Author: ddc

Council Deceit

by ddc

Dover District Council is not concerned with the truth and continues to suppress the evidence that supports the long-standing residential use of my property.

Nadeem Aziz, Dover District Council’s Chief Executive, commissioned an investigation into my case and appointed his Chief Investigator, to carry it out. After a thorough investigation, which took many months to complete, Mr Aziz was presented with independent evidence, which was obtained from the Council’s own working papers and files, and from interviews with employed officers.

The evidence that he was presented with exposed misuse of delegated powers, abuse of planning power, deliberate manipulation of planning law, negligence of a duty of care and unacceptable double standards.

Despite the overwhelming weight of evidence and the numerous findings of maladministration with injustice, which the investigation uncovered, Mr Aziz refused to accept his own Investigator’s findings, which indicates that he does not want the truth to prevail in this case.

Mr Aziz may not like his Investigator’s conclusions but the evidence is irrefutable and his refusal to accept it amounts to a deliberate concealment of the Council’s wrongdoing and demonstrates a policy of avoidance and cover-up. His motivation for his conspiracy to conceal the fraud committed by Dover District Council is unclear but he is by his actions implicated.

It seems that Mr Aziz’s investigator has had his employment terminated.

When will the elected members address the unacceptable behaviour of its employed officers; some of whom are blighting the authority in their pursuit of an agenda that is a malicious and deliberate attempt to destroy my home and my rights as a resident?

The manner in which Dover District Council operates its planning decision-making should be of concern to everyone because what should be a democratic process is failing because the paid staff dictates. Committee Members are not questioning the edited planning reports of council officers, but are merely rubber-stamping their recommendations, thus leaving the process open to abuse. Since 1984 successive Committees have made perverse decisions about my case, without being in possession of the full facts. Decisions have been made, based on false and misleading information presented by the planning department, and this has led to serial acts of maladministration.

Dover District Council is frightened of the truth and is out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair. They have repeatedly ignored my statutory rights and their ongoing persecution is based on deception, illegal actions and organised lies amounting to a conspiracy.

The arrogance and indifference shown by Committee Members during this time is inexcusable and it is questionable why they refuse to accept the truth. Over the years I have written to all members of successive Planning Committees and not one Councillor has ever had the courtesy to reply. The Council has disregarded every attempt by me to resolve this dispute by negotiation, preferring to waste huge amounts of taxpayer’s money in an attempt to cover up the previous administration’s errors in what appears, to a number of independent observers, to be a vendetta.

It is evident that Councillors prefer to turn a blind eye to bureaucratic law-breaking, and won’t do anything to get rid of the corruption.

The Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, refuses to answer any of my questions and refuses to meet me, while at the same time he authorises the release of incorrect and misleading statements to the press.

Deception can occur at committee level when an applicant makes a planning application or when the council pursues wrongful enforcement action against a lawful use. However, most corruption begins at officer level and, worryingly, this law breaking is protected in England as there is no statutory requirement for the police to take action and therefore officers of the council are immune from prosecution.

Planning crime goes unpunished and officers are never dismissed nor prosecuted, but are given early ‘retirement’, moved sideways to another department, or given false redundancy, which is in itself an offence.

Before any planning application reaches committee level, it is first dealt with by the planning department and it is here that the planning officer can begin his or her ‘punishment’ against the applicant by carefully perverting the application and manipulating evidence. This has undoubtedly occurred in my case and when they do foul up, what does it matter to them anyway? They know their colleagues will close ranks to protect them and the legal department will lie through its teeth to protect the officer.

Consequently, having experienced a serious injustice I am developing this web site to portray the correct facts. Further on I explain about the complaint I made against Dover District Council’s Planning Department that led to an investigation into my case, which resulted in DDC being found guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts. The Chief Executive’s refusal to accept the honest findings of his own investigation amounts to a deliberate concealment of the Council’s errors.

RIP The Truth webDover District Council officers are guilty of Misfeasance in Public Office and it is scandalous that Nadeem Aziz, who seems to have no concept of natural justice, has taken no action against them. In any other organisation the individuals responsible would be suspended, or at least relieved of their responsibilities pending a thorough investigation. Mr Aziz’s neglect to suspend officials with serious allegations against them is a disgrace and his failure to mount a wider investigation raises even more disturbing questions. The fact that he spent months trying to bury or ignore the findings of an investigation that he personally commissioned, and which cost the local taxpayer many thousands of pounds, also raises serious questions about his motivation to cover-up this issue. It may have something to do with the fact that before his internal promotion to Chief Executive he was in charge of the planning department that failed in its duty of care to correct the clear violations in law perpetrated by the very department which he previously controlled.

The whole scenario reeks of a cover up and a conspiracy.

Home

Notorious Killer Shoots Planning Officer

by ddc

Notorious killer Albert Dryden gunned down 46-year-old Harry Collinson, Derwentside Council’s chief planning officer during a planning row.

dryden_jpg_display2Allegedly, Mr Collinson orchestrated the public humiliation of Albert Dryden when he created a ‘circus’ atmosphere by inviting TV crews, photographers and reporters to be present when the council arrived to demolish the building that he had constructed without planning permission.

In the face of such indignity, and driven to ‘breaking point’ Albert Dryden shot Mr Collinson dead when the Council moved in to demolish his building. The drama was caught on film by the camera crews and the televised report can be seen by clicking on this link: Albert Dryden shoots planning officer

Chief planning officer Harry Collinson arrived at the property of Albert Dryden to tell him it was to be demolished after a long-running planning dispute.

Albert Dryden opened fire and shot the officer in the heart at point-blank range. Shortly after, he fired another shot into his chest and also blasted him through the head as he lay on the ground, in front of fleeing reporters, council workers, and police officers.

Also a police officer was shot in the buttocks and a television reporter in the arm, before he was finally arrested by armed officers.albert.jpg.display

Of course this case was not as straightforward as the press made it appear, because at his trial it transpired that Albert Dryden had been victimised, humiliated and degraded by planning officers over a long period of time. It was revealed that a reporter was pressurised not to publicise details of the victimisation of Mr Dryden because the planning officer was a friend of the Chief Constable of Durham, and a brother Mason. The reporter was also asked not to mention that a judge occupied land neighbouring Mr Dryden’s land and either objected to Mr Dryden’s development or coveted his land.

Albert DrydenAlbert Dryden is quoted as saying that “Collinson was determined to have me off my land and put me in jail if he could. He was greatly influenced by people higher up”.

