A veteran planning officer tainted by association with Ian Kay and Victorio Scarpa







We are looking for information to populate this page and a photograph of Mr Coffey so that the public will be able to identify the gentleman and know who they are dealing with.


Patrick Coffey was one of the officers helping Ian Kay and Lesley Barakchizadeh with planning matters relating to an old water mill near Heathfield. The officers of Wealden District Council had fought hard to prevent reconstruction of this interesting historic feature, but the members of Areas Plans South committee had granted consent for the rebuild, mainly on the grounds of tourism and conservation of history.


But, when Wealden's officers do not get their own way, they will go to great lengths to thwart any developer in the hope of bankrupting or otherwise hindering a development, to in effect win the day. They knew that the applicant was using Kember Loudon Williams, and that such legal services are expensive.


In the course of developing this site the applicant exercised his permitted development rights by installing a wooden cabin that complied with the Caravans Act in all but a few details. Ian Kay is alleged to have told the Committee Members that a caravan had to have wheels, knowing full well that many mobile homes do not have wheels. This is a similar kind of deception used by Mr Kay in giving evidence on Mr Chester Hudson's application for a lawful development certificate on land at Stream Farm near Horam. In that case on oath at a public hearing Kay denied knowledge of a photograph that would have proved the applicant's case and was not supplied by the applicant, but was an aerial photograph obtained by this council, when after the hearing the applicant had spotted the same photograph on a file belonging to Ian Kay. Unfortunately for Mr Kay the applicant recorded the proceedings, so captured this officer in his efforts to pervert the course of justice. Fortunately for Mr Hudson, the planning inspector was not persuaded by Ian Kay's efforts to smokescreen the proceedings - and granted the Certificate of Lawful Use.


In the case of the water mill and the wooden cabin, the Planning Inspectorate agreed with the applicant this his unit was a mobile home in that it complied with the Caravans Act. Strangely, when Wealden were invited to measure up and inspect the mobile unit under consideration - they refused.


Members involved in this very costly exercise were Janet Dunk and Andrew Long, both of whom failed to protect the applicant from unnecessary expense and neither of which apologized to the developer when he won his case hands down.


Other officers involved were Trevor Scott and Beverley Boakes.




Planning & Civil Rights Limited
East Sussex

FAO: Patrick Coffey                                                                                   Fax Ref. 01892 602777
Senior Planning Officer
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove
East Sussex.
                                                                                                                   20 September 2004

Dear Mr Coffey


Your Ref. PAC/SC/WD/03/2776/F


Thank you for your letter dated 10 September 2004.

We are arranging for a legal secretary to peruse your files relating to planning applications put in after WD/03/2776/F and determined.

Could you please confirm that all these documents will be available for our inspection and that the inspection may be completed in a reasonable timeframe. We would suggest a reasonable timeframe would be 48 hours. We would appreciate your comments if you disagree giving your considered reasons.

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely

Planning & Civil Rights Ltd




Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council  


Kelvin Williams, Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin


Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl Douglas Moss 


Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant






The officers pictured above are believed to have worked with Patrick Coffey on several cases, thought to include the Bushy Wood demolition from where this website takes its name. Suspected war criminal, Tony Blair, was the prime minister for much of the time during which WAG frauds were committed. Douglas Moss, a senior planning officer also involved in the mix, and is thought to still be working for WDC, despite his perjury and assisting David Phillips to commit perjury in the High Court, with reference to an Affidavit sworn by David Phillips in an attempt to get another WAG member struck down for costs and more. That makes Mr Moss and Mr Phillips co-conspirators in the falsification of evidence. Hence, they were involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It remains to be seen who else in this Council's offices were involved in this matter?


Walden will always proceed with enforcement playing the numbers game. The objective is to gain costs awards to blight the land and in some cases, bankrupt the land owner to be able to scoop it up at bargain basement prices and transfer ownership at an undervalue, typically to a well connected neighbour or developer as a favour.




PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Council officers who tow the party line are not only highly paid civil servants, but also stand to benefit from their involvement with underhanded dealings in planning consents in other geographical regions where there may be a "you scratch my back, and we'll scratch yours" arrangement. On the other hand, it could be that insider knowledge can be used legitimately to obtain consents for houses in the country such as this nice little retreat in an out of the way location, that might be termed green belt to the man in the street. If a council officer is paid cash for favours or receives 'in-kind' inducements for what amounts to fraudulent or even insider dealing and they are convicted, their assets could be seized by way of proceeds of crime. Is it worth it? Yes, power corrupts. It always will and those in positions of power will sometimes be tempted - because they know that others in their ring of power will protect them when the brown stuff hits the fan.





When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).





Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311




Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Black Julian - Boakes Beverley

Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn

Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford

Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio

Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve








Shadow Sussex Police crime commissioner blogspot UK 2016 January three new cases to rock the Bill









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


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