Black was one of the planning officers working for the Wealden District
Council when they were doing all they could to come to terms with the
Report by Archaeology South East from 1999.
is alleged that Mr Kruschandl had a meeting with Mr Black at Wealden's
Hailsham offices when the citizen was told in no uncertain terms that he
could go on fighting for another 10 years if he wanted, the clear
inference being that this Council had no intention of letting a little
thing like the truth get in the way of their agenda since 1984 to ruin
the occupier of the generating buildings at Herstmonceux for so long as
he was the occupier.
must assume then that Mr Black was working with Ian
Kay, J D Moss and David
Phillips to that end, because that is where the evidence points.
Unless of course Mr Black would care to shed some light and tell his
side of the story - in confidence if you wish Mr Black. We are of course
hoping that you may blow the whistle
or confirm or deny receipt of some kind of financial package on leaving
WDC that may prevent disclosure?
BLACK - Former planning officer at Wealden District Council is now
working for Kember Loudon WIlliams where we hope that he is more helpful
to his clients than he appears to have been to Nelson Kruschandl when
they met in 2001. They were of course trying times and many recruits are
spoon fed information, rather than the whole picture.
letters out of a series of correspondence that included many officers
and councillors of Wealden
District Council are reproduced below with reference to PPG16 and
the need to consult with statutory consultees of which English Heritage
England) is one.
to his employers website, Julian Black (BSc(Hons) Dip(UrbDes) MRTPI is a
partner of their firm of planning experts who joined that company in
Black is said to have many years experience of both urban and rural planning within local
authorities, which must be the case, except that we do not known how
long he stayed at Wealden. This partner has worked on Local Plan policy preparation, covering urban and rural environmental.
His bias is for green belt, conservation and town centre redevelopments.
As you will see from the correspondence he was not quick to reply to a
member of the public concerning permitted development rights - and
please note that these rights have been increased considerably since the
introduction of the Climate
Change and Sustainable Energy Act 2006 and Climate
Change Act 2008.
Black has advised on Neighbourhood Plans, the evaluation of major residential, leisure and commercial developments, including town centres, business parks and industrial schemes.
ATT: Julian Black
FAX REF: 01323 443333
Senior Planning Officer
Wealden District Council
Hailsham, BN27 2AX
29 October 2001
Dear Mr Black
I write with reference to my letter to Mr Moss dated 11th October and Mr Brown’s letter in reply dated 12th October 2001.
Some 18 days have passed since I first wrote. I must admit to some confusion as to why the matter has been passed to you, presumably to further enquire of
Mr Barker your conservationist, Dr Morrice of
English Heritage or Dr Woodcock the County Archaeologist – as per the Government advice in PPG16. To assist, I have copied our recent correspondence to the above mentioned.
In the absence of any substantive reply or attempt at clarification duly requested within a reasonable timeframe, I must assume your Council have no objection or other comment regarding the proposed repair works.
I will however, allow a further 7 days for late comment, after which instructions will be given without further reference to yourselves for the commencement of repairs and after which commencement any retrospective action or comment from your Council in respect of the said repairs will be considered void where the opportunity to comment has been both presented and expired.
I intend to rely on this letter in all subsequent dealings involving these premises, where appropriate to include the Courts.
Nelson J Kruschandl
Cllrs: Blaxland, Brown,
Coltman, Hubbard, Gore,
ATT: Julian Black
FAX REF: 01323 443333
District Planning Officer
Wealden District Council
Hailsham BN27 2AX
3 November 2001
Dear Mr Black
Thank you for your letter dated 31st October 2001 received today.
I am disappointed that you appear not to have understood the request I have made. In respect of the historical confirmation I requested you appear now to require a planning application. However, your Council earlier advised in writing that permission was not required for works the subject of this request. I feel entitled to rely on the advice received to date. However, it is open to you to expand on your reasons for contradicting the advice I hold, which of itself may be the subject of
Review by reason of inconsistency.
I was also disappointed at the tone of your letter where the advice sought in respect of repairs is in fact clearly laid out in my original letter of enquiry addressed to Mr Moss dated 11th October 2001. I conclude therefore that you have not seen this letter enclosing a drawing identifying the area in question with reference to the 1999 Archaeological Survey, which I supplied complete copies of some time ago. Terms such as “allude” and “veiled threats” are hardly appropriate where a member of the public is simply seeking clarification and one wonders if such an attitude is normal or if an apology is in order?
I note a number of letters from your Council call for planning applications later shown to be unnecessary. If it is that your planning department is seeking to use officer time in line with best value practices, might I suggest you focus on my request rather than call into question the established “right to repair” with consequential additional delays and costs contrary to the advice in PPG1. In this regard you leave me no choice but to formally put you on Notice that I require full indemnity in respect of all costs arising from any Council led suggestion as to procedure later shown to be unnecessary where proposed works are in fact
permitted development and all other costs arising from delay.