A close friend, John Snowdon, said “The council pushed him over the edge… he was a quiet bloke until they provoked him”

Both the police and the council came in for severe criticism for their handling of events leading up to the killing.

More recently, in 2017, Albert Dryden suffered a stroke and was released from prison on compassionate grounds. He died in a residential care home in 2018 aged 78.

I can personally identify with a lot of the above as Dover District Council carried out similar humiliation on not only me, but my partner and our two children too; over a period of many years. Also on a number of occasions, along with the usual threats and intimidation, Dover District Council officers would remind me of how unpleasant prison would be for me.

I don’t believe that the killing of somebody was justified in this particular situation, and no normal-thinking person would condone what Albert Dryden did. On the other hand, no normal-thinking person would believe the level of corruption that exists within a local authority; until they fall foul of them. Every single district Councillor is well aware of Dover District Council’s wrongdoing in my case, yet not one of them has the backbone or integrity to speak out about it. So, from personal experience I can understand how someone facing the demolition of their property might become unhinged, or driven to extreme measures.

Dover District Council have unjustly harassed me, and deprived me any semblance of a normal home life for over 34 years; half of my life! So I certainly have had unpleasant retaliatory thoughts about certain individuals on Dover District Council, but ones reasoned mind controls those ‘thoughts’ to prevent one acting upon them. But it only needs that slight bit of extra stress to trigger a reaction and those ‘thoughts’ could easily become a reality, so I can certainly understand how someone could be driven to take drastic measures. One should never underestimate what a person is capable of, when they are backed in a corner and believe they have nothing more to lose.

It’s important to recognise however that my case, although similar in some respects, is very different to the Albert Dryden scenario. He had, quite wrongly, built a structure without planning permission on virgin land. It was not his home, and on the actual day it was due to be demolished it housed a few goats and some chickens. Whereas my alleged breach occurred on existing residential land, upon which a bungalow had existed and been used solely for residential purposes, lawfully and continuously, since 1928.

And at the time the council demolished our bungalow and made us homeless it was of course the home of my partner, myself and our two children, and also where we had lived continuously for five years prior. At no time did the Council show one iota of concern for the distress they caused to our children as they were led out of their home.

And to add insult to injury Dover District Council stated publicly that they were not obliged to provide accommodation for us because we had ‘made ourselves homeless’.

For evidence of the continuous residential use see History

Home

The Human Rights Act

by ddc

The Human Rights Act 1998

The Lord Chancellor introduced the Human Rights Bill 1998 into Parliament on 23 October 1997. It incorporates into domestic law the rights and liberties enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, a treaty to which the United Kingdom is signatory but which until 2000 had no application in domestic law. The Act received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998 and came into force in October 2000.

The Act applies to Dover District Council as they are a public authority. It makes it unlawful for them to violate the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. DDC pays lip service to the Act, but does not heed it in practice.

Any person who is a victim of a violation can use the Human Rights Act.

A victim includes anyone directly affected by the actions, or the inactions, of the public authority. Where there has been a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, or even where there is about to be, the victim can take proceedings in court under the Human Rights Act. They may be able to take judicial review proceedings, obtain an injunction to stop the violation, force the public authority to take action or obtain damages and compensation.

Although the Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, it is still possible to take cases to Europe.

Note: Before the incorporation of the Convention, individuals in the United Kingdom could only complain of unlawful interference with their Convention rights by lodging a petition with the European Commission of Human Rights in Strasbourg. The events surrounding Dover District Council’s unlawful destruction of our bungalow were prior to the Human Rights Act 1998, but their  action did come under the jurisdiction of the European Convention on Human Rights (although at the time I was not aware of this). However, the Council’s Legal Department were aware of my rights and their own obligations, but chose to ignore them.

The Human Rights Act 1998 ensures observance of the principle of peaceful enjoyment of possessions and denies the Council any right to deprive a person of their possessions except in accordance with law.

The Human Rights Act introduces an obligation on Dover District Council to act consistently with the European Convention on Human Rights. It is evident that Dover District Council’s continuing actions are disproportionate and violate Article 8 of the Convention.

I had a long-standing property right with which Dover District Council interfered and its interference was both unlawful and disproportionate.

Public authorities, which include local planning authorities by definition, are prohibited from acting in a way, which is incompatible with any of the human rights described by the Convention, Section 6(1), unless legislation makes this unavoidable.

6. Acts of public authorities

(1) It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right. If an authority acts in a way, which is incompatible, then separate proceedings can be brought against it under Section 7(1).

7. Proceedings

(1) A person who claims that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in a way which is made unlawful by section 6(1) may:

(a) bring proceedings against the authority under this Act in the appropriate court or tribunal, or

(b) rely on the Convention right or rights concerned in any legal proceedings,

Therefore the Act creates rights of action and grounds of appeal whether civil or criminal by a ‘victim’ of the unlawful act. Dover District Council’s Protocol for Good Practice in Planning Procedures 2003 says it aims to ensure and to demonstrate that it takes its planning decisions openly and impartially and for sound, justifiable planning reasons. (None of which appear to have been the case in my situation) The same protocol quotes the Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 which is concerned with…and I quote from the council’s own web site:

“Guaranteeing procedural fairness in the determination of civil rights and obligations, especially entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an impartial and independent tribunal. These principles are at the heart of the planning system. Should any councillors, staff or public have any queries about the operation of the Protocol, they should contact the chief planning and building control officer or the monitoring officer.”

However, in my particular case the opposite is true, because they have not taken their decisions openly but often held meetings in secret. This has resulted in unilateral decisions being made because I have not been given the opportunity to put my side of the case. Consequently I have not received a fair hearing as required by Article 6.

Nor have the Council acted impartially but rather they have acted with blatant bias and their own Professional Standards Investigator has confirmed this. In his report he concluded that the Council’s planning and enforcement reports were written in a style that presented them in a very favourable light and in so doing presented me as being troublesome with my various applications and appeals as having no, or limited, merit. The Investigator recorded this as maladministration.

The Investigator also expressed concern that the planning departments conclusions reached since 1984 were based on assumptions that were not sufficiently tested and that contemporary evidence supporting residential use was ignored or glossed over.

In section 6.10 of his findings the Professional Standards Investigator stated:

“After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice”.

He added at 6.11

“This was maladministration.”

The Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular Article 6, is concerned with guaranteeing procedural fairness in the determination of civil rights and obligations, especially the entitlement to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Act puts the rights of the individual first, on the basis that the rights of the individual are paramount unless there is justification in the public interest.

Primarily it is Article 8, Article 6 and Article 1 of the First Protocol that impact on most planning situations.

ARTICLE 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life. 

Article 8 guarantees the substantive right of respect for a person’s home.

Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

ARTICLE 6: The Right to a Fair Trial.

Article 6 relates entirely to procedure and it applies wherever there is a determination of a person’s ‘civil rights’. These rights encompass property rights, thus affecting planning law. Article 6 gives everyone the right to a fair hearing, both criminal and civil. This not only means in the courts but also in tribunals, inquiries and administrative decision making of a semi judicial nature, which includes the planning decision making processes.

ARTICLE 1 of the First Protocol: Protection of Property. 

This guarantees a person the right of peaceful enjoyment of their possessions, which includes their home and other land. In my case the Council are denying that right and this amounts to an interference of that right.

The Act states: Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. No one shall be deprived of their possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.

The Court has consistently held that the terms ‘law’ or ‘lawful’ in the Convention do not merely refer back to domestic law but also relate to the quality of the law, requiring it to be compatible with the rule of the law.

In many cases there is likely to be a significant overlap between Article 8 and the First Protocol, Article 1. However, this right is wider than Article 8 in the sense that it applies to the peaceful enjoyment of all of a person’s possessions and not merely to his home. This could include land, curtilage property, fixtures and fittings.

In simple terms the Act requires that a person’s interests be balanced against the interests of the community. This is something that is supposed to happen with the present planning system, in particular the reports to Planning Committees, but more often than not failing. Committee members should specifically bear human rights issues in mind when reaching decisions on all planning applications and enforcement action (but they don’t!).

In considering the application of Article 8 a 5-stage test can be applied:

  1. Does a right protected by Article 8 apply?
  2. Has an interference with that right taken place?
  3. Is the interference in accordance with the law i.e. is there a legal authorisation for the interference?
  4. Does the interference pursue a legitimate aim?
  5. Is the interference necessary in a democratic society?

The fourth stage of the test: Does the interference pursue a legitimate aim?

The legitimate aims are listed in Article 8(2) and they are:

  • National Security
  • Public Safety
  • Economic Well Being of the Country
  • The Prevention of Disorder or Crime
  • The Protection of Health or Morals
  • The Protection of the Rights and Freedoms of Others.

A decision made by a public authority must not be irrational, or ‘unreasonable’ and many years ago a test, commonly called the “Wednesbury test”, was formulated for the purpose of determining whether a public authority had acted outside its statutory powers.

A decision is ‘Wednesbury Unreasonable’ if it is:

“so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it”.

The test derived from: Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] and was defined by Lord Greene as:

“so unreasonable no reasonable body could have come to the decision”.

Lord Diplock gave a vivid explanation of ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’ in Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service [1985] when he stated:

“Wednesbury applies to a decision which is so outrageous in its defiance of logic or of accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it”.

What is ‘unreasonable’ will depend on the circumstances of the case. As a general rule a decision will be unreasonable if it goes:

“beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision maker”. R v Ministry of Defence, ex p Smith [1996]

Proportionality. The Human Rights Act 1998 has added a new dimension to local authorities decision-making and a tougher test than the test of reasonableness – one of ‘proportionality’ – looks at whether the action is proportionate to its aim. If a local authority’s decision interferes with human rights then the courts generally require stronger proof that the decision was reasonable.

Government guidance states that when taking enforcement action, the issue of proportionality must be at the fore of all decision making, as such action will by definition regulate the way in which an individual uses, develops or occupies his land, and may well affect his home and personal life, offending Article 8 and the First Protocol.

Proportionality means that the action taken must lead to the minimum interference with those rights that is necessary to achieve the authority’s wider aims. In other words, to reformulate a test that has been at the heart of government guidance on enforcement for many years, the action taken must be commensurate with the seriousness of the breach.

Deprivation of property. The European Convention has regarded the payment of compensation, or the lack of it, as an important feature in deciding whether the action of the State was proportionate or not. The lack of compensation will lead more easily to a conclusion that there was a lack of proportionality. This will be especially relevant in cases of deprivation of property.

I fully recognise and respect the need for planning control in the countryside but disproportionate enforcement action should never have been used to wage a personal vendetta against me because of a technical breach of the planning regulations, which was all that occurred when I carried out works of improvement to my bungalow.

However, I was never allowed the opportunity to remedy the technical breach and Dover District Council went far beyond what was necessary to satisfy planning policy.

Procedural Impropriety. The process whereby a decision is made by a public authority must not be undermined by ‘procedural impropriety’ and this includes a failure to follow procedural rules, a failure to observe the rules of “natural justice” or to act fairly towards someone.

Lord Justice Muskill, Greater London Council (1985) identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely:

  1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.
  2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.
  3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example, taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.
  4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit, for example, where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance.

Home

2005 Planning Application

by ddc

On 28 February 2005 I submitted a planning application, following advice from Tim Flisher, DDC’s Development Control Manager, but the dirty tricks soon started again and without me realising it the case officer had tampered with the wording of my application.

Not just once, but at least three times the officer changed the description that I originally printed on my planning application form. This was done in an insidious manner without consultation and without my knowledge or consent.

These changes would have resulted in my application being considered in a completely different context to that which I intended.

A planning application is a voluntary process paid for by the applicant and it is for the applicant, not the Council, to decide what it is they are seeking permission for.

It is the Councils role to decide if planning permission will be granted for what the applicant seeks. If the Council required changes to the title then that should have been achieved through consultation prior to the changes being made.

I became highly suspicious about the way in which the Council were dealing with my planning application so decided to withdraw it on the 22 July 2005.

Soon after this I obtained a copy of the report that the case officer had prepared for the Planning Committee. I was astounded when I read it as the officer’s report contained incorrect statements, misleading information and was written in a biased way designed to ensure a refusal. And that is not just my opinion, because the Council’s own Chief Investigator also came to that conclusion.

At this point I decided to submit a formal complaint to the Professional… more

Home

DDC Rubbish Tip

by ddc

After the Council had forced me away from my property, the empty garden soon became a local rubbish tip and scrap vehicles accumulated on the land (unknown to me).

It became an eyesore, an annoyance to local residents and the subject of further enforcement action, which required me as owner of the site to clear it even though this situation was a direct result of the council demolishing my home.

