COUNCILLOR BRIAN HUBBARD

  Council members who fail to investigate fraud are not doing the job they were elected to do, and become party to institutionalised conspiracy to hide the truth - a breach of the Fraud Act 2006.

Councillor Brian Hubbard (no picture published)

Councillor Hubbard chaired the area plans south committee in March of 2000 when the subject of The Old Steam House came up for review, the Steam House being the then name for the old generating buildings dating from C. 1900, now a virtual museum.

You can read the transcript of this meeting that was at the time sent to every member of the planning committee concerned as a recording that played like a normal music CD.

The then occupier of the Old Steam House wrote to several members of this Council in between planning applications, hoping to kindle some spark of common sense in them, to no avail. Yes, the correspondence worked to shake loose Christine Nuttall and David Phillips, but Doug Moss still works at Wealden as at 2018 - and he was one of the worst offenders, duping Inspector Raymond Michael in 1997.

At one area plans south committee meeting, Nelson Kruschandl openly recorded the meeting of the 14th September 2000 with the media present. This had the effect of bringing the meeting to a halt when Vic Scarpa noticed the recorder and brought the meeting to a halt.

The Council's rule was that there should be no recordings and that Agenda papers should not be removed. Both of these rules were illegal in that it was not plain maladministration (misfeasance in public office) it was one of their rules to prevent anyone comparing grants of permission given to one person, to refusal to another. Hence, disguising the manipulation of the system by the officers and favours (grants of consent) to others.

The challenge by Mr Kruschandl had the effect of forcing Wealden land to comply with Article 10. Later, Anne Haig-McVitty challenged the rule preventing removal of papers, when the wording on the stamp on every agenda was changed from:

"Do not remove these papers"

to:

"Members of the Public are encourage not to remove the Agenda Papers"

In a digital age where the Human Rights Act 1998 was in force, why would any council not want papers removed? Transparent local government was not on Wealden's agenda!

CONTACT COLONEL HUBBARD

Cllr Col. B M P Hubbard 
4 Hillside 
East Dean
East Sussex BN20 0HE

Nelson Kruschandl - Is he a victim of institutionalized discrimination?

Dear Councillor Colonel Hubbard,

As a member of a council responsible for a great many historic towns and villages, and also caretaker of the public purse, could I ask you to be especially vigilant against maladministration within the Wealden District Council.

It is my experience that your council has allowed some departments to run riot with taxpayers money.  Some officers have used council resources for their own goals and as a playground for acts of impropriety.  Sometimes to cover up mistakes, and other times to pursue agendas for profit or personal ambitions and desires.

You were elected to serve the community, not the officers.  You were elected to run the council to the best of your ability, after consideration of the issues that matter.  It is your duty to conserve the historic built and natural environments.  It is also your duty to seek to secure adequate services, education, policing and health care.

These are particularly difficult times, where public funding is under scrutiny against local issues and terrorism and global warming are serious international issues that should be targeted for spending, rather than waste money pursuing lost causes.

Even as I write, identified international dangers are looming and if allowed to escalate unchecked, may put our country and indeed the world as we know it at risk.  We can all play our part by doing what we do to the best of our ability.

If we run a tight ship with a clear desk, when something important finds its way on our laps, we will be better able to deal with it.  We must conserve our energies for fights that matter.

I would be very interested to learn what sustainable policies your council, and your political party are putting in place, and if you agree whatever has been proposed is effective. I should also like to know if you support the current policies or oppose them?

As a resident of East Sussex, I am relying on you to do the right thing for your district.  As an inhabitant of planet earth I am relying on you to keep your eye on broader issues and play your part on the international team that is the human race.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message and I look forward to hearing from you in the near future, failing which I must assume that despite the vote in 1998, as recorded in the Transcript from the 25th of July, that you agree that the Generating Works buildings should be accorded their correct archaeological status, and not as Inspector Raymond Dannreuther was duped into believing in 1987 by Thomas Hoy and George White.

Yours sincerely

Nelson Kruschandl

Cllr Col. B M P Hubbard 
4 Hillside 
East Dean
East Sussex BN20 0HE                                                                   24 October 2001

Dear Cllr Hubbard

DOING THE RIGHT THING

Please find enclosed copies of my letters to Ms Douglas (19-10-01*) Cllr Thornely Taylor, (20-10-01*) Mr Moss, (11-10-01) Mr Barker, (23-10-01) and Mr Brown (24-10-01) with enclosures.

