt of
a planning application citing history as a reason to grant planning
permission, it is the accepted procedure that Council’s should consult
English Heritage and the County Archaeologist.
This procedure is clearly laid out in Planning Policy Guidance note 16.
Most Council’s compile a Local List of buildings of interest in their area. The 1st Defendant has not done so despite representations as to this shortcoming.
The Claimant has afforded the Defendant Council every opportunity to
grant planning permission and/or to negotiate for a planning permission, via
applications in 1988, 1995, 1996, 1998 and 1999.
The handling of the Claimant’s 1998 planning application demonstrates
the Council’s refusal to follow the correct consultation procedure to
prevent any outside expert historic assessment from reaching the members,
Inspectors or the Courts.
The 1999 planning application demonstrates that where the correct consultation procedure was initiated by the Claimant, the 1st Defendant then further misdirected the Members to refuse the application, having put it in the mind of the Chairman of the planning committee and other leading councillors, to ask the Claimant to pursue a commercial application.
That this may have appeared reasonable to the Members at the time, had they been advised by the officers as to the finding of Inspector Michael on Appeal concerning such a proposal, the members would surely have questioned the proposal.
However, the officers, led by Julian Black, did this “deliberately”
in the full knowledge they had already argued at a planning appeal, a
deficiency in access for a commercial use at TSH, going so far as to supply
colour photographs of their own cars parked on the drive, to prove their
point. This point was advanced by
Inspector Michael and confirmed as a reason for refusal in his Decision
The 1st Defendant’s solicitor allegedly authorised to
pursue the Statutory Demand, Victorio Scarpa, led a planning committee and the
(Claimant who was sitting in the gallery) to believe that applying for lawful
a development certificate, was a “stage” to go through, prior to
considering any planning proposal, which appears not to have been sound
advice, and merely a delaying tactic designed to exhaust the Claimant’s
resources, patience and willpower.
The unwillingness and general unhelpfulness concerning the Claimant and
his residential, or indeed any reasonable or beneficial occupation of TSH
building, exhibited by the Defendant Council amounts to obstruction and has
caused the Claimant loss, anxiety and worry and run out the time he would
otherwise have held to enjoy his home.
The pursuit of sums accumulated as result of the 1st Defendant’s long-term agenda to resist applications in the manner described in this document and in the full knowledge of the ongoing injustice and/or harm to the Claimant, amounts to a malicious course of conduct.
Defendant(s) by upholding their extant 1986 Enforcement Notice, in
the full knowledge it is defective, constitutes a breach of their duty to
protect local history, being either a negligent decision or the result of
wilful misconduct or reckless indifference.
PARTICULARS OF ENGLISH HERITAGE & DEFENDANT’S
evidence to demonstrate the 1st Defendant’s denial of the history
attaching is the report by their conservationist, Chezel Bird, where the lady
states that in her opinion the building holds no historic interest and goes on
to deny the electricity generating origins.
This was in 1995-6. Chezel
Bird formerly worked for English Heritage, consequently, would be familiar
with the consultation procedure seen in PPG16.
When the Claimant contacted English Heritage in 1999, they confirmed
commissioning a Monument Protection Programme (MPP) in 1994 as a means to
identify and protect the scarce buildings, witness to the dawn of the age of
the Claimant brought this to the attention of the Planning Inspectorate, they
confirmed in a letter dated 16 July 2002 it was not in their power to restore
the position and that they had simply accepted the Defendant Council’s
evidence in good faith. Presumably,
unaware of the obstruction the Claimant was/is experiencing, the Inspectorate
advised applying for planning permission yet again, despite the findings in
the Scottish case confirming the planning appeal system failed to conform to
the Human Rights Act, Article 6.