Printed below are a few photos, alternating, showing the before and after or rather the after and before!

Home

 

Windy Ridge

by ddc

‘Windy Ridge’ is just one example of the extreme inconsistency that is prevalent in Dover District Council’s decision making. There are many, many other examples.

When challenged about their inconsistent decisions, the Council’s standard response is that each case is judged on its merits. And so it should be, but they don’t disclose or justify what those merits are. The flexibility, inherent in the planning decision-making process, makes it easy for planners to show both favouritism and discrimination as they see fit, which leaves the system open to abuse and corruption.

In reality so much will depend on who the ‘applicant’ is.

Suzanne Maxted was the owner of ‘Windy Ridge’, a bungalow in Preston Hill, Wingham. She was an eccentric person with a fiery temper and well known to the local people. The Post Mistress in Wingham would not allow her into the Post Office because of her foul language so she had to wait outside for her pension to be brought to her. Miss Maxted could often be seen chasing and stoning her ‘husband’ as he ran away from her, across the fields, in his underpants.

One day her husband would not move from the deck chair that he was sitting in, so she set light to it. Unfortunately he was very close to the bungalow at the time and that too caught alight and was destroyed in the fire. That was in August 1977 and thereafter the property remained an uninhabitable ruin.

After the fire Miss Maxted initially lived in a brown & cream coloured caravan. Before long all the windows in her caravan were smashed and the caravan ruined. She then lived in various structures including a tent and a makeshift tarpaulin structure strung between the trees. There were no washing or toilet facilities.

Miss Maxted bequeathed her land to the National Trust when she died, as her wish was to aid conservation and wildlife. She never intended for her land to be re-developed. Nevertheless after her death, an application was made in 1998 to Dover District Council for a Certificate of Lawful Use.

The applicant’s agent sought information supporting the residential use of the land and one of the people contacted was Mr David Sturt, Dover Council’s former Chief Planning Officer, who had left the Council and became involved with the church. Mr Sturt had been helping with a ‘soup run’ to the homeless in Canterbury where he met Miss Maxted, who had joined the group.

I employed a private investigator to interview Mr Sturt in 2004. One of the things he was questioned about was ‘Windy Ridge’ and he confirmed that he recalls Miss Maxted lived in a tent. Mr Sturt was also questioned about a letter he sent supporting the application for a Certificate of Lawful Use.

Mr Sturt denied writing such a letter.

However, I have a copy of that letter, which he had personally signed and in it Mr Sturt refers to the time he was employed at DDC and had occasion to go on to the site. In the letter he states:

…”It was overgrown. There was a derelict caravan and the ruins of a bungalow. There was evidence of the bungalow being slept in – a simple bed and various drinking and cooking utensils. I believe this was in a lean to part of the bungalow. At that time she was clearly sleeping in the ruined bungalow rather than the caravan”.

So did Mr Sturt lie, or did he forget?

The following is a brief resume of the Council records relating to the application for a Certificate of Lawful Use at ‘Windy Ridge’:

Various officers who inspected ‘Windy Ridge’ confirmed that the bungalow had been badly damaged by fire, that it was effectively derelict and would require complete demolition prior to rebuilding and it appeared that no attempts were made by the owner to repair the bungalow or, indeed, to protect it from the elements. There is no particular reference at any time, however, to the “chalet” to which the application for a Certificate of Lawful Use related.

The “chalet” was effectively a weather boarded lean-to extension to the bungalow with a slate roof and an internal room division but lacking window glazing and flooring and no kitchen or bathroom facilities. The former dwelling had been vacated in 1977 and there was no clear evidence as to when the “chalet” was occupied following the fire.

The fact that a caravan was stationed on the land and received (temporary) planning permission shortly after the fire could well imply that the bungalow as a whole (including the “chalet”) was vacated. The fact that caravans were subsequently and continuously stationed on the land thereafter would suggest that, if indeed the whole of the former dwelling had been vacated in about 1977, such vacation continued.

The critical issue, therefore, is whether the apparent vacating of the “chalet” by the owner between the fire in 1977 and it’s re-occupation in (say) 1994/1995 (vacant for 17/18 years) constituted its abandonment. Although the period of non-use was comparatively lengthy, there is no evidence of any intervening use or of any deliberate intention to abandon this part of the total original dwelling. Its physical condition is poor, but it is essentially structurally complete and it is potentially capable of restoration. Case law indicates that it is possible to issue a certificate relating to such a two-roomed building where it is capable of supporting a basic residential use, as in this case.

 

Copied below is legal advice about what constitutes a dwelling house and the related concept of abandonment. It is an internal memorandum from Dover Council’s Head of Legal Services to their planning department and the subject is ‘Windy Ridge’.

The memo is dated 1998:

MEMORANDUM

From: HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES

To: Director of Planning and Technical Services

(Originator) Ian Ginbey – Ext: 2328

Attn: Tim Flisher

Subject: WINDY RIDGE, PRESTON HILL, WINGHAM

Your ref: TJF/EC/DOV/97/0912

My ref: L/IG/PLAN 1(W)

Date: 7 July 1998

Thank you for your memorandum of 29 June.

I note from the letter which you have received from the applicant’s agent that the application is now restricted to the “chalet” which is essentially what was agreed at last month’s site meeting. My recollection of that meeting is that it was also agreed that a structure, such as the “chalet”, is capable of being described as a “dwelling-house” and reference was made, in this respect, to the Gravesham case. This is also confirmed by the agent.

I would only add that you should have regard to the related concept of abandonment in the context of the application. In most cases, these two concepts are fused; that is, facts that point to abandonment will also point to the conclusion that the building is not a dwelling house. It follows that in the instant case the applicants should evidence that the use of the “chalet” as a dwelling-house has not been abandoned in order to gain the benefit of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use pursuant to Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I recall that the submitted evidence is a little vague in this respect with only one statement making reference to Miss Maxted’s occupation of the “chalet” (although it is possible that some of the evidence has been given on the premise that the bungalow and the “chalet” are one and the same). It is, of course, a matter for you to determine as a matter of fact and degree and you no doubt formed an opinion at the site meeting. Certainly, there appeared to be some evidence of residential occupation.

