Councillor Admits Deception

It seems to be an unwritten policy of Dover District Council DDC that Councillors must not question the advice of the paid officials and clearly the Planning Committee did not have a clue as to what was going on when they took the decision to demolish my home.

It appears that the paid officials lied to Dover District Council planning committee members when telling them that I had built a new bungalow on a site that had a bungalow on many years ago but which was no longer in existence. They weren’t aware that I had properly purchased a bungalow with long-standing, established residential user rights and that the actual bungalow was still in existence.

Councillors were led to believe that demolition was the only course of action and they were not informed of the correct procedure, as determined by the Town and Country Planning Act, which required me as the owner to return the property to what it was before any alleged breach took place.

A Councillor has admitted that Dover District Council officials deceived the Planning Committee leading up to the demolition of my home. It was also revealed that the Council instigated a crude ‘smear campaign’ against me in order to unfairly influence Councillors to vote for the demolition of my home.

This reinforces the findings of the Council’s own Professional Standards Investigator and Accredited Mediator who also concluded that the Dover District Council Planning Committee were deceived when they reached the decision to demolish my home based on inaccurate and misleading advice.

In a statement, dated May 2009, the Councillor wrote:

“We were misled about the demolition of your bungalow…but at the time I was new to the council and naive enough to believe that officers don’t lie!!!!! 

As I was new to the council, I naively believed that the officers would always tell us the truth; something that I came to realise in later years just was not true, as some of them would mislead the council with half-truths or by omissions.

I had a falling out with John Clayton (who was then the Director of Planning and Technical Services) over the way that he misled councillors, and the galling thing is that he professes to be a ‘Christian’ and I understand is very devout when he carries the cross at the church whilst he was involved in misleading the council.

I remember John Clayton stating that: “Mr. Moulder was not married to the woman that he was living with” At the time I did not take much notice of this statement as it would not influence me either way, but I now realise that this was character assassination obviously designed to persuade certain sections of the council to support his view that the property should be demolished, even though this could not even be considered as a planning consideration.

I also remember, and I must admit I was taken in by, Mr Clayton’s statement to the Planning Committee that this was not the first time that such enforcement action had been taken against Mr. Moulder as he had been involved in something similar with another local authority.

As I have stated, I was new to the Council and was very naïve and did believe that the advice given to us by officers would be true and unbiased. In subsequent years I came to realise that some of the officers could not be trusted and would mislead by the use of half truths and omissions to get their own way”.

It is evident that the Director of Planning lied when he told the Planning Committee that I had been involved in a dispute of a similar nature with another local authority. I can state categorically that I have never before been the subject of enforcement action nor, at any time, had even the slightest dispute with any other local authority.

I can only assume the Dover District Council’s Director of Planning made such a false statement in order to unfairly influence the Planning Committee to reach a decision that accorded with his desires.

There is irrefutable evidence that the Council’s action was founded on deceit and incorrect and misleading advice. The present administration is aware of this but continue their persecution in an attempt to cover-up the corruption while at the same time Councillors are protecting the wrongdoings of the paid officials. It appears that the more evidence I collect the more it points to a criminal aspect.

When I contacted Conservative District Councillor Frayne, he replied:

“I have now read again your letter and am struck by your composure. By now I would have been throwing things around. From what I’ve heard you have at very least been diddled by DDC and it seems there is an impenetrable wall around their actions.”

“I cannot abide all this deviousness and naturally cannot put my true thoughts in writing.”

I’m not certain why he couldn’t put his true thoughts in writing, but it seems this is a big part of the problem within Dover District Council DDC. There are many good councillors who are kept in check by the ‘dishonest’ ones running the show. Consequently those who do become aware of incidences of corruption do nothing.


Nadeem Aziz

Nadeem Aziz the Chief Executive of Dover District Council is a dishonest scum bag devoid of any integrity whatsoever, and it beggars belief how he is able to stay in his privileged position, with its inflated salary of approaching £200,000 per annum. He ‘earns’ more than five times the average UK salary, and was given the country’s 10th highest sum in benefits and expenses. No surprise he struts around with a permanent smirk on his face.