All I requested of you is confirmation as to the status of the forward section of the building identified in the Report from a historical perspective. Or otherwise, a clear explanation (to include specialist interpretation) as to why your Council might disagree with the findings of the Survey, itself a specialist report.
You will note I helpfully copied all the correspondence to the County Archaeologist and English Heritage for comment so to prime the experts in anticipation you would want to contact them. English Heritage confirm by letter dated 29th October 2001 that this is a matter for your Council. I note PPG16 cites
English Heritage and the County Archaeologist as recommended consultees concerning historic buildings.
I am pleased that some 20 days after lodging this enquiry you are now prepared to action my original request expediently. Accordingly, and allowing you yet further time to study the Survey drawing referred to and where appropriate, after consultation as I suggested, I trust I can expect your most urgent reply.
I will be obliged if you will circulate this letter and any reply to the Members of the Standards Committee, after the representatives are elected and I look forward to hearing from you in the next 7 days please.
Nelson J Kruschandl
C.C. Cllrs: Blaxland,
Williams, Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black,
Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas
Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant
Trevor - Alcock
Charmain - Ditto - Arnold
Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh
Lesley - Black
Julian -Boakes Beverley
Barker - Brigginshaw
Marina - Brown
Ashley - Coffey
Patrick - Douglas
Sheelagh - Flemming
Mike - Goodwin
J - Holness
Derek - Hoy
Thomas - Johnson
Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay
- Lant Charles - Mercer
Richard - Mileman
Craig - Moss Douglas, J. - Nuttall
Christine - Phillips
David - Scarpa
Victorio - Scott
Trevor - Kevin Stewart
M. - Whibley David - White,
George - White Steve - Williams
Historic buildings and conservation areas - policy and procedures
PPG 15 advised local planning authorities on the treatment of historic buildings and the wider historic environment within the planning process. It was introduced in November 1990 following public outcry after a number of high-profile scandals such as the threatened destruction of the Rose Theatre in London by developers. It replaced the earlier Circular 8/87 which was criticised for being ill-focused in both practical and geographical terms. Circulars 01/2001 and 09/2005, which discuss arrangements for handling heritage applications and that amend the existing PPG 15: Planning and the historic environment, were published September 1994.
Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning commonly abbreviated as PPG 16, was a document produced by the UK Government to advise local planning authorities in England and Wales on the treatment of archaeology within the planning process. It was introduced in November 1990 following public outcry after a number of high-profile scandals such as the threatened destruction of the Rose Theatre in London by developers. It replaced the earlier Circular 8/87 which was criticized for being ill-focused in both practical and geographical terms. On 23 March 2010 the Government published 'Planning Policy Statement 5:Planning and the Historic Environment' replacing and
canceling PPG16 and PPG15 which had dealt with the rest of the historic environment.
The document advised that archaeological remains are a finite and irreplaceable resource and that their presence should be a material consideration in applications for new development. It accepted that development will affect archaeological deposits and that this effect must be mitigated. PPG 16 stressed the importance of the evaluation of a site for its archaeological potential in advance of development in order to inform future management decisions. This evaluation may involve non intrusive methods such as a desk-based study or archaeological geophysics and/or a more direct method such as trial trenching.
Following the results of the initial evaluation, PPG 16 offered two solutions for preserving any significant archaeological deposits found to be on a development site. The first, and explicitly preferred, method involves preservation in situ whereby the archaeology is left untouched beneath a new development through methods such as adaptation of foundation design and architectural layout of the proposed new development, or by raising the level of the development with made ground so that its foundations do not reach the archaeological horizon. Where nationally important remains are encountered this method of preservation is strongly preferred.
If preservation in situ is not feasible then PPG 16 permitted preservation by record. This involved archaeological fieldwork to excavate and record finds and features (thereby destroying them). This may involve a full excavation, further trenching in specific areas or an archaeological watching brief which involves an archaeologist monitoring
ground works for the new development and recording any finds or features revealed as construction continue.
Planning policy statement: consultation. Consultation paper on a new
planning policy statement 15: planning for the historic environment (DCLG,
2009); PPG 15: Planning and the historic environment (DETR, 1994) and
PPG 16: Archaeology and planning (DOE, 1990). To be read with PPS 5
planning for the historic environment: historic environment planning
practice guide and PPS 5: planning for the historic environment - impact
assessment (both DCLG, 2010). Superseded by National planning policy
framework (DCLG, 2012).
Kember Loudon Williams LLP
Ridgers Barn, Bunny Lane
Eridge, Tunbridge Wells
Kent TN3 9HA
T: 01892 750018
F: 01892 750019
Vicarage Lane, Hailsham,
East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892