The Claimant asserts that the planning system has not yet caught up with the Human Rights Act 1998 where it limits appeals to the High Court on a point of law only. Therefore, the planning system as it stands offers no truly independent remedy to the Claimant, should the Defendant Council continue to deny the history of TSH and the Planning Inspectorate uphold their previous decisions.
would appear that as the Defendant Council have refused to negotiate a
settlement, the only sure way to achieve a fair hearing in a reasonable time,
is to seek a Declaration from the Court as to the validity of previous
decisions affecting the TSH, to include the wilful misconduct or alternatively
reckless indifference of the Defendant Council.
PARTICULARS OF VOID ENFORCEMENT & PLANNING DECISIONS Additionally, where the planning committee sitting to determine the Claimant’s application number WD/98/0996/F were directed by their legal advisor (the 12th Defendant) as follows: “there would be considerable incentive for this applicant to carry on as he is at the moment, put the planning permission in his back pocket and perhaps pass it on when he eventually sells it to somebody else….” Thus, the 12th Defendant directed the 1st Defendant’s planning committee to consider matters not pertinent to the application, so seen at 8:18 of the Transcript.
Whereas, in the case of R v Canterbury City Council ex parte
Springimage Ltd (JPL 1993), it was established that any decision by a
planning committee based on incorrect information and/or direction as to the
law is void. In application 0996 above, the 1st Defendant’s
solicitor misdirected the Members to ignore fresh evidence as to the history
of The Old Steam House, which evidence is a material consideration, and in
this matter the most important factor to consider.
When considering the
Defendant(s) duty to be reasonable and whether
they acted reasonably in this case, the Claimant cites R. v Teeside
Development Corporation ex parte William Morris Superstore PLC & Redcar
& Cleveland Borough Council (JPL P.23 1998).
This case set the precedent where balanced reports should be
presented to committee, rather than bits of advocacy to support one point of
In a later case citing the Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council case, R. v Selby District Council ex parte Samuel Smith Old Brewery (CO/2561/99) the precedent was extended so that a failure to consider other material planning considerations constituted an imbalance. Whereby council officers must give the members of the Council a balanced view with supporting information, which the Claimant asserts they failed to do.
Consequently, in light of the Defendant(s) present action seeking to
bankrupt the Claimant, and they refusing to act on the Claimant’s reasonable
request for their Monitoring Officer to compile a Report as to the perceived
maladministration, that and other misinformed decisions constituting an
omission, leading to and perpetuating injustice, the Claimant asserts that he
is entitled to seek declarations as to the validity or otherwise of the
Defendant(s) extant decision(s) refusing the Claimant planning permission for
his home, such that would ensure peaceful enjoyment and other compliance with
the Human Rights Act 1998.
PARTICULARS OF INCOMPATIBILITY ISSUE – LIMITED RIGHT OF APPEAL v ARTICLE 6 In the case of County Properties v Scottish Ministers (July 2000) it was determined that the Scottish planning system provided no right of appeal to an independent tribunal established in law, where the right of appeal to the High Court was limited, in that case requiring assessment at to the historic value of a building, the Court ruled it did not have the necessary jurisdiction to review the substantive issues of the case.
Concerning the finding of Lord Mac Fadyen in the Scottish case, it may
be the Court would wish to consider issuing a Declaration of Incompatibility. This may come about where the building the Claimant occupies
as his home is of some historic value, which the 1st Defendant has
consistently denied. Accordingly,
it appears that English planning law as defined by the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990 as amended, fails to satisfy the requirement of Article 6 of
the Human Rights Act, intended to secure for everyone the right to a fair
The 1st Defendant’s Monitoring Officer has refused to
compile such Report in denial of his statutory function, but continued to
threaten the Claimant repeatedly as to bankruptcy, also in denial of the
Claimant’s right to a fair hearing.
The 1st Defendant’s officers have maintained the position
they adopted by choice in 1987 or 1988, they have consistently worked to
conceal the historic truth from being discovered, had they consulted either
English Heritage or the County Archaeologist.
