IAN M. KAY
MOST WANTED - Of all the council officers we would most like to question under caution, this man is at the top of the list. He is known to have given information in person at a committee meeting to determine an application from his masonic father in-law - Bernard Best - it appears with the full cooperation of the officer sitting next to him: George White, even though George White knew (and it is on file that he knew) about the relationship of the applicant with his fellow officer. Ian Kay is known to have lied to an Inspector during the public inquiry into the application for a certificate of lawfulness by Mr Hudson. He was involved in the Steamhouse fraud (that is an ongoing matter) and finally he is known to have been involved in the Bushywood demolition and gave false testimony during the public inquiry in that case also.
The fact that we have uncovered these serious crimes and that there is a string of them, is surely enough to trigger a police investigation into Wealden's cozy relationships. The fact that inconvenient documents are still going missing, or being re-filed so that they can no longer be found by any investigating force - is in itself part of the ongoing cover up of their crimes, seeking to pervert the course of justice.
Ian Kay seems to have been with Wealden District Council since at least 1983, contrary to the recommendations of Lord Nolan not to let officers stay for more than 5 years so that they can build up cozy relationships with developers. If he did not mastermind the vendettas against Wealden Action Group (WAG) members, he was party to the conspiracies. We understand that Mr Kay lived in Rye but that he may have recently re-located to Eastbourne. There is no statute of limitations against perjury or procurement, hence, this is an ongoing and live investigation as to "historic" cases that Ian Kay handled in his career - none of which appear to have been investigated by the Sussex Police.
We hope that members of the public reading this page and the Public Prosecutor will agree that this is an extraordinary situation, unless that is, the police were party to the crimes - and if they are - well that adds to the curry-pot of corruption that we are slowly revealing.
We see no reason why historic sex cases and historic corruption cases might not receive the same level of attention in terms of obtaining prosecutions. The one big difference is that the law was rigged by David Blunkett so that a person accused of a sex crime is guilty until proven innocent, while a planning officer who lies through his teeth routinely is innocent until proven guilty. This inequality in the law means that police authorities will always choose to prosecute a sex offender over the blatant misuse of public office of a councillor, council officer or member of parliament.
What we need is a dedicated "Planning Fraud Squad" whose job it is to investigate institutional fraud. Only then will we be able to recover from the present housing crisis - as part of the drive toward a circular economy.
Where corrupt officers have been hindering public applications that should have been passed, it seems from the evidence that such tactics are designed to give favoured developers a chance to acquire these sites at very low prices. Once the acquisition has taken place, then as if a miracle, all of the previous objections evaporate, meaning that the new owners can profit from the uplift in property values and reward their co-conspirators.
In his defence, Ian could turn states evidence and avoid a prison sentence, if the prosecutor feels that it is worth cutting such a deal to convict the department heads who masterminded the planning blights that enabled land to be procured at give away prices - for their chums in the loop.
SANDCASTLES, 46 VAL PRINSEPS ROAD, PEVENSEY BAY - WD/87/3194
It is alleged that there is the matter of Ian Kay failing to declare an interest in relation to what was believed to be his father-in-laws' application under the above case reference number. If any officer (or member) fails to declare an interest, that is held to be procurement fraud. Procurement for any member of the public is illegal. Procurement for a family member is far worse. This is one of the temptations for officers of council's that they should steer clear of, but apparently not Mr Kay. We are following this developing story and hope to be able to report more of the facts as they are revealed.
Let us consider application WD/87/3194, that was allegedly tendered by Denis Bernard Best via his agent P G V Kenward. It has been alleged that Ian Kay was enthusiastically commentating on this application when a person explained the situation to a packed committee (including a public gallery of some 80+ objectors) chaired by Tom Woodward - words to the effect:
"Would it be appropriate for Mr Kay
to reveal his relationship with the applicant."
It is further alleged that once Ian Kay had been exposed by the person who for the moment wished to remain anonymous, the council officer hastily gathered up his notes and left the meeting. The point here is that if the member who raised this point had not spoken out, presumably, then Ian Kay would have continued to guide the members as to the details relating to what amounted to an application from a family member.
George White, a long-time colleague of Kay took over the commentary to the members once Ian Kay had departed the room. Once the meeting was over, Ian Kay virtually assaulted the member who spoke out. The Council's minutes were then written in such a way as to disguise the event and make it look as though there was no conspiracy and the Book to Record Interests has a tippex entry of that day. Fishy or what!
The other pertinent point is that Section 27 notices were known by the legal services manager, Victorio Scarpa to be incomplete. The then director of Technical Services, K D Tomlinson, knew from Ian Kay that this application was from his father in law. You will not be surprised to learn that this series of correspondence has disappeared from the files very recently (November 2016). And that is because a member of the Action Group has been trolling through the files on other matters and happened upon the relevant correspondence. This particular member of the public is closely followed by the administration staff. It is no coincidence that whatever he asks to see in return visits is no longer on the files. This is also a matter for Sussex Police to investigate.