Notwithstanding the above, I should add for the sake of completeness that there obviously can be cases where even though a dwelling-house use has been abandoned, the building may still be regarded as constituting a dwelling-house. In such cases, operations could be undertaken to the building, but clearly it could not be used as a dwelling house without the grant of planning permission. Contrariwise, I suppose it is just conceivably possible to argue that, although a building was such a ruin that it could not be considered a dwelling house, the use as a dwelling house had never been abandoned.

Ian D. Ginbey (Assistant Solicitor)

For Head of Legal Services (JWH)

 

I have spoken to a number of local people who knew Miss Maxted’s living arrangements but nobody recalls the “chalet” which the Council refer to. They only remember seeing the floor slab of the burnt out bungalow and the fact that she lived in the various structures mentioned earlier including a caravan, a tent and a makeshift tarpaulin structure strung between the trees.

Subsequently a certificate of lawful use was granted for something that didn’t remotely resemble a dwelling and over twenty years after ‘Windy Ridge’ burnt to the ground and remained uninhabitable throughout that time, DDC granted permission for a ‘Replacement Dwelling’

Subsection (1) of Local Plan Policy DD7 states:

Proposals for replacement dwellings in the countryside will not be permitted unless the existing dwelling is: “A permanent structure in lawful residential use”

Subsection (2) states “Capable of continued residential use with the benefit of permitted development rights”

 

Clearly ‘Windy Ridge’ was not a permanent structure nor capable of continued residential use. It is incredulous that Dover Council decided the ruins of a burnt out bungalow, uninhabitable for so long, could be described as a dwelling yet apply a completely different criteria to my own case. It is indicative of the degree to which the nature of the applicant or owner of a property can influence planning decisions.

This is a clear example of the bizarre inconsistencies of DDC’s decision-making. They have applied one set of rules to my case and an entirely different set to the Windy Ridge case which resulted in the granting of planning permission in circumstances any reasonable person would consider far less justifiable than mine. It’s not sour grapes on my part but a serious concern that planning should apply equally and fairly to all.

Home

How It All Started

by ddc

I planned to start a new life with my partner and our two children when in 1984 we purchased a property called ‘The Bungalow’ in Warren Lane, Nr Lydden, Dover.

The timber-framed bungalow, which had two bedrooms, lounge, kitchen and bathroom was an existing dwelling in lawful residential use. It had been neglected for some years and was in need of some tlc so upon moving in on the 15th June I began renovating it and making cosmetic changes. The existing timber frame was retained, the walls re-clad, new windows fitted and it was re-roofed. No extensions were added thus the size of the original footprint remained the same.

Sworn statements are available which confirm the renovation works and can be viewed by clicking here.

Within days of purchasing the bungalow, Dover District Council falsely stated that I had ‘erected a new dwelling’ and ordered me to demolish it. They acted as if I had erected a new dwelling on a virgin site and chose to ignore the existing lawful residential status of the bungalow.

I purchased my bungalow on the 15th June 1984 yet just 6 days later, at a planning meeting on 21st June 1984, the Planning Committee discussed ‘Works at The Bungalow, Warren Lane, Lydden’ and resolved to hold a site meeting on 7th August 1984.

The date for the site meeting coincided with an important Hearing at Canterbury Court where I was seeking an order for access to my two children as their Mother was refusing me visiting rights. I rushed back home as soon as the Hearing ended, just as Council Members were leaving my garden. I tried to explain why I was late and emphasised the importance of the Court appointment and the fact that my children took priority. The Council Members ignored me and the Planning Officer told me they viewed my absence as a snub and were irritated.

David SturtAt a meeting dated 9th August 1984, the Planning Committee again discussed ‘Building and ancillary works at The Bungalow, Warren Lane, Lydden’. The Director of Planning, David Sturt, reported on the views expressed by Members viewing the site and “on the response made by the owner of the site to the Council’s invitation to him to be present at the site meeting”.

They resolved to destroy my bungalow a few weeks after I purchased it and I believe that Council Members set out to punish rather than comply with the correct planning regulations. To this day, 34 years later, they have refused to communicate with me.

Their unlawful decision was made based solely on incorrect and misleading information presented by the paid officials and without considering any representation from me.

An enforcement notice was wrongfully issued and we lived under the threat of demolition for five years, until 1989 when the Council came along one morning with a mechanical digger and smashed the bungalow to pieces whilst we were still living there with our two children. Following this the Council stated that they were not obliged to provide accommodation for us because we had ‘made ourselves homeless’. This was pre Human Rights days of course.

The council served the wrong notice because the breach they allege I committed did not occur. The Town & Country Planning Act states that an enforcement notice shall specify that steps be taken to restore the land to its condition before the breach took place. In other words, put the bungalow back to as it was before I carried out the cosmetic changes.

The unlawful demolition of my bungalow took place because Council officials deceived the Planning Committee by claiming that the residential use had been abandoned. This false statement was made despite the Council’s own Head of Legal Services confirming that the use had not been abandoned.

In R. v Canterbury City Council ex parte Springimage JPL 1993 it was Held that a decision is void if it is based on information put before a committee that is not correct or is incomplete.

The original decision to demolish my home was wrong and therefore it follows that every action that the council has taken against me since, must be wrong. A public authority owes as great, if not a greater obligation, to comply with the law as any individual and I have sufficient evidence to show the Council acted unlawfully not only in demolishing my home in the first instance but also in all acts of enforcement action that have followed. There is case law to support this assertion, as does the Town & Country Planning Act, which is very clear and precise on this matter.

Every person is entitled to procedural fairness, but that will always depend on the integrity of the authority responsible for such procedures.

There is clear evidence that Dover Council have deprived me of my right to procedural fairness throughout the duration of this dispute but particularly so when they took the decision to demolish my home.

I did not establish a home without planning permission because that already lawfully existed and had done so for 56 years. Prior to the demolition I placed a mobile home adjacent to the bungalow so continuing, uninterrupted, the lawful residential use of the land.

Soon after Dover Council had demolished my home they erroneously took action to remove the mobile home that was legally sited. Subsequently they wrongfully issued an enforcement notice on the 27 February 1990, ordering its removal.

Due to the years of stress and extreme disruption to my family’s life leading up to the demolition of our home and the ongoing harassment and threat of litigation from the Council after the demolition, my family broke up. After my partner left I gave up the fight and moved away from the site. Up until that time I had neither the knowledge nor financial ability to fight the unlawful action that had been taken against me and it is now apparent the Council preyed on that fact.

Residential rating assessments continued to be issued until this day.