In so doing the 1st Defendant was forced to nurture an
untruth so as to sustain a regime designed to deny a/any planning consent to
the Claimant. Consents have been afforded other applicants in similar
circumstances, which inconsistency in both approach and in granting consent to
others, highlights the 1st Defendant’s discrimination against the
In the case of Slough Developments v Welwyn Hatfield Garden City
Council, significant damages (£48 million) were awarded to the developer,
where it was established officers of that council had kept information of
their ownership of a competing property from the developer.
In so doing in the words of the Court, “nursing a lie”.
From about 1993, the 1st Defendant’s efforts to cover
earlier impropriety regarding the incorrect history were accelerated such that
they blatantly neglected procedural compliance, in order to take advantage of
the Claimant’s procedural ignorance as a layperson, and in the knowledge the
Claimant was unable to afford litigation with representation.
The 1st Defendant correctly deduced the risk would put off
the Claimant. This is especially
so where the 1st Defendant took great care not to provide the
Claimant with information or otherwise assist.
After discovery of proof as to the correct history and procedure
beginning in 1997, it became clearer the Defendant(s) had an alternative
agenda directed at the Claimant personally, where resistance as to the actual
use of the building has/had subsided in favour of seeking financial ruination. So diverting attention away from discussion about TSH.
The Claimant believes this tactic has been adopted by the
because they fear(ed) invoking human rights issues from where the Claimant
might qualify for legal assistance, hence be in a position to obtain expert
legal and planning advice and/or representation for a/any hearing.
Claima nt is aware that some Members of the 1st Defendant
are opposed to the officer’s conduct which they recognise as a malicious
course of conduct, or vendetta, some of which Members are speaking out
nt is aware that some Members of the 1st Defendant
are opposed to the officer’s conduct which they recognise as a malicious
course of conduct, or vendetta, some of which Members are speaking out
If the objective of the 1st Defendant had been to recover monies, then they were asked by the Claimant to proceed to recovery several years ago (in 2000), but failed to act until they believed they had run the Claimant out of time. Correspondence from the Chief Executive to member(s) suggests this Council were only too pleased to take a back seat while other persons having a financial claim against the Claimant’s home, had a go at taking possession, since this was/is their objective, to break the occupation, hence remove the Claimant’s standing regarding his home.
However, such co-operation between the 1st Defendant and a
recently appointed Trustee based at Crowborough, who did in fact seek
possession of TSH last year, raises questions as to the reasoning of the
Council, where clearly if the Claimant’s Trustee had succeeded, they could
then obtain nothing financially themselves.
Between September and November 2003 the Trustee reviewing the
Claimant’s 1993 bankruptcy decided to abandoned his possession claim, so
advising the Defendant Council. The
1st Defendant took up the matter such as to again raise bankruptcy
as an issue. The objective being
to part the Claimant from his occupation of the historic building, so to
deprive him of his standing in the matter and eliminate argument involving TSH,
which might otherwise surface. The
Defendant(s) hope(d) to achieve this by bankrupting the Claimant for a second
time, then appointing a their own Trustee to obtain possession via the back
PARTICULARS OF INCONSISTENCY, BIAS OR DISCRIMINATION
The 1st Defendant is under an obligation to apply its
policies consistently and fairly. In
similar circumstances and location, one might therefore expect the 1st
Defendant to refuse residential permission on redundant buildings in the
countryside and adjacent residential property.
However, there is demonstrable inconsistency, where an old farm milking
shed some 800 yards distant east, being of no particular historic or
architectural interest, listed or otherwise cited on a Monument Protection
Programme, was granted permission for conversion to a single dwelling house.
The Claimant refers to photographs of The Old Dairy.
Other similar applications such as WD/98/0806/F, WD/97/1806/F and
WD/97/2636/F for the retention of redundant farm buildings were not refused,
or the applicant advised to apply for a commercial use, as being a reason for
refusal, but in these cases where the applicant had not furnished a statement
as to his efforts to market the property in question commercially, the other
residential applications were simply deferred by the 1st Defendant
so as not to put the applicant(s) to additional trouble in having to re-apply.