When he opened the investigation into my case he made it clear that I would have to abide by the findings of his personally chosen investigator and there would be no further recourse for my complaints. What he didn’t say was that he would not abide by his investigators findings. Unfortunately for him the investigator that looked into my case was a man of integrity and severely exposed the Council, finding them guilty on numerous counts of maladministration with injustice.



Procedural Fairness

Lord Justice Muskill, Greater London Council (1985) identified four ways in which a decision might be procedurally improper, namely:

  1. Unfair behaviour towards persons affected by the decision.
  2. Failure to follow a procedure laid down by legislation.
  3. Failure properly to marshall the evidence on which the decision should be based. For example, taking into account an immaterial factor or failing to take into account a material factor or failing to take reasonable steps to obtain the relevant information.
  4. Failure to approach the decision in the right spirit, for example, where the decision maker is actuated by bias or where he is content to let the decision be made by chance.


Councillors Given Notice

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

Dear Councillor,

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.

Yours sincerely

Kevin Elks.



1928 was the year ‘The Bungalow’ was built and a Transfer of Legal Charge, attached to the property’s deeds, states the following:



2. A piece of land with bungalow in course of construction thron situate in Lydden afsd being the premises firstly convd to the Testator by Deed dated 13th August 1925 and made between Henry Gray (1) and the Testator (2)

DULY EXECUTED by the Borrowers and the parties thrto of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th parts.

TRANSFER of Legal Charge of this date (endorsed on before abstd Legal Charge) between within-named Ernest Edward Pain


1934. Mr & Mrs Pickard and their daughter moved in to the bungalow. They rented the property from the freeholder, Mr Pearce of Wellington House, Lydden.

According to Mr E.R Holmes, the Pickard’s son-in-law, a family moved out of the bungalow just prior to his wife’s parents moving in.

Mr Pickard was a miner and he lived with his family in the bungalow until 1958.

1958. The Pickard family moved out and the owner of the property, Mr Pearce, sold the property to Mr R.A. Gibbs who lived in the bungalow until 1965.

The following is an extract from a Conveyance of the ‘The Bungalow’ to Reginald Alfred Gibbs:


This Conveyance is made the 3rd Day of July One thousand nine hundred and fifty-eight BETWEEN IVAN CLEMENT PEARCE of 43 St Michael’s Street, Folkestone in the County of Kent, Company Secretary and Director (hereinafter called “the vendor”) of the one part and REGINALD ALFRED GIBBS of 57 Tankerton Terrace, Mitcham Road, Croydon in the County of Surrey (hereinafter called “the purchaser”) of the other part.

NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH in pursuance of the said agreement … …..the Vendor as beneficial owner hereby conveys unto the Purchaser ALL THAT piece or parcel of land with the bungalow erected upon part thereof lying and being on the south side of the road leading from Lydden to Alkham in the parish of Lydden in the County of Kent


1965. The Bungalow was purchased by Miss Winnifred Dickinson.

15 June 1984. I purchased ‘The Bungalow’ from Miss Dickinson.

9 August 1984. (just 7 weeks later!) The Planning Committee voted to demolish my bungalow. The decision was made based solely on false information presented by council officers, and without considering any representation from me.

1985. The Council served an enforcement notice which falsely stated that I had erected a new dwelling.

31 July 1989. Dover District Council unlawfully demolished the Bungalow.

27 February 1990. Dover District Council wrongfully issue an enforcement notice ordering the removal of the lawfully sited mobile home in which we lived.

28 February 2005. I submitted a planning application, following advice from Tim Flisher, DDC’s Development Control Manager but the ‘dirty tricks’ soon started again and without me realising it the case officer had tampered with the wording of my application.

This application was to regularise the mobile home but the title of the application was altered three times by the Council without any consultation with me. These changes completely altered the nature of my intended application and was a clear attempt to try and wipe out the existing lawful ‘use of the land’ which would have happened following the inevitable refusal.

This would have largely covered DDC’s illegal activities and their conspiracy to defraud.

29 August 2005. I submitted a formal complaint to the Council’s Professional Standards Department.

The Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, commissioned an investigation into my case and appointed his chief investigator, Mr C.J. Grieve, to investigate my complaint.

Mr Grieve is a Professional Standards Investigator and Accredited Mediator, formerly a Chief Superintendent with Kent Police. He is an external investigator although he is, in practice, a salaried officer of Dover District Council but he operates outside the Council’s normal management structure.