It is a criminal offence to remove evidence or otherwise tamper with a public record (R v T) in anticipation of or to seek to avoid discovery - knowing that a police investigation could be brought. In the R v T case that was held to be a perversion of the Course of Justice.
The fact that this important evidence has gone missing has been reported to the Zurich Municipal Fraud Team, under Royal Mail signed for post, reference No: KK334072177GB.
A council may not proceed to decide a matter until the proper notice has been given to all of those who are known to have an interest in the land. If there is any doubt about land ownership, or if land is unregistered, an applicant must advertise the planning application in the local press. In the case of enforcement matters,
Zurich Insurance plc is a public limited company incorporated in Ireland. Registration No. 13460.Registered Office: Zurich House, Ballsbridge Park, Dublin 4, Ireland. The UK Branch is registered in England and Wales Registration No. BR7985. UK Branch Head Office: The Zurich Centre, 3000 Parkway, Whiteley, Fareham, Hampshire PO15 7JZ. Zurich Municipal is part of the Zurich Insurance Group, and one of the leading providers of risk and insurance solutions to Local Authorities, Schools, Charities and the Social Housing sector.
Zurich Insurance plc is authorised by Central Bank of Ireland and authorised and subject to limited regulation by the Financial Conduct Authority. Details about the extent of our authorisation by the
Financial Conduct Authority are available on request. Our FCA Firm Reference Number is 203093.
PERJURY & PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Not only would a council be guilty of fraud in cases where supportive evidence is suppressed, but any representation at a public inquiry that seeks to deny that such proof exists constitutes perjury on the part of any officer who seeks to hide the facts from a Planning Inspector or subsequently a judge in the High Court. In this regard Ian Kay is considered to be an officer of the courts, a trusted position where those officers need to be honest in order for the State to have a reliable justice system.
It is therefore vitally important that any wrongdoing on the part of a council or officer, is investigated by the local police authority - in this case (unfortunately for the victims) Sussex Police. We say that because we know from Mr Richard de Rivaz and other WAG complaints, that Sussex Police did not interview even one of the 12 who had petitioned Wealden for a full investigation into the deceptions being orchestrated by senior planning officers at that time.
COUNCIL OFFICIAL SAID: "MOVE YOUR HOME AND WE'LL SAVE YOUR STABLES"
February 26th 1997 - Ian Kay at the helm again, using his position of trust within WDC to bulldoze stables that were lawful at the time, and on appeal, held to be lawfully used. This council deliberately served documents near the Christmas holidays to undermine the rights of the owners Mr & Mrs Punter to a fair hearing. This council deliberately and with malice aforethought, demolished the subject buildings only days before their planning committee were due to hear a properly made planning application for a change of use. Once again, the objectives of demolition was to deprive the owners of the site of a fair hearing. This council, led by Ian Kay and Ashley Brown and Douglas Moss (the three most senior planning officers at the time) took it upon themselves to knock the buildings down with the intention of taking away the subject matter to be able to argue that their was no longer anything to argue about. On appeal, the Secretary of State confirmed that such strategy would not prevent him hearing an appeal. Begging the question, why destroy the property in the first place. There is only one conclusion, and that is that Wealden routinely conduct malicious campaigns against specific targets: those who stand up to question their authority.
SHADOW CRIME COMMISSIONER - MATTHEW TAYLOR
Sunday, 24 January 2016 - THREE NEW CASES TO SHAME SUSSEX POLICE...
THE FIRST STORY COMES FROM DAVID RUSSELL
THE SECOND STORY COMES FROM CHESTER HUDSON
September 11 1998 - Ian Kay at it again. A compulsive liar: "We would not go looking for one in this kind of case because the onus is on the appellant to prove the land use. We do not have to disprove it." That is of course not true. In this case as with many others, Ian Kay and his brother officers, in particular David Phillips, petitioned the members for funds to acquire aerial photographs for use in Certificate of Lawful or Existing Use or Development (CLEUD) applications, as was the case with Mr Hudson. There is absolute proof positive that Ian Kay "went looking" for an aerial photograph of Stream Farm. We have a copy of an aerial photograph of Stream Farm with Wealden's stamp on it. We also know that a photograph similar to the one below was returned to Ian Kay. He could only have had that photograph is he had gone looking for it. Mr Kay, really! How long do you think you can get away with your deceit. In our opinion, and based on the mounting body of evidence against you, you are a disgrace to your profession. You simply must be investigated and charged. As soon as we get an honest chief constable and an honest crime commissioner, that is bound to happen. How long then before we appoint honest officers to the positions that matter?