The Claimant asserts that the ownership of a property has little to do
with the appropriate stand alone use it should be accorded.
However, we can see from the 8th Defendant’s letter dated
16th March 1999, that the Defendant(s) have in their minds linked
the two separate issues. It is
noted that the 8th Defendant, Mr Brown is replying in respect of a
conversation between the Claimant and the 13th Defendant, David
Phillips. The Claimant asserts
this is evidence as to the Defendant(s) discrimination against himself.
In the same letter Mr Brown suggests that if the Claimant feels his
Convention rights have been infringed, he should seek the appropriate remedy.
The Claimant takes this to be an admission as to infringement, but that
the 8th and 13th Defendants are also thumbing their
noses, safe in the knowledge the Claimant is not a man of means, hence will be
unable to seek redress.
The reason the 1st Defendant put the Claimant to the
additional trouble, was to obstruct the Claimant and keep him going in
circles, in the hope he will eventually give up trying to correct the
PARTICULARS OF MEMBERS DUTIES
In the case Wilson v First County Trust 2001 in the Court of Appeal,
the first declaration of incompatibility between the Human Rights Acts 1998
and Consumer Credit Act was made, wherein the general principle was
established that the provisions of the 1998 Act have an effect on cases
involving private parties. In
this case the private parties are Officers and Members of the Defendant
Council, separately or collectively since they perform a public function,
should that become an issue.
Where the rights in question touch upon positive obligations and deal
with cases involving common law, the Claimant relies on the obligation to
develop common law to be compatible with Convention Rights (by virtue of s.
In consideration of the Convention Rights and the 1st
Defendant’s “Members code of conduct”, the elected Members appear
to be under an obligation to promote equality by not discriminating unlawfully
against any person, as seen at Part 1 General Obligations 2 (a).
The Claimant asserts that the 1st Defendant accepts
discrimination is unlawful, as per Article 14 of the Human Rights Act 1998,
and expects its Members to apply Convention rights.
It also follows the officers of the 1st Defendant are
expected to function in harmony and also to promote equal rights.
Concerning liability, if the Officer Defendants argue they did what they were told – the Member Defendants will argue they were not advised. Such argument presenting a catch twenty-two situation, as to blame and/or punishment. Accordingly, this may be a matter for the Court regarding Article 13 of the European Convention, as to effective remedy.
PARTICULARS OF THE LEADER’S
INDIFFERENCE OR NEGLECT
The Claimant recently spoke with the Leader of the 1st
Defendant, Councillor Nigel Coltman, again raising the issues herein, having
laid out his concerns in writing some time ago.
The Claimant hoped Cllr. Coltman might be sympathetic to his cause and
his duty to the ratepayer.
The newly elected Leader, Cllr Coltman replied to the Claimant earlier
by letter dated 14th August 2001.
In this letter Cllr. Coltman confirms he has read: “all the
arguments you present, and agree that my new role as Executive member with
responsibility for Finance, brings me concern about the cost of your
application to the Wealden ratepayers.”
As far as the Claimant is aware,
Cllr. Coltman has taken no direct or
indirect action designed to prevent the officers continuing with their
malicious course of conduct. If
he has done so, he did not mention it to the Claimant when they spoke in
December 2003. The Claimant
asserts that in failing to halt the vendetta, Cllr. Coltman is actually
condoning the course of action and joined in the matter.
Nor did Councillor Coltman indicate he would or intended to, place
controls on his officers on which the Claimant could rely, but suggested yet
another planning application, which the Claimant takes as an admission to the
facts. When asked about justice
and the Statutory Demand, Cllr. Coltman said simply: “do what you have to
On the 11th December 2004 the Claimant emailed
reiterating his offer of mediation, but has since heard nothing from the
The Claimant distributed copy of the 1st Defendant(s)
‘Members Code of Conduct’ to every member on 12th December 2004
by email and as an attachment.