I note there are cases where your Council have withdrawn or abandoned Orders they have made where after complaint and subsequent investigation by the Council it was revealed the Committee making the Order had considered incorrect information.

Where Ms Bird, the Council’s Conservationist reported to Committee(s) between 1995/6 that the original generating building had been replaced by a pump house, clearly those Committees had considered incorrect information bound to affect their decision. 

The 1999 Survey of Archaeology South East and advice from Dr Woodcock (County Archaeologist) makes it plain that Ms Bird’s report was completely wrong. According to the several precedents I have cited elsewhere the Council’s decision is flawed and therefore a nullity in law. I would hope the Council will act consistently and revisit their decision(s) with a view to withdrawal.

Yours sincerely                                                                             Attachments*



Nelson J Kruschandl

Cllr Col BMP Hubbard 
4 Hillside
East Dean
East Sussex BN20 0HE 
                                                                                            15 September 2000

Dear Cllr Hubbard

Human Rights Act Article 10: to Receive Information and Freedom of Speech

I thought I should write to explain my actions at yesterday’s APS meeting.

Firstly, I should like to apologise for appearing to challenge your authority as the Chairman presiding. In fact I was attempting to challenge the Council’s rules of engagement, not put you in an awkward situation. I do hope you will accept that I believe I was acting in the public interest. Unfortunately, with so many obstacles to representation, I was presented with little option but to blatantly challenge the system. 

However, I think I have a point. I enclose copy of Article 10. It clearly states that I have the right to: (1) “…freedom of expression.” and to (2) “receive and impart information ……….without interference by public authority”.

On the first matter, I note that in deference to Article 10, the public are not invited to speak on matters they have an interest in at planning meetings – freedom of expression is therefore denied. On the second matter, a recorder or a camera is an accepted method of receiving information. 

Mr Scarpa began the meeting by telling the public that “recording was prohibited”. I could see no information in the building to indicate that a member of the public could make a recording. Therefore It appeared to me that the Council operated a closed shop system. Indeed, I would suggest that the department responsible had intended it to be so.

I would hope that the Members might agree that it is in all out interests to maintain an accurate record of who said what and when. I know that I rely on verbatim accounts from my records. I will be raising this matter with the Council in due course.

Yours sincerely


Nelson J Kruschandl

Party: Conservative

Email: 

COUNCILLORS SERVING IN 2017 INTO 2018

Dick Angel - Jo Bentley - John Blake - Bob Bowdler - Don Broadbent - Norman Buck - Raymond Cade - John Carvey - Lin Clark
Nicholas Collinson - Nigel Coltman - Ronald Cussons - Barby Dashwood-Morris - Dianne Dear - Phil Dixon - Pam Doodes

  Claire Dowling - Jan Dunk - Louise Eastwood - Philip Ede - Helen Firth - Toby Illingworth - Jonica Fox - Roy Galley - Richard Grocock - Chris Hardy

Steve Harms - Jim Hollins - Peter Holloway - Johanna Howell - Stephen Isted - David Larkin - Andy Long - Michael Lunn

Barry Marlowe - Nigel McKeeman - Huw Merriman - Rowena Moore - Kay Moss - Douglas Murray - Ann Newton - Ken Ogden

Amanda O'Rawe - Charles R Peck - Diane Phillips - Mark Pinkney - Major Antony Quin RM - Ronald Reed - Dr. Brian Redman

Carol Reynolds - Greg Rose - Peter Roundell - William Rutherford - Daniel Shing - Oi Lin Shing - Raymond Shing - Stephen Shing

Robert Standley - Susan Stedman - Bill Tooley - Jeanette Towey - Stuart Towner - Chriss Triandafyllou - Peter Waldock

Neil Waller - David Watts - Mark Weaver -Graham Wells - David White - John Wilton

This site is free of © Copyright except where specifically stated.  Any person may download, use and quote any reference or any link, and is guaranteed such right to freedom of information and speech under the Human Rights and Freedom of Information Acts.  However, be aware that we cannot be held liable for the accuracy of the information provided.  All users should therefore research matters for themselves and seek their own legal advice and this information is provided simply by way of a guide.  Horse Sanctuary Trust UK.