The original action by Dover District Council, when they demolished my bungalow in 1989, was unlawful and therefore it follows that every action that the council has taken against me since, is also unlawful.
Councillors are still making decisions based on incorrect and misleading information. However, they can no longer claim that they are not liable because they will now be aware that the original decision was flawed.
In addition, on the 12th August 2005 Kevin Elks, a staunch supporter, wrote to each Member of the Planning Committee putting them on notice that they could no longer claim they had made a decision based on false information.
Mr Elks’ letter is copied below:
Ref: Planning Committee Meeting 28 July 2005
12 August 2005
I registered to speak at the above meeting in support of application DOV/05/0244 The Oaks, Warren Lane, Lydden. I later received a telephone call from Dover District Council to inform me that the application had been withdrawn but decided to attend with the intention of raising some very disturbing procedural matters. When the Chairman of the Planning Committee arrived and started the meeting I was to say the least appalled at the attitude and lack of concern regarding discontents or for that matter procedural concerns. I made notes before leaving the car park and for your information they are transcribed below:
28-07-05 DDC planning meeting.
On attending the meeting my name was identified on the list (at the door) as being registered to speak at the meeting. [Note: I was already aware that the application regarding ‘The Oaks’ had been withdrawn by a telephone call from Mrs Hodding at the Council].The Chairman apologised for being late and then went on to state that the application for ‘The Oaks’ had been withdrawn and would not be discussed. He pointed out that those who had come to hear that application might want to leave.I stood up and asked for points of order to be heard. The Chairman dismissed this stating, “There will be no points of order”. I asked if these points could be heard at the point in the meeting where the application would have normally been heard? He replied, “there will be no points of order, it will not be discussed”.I concluded that the short and abrupt nature of the reply indicated that he/the committee were not interested in hearing my comments about the procedural running of the committee or the democratic process. At the least I would have expected to be asked ‘what is the nature of these points’ and then a decision made.
I have sent a copy of the original note and the transcribed version to Mr Moulder for him to use as he sees fit, including any court action.
Since attending the meeting I have learned even more disturbing facts about the actions of the Planning Department of the Dover District Council (DDC). It appears to me that the actions of the DDC to destroy Mr Moulder’s home were in contravention of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 part 3 and 5 of the Act. The relevant sections are confirmed in part 3 and 7 of the 1990 Act so there can be no doubt of the intent of the 1971 Act as there is a clear continuity of purpose.
The action of the DDC to date, not withstanding the unlawful basis for taking action against him and his family, went far beyond that of any test of reasonableness including the ‘Wednesbury’ test, which should have been considered before any action was taken. There now exists even greater ‘tests’ of reasonableness within the Human Rights Act for actions taken and yet to be taken since it’s enactment and that places greater restrictions on the use or abuse of power.
I know from a leaked e-mail in the DDC that there is collusion between departments and that the ruling party has little interest in addressing the specific complaint I have made and I know from experience how suspicious activities in the DDC rise to the surface with sickening regularity.
I will at this point raise the ‘Cowper Gate’ case under the Dover Borough Council. You may be aware that after considerable damages were awarded against the Council Solicitor Mr Maurice Sayers took legal action in an attempt to make councillors personally liable for the cost of the award. He failed to get such a court ruling however and from memory I recall that part of the defence was that councillors made decisions based on false advice from officials.
I would caution you that such a defence would be ineffective as from your receipt of this letter on the grounds that I have alerted you to irregularities and possible offences in law. When you make further decisions regarding actions against Mr Moulder you will be doing so in full knowledge that false statements, inaccuracy and victimisation has taken place and contraventions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 on the part of the Dover District Council, have been alleged. All these are well documented and should be investigated.
I understand that Mr Moulder is aware of proposed further action against him and concerned about the holding of a judgemental committee in secret session without representation of the accused, in other words a secret court with no defence allowed. You will be aware that such procedures contravene the Human Rights Act, European Human Rights and the UN Convention on Human Rights. To add weight to this you will also be aware of the move by the judiciary to bring the Family Court System into line with human rights requirements and their criticism of the ‘secrecy’ element of such courts. Even so these courts allow defence and representation of which your system is devoid.
Lastly, I would remind you of the fiduciary duty of the council/councillors and the elements of law, which are obligatory in this respect. The action taken against Mr Moulder and his family so far could hardly be described as fiduciary and steps must be taken to fulfil those requirements in the future and look into inappropriate expenditure on past actions. In all such matters this is of public interest. #Please reply in writing to this letter and if you require a meeting to discuss this affair please contact me. You may wish to get independent legal advice but be advised that should any expenses for such advice appear in the accounts of the DDC, action will be taken as appropriate.