Subsequent to the above conversation, but prior to issue of these present particulars the Claimant received a copy of an email anonymously through the post, dated 16th December 2003. It appears this message was sent by Cllr. Coltman to every member of the 1st Defendant, or at least to his fellow party members.
The email message warns the members not to communicate with the
Claimant, containing many remarks of a discriminatory nature also decrying the
history attaching to TSH. From
this message, the Claimant deduces that Cllr. Coltman has either not
familiarised himself with the papers as he claims, or is deliberately passing
incorrect information to fellow members raising valid concerns as to
misconduct or alternatively that he is indifferent and disinclined to trouble
himself with the matter regardless of the implications or harm thereby caused
to the Claimant.
PARTICULARS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUE & COSTS It appears that part of the costs claimed by the 1st Defendant relate to an Appeal by the Claimant to keep toilet facilities as required by Health and Safety Regulations 1992. In this case the 1st Defendant acted unreasonably in seeking to deprive the Claimant of such facilities where statute provides said facilities as a right. Accordingly, the 1st Defendant acted contrary to Wednesbury principles and the duty to act reasonably in dealings with the public. At the time of that hearing the Claimant did not have evidence to prove the history of the building, subsequently made available.
In addition to the foregoing, the 13th Defendant, David
Phillips, having conduct of another similar enforcement issue relating to
toilet facilities and the complaint of a separate unauthorised residential
use, WD/94/0929, advised the 1st Defendant’s planning committee
that: “No planning permission is required for the installation of a
toilet in this building.” Hence, there is demonstrable inconsistency when dealing with
the Claimant regarding sanitation.
It appears another part of the claimed costs relate to a Lawful
Development application made at a time before the Claimant had been asked by
Councillor Hubbard to apply for a commercial use.
This obviated any benefit from an Appeal, which the Claimant then
sought to withdraw, but which the Defendant Council refused to agree, said
Appeal having been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate.
Here to, the Inspectorate appeared to refuse the Appellant his right to
withdraw, insisting the Appeal should proceed.
At this time the Claimant had new evidence of the history of the
building, which the Defendant(s) were doing their utmost to stifle.
In relation to these matters and the conduct of the
Claimant is seeking restoration of his civil rights from the 1st
Defendant about which the Claimant placed the 1st Defendant on
Notice on 8th January 2000 by recorded delivery and subsequently
re-stated these claims when the Defendant Council applied to the High Court
for a Charging order between 11th September and 7th
As mentioned previously the Claimant was unable to pursue the matter in
October 2002, when the 1st Defendant withdrew immediately and on
realisation the Claimant had applied for Legal Assistance to further his claim
via Mayo and Perkins, a firm of Eastbourne solicitors.
PARTICULARS OF WEBSITE PUBLICATIONS & ARTICLE 10
What has further motivated the Defendant(s) is ongoing action wherein
the Claimant continues to assist other victims of enforcement generally via a
website distributing planning caselaw and featuring cases where the 1st
Defendant’s have been found guilty of maladministration by the Ombudsman or
The 1st Defendant has taken legal advice as to removal of
the website. This is confirmed in
a front-page newspaper feature in the Sussex Express dated 14th
The Claimant asserts that the right to freedom of expression and to
receive and impart information is protected via the Human Rights Act 1998,
Article 10. The Defendant Council
could not therefore approach this objective directly. The Claimant believes
this additional fact has caused the 1st Defendant to finally pursue
him to bankruptcy as threatened regularly since about 1995.
In particular, the Claimant assisted and represented a local horse
sanctuary at appeal after the 1st Defendant had demolished their
stables. Having personally
suffered attacks by the 1st Defendant the Claimant used this
knowledge to obtain a favourable
decision at appeal.
decision at appeal.
The officer heading the enforcement campaign against the Claimant for
the Defendant(s), prior to enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, is David
Phillips. Mr Phillips has already
admitted misleading the 1st Defendant’s planning committee in the
Eastbourne County Court concerning a Mr and Mrs Roger Brown.