In my absence the site of my former home became a local rubbish tip and scrap vehicles accumulated on the land. It became an eyesore, an annoyance to local residents and the subject of further enforcement action, which required me as owner of the site to clear it even though this situation was a direct result of the council demolishing my home.

The property had been in continuous residential use for over 60 years when the Council demolished it and reduced the land to a rubbish tip. Tim Flisher from the Council’s planning department has since confirmed that residential use is the only lawful use ever ascribed to my property.

On 15th July 2002 I moved back to the site and began clearing all the scrap vehicles and the tons of rubbish that had accumulated, before restoring it to an attractive garden once more. I have continued to live there in a mobile home ever since with the full support of my neighbours but not the Council who are again wrongfully taking enforcement action against me.

On 28 February 2005 I submitted a planning application following advice from Tim Flisher the Council’s Development Control Manager but the dirty tricks…more

I became highly suspicious about the way in which the Council were dealing with my planning application so withdrew it on the 22 July 2005, before it was determined.

Soon after this I obtained a copy of the report that the case officer, Nikki Coles, had prepared for the Planning Committee. I was astounded when I read it as the officer’s report contained false statements, misleading information and was written in a biased way designed to ensure a refusal. At this point I decided to submit a complaint to the Professional…more

In 2006 I wrote to Gwyn Prosser, New Labour MP for Dover, asking for his support but soon discovered that…more

A few days before Christmas, 2008, four representatives from DDC visited… more

Home

Abandonment

by ddc

The Council have stated at various times during this dispute, both verbally and in writing, that the residential use of my bungalow had been abandoned. However, there is indisputable evidence to prove that the residential use had NEVER been abandoned.

In fact, the Council’s own chief solicitor acknowledged, in writing, that the residential use had NOT been abandoned prior to these statements being made.

It is not disputed that my bungalow had been in existence for some 56 years at the time I purchased it in 1984, a considerable time and well before the 1st July 1948 (the “Appointed Day” for the Town and Country Planning Act 1947). Given the length of time the bungalow had stood (since 1928) and the fact that the Council were approvingly aware of it, the dwelling would be considered as permanent and entitled.

During any intermittent short period of time when the owner was away, there was no other intervening use other than residential and any absence by the owner was merely temporary. It has been Held in the High Court that if a cessation of use is merely temporary then it does not amount to abandonment and the previous use can be resumed without planning permission.

Throughout any short period that the bungalow may have been empty, it continued to be rated as a residential dwelling.

After I had finished the works of improvement and repair to my bungalow an Officer from the District Valuers Office carried out a close inspection of it on 24th October 1984 in order to reassess the domestic rateable value. During this inspection the officer had in his possession a copy of the original plans of the bungalow to which he referred whilst accurately measuring the renovated property. He concluded that the measurements and construction of the renovated bungalow remained the same and subsequently reassessed the domestic rateable value due to the improvements.

The bungalow’s assessment reference number remained the same when the valuation increased on 7th November 1984. The lawful residential use was not challenged at this time and in his report the officer refers only to works of renovation carried out to the lawfully existing bungalow. NO mention, whatsoever, is made of ‘the erection of a new dwelling’, which the Council falsely claimed.

Throughout the time the bungalow was empty, prior to my purchase, it remained weatherproof with intact windows, walls and roof, thereby retaining the essential characteristics of a dwelling. When I viewed the bungalow in April 1984 the estate agent had to provide door keys because the property was locked and secured. I moved into the bungalow in June 1984.

Whilst empty the property had been targeted by vandals thus the owner, Miss Dickinson, took the precaution of boarding the windows up to secure the property and guard against vandalism.  She also employed her neighbour to clear the overgrown garden, prior to instructing the estate agent to sell the bungalow. Miss Dickinson’s actions were highly indicative of her intention at that time, which was to preserve the building and not to abandon its residential use.

Therefore the residential use could lawfully be resumed without planning permission.

Prior to purchase my solicitor carried out all the usual searches and the Enquiries of District Councils Form was completed, signed and dated 21 May 1984 by Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services of Dover District Council.

All references to the Public Health Act, Town & Country Planning Act and General Development Order, relating to permitted-development, were answered in the affirmative and the existing, long-standing residential use was not challenged, thus the Council’s legal department ratified the current lawful residential use.

If the Council had reservations about the residential status of the property then this was the time to declare them. My Solicitor had put them on notice that I intended purchasing the property as a residence.

When I moved into the bungalow it already benefited from a bathroom and kitchen and included the previous owners furniture and curtains. In addition there were packets and tins of food in the cupboards along with magazines and newspapers, all indicating fairly recent domestic use.

Further evidence that the residential use had not been abandoned is contained in a letter from Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services to my solicitor, dated 8th October 1984, which stated:

“…I have conferred with the Director of Planning on the alleged statement that the residential use of the site may have ended, and I can confirm that the Council are not saying that the residential user rights have been abandoned, only that the operation carried out on site is, as a matter of fact and degree, a building operation and thereby constitutes development requiring planning permission…”

Signed…
LESLEY CUMBERLAND

Further conclusive evidence that the residential use had not been abandoned is contained within a Planning Inspectorate letter. The Planning Inspector, Richard W. Pratt, stated:

“A bungalow was built on the site in about 1928, and remained in use as a dwelling house up to the time of the appellant’s acquisition of the land in 1984……

I accept that, at that time, the residential use of the building would have been lawful, because it pre-dated the Appointed Day, 1 July 1948″.

When I made a complaint against the Council an investigation was carried out by their own senior Professional Standards Investigator. His report made direct reference to the question of abandonment when he stated the following:

  • 3.6 There is independent evidence that the bungalow was used for residential purposes from 1934 to the summer of 1982…

  • 3.32 Taking into account the Planning Inspectors findings in November 2000, the Head of Legal Services advice to the complainant’s solicitor in her letter of 8th October 1984, the evidence provided by the next door neighbour and the undisputed evidence that between June 25th 1984 and 31st July 1989 the complainant and his family lived at the Oaks, it is my view that there is a record of residential use of the site from 1928 to 31st July 1989.
  • 6.22 It is my view based on the contemporary evidence of neighbours, the finding of the planning inspector in November 2000 and the statement made by the Director of Planning and Administrative Services in her letter of 8th October 1984, that at the time residential user rights had not been abandoned and indeed existed.

 There is irrefutable evidence therefore, that the residential use of the bungalow had not been abandoned.

