At this point I decided to submit a complaint to the Council's Professional Standards Department about the way in which the planning department had processed my planning application. After I had submitted a formal complaint on the 29^th August 2005 it was merely passed to  Mike Dawson, Chief Planning Officer (CPO), whose response did not deal with the concerns I raised.

Given that my complaint related to matters that fell within the remit of the Planning Department, including factual inaccuracies in their planning report, was it appropriate to give it to the head of that department to investigate? Clearly Mr Dawson cannot be considered impartial in this instance. I subsequently wrote to Nadeem Aziz the Council’s Chief Executive (CE) expressing my concerns and he ultimately referred my complaint to Mr C.J. Grieve on 22^nd September 2005.

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 expended some 200 hours thoroughly investigating my complaint and his findings were published in a report dated the 6^th May 2006. This final report, once submitted, cannot be altered.

During the course of his investigation Mr Grieve interviewed Michael Dawson the CPO, Tim Flisher the Development Control Manager (DCM), Nikki Coles the Principal Planning Officer (PPO) and Lee May the Council’s then Assistant Solicitor.

In interview the DCM and PPO confirmed that the Council’s planning report relating to my application was more comprehensive than most planning reports but given the extensive and sensitive history of my property it was felt necessary to provide the Planning Committee with as much information as possible.  

However, in spite of this declaration by Tim Flisher and Nikki Coles to provide as much information as possible, they chose to remain silent on fundamental evidence and withheld the important and crucial fact that my property benefited from over sixty years of lawful residential use.

This was done in full knowledge of documents held and amounted to deliberate suppression, which meant the planning committee would have been denied access to the full facts.   

It is also evident that Tim Flisher and Michael Dawson obstructed the investigation at the stage where Mr Grieve needed to consider the historic and dated events of my case.

Tim Flisher and Michael Dawson stated that consideration of those matters was outside Mr Grieve’s remit and by implication amounted to an abuse of process.  

This attempt at concealment and to remain silent on crucial evidence was made in the full knowledge of documents held but Mr Grieve disagreed with their view and continued to investigate the historic and dated events anyway.

From that point on Mr Grieve’s investigation led him to find the Council guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts. Some relevant extracts from his report are copied below.    

4.1.19    The evidence of inaccurate and misleading advice was to be found within the    letters from neighbours and in the Planning Inspectors finding in 2000, these documents being within the Councils possession at the time the planning report was written.

4.1.20    It is my view that the Planning Report should have clearly and unambiguously identified the inaccurate and misleading advice and statements contained in the earlier documents and not simply restated them as fact.

4.1.21    Moreover, it is my view that the report was written in a style that presented the Council in a very favourable light and in so doing presented the complainant as being troublesome and his various applications and appeals as having no, or limited, merit.

4.1.22    Whilst I view this as maladministration, the report was withdrawn by the complainant prior to consideration by the Planning Committee, and in the circumstances I do not consider the complainant suffered an injustice.

6.10    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.

6.11    This was maladministration.

6.13    I am concerned that the planning departments conclusions reached post 1984 were based on assumptions that were not sufficiently tested and that contemporary evidence tending to support residential use was ignored or glossed over.

6.14    The injustice in this case is significant and substantial………………. 

6.16      Mr Moulder bought the land in question and the residential property that had stood on it since about 1928, in June1984.  His solicitor carried out the usual checks with the Council and in its replies the Council gave no indication that the property had ceased to enjoy residential use.  Indeed in a letter sent to the complainant’s solicitor dated 8^th October 1984, the then Director of Legal and Administrative Services stated: 

“I have conferred with the Director of Planning on the alleged statement that the residential use of the site may have ended, and I can confirm that the Council are not saying that the residential user rights have been abandoned, only that the operation carried out on site is, as a matter of fact and degree, a building operation and thereby constitutes development requiring planning permission” 

6.17  It is evident Mr Moulder bought the property with a view to renovating it and living in it with his family.  However, the renovations carried out required planning permission that was not sought prior to the work being carried out and was subsequently, when retrospectively applied for, refused.  It is not for me to challenge the correctness of that view or subsequent actions, but I would make the point that the evidence shows that whilst the height of the roof was increased, the building retained its original footprint.

6.19  I am also concerned at the wording of the report as it implied that Mr Moulder had blatantly breached planning regulations and had acted differently to previous applicants.  Mr Moulder’s case has always been that he believed at the time that all he was doing was repairing his residential property and that he did not require planning permission.  Unlike previous applicants he was not seeking to totally demolish the property and replace it with a new and enlarged property.  Mr Moulder now accepts that he made a mistake, but believes he should have been given the opportunity to return the property to the condition it was in prior to his bungalow being demolished.  He states he was never given this opportunity and there is nothing in the files to show that he was.

6.20  In November 2000 a different planning inspector accepted the property had been occupied from 1928 to the time of Mr Moulder’s occupation.  Mr Moulder moved in to the Oaks in June 1984 and remained in residence until the Council demolished the bungalow on the 31^st July 1989.

6.22  It is my view based on the contemporary evidence of neighbours, the finding of the planning inspector in November 2000 and the statement made by the Director of Planning and Administrative Services in her letter of 8^th October 1984, that at the time residential user rights had not been abandoned and indeed existed.