This officer is also responsible for taking action against a Mr de
Rivaz, where he was advised by the 1st Defendant’s solicitor, Mr
Scrapa, they had no legal standing. However,
this did not dissuade Mr Phillips and later the Ombudsman found against the
Council in that matter.
It appears to the Claimant likely that Mr Phillips is heading the
unfavourable actions directed at his person.
There is a web page about Mr Phillips, that is one of the most
frequently visited concerning the operation he lead to demolish the above
mentioned Horse Sanctuary. The
next most popular page concerns whistleblowing.
It is believed the Defendant Council does not have a ‘whistleblowing
policy’ as encouraged by central government.
Mr Phillips has not responded to the page, despite being invited to do
Mr Phillips has been with the 1st Defendant for many years
and far longer than that recommended by Lord Nolan.
Many above him have retired and his colleagues filled the vacancies, so
further imbuing his authority and establishing a cosy relationship, where one
officer will naturally assist another in a crisis.
It is therefore likely that Mr Phillips has made it known to others
persons at the 1st Defendant that he wants the website down and to
employ any means to achieve it.
PARTICULARS OF FURTHER INTERFERENCE Whereas, it is established in law that the 1st Defendant may not expend public money to protect the reputation of its members or of any officer. If an officer or member has a grievance against any member of the public, they may if they feel they have grounds, institute proceedings privately from their own pocket.
Regarding the 1st Defendant’s Statutory Demand, it appears
planning officers are attempting to use public money to fund for their own
purposes and to fight their own private battles, with the backing of the 1st
Defendant’s Directors and possibly Cabinet Members.
They appear to be using the pretence of cost recovery as authorisation
to further interfere in the Claimant’s right to peaceful enjoyment of his
home, hopeful that as a bankrupt they may also attain control of the website
highlighting maladministration at the Defendant Council.
Whereas, the Defendant(s) ought to known from Inspector Michael’s
Decision Letter that they have caused and sustained interference already, in
failing to properly consult and/or apply expert assessment as to the historic
value of TSH. Accordingly,
seeking to bankrupt the Claimant and cause further disturbance, where the 1st
Defendant is/was at fault, is much the same as when the 1st
Defendant demolished the Bushy Wood Stables prior to Appeal in an attempt to
undermine the rights of the Sanctuary owners.
That it is common practice for the 1st Defendant to seek to
deprive members of the public of their right to a fair hearing is demonstrated
by the Transcript of a Secret Session report concerning Mr John Hoath and
Wityhams, Summersales Farm, dated 10th Febraury 2000, wherein the
Defendant Council’s solicitor, Geoffrey Johnson, advised Members of the
Defendant Council not to allow Mr Hoath, his right to be heard in a
Magistrates Court because: “I think it would be a mistake in this case to
take Magistrates Court action against Mr Hoath because that is exactly what he
wants. He will take the Council to the High Court if the Council had the
temerity to take proceedings against him.”
“But by taking this action in default we are putting the onus onto
him to challenge it and that is what he doesn’t like”.
In Mr Hoath’s case it is clear also that the Defendant Council have
been working with his Trustee in bankruptcy where Mr Johnson says: “His
trustee in bankruptcy is aware of what is going on, and is in just a
complicated dispute with him as we are.”
The Claimant asserts the similarity between cases and the way the
Defendant(s) have proceeded against the Claimant are evidence as to the way
the defendant Council routinely function to disadvantage the public.
See also Brachers solicitors and Mr Lawrie Trill.
In respect of the above and the claim of authorisation by the 1st Defendant’s solicitor, it appears from the Defendant(s) Constitution at 14 .3 under Legal Proceedings, that effectively the Council’s solicitor (also the 1st Defendant’s Monitoring Officer) has authorised himself by virtue of: “……or in any case where the council’s solicitor considers that such action is necessary to protect the Council’s interests”. This requires some clarification, to identify precisely who, when or what committee authorised the various actions against the Claimant and what empowered them to do so.