Despite the Council’s own legal department being fully aware that the residential use had NOT been abandoned, they erroneously pursued a path of action stating that it HAD been abandoned. This indicates reckless pursuit and malice aforethought, making the subsequent demolition of my home an act of criminal damage.   

Copied below is legal advice about what constitutes a dwelling house and the related concept of abandonment. It is important to note that this is an internal memorandum from Dover Council’s Head of Legal Services to their planning department.

It concerns a rural property known as ‘Windy Ridge’, Preston Hill, Wingham, a bungalow that had been destroyed by fire in August 1977 and which remained an uninhabitable ruin for 21 years before an application was made for a Certificate of Lawful Use.

MEMORANDUM

From: HEAD OF LEGAL SERVICES
To: Director of Planning and Technical Services
(Originator) Ian Ginbey – Ext: 2328
Attn: Tim Flisher

Subject: WINDY RIDGE, PRESTON HILL, WINGHAM

Your ref: TJF/EC/DOV/97/0912
My ref:-L/IG/PLAN 1(W)
Date: 7 July 1998

Thank you for your memorandum of 29 June.

I note from the letter which you have received from the applicant’s agent that the application is now restricted to the “chalet” which is essentially what was agreed at last month’s site meeting. My recollection of that meeting is that it was also agreed that a structure, such as the “chalet”, is capable of being described as a “dwelling-house” and reference was made, in this respect, to the Gravesham case. This is also confirmed by the agent.

I would only add that you should have regard to the related concept of Abandonment in the context of the application. In most cases, these two concepts are fused; that is, facts that point to abandonment will also point to the conclusion that the building is not a dwelling house. It follows that in the instant case the applicants should evidence that the use of the “chalet” as a dwelling-house has not been abandoned in order to gain the benefit of a Certificate of Lawfulness of Existing Use pursuant to Section 191 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

I recall that the submitted evidence is a little vague in this respect with only one statement making reference to Miss Maxted’s occupation of the “chalet” (although it is possible that some of the evidence has been given on the premise that the bungalow and the “chalet” are one and the same). It is, of course, a matter for you to determine as a matter of fact and degree and you no doubt formed an opinion at the site meeting. Certainly, there appeared to be some evidence of residential occupation.

Notwithstanding the above, I should add for the sake of completeness that there obviously can be cases where even though a dwelling-house use has been abandoned, the building may still be regarded as constituting a dwelling-house. In such cases, operations could be undertaken to the building, but clearly it could not be used as a dwelling house without the grant of planning permission.

Contrariwise, I suppose it is just conceivably possible to argue that, although a building was such a ruin that it could not be considered a dwelling house, the use as a dwelling house had never been abandoned.

Ian D. Ginbey (Assistant Solicitor)

For Head of Legal Services (JWH)

‘Windy Ridge’ is just one example of the extreme inconsistency that is prevalent in Dover District Council’s decision making. There are many more.

Home

Purchase

by ddc

Full, lawful residential user rights existed when I bought my bungalow in 1984

The purchase was made in the usual way, employing the services of a local estate agent and a solicitor who carried out all the necessary searches and enquiries.

  • Selling Agents: James B. Terson & Son.
  • Vendor’s solicitor: Peter W. Sherred, Stilwell & Harby, Dover.
  • Purchaser’s solicitor: Jeremy R. Garner, Stilwell & Harby, Dover.
  • Search completed, signed and dated 21 May 1984 by Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services of Dover District Council.
  • Land Registry Title Number K257271. Tunbridge Wells Office.
  • Parish council: Lydden.
  • DDC Rating department, Reference number 04 135/6.

I first saw ‘The Bungalow’, as it was then called, advertised with James B. Terson & Son, Estate Agents, in April 1984. It was a small timber framed bungalow, typical of many others in the area, although most of them have now been replaced by much larger brick built properties. It was described as:

‘The Bungalow’, Warren Lane, Lydden, Nr Dover

A detached timber and corrugated bungalow with 1/3 acre.

Situated in this very rural position about 1 mile from the village of Lydden, approached along a picturesque country lane and situated on the left hand side of the road just past a property called “Little London”

Comprising a detached timber and corrugated bungalow with 6 rooms including bathroom and kitchen.

We believe that the property has a registered title and that the total area of ground amounts to approximately 1/3 acre. The frontage to Warren Lane is about 220 feet. It is triangular in shape. There is a cesspool on site and a well……etc

Rateable Value: £64.00

Price: Offers invited

Viewing: Keys with the Agents as above

The windows are boarded up and therefore it is necessary to take a torch.

I made an appointment with Tersons to view the bungalow and was met at the property by a lady who had the door keys to let me in and show me around. The lady explained that she didn’t actually work for Tersons but worked for another agent nearby and had been asked to show me around because she lived in the house opposite the bungalow and that arrangement was more convenient for the agent.

I agreed to purchase the bungalow and Tersons recommended a local firm of Solicitors, Stilwell & Harby, to act for me. It transpired that Stilwell & Harby were also acting for the vendor, Miss Dickinson, but they explained that was in order as long as two separate solicitors were involved in the transaction.

The two solicitors responsible were Jeremy R. Garner, who acted for me, and Peter W. Sherred, who acted for Miss Dickinson.

Mr Garner carried out all the usual searches including the Enquiries of District Councils, which was completed, signed and dated 21 May 1984 by Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services of Dover District Council.

All references to the Public Health Act, Town & Country Planning Act and General Development Order, relating to permitted-development, were answered in the affirmative and at this time the Council’s legal department ratified the existing, long-standing residential use.

As the solicitor acting for the vendor, Peter W. Sherred knows, the bungalow possessed full title and was in lawful residential use at the time the sale was completed. Peter W. Sherred was an experienced solicitor in public law and residential property conveyance, particularly so as before being employed at Stilwell & Harby, he was a solicitor with Dover District Council’s legal department.

The purchase of my bungalow was completed on the 15th June 1984 and Stilwell & Harby issued an invoice for charges for approving and completing contract, investigating title, preparing and completing Transfer on the purchase of my property, preparing and completing certified copy documents in respect of the registration of title under the Land Registration Act, Local Search fees and Land Charge search fee.  I was entirely satisfied with the service provided by Mr Garner.

Soon after moving in we changed its name to ‘The Oaks’ because of the fine mature English Oaks situated in the garden.

Home

1990 Enforcement

by ddc

The original action taken by Dover District Council, when they destroyed my bungalow in 1989, was unlawful and therefore it follows that every action that the Council has taken against me since, is also unlawful.

