[Terry Nunn]

Seemed to have missed off the picture there, I'll try again.

Attached File(s)

•  LRCF 001a.jpg (277.2K)
  Number of downloads: 73

[www.doverpast.co.uk]

Terry Nunn said:

Seemed to have missed off the picture there, I'll try again.

Very nice, though we cannot say this is the Council as a lot of demolitions are doing without authorisation, and afterwards it is a bit too late to undo anything :(

[Ptah]

Only the front of the post office was listed and they did leave it up for a little while, then found water under it and down it came. Imagine finding water at sea level in a coastal town?

[howardmcs]

i was informed that a building called "brook house" had a preservation order on it, but the dover corporation had no-one that could read at the time they knocked it down.

[Ptah]

They did it before sunrise, so no light to read by.

[howardmcs]

that is what i have heard from various long term residents.

what a shock it must have been.

[Bern]

Our Local Authorities....God Love 'em.............:arghh:

[mi2]

And the greatest insult is what the demolition made way for...



(link)

[Bern]

Thank you for that link. Local authorities always have their own agenda and nothng - not beauty, humanity or sanity - will change it. I hate to use the B word, but it all seems a bit bullying.

[Marek]

For Gods sake Bern ..the B word is barred on this forum..you should know better..chuckles.

Brook House was such a beautiful building and future generations will sit back and wonder what sort of people were we to destroy buildings that hitler had missed.

[Higham8]

It's ok Marek, we can leave that to our reliable local government :wub:.

Oh and Bern I thought the B word was something completely different :cute:

[Peter Moulder]

suenicholas said:

I recall this case very well I was on Planning Committee at that time.Councillors are bound by the code of conduct and all i will say the decision was made by councillors following Officers and legal advice.Some where on this thread it talks of compensation .The decision was collectively made by a council committee.When ever appeals are made etc depending on the legal ruling the money has to be found from the councils finances.There is a lot more to this story and Im amazed it has appeared again .It was quite a story at that time .A long time ago.
I can not enter into further debate but decisions of that nature are not taken lightly .

I was told that the destruction of my home by Dover District Council was being discussed on this Forum and I am posting to thank everyone here for their comments and to confirm that the information published on the website www.dover-council.co.uk is factual, evidence based and verifiable.

With regard to Councillor Sue Nicholas’ post, I was interested in her comment that “the decision was made by councillors following Officers and legal advice”

However, it has since been proved that the ‘advice’ was incorrect and misleading. At one stage the legal opinion of their Head of Legal Services was ignored.

What checks, if any, do elected members make to ensure the integrity of the advice, which they accept from the paid employee advisers?

It has been my experience that councillors are able to hide behind legal advice they are given and rarely do they make any enquiries of their own to assist them in their decision-making process. The consequence of this is that when, as in my case, it is later established that the actions of the Council were unjustified and disproportionate they are able to hide behind legal loopholes, which prevent the victim from calling them to account for their actions, and put right the wrongs they have done.

I wonder if Sue was aware that the actions taken by Dover District Council were outside the law and that the decision to destroy my home was based on a flawed process and that at least two sections of the Town & Country Planning Act were contravened by DDC, yet had these been implemented this discussion would not be taking place?

Was Sue aware that at the time of the demolition no consideration, whatsoever, was given by the Council for the welfare of my two young children, who were obviously living there at the time? Such considerations would surely have been material and relevant to such a decision then, as indeed they would be today, yet in my case they were never taken into account.

I have written numerous letters, to all members of successive Planning Committees over the past 25 years, in order to plead my case and not one member has ever had the courtesy to even acknowledge receipt. Is this appropriate behaviour from the elected members and does it support the democratic process?

I hope that if Sue is genuinely interested in establishing the true facts about this dispute that she will agree to meet me and I invite her to do so. I am particularly interested to know what she means by “there is a lot more to this story.” I am willing to meet her in the company of other Councillors if she prefers. I can be contacted by email at petermoulder@tiscali.co.uk

More recently the Council’s Chief Executive instructed his highly qualified Professional Standards Investigator and Accredited Mediator, a former Chief Superintendent with Kent Police, to investigate my case. After a comprehensive investigation, on which he expended over 200 hours, the Professional Standards Investigator published a lengthy report wherein he stated:

“After careful consideration of all the files and documents relating to the history of this site I have come to the conclusion that the Planning Committee reached the decision to demolish the complainant’s home based on inaccurate and misleading advice. This was maladministration.”

It is evident that the Council’s Development Control Manager, Tim Flisher and the Chief Planning Officer, Michael Dawson, obstructed the investigation at the stage where the Professional Standards Officer needed to consider the historic and dated events of my case. Tim Flisher and Michael Dawson stated that consideration of those matters was outside the Investigator’s remit and by implication amounted to an abuse of process. What were they trying to hide? This attempt at concealment and to remain silent on crucial evidence was made in the full knowledge of documents held. Fortunately the Investigator disagreed with their view and continued to investigate the historic and dated events anyway.
It is clear from his published report that from that point on in the investigation the Council were found guilty of ‘maladministration with injustice’ on a number of counts.

