LORD (RICHARD) NEWTON
Ex Cllr Lord (Richard) Newton - we could not find a single photograph of the gentleman anywhere. Online, it's as though he never existed. If you want a nice picture or yourself published on this page, please supply one, or forever hold your peace.
Title: Leader of the Council 2002
Lord Newton was a Leader of Wealden District Council and a Conservative Party member. He is famous for being on the Panel of a special group headed up to investigate the allegations of 12 members of the public who said that officers of this council were acting in criminal fashion. Lord Newton was not the leader of this council at that time, but it appears that he later became leader.
The twelve informants were all members of the Wealden Action Group, an organization that was formed when individual members of the public realised that they were not the only ones being treated unfairly by this council.
The Panel decided that the allegations were of such a serious nature that they elected not to look at the complaints, but to refer them to the Sussex Police.
You'd expect that a matter so serious that a Panel of Wealden councilors had to refer the matter for investigation as being outside of their remit, that the Sussex Police would then investigate the matter with great care and diligence. You'd expect that each informant would be interviewed and asked to provide evidence to support their complaints. So would we.
But, the Sussex Police did not contact even one of the informants. No statements were taken. Nothing was done that might constitute an investigation of 12 criminal separate allegations, involving serious and deliberate planning blight. Planning blight being a method used by corrupt councils to reduce the value of land or property. I.e. causing a financial loss.
Instead, working with the council rather than seeking to protect the members of the public, it is alleged that this force supplied Derek Holness (then Chief Executive) with stationery on which he might draft what his council would like to see by way or rebuttal.
This information came to us from Richard de Rivaz and then Councillor Brian West, who both attended Hailsham Police Station at Deer Paddock (Cllr West as a witness) and were told by Inspector Peter Coll how it was that letter came to be formulated. Richard is a specialist mediator:
Councillor West is now retired and there are potential conflicts that might prevent him revealing what he knows as a past Mason.
PANEL MEMBERS - Jack Gore and Eddie Powell, were also on the Petition Panel, Mr Gore was forced to apologise for failing to declare an interest in Framfield and did not stand again, paving the way for Ann Newton to be elected.
It is thought that Raymond Parsons read out whatever was agreed between Sussex Police and Derek Holness, most probably he believing that the complaints of the 12 members of the public had been properly investigated.
We've never heard of the police doing a deal with the suspect in case. This must be a first.
When questions were asked about this incident, Derek Holness retired as chief executive. Now that may just have been a coincidence. But when the same questions were asked of the successive chief executive, Lesley Barakchizadeh, she resigned almost immediately, not even stopping to work out her notice. Do you think that is suspicious? We do.
This matter has not been investigated by the Sussex Police or any outside force.
There is a procedure laid down for investigating crimes that are reported to the police. This procedure was not adhered to, which is misfeasance in public office.
Clearly if the Sussex Police failed to conduct an investigation as set out in their guidance, then that omission of itself constitutes a criminal act as per Section 4 (2) of the Fraud Act 2006, seen below.
THE LORD NEWTON is a recipient of farm subsidies in Lewes, United Kingdom. Since 1999 THE LORD NEWTON has received €312,391 in payments from the European Union. Details of payments & Year Scheme Totals:
WASTE SITES & CONFLICT OF INTEREST
According to another of the complainants, a farmer from Upper Dicker, within 3 months of the publication of the Panels report, which she believed saved the officers of W.D.C. Planning Dept. from the criminal prosecutions there would have been if there had been a proper independent investigation to discover if decision rigging was as it seemed, the short list of development sites for Sussex waste tips was finalised.
Three of the four proposed new land raise sites were within a mile of each other between Golden Cross & Halland. All three were clearly unsuitable but two of the three were absolutely ridiculous in her opinion.
Site One. Upwind of, and directly adjacent to, a large residential caravan site next to an airstrip & accessed by a long narrow lane from a dangerous turning off the A22.
Site Two. On a site designated ancient protected woodland with 5 separate owners, access off a blind corner off the A22 down a very narrow lane.
Site Three. Upwind ( but half a mile away ) from East Hoathly good safe road access from East Hoathly by-pass. Site owned by Lord Newton, purchased shortly after he became Chairman of W.D.C. Strategic Planning & Economic Development Committee ( S.P.E.D. ).
Lord Newton announced that he would, because of conflict of interest, stand down from the Chair of S.P.E.D at once, & would not be standing as a Councillor again when his term was up in May 1998.
The farmer 'phoned a national waste management company & discovered that the short listed sites would be worth approximately £1
million (& his firm was very interested ) and that depending on capacity
and expenses with environmental/access requirements the site selected might eventually be worth £10m or more.
Where Councillor Lord Newton later resigned due to a conflict of interests. We would like to hear more about that from The Lord Newton himself, as it appears that he may have been forced to resign by the officers, who perhaps were not getting their way again and forced him out. It could of course be that Newton had outlived his usefulness and was asking awkward questions.
It is not suggested that Lord Newton was in any way involved in the way this matter was handled by the Sussex Police and officers of Wealden DC after the Panel had declared themselves unable to investigate. What is worthy of investigation is the way that the Panel chaired by Lord Newton decided what they could and could not investigate. Lord Newton made a report in February 1998 which found 61 complaints beyond his Panel's remit, a remit that he himself helped to craft.
As a result of this first petition signed by 12 - people who felt they had been damaged by these practices - being publicised in the press and on T.V., a further 30 people came forward wishing to be included in any such independent investigation. These second petitioners mainly wanted to give evidence of decision rigging for the benefit of third parties, most had no personal involvement other than local knowledge which allowed them to realise that factual information supplied by W.D.C officers was false or that material facts had been suppressed in order to ensure that decisions went according to officer recommendation. Lord Newton was appointed along with two other councillors to assess whether there was need for an independent investigation.
Legal advice was sought by both Lord Newton and the officers. Counsel's opinion is sure to have been paid for from public funds to protect the officers and the Council, but neither the advice given nor the advice sought was made available to the public or even to the elected Members. It is alleged that two of the second petitioners wanted to draw attention to a series of very valuable planning permissions given to a private enterprise in which Lady Newton had an interest.
Entrance to Laughton Park Farm (left) and public footpath (right)
FRAUD ACT 2006
Section 4 - Fraud by abuse of position [such as a planning or police officer]
(1) A person is in breach of this section if he —
dishonestly abuses that position, and
intends, by means of the abuse of that position—
to make a gain for himself or another, or
to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.
(2)A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an
omission rather than an act.
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
COUNCILLORS SERVING IN 2017 INTO 2018
- Jo Bentley
- John Blake - Bob
Bowdler - Don Broadbent
- Norman Buck - Raymond Cade -
- Lin Clark
FAIR USE NOTICE
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.