CLLR. BRUCE BROUGHTON-THOMPKINS
Councillor Bruce Broughton-Thompkins
Ward: Crowborough St Johns
Home Phone: 01825 767333
Dear Councillor Broughton-Thompkins,
This story and others like it are as old as time itself. Authority gone crazy, forcing the ordinary man to defend himself from oppression and injustice, employing the tactics learned from the oppressor. Robin Hood, Rob Roy, William Wallace, Rambo, (who?) will the proverbial Sheriffs never learn? Your council can act the playground bully, but one day they will have to pay the Piper, and there is no excuse for turning a blind eye if you are the teacher on playground duty.
You all know me, or know of me. But do you know why I'm now coming after your council? Well listen to this tale and marvel that you've had a 24 month respite, the calm before the storm, so to speak. This has been a 24 year epic so far, at a cost of £500,000 to the Wealden ratepayer. That's right, 24 years and half a £million, and it's not over yet :-
ONCE UPON A TIME
Once upon a time in a sleepy village in the heart of glorious Sussex, a young man set about restoring an old generating building for his home. The generating building was the last of its kind in all Merry Old England, the District Planning Officer, a fine upstanding gent played by Ashley Brown and the local member, played by Brian Jarman, were amateur archaeologists. What a stroke of luck, they will know the value of the find for sure and tell all. Oh no they won't! (Who said that?)
Unfortunately, it was not long before green eyed neighbours saw the opportunity for profit. The young man having saved the tumbledown from collapse, where previously they were so happy to part with a ruin, the rescued building was now something neighbours coveted. Cash offers came in thick and fast, but when they were politely rejected, complaints to their old chums at your council sparked off an enforcement vendetta that was to cost the ratepayer substantial sums and put up the cost of living in the Wealden district. You may agree that's a sizeable favour for an old chum. But let's not worry, the ratepayer will never find out: Oh yes they will!
Ah yes, enforcement. Enforcement can serve many purposes. It can call a halt to any building project, approved or not, legitimate or not. It can cost businesses fortunes. Enforcement can make people homeless and it can both ruin and cost lives. Enforcement, may create jobs for the boys, but how can that justify interference in private lives?
In this story, enforcement was being used to devalue a property, blight it with a local land charge. Under these circumstances most people sell up, leaving their neighbours to clean up - since they would be the only ones likely to want blighted land adjacent. It's all very convenient. In order for this plan to work, the building concerned must not be worthy of retention by conversion, etc. Hence, the last thing the officers would want to do is draw attention to any fact that might suggest conservation was appropriate. And lo, that is exactly what your finest did. They hid the facts.
For those of you who don't know, historic buildings are generally saved by bringing them back into use. There are specific instructions in Planning Policy Guidance notes (formerly PPGs) telling planners who to consult when faced with an unknown find - such as an early generating building. English Heritage is one of the consultees. Industrial Archaeology is an important issue, about which all planners are trained. The relevant PPG is number 16.
But, you'll never guess what? Those upstanding officers forgot to mention to you the members, about all that history, when asking for permission to enforce against that young chappie. It also slipped their mind to call the County Archaeologist or English Heritage prior to preparing their report, although a legal and moral requirement. So, an enforcement notice was served based on false, misleading and unbalanced information, which unfortunately, the young chappie will remain none the wiser for about 14 years. Then at Appeal, those same upstanding officers will again forget to disclose letters from a near neighbour (Elizabeth Cowling), confirming the history attaching. They being Ian Kay and J D Moss. But don't worry, so far, they've only forgotten to mention this to Inspector Dannruether and the council's planning committee. They really are the salt of the earth. It makes one proud to stand up and say we defeated fascism, Hitler and Mussolini.
Hang on though, those upstanding Wealden officers then forgot to mention the history of this unique building, to a Judge in the Lewes Crown Court Circa. 1987. Isn't that serious? I was under the impression withholding evidence was a crime and that falsely stating facts was perjury, or at least perverting the course of justice. Fortunately, the young chappie kicked Vic Scarpa in the nuts on this one. Unfortunately, he was not so lucky long-term in the High Court, where your council's legal team again suffered amnesia convenientus, (a rare disease prevalent among council enforcement and legal departments) However, the by now not so young chappie, fought a valiant few skirmishes as a rearguard action, until 1997, when some new information came to light that should have cured that rare council disease.
A Sussex gardener named Albert Saunders, living not 15 miles east, came forward to identify the old generating building as the one his father operated to supply electricity to the village of Herstmonceux. The gardener wrote down what he knew and swore it on oath. He did this to help those persons suffering with memory problems. This document was presented to your council and the Sussex Industrial Archaeology Society (bit of a mouthful that). At last our hero is saved! Not so. Apart from amnesia convenientus there is also another disease commonly found in Council offices: factus blindus. It's a bit like snow blindness, You know it's white, but you think it's black. Put these two diseases together and an officer may well completely deceive the court. Of course it's not intentional. Well, at least according to Vic Scarpa. Just a simple series of mistakes over a 24 year period. It could happen to anyone!