Yet the Chief Executive refuses to accept the honest findings of his own investigation and it is my understanding that his Professional Standards Investigator has not worked for the Council since although I am, of course, not suggesting there is any connection between his absence and the actual investigation.

Councils are formed in perpetuity and consequently the sins of previous members are vested upon current members. The Planning Committee were put on notice long ago that previous decisions have been based on inaccurate and misleading advice yet despite the Council’s errors being exposed they continue to take wrongful action against me to this day and I continue to live under the constant threat of eviction from my home even though I have a right in law to the residential use of my land.

With regard to the legal action mentioned in a previous post; at the start of all this I naively believed that Councils acted honestly and fairly and assumed any action DDC took must have been within the confines of the law. I had no knowledge of the law at that time and could not afford legal representation. I was totally traumatised by their actions and struggled to come to terms with the effect it had upon my family and our future yet DDC continued to play every trick in the book to confound my efforts and time me out of the legal process. However I am now looking seriously into criminal charges, which are not time limited in the courts.

This dispute has been going on now, unnecessarily and with far reaching consequences, for 25 years but it could so easily be resolved and in that regard I have made repeated requests to Nadeem Aziz, the Council’s Chief Executive, for a meeting but all attempts have been ignored or refused.

Finally, it is important to recognise that this is not just about my situation alone but, alarmingly, my research has thrown up many disturbing facts about the internal affairs of the DDC, some of which are far too serious to discuss on this forum.

Peter Moulder.

[The Fabric Fairy]

Peter Moulder said:

Finally, it is important to recognise that this is not just about my situation alone but, alarmingly, my research has thrown up many disturbing facts about the internal affairs of the DDC, some of which are far too serious to discuss on this forum.

Peter

Welcome to DL - I hope you find friendship and support here.

I would take issue with your last sentence in your post; Dover Locals is an ideal location to raise serious issues, I hope we're not seen as a place of levity alone. So long as individual courtesy is maintained and the laws of slander and libel are honoured, no subject is taboo on here. Recently we've had some very emotive and touchy subjects broached, and some posts have been overly personal - but in an adult world, awkward topics can and should be addressed.

Welcome again.:)

[Bern]

Just wanted to second what FF has said - if it's courteous and legal we can talk about it!

[Ptah]

I do agree, not only can we talk about it, we should talk about it. Especially in cases such as this it is often far to easy to let injustices slide because of the passage of time and then se them swept under the carpet. Discussion keeps a subject alive, as well as providing a pool of opinion that can help in refining your arguments. Long may it continue to do so.

[howardmcs]

the passage i found interesting in peters post, was that some councillors when cornered hide behind the legal excuse.

rather like national politicians using "matter of national security"!!!!

[ferrylooper]

well said Peter. Now we can all wait with bated breath for sue nicholls to come up with some excuse as to why she cannot or will not meet with Peter!!!!!!!!

[Bern]

:twitcy:........................................

[The Fabric Fairy]

As has been said elsewhere on this thread, there are always two sides to every story, and I'm sure that's as true here as anywhere else. On the face of it, Dover District Council have some questions to answer - and if an injustice has been done to Peter, then they shouldn't be embarrassed about putting it right; it's not a matter of losing face, and I wish national, regional and local governments would accept that it's a vote winner to say 'Yes, a mistake has been made, and we are prepared to put it right' rather than face the public with dogmatic silence and a stonewall 'We shall not be moved' attitude that only serves to alienate people.

We're all human; mistakes are made, despite what may seem to be clarity of judgement when they're made. If there's nothing to hide, DDC, why not start a dialogue with the man involved. All your silence is achieving is to make yourselves look as though you think you're beyond the law. Talk to the man.

[Peter Moulder]

The Fabric Fairy said:

As has been said elsewhere on this thread, there are always two sides to every story, and I'm sure that's as true here as anywhere else. On the face of it, Dover District Council have some questions to answer - and if an injustice has been done to Peter, then they shouldn't be embarrassed about putting it right; it's not a matter of losing face, and I wish national, regional and local governments would accept that it's a vote winner to say 'Yes, a mistake has been made, and we are prepared to put it right' rather than face the public with dogmatic silence and a stonewall 'We shall not be moved' attitude that only serves to alienate people.

We're all human; mistakes are made, despite what may seem to be clarity of judgement when they're made. If there's nothing to hide, DDC, why not start a dialogue with the man involved. All your silence is achieving is to make yourselves look as though you think you're beyond the law. Talk to the man.

An excellent observation of the situation and a very fair suggestion to achieve a resolution. I'd be delighted to meet with the Council for dialogue. It should not be about who wins or who loses but about justice.