CHRISTOPHER BENDING

  CHRISTOPHER BENDING IS THE ACTING DISTRICT PLANNING OFFICE AT WEALDEN DISTRICT COUNCIL

CHRIS BENDING - Given that Mr Bending was dealing with the 106 to do with this 1,000 home application it is likely that he had some involvement in the 70 home application at Herstmonceux in Sussex. Whether he did or did not, he will be involved in the future, where that particular 106 Agreement is defective in not mentioning or making provision for protections of the historic well that many in Lime Park rely on to this day for their drinking water.

Christopher Bending is the new acting Head of Planning & Environmental Services at Wealden District Council according to a letter dated 22 June 2018.

He is (or was) the case officer in the matter of an application for the erection of a timber fence adjoining Hackhurst Lane, a site that is well know at Wealden and in the County Court because of the failure of Wealden DC to take action to protect Mrs Anne Harris from harassment by her then landlord.

Wealden's response to Mrs Harris complaining about the negligence on the part of this local authority was to subject her to years of inappropriate enforcement an example of which is David Phillips arguing in the Magistrates Court that a road was a linear pile of rubble.

This was in connection with a Site Tidy Notice that was served on Mrs Harris where she had building materials ready to repair her drive. Victorio Scarpa and Philips were so intent on making life hard for Mrs Harris, presumably seeking to drive her from Hackhurst Lane, that they were prepared to waste council tax payer's money arguing the ridiculous - all the way to the Crown Court.

Talk about a series of malicious prosecutions. This was almost as bad as her landlord removing her roof and lighting fires outside her home - it was more of the same, only this time a white collar version of the intimidation she'd experienced before. White collar intimidation as a course of malicious conduct is a violation of Article 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

You'll not be surprised to learn that the Judge was having none of that. He said if that was Wealden's take on the matter that he was finding for the defendant. A road is not a linear pile of rubble Mr Phillips. In the words of John Cleese: are you deranged?

Mrs Harris is a farmer, specializing in breeding pigs and making delicious sausages with herbs, spices, fruit and cheese flavours. Mrs Harris was also one of the 12 Petitioners who complained to Wealden in 1997. These 12 complaints were referred to Sussex police, who effectively swept these rather serious criminal allegations of fraud and malicious prosecutions under the carpet by simply not investigating. We know of a masonic connection between Tyrian Lodge in Eastbourne and one of the planning officers concerned: Ian Kay.

Tyrian Lodge is just around the corner from the then Police Station in Grove Road, that has now moved to Hammonds Drive. A number of police officers are thought to have been masons at that time and some probably still are, where Tyrian Lodge is well populated with builders and property developers - that would have been operating in the Wealden area.

Ref: Chris Bending                                  

Complaints Officer
Wealden District Council
Vicarage Road
Hailsham, BN27 2AX                                                                                 30 January 2018

Dear Complaints Officer,

RE: WD/2017/2577/F  -  TIMBER FENCE

HACKHURST LANE INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, LOWER DICKER, HAILSHAM BN27 4BW

I wish to make a complaint about the attitude of a planning officer, Mr Chris Bending.

The complaint involves an application to partially fence off the carriage way 'Hackhurst Lane' from the industrial units facing it & from the road at right angles to it. WD/2017/2577/F.

1/ He failed to serve the requisite notices on affected parties or to publicly display them.

2/ He then refused to officially notify affected parties.

3/ He refused to regard encroachment into the carriageway (width set down in statute) or the fact that the proposed fence would prevent fence would prevent access of cattle lorries/tractors & trailers as material considerations.

4/ He refused to put all this nonsense in writing and refused to repeat in on the telephone so that I could tape record it.

Mr Bending appear to want to put me out of business, prevent me from continuing to use a piece of road I have used for over 30 years, and fail to inform me of the plan until it was too late to prevent it.

I found out about this application by chance. Mr Bending did not return my call and when I did speak to him he was arrogant and dismissive, saying that in his opinion no-one on the south side of Hackhurst Lane was materially affected by the proposed development & therefore did not need to be told about it.

I pointed out that the proposed fence would prevent me carrying on my business because I would not be able to get into my gate.

I reminded Mr Bending that applications to put a full length fence between the industrial estate & Hackhurst Lane or to gate off the A22 end of Hackhurst Lane at the first factory had failed because of the status of this road. Hackhurst Lane is in fact Private Carriageway No8. Its ownership, usage, enjoyment and width are laid down by Act of Parliament & tested in a landmark Judgment (on Private Carriageway No9) Benn V Hardinge.

The proposed development is on the carriageway which must (unless the Act of Parliament is repealed) be 20 feet wide.

Mr Bending said that in his opinion this is not a planning consideration. Entertaining a planning application for a development which is a breach of statute is clearly wrong & I therefore suspect that the owner of the carriageways set down under the Act has not been notified that with WDC & the Developer he is about to become complicit!

I pointed this out to Mr Bending that for me, the simple solution would be to have the fence beyond the carriageway & provide a gate in the fence opposite my farm gate with written agreement for me to access the road I have been using for the last 30 years & also thereby having carefully explained the damage this proposal would do to my business & my two neighbours concerns (Mr Stevens & Mr Grecroft) & having suggested a solution to these problems, I again asked Mr Bending to serve all three of us with official notification, so that we could make representations.