6.23  This, in my lay opinion, (Mr Grieve has a Law Degree) was a significant and fundamental error that informed and paved the way for the enforcement actions taken in the 1980’s culminating in the demolition of Mr Moulder’s bungalow.  It is my view this amounts to maladministration with injustice in that decisions were made based on inaccurate and misleading advice.  Furthermore, this inaccurate and misleading information was subsequently provided to the Planning Inspectorate during the appeals process.  This was also maladministration.

6.25  The question needs to be asked; ‘what would the situation have been but for this maladministration?’  On a balance of probability it is my view the planning committee might have more favourably considered Mr Moulder’s retrospective planning application supported, as it would have been, by the Council’s acceptance that the property had been used for residential purposes to the date of his moving into the property and as such enjoyed ongoing residential user rights. 

6.26  The grounds provided by the planning department recommending its refusal, accepted by the planning committee and, subsequently, by the planning inspector, would not then have been available to the Council.  It is my view the Council’s insistence that the property had been vacant for several decades and by implication had ceased to enjoy residential user rights was fatal to the complainant’s retrospective planning application.

6.30   It is my view the wording and style of the Enforcement Report did not present a clear and unambiguous explanation of the facts – this information being available to the planning officer at the time of the report being written.

6.31   Furthermore the report was written in a style that presents the Council in a very favourable light and in so doing presents the complainant as being troublesome and his various applications and appeals as having no, or limited, merit.

6.31   This was maladministration. 

6.32   The injustice caused is to be found in the additional stress, anxiety and uncertainty that has been caused to Mr Moulder in seeking to make his case to avoid the potential loss of his current home.

Although the Professional Standards Investigator found Dover District Council guilty of maladministration with injustice on a number of counts the Council’s Chief Executive, Nadeem Aziz, left it until the 4^th December 2006, some seven months after the Grieve report was published, to tell me that no further action would be taken in connection with the investigation or, indeed, in connection with my complaint, probably because of the calamitous implications its acceptance would have for the Council.

Facts do not cease to exist just  because the Council ignores them!

Obviously the Council's complaints procedure only works when it finds in favour of them.

Copied below is part of  a small booklet which the Council issue, entitled ‘How to Complain’. I have followed exactly, the procedure they advise, but unfortunately the Council haven't complied with their responsibilities.

It is clear that Nadeem Aziz, the Council's Chief Executive, is displeased with the honest findings of his own Professional Standards Investigator who has been on 'sick leave' since soon after the report was published, although I am, of course, not suggesting there is any connection between Mr Grieve's sickness and the actual investigation. However, I have been reliably informed, by a District Councillor, (name supplied) that Mr Grieve will not be returning to work for the Council.

As the Professional Standards Investigator had upheld my complaint and therefore justified the decision to withdraw my planning application I wrote to the CE on the 19^th November 2006  requesting a refund of my planning application fee. That request was ignored and I did not even receive the courtesy of an acknowledgement to my letter.

I wrote to the CE again on 6^th December 2006 and referred him to my earlier letter. I informed him of the amount I was claiming and that I would seek a Judgement in the County Court if I did not receive a refund within 14 days. This letter was also ignored. 

Accordingly I submitted a claim to the County Court on the 15^th February 2007 and it was deemed to be served on the Council on the 17 February 2007. The Council had until the 5 March 2007 to dispute my claim which they failed to do so the Court sent me a 'Request for Judgement' form which I filled in and sent back. The Court wrote back to me saying the council had now filed an 'Acknowledgement of Service' on 8 March. I would question why the Court gives a deadline by when the Defendant must respond and then allow them to be 3 days late. I'm not sure the private individual would be extended the same privilege and the Council have no excuse for being late considering they have their own in-house solicitors. 

Then the Council submit an application to the Court for my claim to be struck out and the Court inform me that a hearing will be held at Dover Magistrates Court County Court on the 18 April. I fear some 'funny handshakes' may be involved.

On the day of the hearing Judge Parnell asked Lee May the Council solicitor why, even though an independent Investigator had found maladministration with the way my application was processed the Council would not refund my planning fee. He was told that there is nothing in the legislation that provides for a refund. In other words, the Council can process a planning application as deceitfully and corruptly as they wish and manipulate evidence, yet even though they were found guilty of maladministration by their own investigator, they are not required to refund the planning fee. Judge Parnell said that even though he accepted my claim was valid and he sympathised with my situation he was not able to order the Council to repay my wasted planning fee because, of the legislation.  

Clearly when the legislation was formulated it was not envisaged that a local authority would act as inappropriately as Dover Council did when they processed my planning application. They have subsequently relied upon a point of law to cover their misdemeanour when a simple refund would have been in the public interest.

It is questionable where Judge Parnell’s judgement fits with the "Sale of Goods Act”. Services and goods must be 'fit for purpose' and the DDC did not give a service 'fit for purpose'. 

When I submitted my claim against the council I ticked the box where the court application requested confirmation that the matter involved a Human Rights issue. However, I suspect that Judge Parnell overlooked the Human Rights aspect in this case because it was not referred to at the hearing.  

How it all Started   

Home           History          Planning Application            Lawful Use