Knock
it down first, then ask questions afterwards!
On Monday the 31st
July 1989 Dover District Council officials arrived, accompanied by an outside
contractor with a mechanical digger and a lorry. The Council had engaged the
services of W. Brazil, a small firm from Thanet whose main line of
business was skip-hire and tree surgery.
The day before
the demolition, on the instructions of Dover District Council, the Electricity
Board and Water Board cut off our electricity and water without consulting us!
My
son Daniel sitting on the front door step 
As a family, we had barricaded ourselves inside our home and, witnessed by both
the BBC and ITV, who were filming the demolition, I asked the Council's Chief
Planning Officer, David Sturt, three main questions:
1.
Did I demolish the original bungalow?
After a great deal of
hesitation, whilst being pressed for a one word answer, he finally and very
reluctantly said, NO, I had not demolished the original bungalow.
2.
Did I properly purchase a residential dwelling?
After yet more
hesitation and stuttering he finally admitted YES I had properly
purchased a residential dwelling.
3.
Was the bungalow rated as a residential property?
He finally confirmed YES
it was rated as residential property.
The Chief Inspector
of Dover Police then asked to enter the property, which I agreed to, and after a
lengthy discussion we came out for the sake of our two young children.
Then the
mechanical digger drove up to the bungalow with its hydraulic arms slowly
raising the front bucket. It then repeatedly brought the heavy bucket crashing
down on to the roof and literally smashed our home to pieces, making light work
of the timber framed bungalow.
At that moment our world collapsed.
J.
Horn (DDC solicitor) David Sturt (Director of Planning)
Police and BBC cameraman watching the demolition.
After
destroying our home the Council reported in the local press, that they were not
obliged to provide accommodation for us because we had 'made ourselves
homeless'.
It was a shock to see
them smashing it to pieces because the Council had informed me that they would
dismantle my bungalow and then take the materials to their depot and store them.
Adding, that if I did not pay their costs for demolishing my own home they would
then sell the materials and use the money to pay for the demolition.
This was yet
another false statement from the Council.
What they actually
did after they had smashed the bungalow to pieces was to immediately load all
the debris onto the back of a lorry. I was later informed by somebody who
followed the lorry [name supplied], that it was taken to the refuse tip and
dumped.
It was a case of getting
rid of the evidence quickly because if a forensic test had been carried
out on the timber frame it would have confirmed that it was indeed the original
timber frame, as I had repeatedly stated. But maybe that's why
they got rid of it so quickly, to cover up their wrongdoing.
Prior
to Dover District Council demolishing my bungalow they falsely stated that I had
‘erected a new bungalow’.
But that was not the case!
The
fact is that I renovated the bungalow and the original timber frame remained.
There was no increase in its size and the renovated bungalow occupied exactly
the same footprint.
I
purchased my bungalow on the 15th June 1984, yet at a Planning Committee meeting
dated Thursday 9th August, just 7 weeks later, the elected members
voted to demolish it. The decision was made based solely on false information
presented by the paid officials and without considering any representation from
me.
There
is overwhelming and indisputable evidence to prove that I did not demolish the
original bungalow nor erect a new bungalow.
The
Council's Solicitor, Mr J. Horne, watched closely as the mechanical digger was
crushing the bungalow. My wife approached him and pointed out that it could
clearly be seen that the timber frame being destroyed was old timber and
obviously the original, as constructed in 1928. His flippant reply that “anyone
can make new timber look old” was particularly insensitive and most
importantly totally wrong.
It
is nonsensical to think anyone would consider making new timber look old if it
was to be concealed behind cladding.
The
Council's action has never made any legal or moral sense to me and their action
was and continues to be, totally inconsistent with the facts and indeed,
unlawful.
The Council
stated that I had erected a new dwelling when they knew full well that I hadn't
and this false and misleading information was presented to both the Planning
Committee and the Planning Inspectorate. I would suggest that makes their
motives highly suspicious.
How
it all Started Home
History
"The
greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse."
Edmund Burke