It may be therefore that in this case the 12th Defendant, Mr
Scarpa, has taken the initiative and where the Claimant is assisting
disadvantaged members of the public the officers have taken further dislike to
him for sharing his information via the web, against which, they could not
otherwise lawfully interfere as per Article 10.
The Claimant asserts that the case history presently growing month on
month as a record of the Defendant(s) maladministration, is not something of
which the Defendant Council will want reminding.
Hence, the 1st Defendant is likely to resist by whatever
means left open to them, which, in this case means attacking the Claimant
wherever they feel they can do so and get away with it.
Said further interference in the Claimant’s private life is likely to
escalate the cost to the 1st Defendant, hence the ratepayer, where
the Claimant’s response to the 1st Defendant’s ‘reckless
indifference’ and/or ‘discrimination’, has stirred him to greater effort
such as to compile yet further case history of perverse decisions and make
this information freely available to the public, which in turn the Defendant(s)
have thought it necessary to employ a Public Relations officer to operate as a
spin-doctor, at more cost to the ratepayer.
Publication of the 1st
Defendant(s) suspect dealings, of which the
public previously remained unaware, reflects badly on the 1st
Defendant. It is thought that in
an effort to protect their reputation, the 1st Defendant has
secured gagging orders in a number of other cases where they would keep the
suspect side of their administration and the quantum of awards of damages, and
other information from public disclosure.
PARTICULARS OF HERITAGE CONSERVATION
The Claimant asserts that the indifference of the Defendant(s) as to
protecting the historic building in their care, by virtue of it being in their
district, has over the relevant 22 year period caused TSH to suffer
deterioration which it need not have suffered, had any tribunal established in
law considering planning issues been advised in a balanced and proper manner.
Whereas, the efforts of the Defendant Council to prevent the Claimant
from carrying out essential fauna clearance, and other repairs have burdened
him such as to discourage investment, where the Defendant Council ought to
have encouraged such works and helpfully guided the Claimant.
The Claimant further asserts that such indifference and/or complacency
as to the conservation of our heritage constitutes either: reckless behaviour,
negligence, wilful neglect or wilful misconduct.
Whereas, it is generally accepted by experts, including English
Heritage, that a building should be possessed of a reasonable and beneficial
use so to provide an incentive to developers to invest monies in a redundant
building that being devoid of a reasonable use would otherwise not induce a
developer to expend time, trouble and expense, with no prospect of enjoyment.
Accordingly, not to assist a developer to concerning a historic site
may be seen as unreasonable.
The Claimant asserts that a planning application would normally achieve
said use and conserve our heritage, but not so where bias is apparent.
The Claimant further asserts that in the absence of any reasonable or
beneficial use, works to conserve the original fabric of TSH, to remove
harmful add-ons such as the wartime tin cladding, or to replace the defective
roof, rainwater goods, gulleys, etc., could not reasonably be entertained by
a/any developer, with an extant enforcement notice, etc., although defective,
dangling in Damocles fashion such as to perpetuate a planning limbo.
When considering the above in the context of the Claimant’s repeated
requests for assistance and recognition, the Defendant Council’s attitude in
continuing to deny expert evidence, is not merely arrogance or complacency,
but rather a wilful refusal to acknowledge the facts.
The Claimant asserts the evidence will demonstrate, that at no time have the 1st Defendant offered any genuine assistance to the Claimant as to securing a reasonable beneficial use for the historic building he occupies over the relevant 22 years, and especially so where it is in the public interest to conserve evidence of the past development of our civilisation for future generations.
The Claimant asserts the evidence will also show that enforcement and planning reports prepared by the 1st Defendant concerning the Claimant, are one sided, sought to discredit the Claimant, gave weight to matters not material to the planning process and relied on information and later on decisions they knew to be incorrect, hence exhibited bias and or indifference in the extreme, about which the Claimant seeks assistance from this honourable Court by way of an effective remedy.
AND THE CLAIMANT CLAIMS: