Nuttall was one of the more persistent solicitors working for the Wealden District
Council at the time of the demolition of
the Bushy Wood animal sanctuary buildings and the fraudulent
presentations to Committee members that resulted in enforcement against
the Old Steam House monument.
She no longer works for Wealden
pushed for removal of all toilet, washing and canteen facilities, seeing a
High Court injuction from Mrs
Justice Steel in 1997, but her hopes of making Nelson
Kruschandl defecate in the grounds and piss in the hedges in Lime Park
were dashed by Dame
Butler-Sloss on appeal, when it was agreed that once the Order of Mrs
Justice Steel had been obeyed, that toilet facilities could be
re-installed to comply with Health & Safety Regulations. Strange that
Mrs Nuttall did not know about the right of every person to basic
sanitation. We think she knew all along because of a similar case
involving Roger Brown along the A22, but
just chose to treat Mr Kruschandl like a second class citizen, she was so
obsessed by being proven wrong that she would be bound to go to almost any
lengths to cover up the fraudulent misrepresentation that was the appeals
Dannreuther in 1987 and Raymond
Michael in 1997.
- Here is a letter that says a great deal without saying much at all. It
is though clear that Christine admits to not fully understanding the legal
position, but what happens in a few years time suggests that she did fully
understand what Mr Kruschandl was saying. It all goes back to the Four
Year Rule (FYR) as per sections 87 and 88 of the Town and Country
Planning Act 1971 (reproduced below for your enjoyment). Mrs Nuttall and
her team knew that because of the FYR and the Crown Court case before Judge
T D Clay, that even with barrister Price Lewis representing her
Council (taking instructions from Hibbit & Sanders, Wishdown, Wadhurst,
East Sussex, TN5 6HN) that Nelson Kruschandl had proven that the 1986 enforcement
notice was irretrievably defective.
Dannreuther could not and did not seek to remedy the defective notice
because he did not know about the plan irregularities until after deciding
to hear the Appeal in the Councils Hailsham offices. Having made that
decision and correcting a minor phrasing issue, he took evidence on oath
from Thomas Hoy and George
White and then after a short break for refreshments, the parties met
on site in Herstmonceux.
the site visit the Inspector did not notice that there were other
buildings not included included in the notice but also got confused by the
rendered coal bunker that he took to be the concrete tool store. Whereas,
there was a bomb shelter built of bricks not included on the plans and
also an underground chamber, also built of bricks, where both of these
units were used for residential accommodation and were equipped for that
the Crown Court appeal in 1988, a nosey neighbour who turned out to be a
friend of Raymond Dannreuther, both being ex-servicemen previously living
in the Bexhil/Hastings area, gave evidence that he must have known was
misleading to the tribunal and with the intention of deceiving the Court. Peter
Townley of the Old Rectory gave evidence on oath in the Lewes Crown
Court to the effect that he has seen the underground chamber flooded,
suggesting that because of this it could not be used. The appellant called
other witnesses to show that the flood was on one rare occasion, but that
these units were routinely dry and fitted with bunks, lighting and other
living facilities. In addition, many other people knew that the appellant
lived in these buildings - and that they predated the occupation by Mr
Kruschandl by some 42 years and 80+ years respectively, where they were a
World War Two precaution and a part of the extant generating complex.
in all the Council's case was a complete cock-up and knowing that Mr
Kruschandle would make good use of the finding, Mrs Nuttall, as a
solicitor, knew that the only chance her Council had of obtaining an
injunction to in some measure remedy the defective notice that was a
nullity in law, was to seek fresh restrictions on use, nursing the lie
about the origins of the station and calling it a garage/store instead of
what it really was. If the High Court Judges, or Inspector Dannreuther had
known the truth of the matter - we feel sure that they would have been
looking to grant consent for the domestic use applied for in 1986 and seen
to it that conditions as to appearance would take of other matters raised
as objections. It was after all the Duty of the State to protect historic
officers of this council were also party to the deception over a
prolonged period of time, designed to deprive the occupier of the
buildings a beneficial use in 1986, with the unlawful suggestion that
that buildings would be better in the ownership of neighbors in Lime
of you will know that such discrimination is unlawful, according to the
European Convention of Human
Rights, and of course our own Human Rights
Act 1998 under Article 8. Sadly, Wealden District Council ignored European law, and only
modified their behaviour to try to get away from past misdeeds in
2000, when the HRA 98 was enacted in the UK.
2014 this council refused to correct their records, then a subject of a
Data Subject complaint to the Information
Graham. But the Local
Land Charges Act 1972 applied back in 2001 as much as it applied
will bring you more on this unresolved saga in the coming months. You
will not be surpised to learn that Mrs Nuttall has never apologized for
her appalling behavior and has not tried to dignify any of her actions
with any kind of explanation. The concerted efforts of herself and her co-conspirators
is the sort of story one might have expected of the Gestapo
in World War Two, not something you would expect to come across in Britain
after fighting two world wars.
Shame on you Christine.