There were a couple of officers at Wealden who were unfortunate enough to suffer from both afflictions, the chief enforcement officer and a senior solicitrix, got it bad. These parts were played by David Phillips and Christine Nuttall. At the time that public spirited gardener presented his evidence, David Phillips was in the middle of forcing the not so young chappie to remove his toilets. It turns out David has a thing about toilets, as Roger Brown can testify (and already has). He hates them. Likes to see them smashed. Maybe it's a childhood thing? He also has a thing about caravans. Rumour has it, he keeps a private record of his kills. One person alleges he was fishing in a sink for pubic hairs! Odd fellow.
On one memorable occasion, Doug Moss was holding a ladder for David Phillips, while David tried to force open a window to gain entry. This activity was to the rear of the generating building - out of sight. The not so young chappie surprised the would be burglars on returning from the village, whereupon these two upstanding conspirators offered some feeble excuse as to what they were up to. They then repeated a slightly varied version of that feeble excuse to the interviewing Police officers. The Police did not bring charges, but advised the not so young chappie, to allow Wealden's officers to break in before arresting them, when charges would be brought. We can but live in hope.
The memory thing keeps cropping up all over the place. For example, toilets are required by law under the Health and Safety Regulations. David forgot to mention that to several High Court Judges, including Dame Butler Schloss, and of course the planning committee again. The most extreme cases of mental confusion involve David and photographs. This really confuses the hell out of him. It is quite extraordinary, because on one occasion David Phillips and Doug Moss seem to have shared the confusion. Doug Moss swore blind he'd returned a set of photographs to the not so young chappie. But some months later David Phillips produced those same photographs, claiming to have taken them himself quite recently. There was a scratch on a negative you see. This caught out these two conspirators. Whoops. Strangely, David did not want to go into Court to face the music. Couldn't wait to deal outside the Court Room (High Court).
You would not believe it, but the enforcement department had by now made a deal with a neighbour to the not so young chappie. Remember, I mentioned blight. Well, the next door neighbour had been trying to buy the Generating Building for some time, when his solicitor, played by Christopher Letham (now a district judge) suggested bankrupting the not so young chappie as a means to obtaining the property. The neighbours, played by Peter and June Townley, went along with it. So it was that your council and the chappie's neighbours pooled resources to get rid of the perceived problem. The problem being, your council's officers had not been truthful to so many Committees, Courts and Inspectors - and might get found out.
It may very well be, that your council's official position concerning the non-history, which made other neighbours believe the Generating Building held no history. Imagine the shock when the building was mentioned on a Monument Protection Programme in 1999. Imagine the shock to the Parish Council - egg on faces and hypocrisies revealed! I would imagine the adjacent neighbour has a very good case for compensation. I'm sure he would not have considered litigating against the young chappie, had he known the true position.
However, the fact remains there was a cosy relationship between your council and the Townleys. Confidential council papers (privileged) were provided to the neighbour's solicitors. Apparently, your council did the same favour in the case of Mr de Rivaz (David Phillips again). The deal being that your council would obtain possession and sell the building at an undervalue to the neighbour. For this ruse to work, it was and is important to maintain the illusion, the Generating Building is still of no historic interest. I imagine, you will by now agree, an increasingly difficult task and a bit like trying to prove water flows uphill.
Having failed to gain entry to the Generating Buliding under warrant, on the occasion of the 181st site visit (May 2002), your upstanding officers, led by Christine Nuttall, then sought to obtain possession on High Court (September 2002) by virtue of a false statement, which of course backfired when the by now, wiser chappie, challenged the lies of Christine Nuttall. Your council withdrew unconditionally to save embarassment, in October 2002. Christine Nuttall finally got the boot, when she admitted the vendetta to Councillor Rupert Thornely-Taylor.
DUTY TO HISTORIC BUILT ENVIRONMENT
A difficult one this, because, according to English Heritage, it is the duty of your council to protect the historic built environment. Consequently, all the while you deny the history attaching to the building, which is unanimously agreed by all the experts, you are failing in your duty. This may of course attract another Judicial Review application, after other avenues are exhausted. A damn poor show and about time the shit hit the fan.
Your council was content to sit back and ignore their duties, but of course there was that Sussex Express front page article about the wise chappies website (the one you are reading now) Did you know the sites he manages attract over 3 million visits a month?
Your council allege libel, but in fact, I think you all know that the information on this site is true. Not only that, there is reams of evidence in support of the claims of all the contributors to this site. Whoops. Hardly an inducement to would be entreprenuers. Wealden is rapidly gaining the unenviable reputation as a lousy place to do business. Any business would need to be barking to consider such a move. For they are sure to run into those lovely planning officers with their medical conditions: amnesia convenientus and factus blindus.
I'm not too sure where you stand in all this? I'm bringing this matter to your attention, for the avoidance of doubt. It is the duty of every member to ensure their council is run correctly. It is also my right to lobby members and I should be able to reply on you to represent me. I fully appreciate many members may be out of their depth. I also realise that your officers will slime their way out of giving truthful answers to any questions you might pose. That is why I have provided all the links on this page to important documents. To enable you to see the salient facts.