Mr Grieve, who holds a law degree, expended some 200 hours investigating my complaint before publishing his findings.

Mr Grieve telephoned me on Saturday the 6th May 2006 and informed me that his report would be available in the next couple of weeks. He confirmed that the final report, once submitted, cannot be altered.

Subsequently however,  Nadeem Aziz the Council’s Chief Executive, overruled Mr Grieve and he was forced to change his report.

6 May 2006. The ‘Grieve Report’ is published and finds Dover District Council guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts.

June 2007. Dover District Council wrongfully issue an enforcement notice ordering the removal of my mobile home, garden shed and greenhouse.


Council Deceit

Dover District Council is not concerned with the truth and continues to suppress the evidence that supports the long-standing residential use of my property.

Nadeem Aziz, Dover District Council’s Chief Executive, commissioned an investigation into my case and appointed his Chief Investigator, to carry it out. After a thorough investigation, which took many months to complete, Mr Aziz was presented with independent evidence, which was obtained from the Council’s own working papers and files, and from interviews with employed officers.

The evidence that he was presented with exposed misuse of delegated powers, abuse of planning power, deliberate manipulation of planning law, negligence of a duty of care and unacceptable double standards.

Despite the overwhelming weight of evidence and the numerous findings of maladministration with injustice, which the investigation uncovered, Mr Aziz refused to accept his own Investigator’s findings, which indicates that he does not want the truth to prevail in this case.

Mr Aziz may not like his Investigator’s conclusions but the evidence is irrefutable and his refusal to accept it amounts to a deliberate concealment of the Council’s wrongdoing and demonstrates a policy of avoidance and cover-up. His motivation for his conspiracy to conceal the fraud committed by Dover District Council is unclear but he is by his actions implicated.

It seems that Mr Aziz’s investigator has had his employment terminated.

When will the elected members address the unacceptable behaviour of its employed officers; some of whom are blighting the authority in their pursuit of an agenda that is a malicious and deliberate attempt to destroy my home and my rights as a resident?

The manner in which Dover District Council operates its planning decision-making should be of concern to everyone because what should be a democratic process is failing because the paid staff dictates. Committee Members are not questioning the edited planning reports of council officers, but are merely rubber-stamping their recommendations, thus leaving the process open to abuse. Since 1984 successive Committees have made perverse decisions about my case, without being in possession of the full facts. Decisions have been made, based on false and misleading information presented by the planning department, and this has led to serial acts of maladministration.

Dover District Council is frightened of the truth and is out to gain its ends by means more foul than fair. They have repeatedly ignored my statutory rights and their ongoing persecution is based on deception, illegal actions and organised lies amounting to a conspiracy.

The arrogance and indifference shown by Committee Members during this time is inexcusable and it is questionable why they refuse to accept the truth. Over the years I have written to all members of successive Planning Committees and not one Councillor has ever had the courtesy to reply. The Council has disregarded every attempt by me to resolve this dispute by negotiation, preferring to waste huge amounts of taxpayer’s money in an attempt to cover up the previous administration’s errors in what appears, to a number of independent observers, to be a vendetta.

It is evident that Councillors prefer to turn a blind eye to bureaucratic law-breaking, and won’t do anything to get rid of the corruption.

The Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, refuses to answer any of my questions and refuses to meet me, while at the same time he authorises the release of incorrect and misleading statements to the press.

Deception can occur at committee level when an applicant makes a planning application or when the council pursues wrongful enforcement action against a lawful use. However, most corruption begins at officer level and, worryingly, this law breaking is protected in England as there is no statutory requirement for the police to take action and therefore officers of the council are immune from prosecution.

Planning crime goes unpunished and officers are never dismissed nor prosecuted, but are given early ‘retirement’, moved sideways to another department, or given false redundancy, which is in itself an offence.

Before any planning application reaches committee level, it is first dealt with by the planning department and it is here that the planning officer can begin his or her ‘punishment’ against the applicant by carefully perverting the application and manipulating evidence. This has undoubtedly occurred in my case and when they do foul up, what does it matter to them anyway? They know their colleagues will close ranks to protect them and the legal department will lie through its teeth to protect the officer.