WHOOPS - Caught red-handed with his hand in the cookie jar. The picture above is clearly and aerial photograph. It is stamped by Wealden District Council. The hand written note on it states that it is a photograph of Steam Farm from 1987. It is one in a series of photographs, not just an isolated picture. This means that Wealden District Council had taken the time to acquire a set of photographs of this land, meaning that they went looking for these pictures - and the reason that they went looking for the pictures is explained by David Phillips is a report to SPED: because they find them useful in determining CLEUD applications. Wealden try to keep Reports secret, but every now and again a member of the public gets hold of a copy. Whose handwriting is on this picture and was she interviewed by Sussex Police? We understand that this may be the handwriting of Ms J Spice. Of course Ms Spice was not interviewed. The Sussex police would not want to prosecute (bite) the hand that (bribes) feeds them. What has Katy Bourne done about this? Nothing. What good is a Crime Commissioner who does not look into frauds? No good at all. The assumption based on her lack of performance, is that Katy is part and parcel of the problem. We need a new Crime Commissioner in Sussex. Stand down Katy, or put your votes where your mouth is - and investigate this case.
MARCH 22 2000 - In this report to the Strategic Planning % Economic Development Committee we can see from the dialogue that WDC have held aerial photographs on file since at least 1987. This ties in with the date on the photograph above of Stream Farm. David Phillips, author of the report also confirms that Geographical Information Services (GIS) is used "widespread" within the his council. That is rather at odds with Ian Kay's remarks to the Inspector during Mr Hudson's appeal. It is of course a criminal offence to give false or misleading information to a planning inquiry. You might be interested to know that WDC printed on these 'Report' documents: "Not To Be Taken Away." This is a violation of Article 10. It is a right to receive and impart information. In refusing to allow the public to take away reference material, the objective was to prevent members of the pubic from retaining evidence that would come back to haunt them. Fortunately, a member of the public who knew the stamp on the document was unlawful, kept a copy as evidence of that unlawfulness. Otherwise we would not have this document to be able to show you.
SPED REPORT DAVID PHILLIPS - You can clearly see on the next page that David Phillips is in control of this matter, and that he is the Implementation & Enforcement Manager. We have a positive proof set against Mr Phillips in his efforts to pervert the course of justice in another case. In that matter, he conspired with J Douglas Moss, to misrepresent the date attribute of a number of photographs in seeking an injunction in the High Court - against another Wealden Action Group (WAG) member. What is clear from these unrelated cases is that certain Wealden Council officers routinely work together to provide what amounts to fraudulent evidence before the courts. Be in no doubt here that these are extremely serious matters - about which more than one complainant is prepared to give evidence on oath to help the proper authorities secure convictions.
In order to demonstrate that your force showed an appropriate level of professional curiosity, would you please answer the following questions:-
DOESN'T THIS REMIND YOU OF ANOTHER FATEFUL LETTER?
THE THIRD (AND MOST DISTURBING) STORY COMES FROM JULIAN
“Matt could you tell me more about what child abuse was covered up and who was involved, it could be linked to my son's
murder. He was abused by paedophiles in Rye and his murder covered up as
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold, Patrick Coffey, Timothy Dowsett
Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant, Beverley Boakes, Kelvin Williams
The officers pictured above worked with Ian Kay on several cases, including the Bushy Wood demolition from where this website takes its name. Suspected war criminal, Tony Blair, was the prime minister for much of the time during which WAG frauds were committed. Douglas Moss, a senior planning officer also involved in the mix is not shown here, but is known to still be working for WDC, despite his perjury and assisting David Phillips to commit perjury in the High Court, with reference to an Affidavit sworn by David Phillips in an attempt to get another WAG member struck down for costs and more. That makes Mr Moss and Mr Phillips co-conspirators in the falsification of evidence. Hence, they were involved in a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. It remains to be seen who else in Wealden Council's offices were involved in this matter?
The objective in gaining costs awards is to blight the land and in some cases, bankrupt the land owner to be able to scoop it up at bargain basement prices and transfer ownership at an undervalue, typically to a well connected neighbour as a favour.
PROCEEDS OF CRIME - Council officers who tow the party line are not only highly paid civil servants, but also stand to benefit from their involvement with underhanded dealings in planning consents in other geographical regions where there may be a "you scratch my back, and we'll scratch yours" arrangement. On the other hand, it could be that insider knowledge can be used legitimately to obtain consents for houses in the country such as this nice little retreat in an out of the way location, that might be termed green belt to the man in the street. If a council officer is paid cash for favours or receives 'in-kind' inducements for what amounts to fraudulent or even insider dealing and they are convicted, their assets could be seized by way of proceeds of crime. Is it worth it? Yes, power corrupts. It always will and those in positions of power will sometimes be tempted - because they know that others in their ring of power will protect them when the brown stuff hits the fan.
Ian Kay, Iden, East Sussex
- A message posted by Ian Kay ... Black Cat Found - 28th August 2014
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that he knows is relevant to a hearing, that is termed misfeasance in public office. Where an officer then tries to cover up his or her misfeasance (as did Ian Kay in the Stream Farm matter), that becomes malfeasance. The difference is that misfeasance is a civil wrong, whereas malfeasance is a criminal offence. The leading case precedent on malfeasance is: R. v Bowden 1995 Court of Appeal (98 1 WLR).
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
LINKS & REFERENCE
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.