COUNCILS - Making councils obey the law of the land is incredibly
difficult where institutionalized discrimination is rife and there are too
many vested interests for them to be able to do the right thing. We need
then to look at how we train animals not to foul our houses, for guidance
on how to treat officers and members that are well versed in controlling
development to suit their pockets, rather than the pocket of all those
young families that cannot afford to live.
ATT: Christine Nuttall FAX TO: 01892 602222
Solicitor & Legal Services Manager
Wealden District Council
14 August 2001
Dear Mrs Nuttall
I am surprised to learn that you intend seeking yet another Opinion where it seems the Council have obtained no less than 3 Opinions since October 2000 and there have been a number of officer meetings on the subject at a cost to the ratepayer of £4,847.45.
Please advise what further action you intend to take and as requested the timetable for such action.
If as you say you believe I owe the Council sums, then I hope you will agree it is not reasonable for the Council to delay pursuing the matter.
For my part I do not accept that I owe the Council the sums it claims, which may be dealt with by way of
counterclaim as you are aware and on Notice.
If I do not hear from you within the next 14 days, I intend to rely on this letter for the purpose of the Courts.
Nelson J Kruschandl
Cllrs: Ainslie, Coltman
Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black,
Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold
Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas
Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
Trevor - Alcock
Charmain - Ditto - Arnold
Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh
Lesley - Paul Barker - Bending
Julian - Boakes Beverley - Bradshaw
Clifford - Brigginshaw
Marina - Brown
Ashley - Coffey
Patrick - Douglas
Dowsett Timothy - Flemming
Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett
Martyn - Goodwin Daniel
- Henham J - Holness
Thomas - Johnson
Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay
- Barbara Kingsford - Lant Charles - Mercer
Mileman Niall - Moon
Craig - Moss Douglas, J. - Nuttall
Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips
David - Scarpa
Victorio - Scott
Kevin Stewart - Wakeford
M. - Whibley David - White,
George - Williams
Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White
two pictures were saved from Google Maps. They are in the same orientation
as the site plan above, north is at the top, south at the bottom and so
on. We are using the corner of The Old Rectory as the reference
point - or baseline. The left picture is untouched. The right picture has
the position of buildings on the appeal site plan shown in red. You can
plainly see that the block Wealden refer to as a "Garden Tool
Store" is a bare patch of grass covered land. It is also plain that
there are other buildings on this site that are not covered by the
enforcement site plan, so immune from enforcement. In 1988 the Judge
looking at this information (obviously no Google Maps at the time) found
in favour of Mr Nelson Kruschandl, in that a substantial building to the
north-east that was used for accommodation is not covered by any
enforcement notice. Since that time another substantial building has been
added to the west for accommodation, that is also immune from enforcement. This fact is also
plain from these pictures.
your way out of that one Mrs Nuttall. We know you are good with thick
pens. We also know that somebody in Wealden is pretty handy with Tipp-Ex
correction fluid on the register of interests.
- We heard about the blank fax you are alleged to have sent to run an
opponents machine out of paper, before sending a real fax that would have
been stored in memory. Is that true. Was this you or another civil servant
at Wealden? Maybe you don't recall any of this. Please let us know either
way if you have a moment.
& COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1971
Section 87 Power to serve enforcement notice
(1 )Where it appears to the local planning authority that there has been a breach of planning control after the end of 1963, then, subject to any directions given by the Secretary of State and to the following provisions of this section, the authority, if they consider it expedient to do so having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material considerations, may serve a notice under this section (in this Act referred to as an " enforcement notice ") requiring the breach to be remedied.
(2) There is a breach of planning control if development has been carried out, whether before or after the commencement of this Act, without the grant of planning permission required in that behalf in accordance with Part III of the Act of 1962 or Part III of this Act, or if any conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted have not been complied with.
(3) Where an enforcement notice relates to a breach of planning control consisting in—
(a) the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land ; or
(b) the failure to comply with any condition or limitation which relates to the carrying out of such operations and subject to which planning permission was granted for the development of that land ; or
(c) the making without planning permission of a change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse,
it may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach.
(4) An enforcement notice shall be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates and on any other person having an interest in that land, being an interest which in the opinion of the authority is materially affected by the notice.
(5) Where planning permission has effect subject to a condition to which section 82 of this Act applies, and by reason of anything done in a particular part of a building that condition is contravened, any enforcement notice relating to the contravention shall be taken to be served on the owner and on the occupier of the land to which it relates if it is served on the owner and on the occupier of that part of the building, whether it is also served on any other person or not.
(6) An enforcement notice shall specify—
(a) the matters alleged to constitute a breach of planning control;
(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 or (according to the particular circumstances of the breach) of securing compliance with the conditions or limitations subject to which planning permission was granted; and
(c) the period for compliance with the notice, that is to say the period (beginning with the date when the notice takes effect) within which those steps are required to be taken.
(7) The steps which may be required by an enforcement notice to be taken include the demolition or alteration of any buildings or works, the discontinuance of any use of land, or the carrying out on land of any building or other operations.