Consequently, having experienced a serious injustice I am developing this web site to portray the correct facts. Further on I explain about the complaint I made against Dover District Council’s Planning Department that led to an investigation into my case, which resulted in DDC being found guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts. The Chief Executive’s refusal to accept the honest findings of his own investigation amounts to a deliberate concealment of the Council’s errors.

RIP The Truth webDover District Council officers are guilty of Misfeasance in Public Office and it is scandalous that Nadeem Aziz, who seems to have no concept of natural justice, has taken no action against them. In any other organisation the individuals responsible would be suspended, or at least relieved of their responsibilities pending a thorough investigation. Mr Aziz’s neglect to suspend officials with serious allegations against them is a disgrace and his failure to mount a wider investigation raises even more disturbing questions. The fact that he spent months trying to bury or ignore the findings of an investigation that he personally commissioned, and which cost the local taxpayer many thousands of pounds, also raises serious questions about his motivation to cover-up this issue. It may have something to do with the fact that before his internal promotion to Chief Executive he was in charge of the planning department that failed in its duty of care to correct the clear violations in law perpetrated by the very department which he previously controlled.

The whole scenario reeks of a cover up and a conspiracy.


Notorious Killer Shoots Planning Officer

Notorious killer Albert Dryden gunned down 46-year-old Harry Collinson, Derwentside Council’s chief planning officer during a planning row.

dryden_jpg_display2Allegedly, Mr Collinson orchestrated the public humiliation of Albert Dryden when he created a ‘circus’ atmosphere by inviting TV crews, photographers and reporters to be present when the council arrived to demolish the building that he had constructed without planning permission.

In the face of such indignity, and driven to ‘breaking point’ Albert Dryden shot Mr Collinson dead when the Council moved in to demolish his building. The drama was caught on film by the camera crews and the televised report can be seen by clicking on this link: Albert Dryden shoots planning officer

Chief planning officer Harry Collinson arrived at the property of Albert Dryden to tell him it was to be demolished after a long-running planning dispute.

Albert Dryden opened fire and shot the officer in the heart at point-blank range. Shortly after, he fired another shot into his chest and also blasted him through the head as he lay on the ground, in front of fleeing reporters, council workers, and police officers.

Also a police officer was shot in the buttocks and a television reporter in the arm, before he was finally arrested by armed officers.albert.jpg.display

Of course this case was not as straightforward as the press made it appear, because at his trial it transpired that Albert Dryden had been victimised, humiliated and degraded by planning officers over a long period of time. It was revealed that a reporter was pressurised not to publicise details of the victimisation of Mr Dryden because the planning officer was a friend of the Chief Constable of Durham, and a brother Mason. The reporter was also asked not to mention that a judge occupied land neighbouring Mr Dryden’s land and either objected to Mr Dryden’s development or coveted his land.

Albert DrydenAlbert Dryden is quoted as saying that “Collinson was determined to have me off my land and put me in jail if he could. He was greatly influenced by people higher up”.

A close friend, John Snowdon, said “The council pushed him over the edge… he was a quiet bloke until they provoked him”

Both the police and the council came in for severe criticism for their handling of events leading up to the killing.

More recently, in 2017, Albert Dryden suffered a stroke and was released from prison on compassionate grounds. He died in a residential care home in 2018 aged 78.

I can personally identify with a lot of the above as Dover District Council carried out similar humiliation on not only me, but my partner and our two children too; over a period of many years. Also on a number of occasions, along with the usual threats and intimidation, Dover District Council officers would remind me of how unpleasant prison would be for me.

I don’t believe that the killing of somebody was justified in this particular situation, and no normal-thinking person would condone what Albert Dryden did. On the other hand, no normal-thinking person would believe the level of corruption that exists within a local authority; until they fall foul of them. Every single district Councillor is well aware of Dover District Council’s wrongdoing in my case, yet not one of them has the backbone or integrity to speak out about it. So, from personal experience I can understand how someone facing the demolition of their property might become unhinged, or driven to extreme measures.

Dover District Council have unjustly harassed me, and deprived me any semblance of a normal home life for over 34 years; half of my life! So I certainly have had unpleasant retaliatory thoughts about certain individuals on Dover District Council, but ones reasoned mind controls those ‘thoughts’ to prevent one acting upon them. But it only needs that slight bit of extra stress to trigger a reaction and those ‘thoughts’ could easily become a reality, so I can certainly understand how someone could be driven to take drastic measures. One should never underestimate what a person is capable of, when they are backed in a corner and believe they have nothing more to lose.