He refused saying he had pinned up notices. Neither I nor my 2 neighbours have seen these notices though there a 3 telegraph poles, one at each end of, & one opposite the proposed development. Mr Bending said he had put the notices up himself but was unable to say where he had put them.

I asked again for official notification - Mr Bending refused.

I asked him to give his reasons in writing - he refused.

I asked him to repeat his reasons while I recorded - he refused.

I asked him for a complaint form - he said write in.

I phoned my councillor, Mr White, & told him I was going to make a complaint about a council planning officer who was being very incompetent and arrogant & must be inexperienced. Mr White told me Mr Bending was a very senior planning officer.

When I listed my catalogue of complaints he said was waiting (in vain) for Mr Bending's response to a message he had left him (on another matter). Mr White could not remember the application going to Parish Council & said he would make enquiries with the Parish Clerk.

Mr Bending has failed to follow procedures & so doing put my business & use & enjoyment of my property at risk & is doing so quite knowingly & deliberately.

Please sort it out.

Yours sincerely,

Anne Harris

Q & A INTERVIEW WITH CHRIS BENDING - 24 Jun 2015 By Colin Marrs

Earlier this month, councillors approved plans for a 1,000-home urban extension to the town of Uckfield in East Sussex. Chris Bending is senior planning and section 106 officer at Wealden District Council.

Q. When did you first get involved with the scheme?

A. My personal involvement in the scheme began around two years ago, not long after the council had identified the site as part of a strategic development area.

Q. What is the planning history of the site?

A. The site is included within a strategic development area within the adopted core strategy local plan. The SDA identified an area of land to the south west of the town, including the site and a small amount of additional land, and set out the quantum of development envisaged to be delivered. This was 1,000 homes, 12,650 square metres of employment and the creation of green space. 

The site was then identified in greater detail within the council’s emerging strategic sites local plan – though this was subsequently withdrawn following examination during the course of the application.

Q. Can you outline the timeline of pre-application discussions and dealing with the planning application?

A. At the outset of the project it was agreed between the applicant and the council that, given the range of issues involved, regular project team meetings would be required, to be supplemented by additional meetings on specific issues as necessary to ensure that the wider objectives were not lost in detailed issues.

In practice this meant a small group of planning officers - myself as case officer and occasionally our head of service - meeting with the applicant's lead planner and strategic land representative on behalf of the applicant. Additional meetings were then held on discrete topics, most notably on highways issues, odour from the nearby waste water treatment works and issues around the area of green space.

The application itself was submitted to the authority at the end of January 2015, slightly later than hoped by all involved, meaning that consideration before the council elections in May 2015 was not possible. The application went to a special committee meeting in early June 2015, where the committee resolved to grant consent subject to a range of planning obligations and conditions.

Q. What were the main challenges in dealing with the application and how did you deal with them?

A. Given the size of the site, particularly for a relatively rural district council, there was no shortage of issues. As a snapshot, there were issues of; proximity to waste water treatment works, green space provision and quality, traffic impact and pedestrian connectivity, scheme viability and affordable housing provision, infrastructure requirements and the rapidly evolving plan status within the district.

The highways impact of the scheme and the quality of associated pedestrian and cycle improvements was one of the most significant issues for the application. From early pre-application discussions, it was clear that the Highways Authority had some significant concerns regarding the site and what the overall impact on the town centre might be. Uckfield is a modest market town in a relatively rural area and whilst it benefits from rail connections to London, the private car is still the mode of choice for the majority or residents and workers. A number of meetings were held with the Highways Authority and the applicants transport team to try to move matters forward. Taking the issues in turn, the project team were able to narrow the areas of concern significantly and ultimately, whilst the Highways Authority retained some level of concern, we were able to satisfy the Highway Authority’s principal objections.

Provision of green space for the site was an absolute necessity to ensure that the development could meet the terms of European habitat regulations, however the detail was open to far more debate. The core strategy did not identify a specific site for the green space and initial proposals from the applicant had it within the main site surrounded in large part by housing development. During the course of pre-application discussions officers suggested that the area would be too influenced by urban features to create a sufficient quality space to provide adequate mitigation. Following protracted discussions the applicant was able to negotiate the addition of an a further 29 hectares of land on the opposite side of the A22 (accessed by underpass) to provide a high quality SANGS. Of course detailed matters remained including road noise, necessitating creation of a large bund and the detailed design and specification of the planting and other works.

Finally, scheme viability was a significant and sensitive issue for the site. Whilst the development proposed is very significant, the costs of the development are equally significant – A 29 hectare green space, together with maintenance for 100 years does not come cheap, let alone many of the other infrastructure requirements. It was clear to all involved that affordable housing delivery at the target 35 per cent rate would be a challenge from the outset. In the end the council has agreed that affordable housing will be provided within a range of 15-35 per cent with precise levels clarified via open book assessments to support each phase of the development, noting the 10-12 year anticipated construction timeframe.

Q. How much work did you have to put into this application compared to smaller ones?

A. The application proposed a very significant amount of work, though I would always prefer to deal with one application for 1,000 homes than 1,000 single dwelling proposals! I have worked on major applications for a number of years now and I strongly believe there are economies of scale in terms of workload and it is always easier to get additional expert input guidance from highways officers, viability consultants etc. Having said that, I will be happy to deal with a few applications over the next months that fingers crossed will have fewer issues than this site!

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.

This site is protected under Article10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.