(8) Subject to section 88 of this Act, an enforcement notice shall take effect at the end of such period, not being less than twenty-eight days after the service of the notice, as may be specified in the notice.
(9) The local planning authority may withdraw an enforcement notice (without prejudice to their power to serve another) at any time before it takes effect; and, if they do so, they shall forthwith give notice of the withdrawal to every person who was served with the notice.
Section 88 Appeal against enforcement notice
(1) A person on whom an enforcement notice is served, or any other person having an interest in the land may, at any time within the period specified in the notice as the period at the end of which it is to take effect, appeal to the Secretary of State against the notice on any of the following grounds—
(a) that planning permission ought to be granted for the development to which the notice relates or, as the case may be, that a condition or limitation alleged in the enforcement notice not to have been complied with ought to be discharged ;
(b) that the matters alleged in the notice do not constitute a breach of planning control;
(c) in the case of a notice which, by virtue of section 87(3) of this Act, may be served only within the period of four years from the date of the breach of planning control to which the notice relates, that that period has elapsed at the date of service ;
(d) in the case of a notice not falling within paragraph (c) of this subsection, that the breach of planning control alleged by the notice occurred before the beginning of 1964;
(e) that the enforcement notice was not served as required by section 87(4) of this Act;
(f) that the steps required by the notice to be taken exceed what is necessary to remedy any breach of planning control;
(g) that the specified period for compliance with the notice falls short of what should reasonably be allowed.
(2) An appeal under this section shall be made by notice in writing to the Secretary of State, which shall indicate the grounds of the appeal and state the facts on which it is based; and on any such appeal the Secretary of State shall, if either the appellant or the local planning authority so desire, afford to each of them an opportunity of appearing before, and being heard by, a person appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.
(3) Where an appeal is brought under this section, the enforcement notice shall be of no effect pending the final determination or the withdrawal of the appeal.
(4) On an appeal under this section—
(a) the Secretary of State may correct any informality, defect or error in the enforcement notice if he is satisfied that the informality, defect or error is not material;
(b) in a case where it would otherwise be a ground for determining the appeal in favour of the appellant that a person required by section 87(4) of this Act to be served with the notice was not served, the Secretary of State may disregard that fact if neither the appellant nor that person has been substantially prejudiced by the failure to serve him.
(5) On the determination of an appeal under this section, the Secretary of State shall give directions for giving effect to his determination, including, where appropriate, directions for quashing the enforcement notice or for varying the terms of the notice in favour of the appellant; and the Secretary of State may—
(a) grant planning permission for the development to which the enforcement notice relates or, as the case may be, discharge any condition or limitation subject to which planning permission for that development was granted;
(b) determine any purpose for which the land may, in the circumstances obtaining at the time of the determination, be lawfully used having regard to any past use thereof and to any planning permission relating to the land.
(6) In considering whether to grant planning permission under subsection (5) of this section, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan, so far as material to the subject-matter of the enforcement notice, and to any other material considerations; and any planning permission granted by him under that subsection may—
(a) include permission to retain or complete any buildings or works on the land, or to do so without complying with some condition attached to a previous planning permission;
(b) be granted subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State thinks fit;
and where under that subsection he discharges a condition or limitation, he may substitute another condition or limitation for it, whether more or less onerous.
(7) Where an appeal against an enforcement notice is brought under this section, the appellant shall be deemed to have made an application for planning permission for the development to which the notice relates and, in relation to any exercise by the Secretary of State of his powers under subsection (5) of this section, the following provisions shall have effect—
(a) any planning permission granted thereunder shall be treated as granted on the said application ;
(b) in relation to a grant of planning permission or a determination under that subsection, the Secretary of State's decision shall be final; and
(c) for the purposes of section 34 of this Act, the decision shall be treated as having been given by the Secretary of State in dealing with an application for planning permission made to the local planning authority.
(8) On an appeal under this section against an enforcement notice relating to anything done in contravention of a condition to which section 71 or 82 of this Act applies, the Secretary of State shall not be required to entertain the appeal in so far as the appellant claims that planning permission free from that condition ought to be granted.
(9) Schedule 9 to this Act applies to appeals under this section, including appeals under this section as applied by regulations under any other provision of this Act.
& COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990
171B Time limits.
(1) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the carrying out without planning permission of building, engineering, mining or other operations in, on, over or under land, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date on which the operations were substantially completed.
(2) Where there has been a breach of planning control consisting in the change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of four years beginning with the date of the breach.
(3) In the case of any other breach of planning control, no enforcement action may be taken after the end of the period of ten years beginning with the date of the breach.
(4) The preceding subsections do not prevent—
(a) the service of a breach of condition notice in respect of any breach of planning control if an enforcement notice in respect of the breach is in effect; or
(b) taking further enforcement action in respect of any breach of planning control if, during the period of four years ending with that action being taken, the local planning authority have taken or purported to take enforcement action in respect of that breach.
4 - Fraud by abuse of
position [such as a planning or police officer]
A person is in breach of this section if he —
(a) occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,
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.
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
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892