It’s important to recognise however that my case, although similar in some respects, is very different to the Albert Dryden scenario. He had, quite wrongly, built a structure without planning permission on virgin land. It was not his home, and on the actual day it was due to be demolished it housed a few goats and some chickens. Whereas my alleged breach occurred on existing residential land, upon which a bungalow had existed and been used solely for residential purposes, lawfully and continuously, since 1928.

And at the time the council demolished our bungalow and made us homeless it was of course the home of my partner, myself and our two children, and also where we had lived continuously for five years prior. At no time did the Council show one iota of concern for the distress they caused to our children as they were led out of their home.

And to add insult to injury Dover District Council stated publicly that they were not obliged to provide accommodation for us because we had ‘made ourselves homeless’.

For evidence of the continuous residential use see History


Letters of Evidence

The following are transcripts from letters received from nearby residents.

All of them confirm the continuous and long-standing residential history of my bungalow.

This evidence was presented to the Council and ignored. Copies of the original letters with full names and addresses are held on file.

Warren Lane


To whom it may concern.

I purchased my land of 3.5 acres, from Mr J C Pearce in 1956. I built a bungalow on the land where I have lived until the present time. When I purchased my land ‘The Oaks’ was lived in by a Mr & Mrs Pickard. Mr Pickard was a miner and he rented the property from Mr Pearce. Some time in the 1956 the bungalow was purchased by a Mr Gibbs he lived in the bungalow for a few years and sometime in the mid sixties the place was sold to a Miss Dickinson who was a school teacher. As far as I can recall the last time she lived in the bungalow was 1981. In the few years up until that time she used it regularly for holidays and weekends.  I well remember her asking me when she wanted to sell the place to clear the garden as it was very overgrown. She had to sell the place as her health was failing and she could not keep the place on. The bungalow was then empty for about three years until the present owner moved in. I urge that planning permission be granted so that the residential use of the land known as ‘The Oaks’ can continue.

Yours sincerely
Z. Farkas


Lyoak Wood Farm
Ewell Minnis

Warren Lane

16th April 1988

To whom it may concern

Re: ‘The Oaks’ formerly known as ‘The Bungalow’ Warren Lane, Lydden  Having farmed in Warren Lane for the past forty-two years. I have always known the property as a residential dwelling. Occupied in 1947 by the Pickard family until I think about 1956 then owned by a Mr Gibbs who sold it in 1965 to the Dickinson family and used as a holiday home by Miss Dickinson until approx 1981 when due to illness the property was sold to the present owner Mr P. Moulder. Who has my wholehearted support for his planning application to continue the residential use.

Yours faithfully
Bryan E. R. Cake.

Chalksole Farm


 To whom it may concern

I have lived at Chalksole Farm since 1920 and have farmed the land adjoining The Oaks since 1928.

The bungalow has been lived in by various families since 1928 until it became empty approx 7 years ago until the present owner moved in.

I have been a Parish Councillor for the past 45 years, 30 years as chairman.

Yours faithfully
George Kirby


58 Beaufoy Road
CT17 0HT


Mr. Jim Horne (Council Solicitor)
Mr. Moulder

Dear Sir,

I read the report in Dover Express 29/1/88 concerning THE OAKS, Warren Lane, LYDDEN and I feel I must put the record straight about the bungalow being lived in.

My wife and her parents moved into the bungalow about 1934 and her parents lived there continually until about 1956 or 57. It was known as The Bungalow, Little London, Ewell Minnis.

Rent was paid to the owner, Mr Pearce, Wellington House, Lydden.

The ground was fully cultivated with lawns and hedges kept trim and tidy. It wasn’t until the family moved that the bungalow and its ground deteriorated.  Another family moved out for our family to move in. I am surprised this information has never been found before.

Maybe at this late hour it may prove useful.

Yours faithfully
Mr E R Holmes

.. Siberts Close
Nr Dover
Kent. CT15 …

23 February 1988

 Dear Sir,

Having read recently in the Dover Express the intentions of Dover District Council to make Mr Peter Moulder of The Oaks, Warren Lane, Lydden to demolish his home.

