Kirstie Leighton is one of the principle solicitors working for Wealden District Council in 2019.
According to the Law Society's website:
is a Solicitor Admitted as a solicitor on 01/09/09.
Leighton's areas of practice are:
As you might imagine from her Twitter pages and her work for BBC's Children in Need, Kirstie appears to enjoy helping those who are disadvantaged, and coming from Portsmouth, possibly a good pint.
From her experience working for councils, Kirstie must also understand that she owes the electorate a Duty to be Reasonable and to help Wealden to become an Effective Administration, where there have been numerous violations of local citizens human rights and quite a bit of impropriety in the favours for mates department.
Ms Leighton must uphold the aims and objectives of the Government and Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, as reflected in her employer's agenda's (the lawful ones), such as the Climate Change Act 2008, now amended by the 2019 Order.
Where her Council have now declared a climate emergency, she must seek to reduce Wealden's carbon footprint. That means revising the old rules where greenhouse gas emissions did not matter, to carve new policies that are designed to improve the efficiency of this local authority, to recycle old buildings and improve the working conditions for people in the Wealden District, such as ensuring that facilities like toilets, showers and canteens, as required by the Health & Safety Regulations 1992, are enjoyed by those on Industrial Estates such as those units at Hackhurst Lane.
to her Linkedin profile ...Kirstie Leighton MIoL
from Portsmouth, United Kingdom with 209 connections
Readers might be interested to learn about the conduct of other solicitors' while working @ Wealden DC:
STANDARD TREES - Wealden forced the demolition of buildings at this tree farm on the A22, sited on the opposite side of the road to Hackhurst Lane. It appears that Wealden's planning department had an agenda to prevent development on the south side of the road, just as with the stables they demolished on the A22. Roger Brown (deceased) was the entrepreneur who fought Wealden, paid costs that should never have arisen, and then reinstated the buildings that David Phillips and his chums forced him to take down, such as to comply with the Health & Safety Regulations. It seems to be a recurring theme, that this Council are responsible for creating unnecessary litigation and legal costs in forcing the removal of buildings that would be a permitted development, or would be granted planning consent. Think about how much greater is the carbon footprint of the Wealden geographical region, compared to other more sensible councils.
COUNCIL OFFICIALS SAID: "MOVE YOUR HOME AND WE'LL SAVE YOUR STABLES"
February 26th 1997 - THEY LIED
BUSHYWOOD DEMOLITION - A planning application was lodged with the Secretary of State and due to be heard, but Ian Kay and Victorio Scarpa had other plans, no doubt guided by Ashley Brown and the then chief executive officer, most likely Derek Holness. Wealden decided to send in the bulldozers and argue that the Appeal to the Secretary of State should not be heard. The Secretary of State disagreed, deciding to hear the appeal by way of a Public Inquiry, after which he declared that the case was proven, and the stables should be rebuilt. The Inspector also awarded costs to the appellants which the Council made no effort to pay. They also showed no remorse as to their Gestapo like and most underhanded tactics. The real reason for which was that they did not like the previous owner, Gordon Worcester, and they did not like Michael and Valerie Punter.
This case set a precedent, in that if any council enforces and loses at appeal, they run the risk of having to pay costs to any appellant. Not only will costs be payable, but also damages for unreasonable behaviour. It is of course procedural madness - and an abuse of process - to order a demolition when a live appeal (or application) has yet to be decided.
ANNE HARRIS - Anne Harris was/is a farmer who suffered the most outrageous threatening and abusive behavior from her landlord of many years ago. It was the duty of Wealden DC to protect her from harassment, but this Council refused to use their powers to intervene, instead, siding with the landlord to reign a campaign of enforcement litigation onto the vulnerable lady farmer, in an attempt to force her from her land at Hackhurst Lane, near Hailsham in East Sussex. This left the farmer to fend for herself in the civil courts, when Judge Kennedy finding for the Claimant said it was the worst case of harassment to come before him. A sad indictment of the local authority and their refusal to use their powers.
WEALDEN'S OFFICERS FROM 1983 TO 2018
MISFEASANCE & MALFEASANCE
When an officer of the courts omits to include evidence that they know 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), where police constable Bowden failed in his duty to protect a member of the public.
That failure is now extended to cover any failure to protect the financial interests of any member of the public, where it is the duty of council officers under Section 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 - and this includes failing to do something as well as not doing it correctly. This means telling the truth about historic buildings and upholding the right of any person to seek to comply with the Climate Change Act 2008.
Attempting to bankrupt anyone, obtain information for third parties or devalue land for the eventual benefit of near neighbours or local property developers, is of course an abuse of process and a violation of the trust that is placed in any civil servant in a position of trust, such as with Kirstie Leighton. We imagine that Ms Leighton has no intention of allowing her Council to tread the path of some of her forebears and are most certainly not leveling any such accusation at her.
If you suffer injustice from another officer of this Council, don't bother going to Sussex Police with any evidence, they are more than likely in on it.
POTTY TRAINING - Using a potty correctly may be a new skill for your planning team to learn if they keep missing the bowl or forgetting to flush, or maybe even fumble the paperwork. Being patient and firm with them will help them get it right eventually, even if they sometimes feel frustrated. They should be taught that every person is entitled to a toilet no matter how much their legal team are out to harm a challenging member of the public - and yes we know how irritating it is to be caught out consistently by some members of the public - and yes of course that makes you hate that/those members of the public more - leading you into trying another dirty trick. But will that lead to more spillages?
So, if you are going to plan a
vendetta, hoping to harass someone to vacate Wealden land for the benefit
of someone else locally, be sure that
you don't get caught with your trousers down, forget to flush, or even
pull your trousers up too soon. Be careful to stay in the groove by
following statute to the letter and don't hope that all Judges or
Inspectors will turn a blink eye with a funny
handshake - there are many who are not members and these are the
airings that are sure to come back to haunt you to reveal what
you did and why you did it. Sleep safe at night by doing the right
thing. Do not try to deprive anyone of their state granted rights and
don't forget to put
the lid down after use.
LINKS & REFERENCE
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
- 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.