The facts are these, your accounts reveal that your council spends £10,000 to £20,000 just to hide from the truths on this site. In not many months, this site will reach hundreds of thousands more people in Sussex, England and to date encompassing 76 countries across the globe. This site attracts about 70,000 readers a month at time of writing (25-3-06), due to rise to over 300,000 in the next month, about which I will keep you posted.
Accordingly, many more people will read about the corruption in the Wealden area. How do you suppose this will affect business people? Do you think they will seriously consider moving into an area rife with vendettas? What about the ordinary bloke in he street. Will he want to move into an area where it is difficult to gain permission to improve your home, or where businesses are frightened off by the rising cost of fending off unwarranted enforcement.
You probably thought a deal had been struck to defuse me? I'd guess you were told the matter was concluded, or that I'd been stitched up and shut up. The fact is an agreement was reached more than a year ago, based on drawing a line under all the mistakes swept under the bridge. That was the spirit of the agreement.
Sadly, it was not to be enacted. Last year, about February/March, I did my bit, but heard nothing further from you until August. I asked for an explanation. I am still asking for an explanation. Your officers denied receiving my letter last year, despite the fact I have a confirmed fax receipt. You will appreciate all the time I've wasted battling your council, I can never get back. That is why it was so very important to conclude the deal, to allow me to continue with the rest of my life without interference of any sort. Yet here we are again.
Worse still, a business opportunity has arisen, which your officers are now asking me to walk away from. Why, because this matter was meant to be concluded and history. I proceeded in good faith. Your officers are now suggesting, it will never be over. That at any time in the future they might decide to re-activate certain claims.
Not only is that not in the spirit of the agreement, it is not acceptable and never will be. It is also contrary to the Human Rights Act and is certainly every good reason why we should tango to the death - as it were. If this is how you want to play it, you will never be rid of me. I will be free of your claims various in a year, and I may well obtain damages, should I pull off the hat-trick your officers have been fearing for so long.
YOU TRAINED ME
Now, the not so young chappie, should really say thank you to all those poor amnesiacs for his rigorous training. Not many people get to rub shoulders with all those nice Inspectors and Judges. But, you'll never guess what? He's not in the slightest bit grateful. In fact, he's actually got the nerve to ask your council to compensate him for all the trouble you've caused. He claims to have been victimized and worse. He now says he will take whatever action to defend himself is appropriate, such action to prevent further damage to his person and to alleviate further unlawful interference in his private life.
IT'S UP TO YOU
This letter serves to put you on Notice as to the events, the whys and wherefores. As a member of this council I am entitled to lobby you. I am entitled to make you aware of your past failings. It is built into your constitution. I am asking you to look at the facts presented to you on this website, where necessary seek clarification and discuss the present situation with your fellow councilors and any officers you think may not be tainted.
Between you, you may be able to come up with a plan to head of the war that is about to begin. In any event, I hold every one of you personally liable, should this farce continue, regardless of any compensation I may finally be awarded.
In that event, I consider it is my public duty to expose the inner workings of your council. To look into your officer's affairs and to try and find evidence as to profit, that cannot be explained by a salary - favours and the like take many forms, property overseas, planning permissions, interest free loans, free holidays, etc. Any other conduct unbecoming of an officer of the council will also be the subject of scrutiny. To include conduct and interaction between members and officers. The findings will be published on this rapidly expanding cavas.
Should you believe it is not in the public interest to allow the injustice I have suffered to continue any longer. I would be pleased to hear from you, or any group or committee, as to any way of avoiding the impending war.
Nelson Kruschandl - VICTIM IN PERSON
This developing story is copyright, but the exclusive rights are negotiable for newspapers and TV, film or documentary companies. Wealden DC can't afford them.
COUNCILLORS SERVING IN 2017 INTO 2018
- Jo Bentley
- John Blake - Bob
Bowdler - Don Broadbent
- Norman Buck - Raymond Cade -
- Lin Clark
WHO IS SHAFTING WHO CHARLIE?
It is alleged that Mike Flemming was having an affair with another senior executive officer, Lesley Barakchizadeh. We will be contacting this council for comment in the coming months - no pun intended.
There are facts still to be clarified about other lady officers leaving their posts in unexplained circumstances, to include Sheelagh Douglas and Mary Clare Deane.
The facts are, that Ms Barakchizadeh was employed by Wealden District Council about two years ago, to replace Ashley Brown. Ms Barakchizadeh has now left the council, but the reason for this sudden departure are unclear. It is believed Mr Flemming's and Ms Barakchizadeh's was discovered in interesting circumstances - and the circumstances of the discovery, had everything to do with Ms Barakchizadeh's departure. Was she sacked and what was she sacked for?
We will be asking Charlie Lant, Wealden's Chief Executive, to comment on the above shortly.
There is also the matter of Ashley Brown and the enhanced pension, about we advised your council as to the legality of such an arrangement as per the letter below to Trevor Scott
Don't forget that Whistle-blowing protection is available to any person working for a local authority. You owe it to yourself, the tax payers and fellow workers to report any wrongdoing.
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated. Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts. However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided. All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide. Climate Change Trust.