I would like to point out that my family farmed for many years in Warren Lane and have always known ‘The Oaks’ (formerly The Bungalow) to have been residential dwellings.

Yours faithfully
V J S…….


Little London Farm,
Warren Lane,
Kent. CT15 7EB

Department of the Environment,
Room 908,
Tollgate House,
Houlton Street,
Bristol BS2 9DJ.

Yr.ref. APP/X2220/C/85/885.

2nd September 1985

 Dear Sir,

The Oaks (formerly The Bungalow), Warren Lane, Lydden, Dover, Kent.

While recognising absolutely the need for planning regulations, particularly in respect of development in rural areas, I am of the opinion that due regard should be given to the historic use made of any particular area and the fate that may befall it should the traditional use be abandoned.

The site known as ‘The Oaks’ has traditionally been the location of a dwelling which in recent years has been used only as holiday accommodation. In the immediate past it has not been occupied at all.

It seems to me that in repeatedly refusing to grant planning permission for the site, Dover District Council has sought to change the status of that small area without offering any satisfactory explanation for its action and is now seeking to prevent its rehabilitation by means of renovation. To remove the residential status of a property by virtue of the fact that it is unoccupied, without establishing abandonment and/or, its unsuitability for human habitation and seeking a closing order, is to create a precedent that will cause concern to all owners of unoccupied property in the area.

While recognising the desirability of not adding to the rural population by allowing developments for residential use I can see no justification for contributing to de-population in what is already a sparsely populated area.

As I have indicated the property has, in recent times, been used as a holiday home by virtue of which it has been unoccupied for much of the year. A fact which has become known and has led to the property being broken into on a number of occasions, a situation that has in turn led to the adjacent property, itself unoccupied for much of the year, and my own property to be visited by thieves.

Since ‘The Oaks’ has been occupied there have been fewer incidents.  In the event that the Enforcement Notice is upheld I fear the abandoned site will be used as a dumping ground for household refuse as have so many similar sites in remote rural areas.

The site is wedge shaped and surrounded by mature oaks which would have to be removed if the site were to be brought into agricultural use, such a course would be uneconomic and detrimental to the environment.

Should it be decided that the work carried out on ‘The Oaks’ requires Planning Permission, I urge that it be granted retrospectively in order that the ‘status quo’ be maintained and the problems I have outlined, avoided.

Yours sincerely,
Kevin Finnis


My 40-year struggle for justice against Dover District Council, who unlawfully demolished my home

Dover District Council acted dishonestly and unlawfully when they destroyed my home. And that is a fact which is confirmed by the outcome of their own investigation.

My property has been in continuous lawful residential use for 96 years!

And to put into perspective how long my personal dispute with DDC has endured, I was 34 years old when I purchased my home, and I’m now 74. Throughout that period of time Dover District Council officials have lied, manipulated the regulations, deceived successive planning committees and systematically done its best to wreck my life. They continue to do so to this day. And it’s all done to cover up the vindictive actions of the original administration, which was corrupt to the core.

I purchased my property through an estate agent in June 1984 and employed the services of a local solicitor who carried out all the necessary searches and enquiries.

At the time of purchase the bungalow had been in lawful residential use since 1928.

Yet, at a meeting less than 4 weeks later David Sturt, the Council’s Director of Planning, deceived the planning Committee by presenting incorrect and misleading information to support his recommendation that my home be demolished.

Criminal Damage By DDC

Dover District Council demolished my home even though it had been a lawful residence for over 60 years, and therefore had  permission for residential use

Evidence proves that the decision to demolish the bungalow was based on a combination of confusion, half-truths, manufactured evidence  and downright lies from Dover District Council officers.

Dishonesty, corruption and covert manipulation of the rules by Council officials has ruined many lives. None more so than in the case of the notorious killer Albert Dryden.

There are certain individuals controlling Dover District Council who don’t give a jot about the impact that their perverse decisions have on peoples lives. These disreputable ‘people’ are not concerned with the truth and continue to suppress the evidence that supports the long-standing residential use of my… more

Hopefully this web site will enlighten people as to the unsavoury tactics used by district council officials. It appears that council corruption may be widespread in this country and consequently the number of web sites exposing maladministration and injustice is increasing.

To find out more you can read about How it all started

RIP The Truth web