Before Dover District Council destroyed my bungalow I placed a caravan in the garden adjacent to it, which my daughter lived in initially, joined by the rest of the family after the bungalow had been destroyed. The caravan had therefore been legally sited before the bungalow was demolished and, as its use was ancillary to the primary use of the land i.e. residential, the lawful residential use of the land continued uninterrupted.Criminal Damage By DDC

A fact evidenced by this copy of a newspaper cutting which shows the Council destroying the bungalow. The caravan can be seen behind the JCB.

Subsequently the Council unlawfully issued an enforcement notice on the 27 February 1990, ordering its removal.

In a Committee Report, dated 7 Sept 1989, DDC reported that when they demolished my bungalow they noticed a mobile home was stationed in my garden. In their report the Council falsely stated:

“Such use of the land also required planning permission, which had not been obtained”.

But the mobile home did not require planning permission, and the Council took unlawful action against me, despite its own legal department providing the following advice in a memo dated 22 August 1989:

“A mobile home/caravan with wheels is not a structure and therefore the placing of such items on land cannot constitute operational development. Operational development required planning permission regardless of the use intended to be made of the land or the building intended to be constructed. It follows that planning control of the placing of a mobile home/caravan on land depends solely upon establishing that a material change of use has occurred.#It is arguable that existing residential use rights have existed on the site since pre-1963 and have continued since the end of 1963 and that the demolition of the rebuilt structure does not evidence an abandonment of those use rights. An EN may therefore be challenged on the ground that the caravan is being used for residential purposes, and this does not constitute a material change of use by reason that the site has the benefit of existing residential use rights.”

The Council’s legal department had therefore informed Committee, unequivocally, that they could only take action against me if there had been a material change of use. Clearly there had been no change of use because the mobile home was being used for residential purposes and the site benefited from existing residential use rights.

Yet, despite taking legal advice, the Council still went ahead and unlawfully took action to remove my mobile home.

It was held by the Court of Appeal (Wealden DC v S of S 1987) that the stationing of a caravan on land did not of itself establish a material change of use. The Notice must also state the use to which the caravan is put. If that use is ancillary or incidental to the primary use of the land, then no change of use occurs at all…

The use of the mobile home certainly was ancillary or incidental to the primary use of the land, i.e. residential, because that became home for my wife, myself and our two children just prior to DDC destroying our bungalow.

Another ruling that clearly supports my case is: Restormel Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for the Environment and Rabey [1982] JPL 785

In essence, a hotel placed a caravan within its grounds to house its waitresses. The council served an enforcement notice.

The Court held that there had been no material change of use. The use of the caravan was incidental to the main use of the land. The test was to be applied by looking at the alleged change in the context of the entire planning unit.

Therefore, in my case, planning permission was not required and an enforcement notice should never have been served.

Clearly and without doubt there had been no change of use whatsoever and there is irrefutable evidence proving that the property had been used continuously as a lawful residence since 1928.

Further evidence of the long-standing lawful residential use of my property is contained in a report from the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator when he stated in section 3.32:

“Taking into account the Planning Inspectors findings in November 2000, the Head of Legal Services advice to the complainant’s solicitor in her letter of 8th October 1984, the evidence provided by the next door neighbours and the undisputed evidence that between June 25th 1984 and 31st July 1989 the complainant and his family lived at the Oaks, it is my view that there is a record of residential use of the site from 1928 to 31st July 1989”.

The Professional Standards Investigator also recorded, in his report, the names of all previous residents who had occupied the property from 1934 until the time I purchased it in 1984. He also confirmed that there are letters on file from other local residents confirming residential use during the period in question.

Further evidence that the residential use had not ceased was contained in a letter dated 8th October 1984 from Lesley Cumberland, Director of Legal and Administrative Services in which she stated:

…”I have conferred with the Director of Planning on the alleged statement that the residential use of the site may have ended, and I can confirm that the Council are not saying that the residential user rights have been abandoned, only that the operation carried out on site is, as a matter of fact and degree, a building operation and thereby constitutes development requiring planning permission”…

The Council’s legal department also advised Committee of the following:

“It is almost certain that if an appeal is lodged against an EN (enforcement notice) alleging that a material change of use has occurred, this will necessitate a thorough investigation by Officers of the history of the use of the site for residential purposes”.

The question has to be asked:

Why didn’t the Council carry out an investigation to confirm the long-standing residential use of my property before they demolished my home?

Their philosophy is clearly, ‘knock it down first and ask questions after’.

Since this dispute started in 1984 Dover District Council has repeatedly presented inaccurate and misleading information. This is confirmed in the findings of the Council’s Professional Standards Investigator who stated in his report:

6.10  “After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice”.

6.11  “This was maladministration”.

The Council also falsely stated that I had erected a new bungalow. That is not the case, I did not erect a new bungalow but I did renovate the existing bungalow. However, the demolition of a building does not in itself destroy existing use rights formerly enjoyed with it.

In Jennings Motors v Secretary of State [1982] the landowners had demolished a building and erected a new building on a small part of the entire site, but without obtaining planning permission. The local authority argued that this was a change of use and a breach of planning control.

The Court disagreed and ruled that the erection of a new building to replace an earlier one did not constitute a new planning unit, but the new building could inherit the use established by the former.

The motives of Dover District Council are extremely questionable in this case for it’s certainly not their remit to punish any individual for an alleged breach of planning control.

The remedy for any unauthorised development is provided for within the Town & Country Planning Act, which is very clear and precise on the matter.

The relevant Act in this particular instance was:

The Town & Country Planning Act 1971 c.78 Part V section 87

(6) An enforcement notice shall specify—

(b) the steps required by the authority to be taken in order to remedy the breach, that is to say steps for the purpose of restoring the land to its condition before the development took place ….

If a precedent had been set since the 1971 Act then the 1990 Act would have been amended but that is not the case. The relevant 1990 Act states:

Town & The Country Planning Act 1990 c.8 Part VII section 173#(3) In this section “steps to be taken in order to remedy the breach” means steps for the purpose – (a) of restoring the land to its condition before the development took place…

The Council never allowed me the opportunity to carry out the steps stipulated by the Town and Country Planning Act and this is confirmed by the Council’s Professional Standards Investigator who stated that there is no record in the files to show that I was given the opportunity to put matters right.

There is compelling evidence that the Council’s action was wrong in law and therefore the enforcement notice should never have been served.

Home