Sheelagh Douglas, BSc (Hons), ARCS, CPFA (Hons), CCIP - Sheelagh Douglas has worked in Local Government for 27 years (including 9 years as Chief Executive of two separate authorities) and latterly in Higher Education for 8 years as Pro Rector Corporate Resources at University of the Arts London. She thus has experience at a senior level of a wide range of organisations and, having started as a qualified accountant, has particular expertise in policy and resources functions, including both HR and Finance. In both local authorities and universities, Sheelagh has for over 20 years been involved with employee and industrial relations, working with trade unions and staff associations to resolve problems and improve performance. Having in the past commissioned numerous investigations herself, Sheelagh is also a qualified Investigator, holding the CIPFA Certificate in Investigative Practice.


It is an interesting fact that once Ms Douglas knew about the conspiracy to undermine the Petitioners complaints, she resigned and we understand left Wealden without working out her notice. If that is true, we wonder if Derek Holness had not been quite honest when looking for a replacement he could trust to tow the line so that he could leave to enjoy his enhanced pension.




HOUSE TRAINING 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.




The Old Steam House
Lime Park Herstmonceux

East Sussex BN27 1RF

Sheelagh Douglas
Chief Executive                                                                                               FAX TO: 01892 602220
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove
Crowborough TN6 1DH                                                                                    27 December 2001

Dear Ms Douglas




Thank you for your letter dated 19th December 2001.

With respect, I believe that I have stated the facts clearly. In 1997 a Petition was investigated by a Panel of Councillors headed by Lord Newton under restrictions as to what may be investigated – the Remit. The serious allegations outside the Panel’s Remit were referred to the Sussex Police for investigation.

It is alleged that the then Chief Executive, Mr Holness, concocted a letter which he read to the Full Council making clear reference to the Petition, etc. The letter, as reported in the Press was apparently a letter from the Police written on Police headed paper, stated that there had been an investigation. Some months afterward two Police officers from the same station (Hailsham) confirmed that there had been no investigation.

Consequently, it appears the content of that letter was a lie. Mr Holness drafted that letter and it appears persuaded at least one Police officer to agree to co-operate on the deception. The act of reading this letter and the manner it was obtained appears nothing less than a deliberate effort to mislead the Members. As the matter was reported in the Press, the act was also a deliberate effort to mislead the public into believing the Council officers were innocent. The fact that such a deception took place would suggest to me that Mr Holness wished to avoid the 12 complaints as to impropriety being investigated – it appears to me this was probable because he suspected the allegations were well founded. I suspect it is a criminal offence to interfere with a Police investigation where such interference might “pervert the course of justice”.

I fully accept that you have limited resources, but the facts as set out above can be easily corroborated. As to the original complaints and to the later petition of further complaints and indeed yet further complaints, which have yet to be formalised, these are all matters which remain outstanding. As I have previously advised criminal offences are not time statute barred and it is in any event for the Police to investigate as I believe the Council accepted in 1997.

What I would suggest you do is to simply write a letter to the police asking them to investigate these matters and thence to co-operate fully with the appropriate authorities. A failure to write such a letter may reflect adversely on your integrity.

I would be obliged if you will provide the information requested in my last letter on this subject.

Yours sincerely 

Nelson J Kruschandl


C.C. Members Executive Panel
Members Standards Committee
D. Chief Constable K Jones





Sheelagh Douglas Ch. Exec.                                                                  FAX REF: 1892 602222
Wealden District Council
Pine Grove
Crowborough TN6 1DH                                                                              3 November 2001

Dear Ms Douglas




Looking back at our correspondence I note the letter you refer me back to is not to do with the subject matter I seek to bring to your attention. Moreover, in the letter you refer me to you speak of “unsubstantiated claims” and admit to “confusion as to what to reply to.”

The matter I am asking the Council to look at via the Monitoring Officer or other internal review procedure, is more than adequately substantiated and easy to grasp in that you need only refer to two documents to note a serious error on the part of the Council. The first document is the report of the Council’s conservationist, Chezel Bird, dated September 1995 used in relation to planning applications 2284 of 1995 and 1767 of 1996. The second document is the independent survey of Archaeology South East dated September 1999 commissioned by East Sussex County Council. The 1999 survey identifies The Old Steam House as the original generating buildings. Ms Bird claims The Old Steam House is a newer replacement to the original building, possibly a pump-house. Clearly, Ms Bird misread the archaeological evidence and the Council’s decision to refuse planning permission concerning these applications was based on Ms Bird’s interpretation of the facts.

Previously it was not known to me that your Council regularly investigate complaints of this nature from members of the public and correct decisions where your decisions made long ago are shown to be based on incorrect facts. The precedent on which I assume you undertake such internal investigation and correction is R v Canterbury City Council ex parte Springimage Ltd 1993 – where it was held a committee decision based on incorrect information is a nullity. It would seem from this the Council’s 1995 and 1996 decisions are void.

Where I refer you to this present ‘series’ of correspondence, I mention this precisely to differentiate between last years or any other years correspondence and to focus your attention to avoid confusion, where officers advising on the 1995 and 1996 applications may have a vested interest and be unlikely to want to identify the Council’s error. I say this because you have been unable to deny my claim based on first hand knowledge. I would therefore respectfully ask you to view the documents personally and reply after consideration of the knock-on effect such an error will have had on a private citizen of limited means. A form of corrective statement is vital to prevent future applications being considered incorrectly. I’m sure the Council would not wish to deny me a fair hearing. Accordingly, I do not consider my request to be unreasonable. I will be obliged if you will circulate this letter and your reply to the Members of the Standards Committee, after the representatives are chosen.

Yours sincerely 


Nelson J Kruschandl 

C.C. Members Executive Panel:

Cllrs: Blaxland, Coltman, Gore, Kirkpatrick, Parsons, Thornely-Taylor, Tidy, West.
Members Review Committee: 
Cllrs: Blake, Kiernan, Phillip, Quin
Members Regulatory Committee Cllrs: Hubbard, Ryde, Whitehead

Members Standards Committee





Patrick Scarpa, solicitor Wealden District Council David Whibley, enforcement officer Wealden District Council  


Victorio Scarpa, David Whibley, Julian Black, Daniel Goodwin, Christine Arnold


Christine Nuttall, solcitor, Wealden District Council corruption and monument protection English Heritage David Phillips, perjury and corruption Wealden District Council, the Energy Age, Nelson Kruschandl Douglas Moss 


Christine Nuttall, David Phillips, Douglas Moss, Ian Kay, Charles Lant




Abbott Trevor - Alcock Charmain - Ditto - Arnold Chris (Christine) - Barakchizadeh Lesley - Paul Barker - Black Julian - Boakes Beverley

Brigginshaw Marina - Brown Ashley - Coffey Patrick - Douglas Sheelagh - Dowsett Timothy - Flemming Mike - Forder Ralph - Garrett Martyn

Goodwin Daniel - Henham J - Holness Derek - Hoy Thomas - Johnson Geoff - Kavanagh Geoff - Kay Ian - Kay I. M. - Barbara Kingsford

Lant Charles - Mercer Richard - Mileman Niall - Moon Craig - Moss Douglas, J.Nuttall Christine - Pettigrew Rex - Phillips David - Scarpa Victorio

Scott Trevor - Kevin Stewart - Wakeford M. - Whibley David - White, George - Williams Kelvin - Wilson Kenneth - White Steve





Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex, BN27 2AX T: 01323 443322
Pine Grove, Crowborough, East Sussex, TN6 1DH T: 01892 653311


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 UK Limited.