RAYDEN ENGINEERING “AS THICK AS THIEVES”
THE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALLY SANCTIONS THEFT, DECEPTION AND FRAUD.
After waiting six months for the monumental Secretary of State decision over whether Rayden Engineering could develop the stolen flood plain he had already developed or not. On the 10th of June 2008 planning Inspector, Jeremy Eagles DipTP (half a degree in Town Planning) DMS (half a degree in Business Management) MRTPI (paid his subscriptions to the Town Planning Institute) gave his blessing to Rayden Engineering to keep the flood land he had stolen and concluded that: “The development would not have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of the occupiers of the adjoining houses.”
OH REALLY???
A quick analysis of the decision letter reveals that despite Mr Eagles stating:
“I recognise the wide level of opposition to the proposal and have considered both the representations received at original application stage as well as those made in connection with this appeal.”
IN SIX MONTHS THE INSPECTOR HADN’T BOTHERED TO READ ANY OF THE SUBSTANTIAL DOCUMENTATION WHICH ACCOMPANIED THE OBJECTIONS.
WHY???
DECISION LETTER
FIRST DISCREPANCY:
“I note that some of the adjoining property owners in Wentworth Street feel that the security fencing has been erected on their land. However, no evidence to support this view has been submitted.”
COMMENT: If Mr Eagles had “considered the representations” then how on earth did he manage to actually miss no fewer than EIGHT official Land Registry Title Deed maps and documents accompanied by a FULL HISTORY of the land dating back to The Middleton Manuscripts before any houses were even constructed on the former Estate of a coal lord!
Go for an eye test Mr Eagles so you can actually read the evidence before arriving at your decision!
DECISION LETTER
SECOND DISCREPANCY:
“I consider that the application and appeal have been validly made.”
COMMENT: What about the Certificate of Ownership which knowingly cited the wrong legal owner of the land along with a Statutory Declaration that all legal owners of the land had been notified when there hadn’t been as much as a Public Notice in the newspaper or any Notices displayed near the Appeal site in case the REAL legal owner came forward?
Ownership documentation that your own Planning Inspectorate states failure to submit
the CORRECT DOCUMENTATION will invalidate the Appeal. Surely you read the accompanying
letter sent to the Planning Inspectorate and placed on your file which pointed this
out -
“Should have gone to Spec Savers” Mr Eagles so you could have actually read this letter before arriving at your decision!
DECISION LETTER
THIRD DISCREPANCY:
“The incidence of flooding in the locality is well recorded, including that occurring in July 2007.”
COMMENT: WRONG DATE Mr Eagles!! If you had actually “considered the representations” at appeal stage you would have known that 15 homes flooded on the 26th of JUNE 2007 as a direct result of Rayden Engineering stealing and developing the flood land.
DECISION LETTER
FORTH DISCREPANCY:
Could have had a second pair free at Spec Savers Mr Eagles!
“The appeal site is largely impermeable but would drain into the River Erewash via the appellants existing site drainage system.”
COMMENT: Nowhere in your decision letter could I find any reference to the automated flap valve fitted at the end of the drainage culvert which would prevent “the appellants existing site drainage system” entering the River Erewash during prolonged precipitation and high river levels.
You was painstakingly informed no fewer than eleven times, accompanied by an Environment Agency letter referring to the automated flap valve, a map of this drainage culvert, numerous photographs of this drainage culvert over spilling and flooding 15 homes and another Environment Agency letter pointing out the importance of maintaining the porosity of this (stolen) flood plain.
SO IF YOU REALLY“CONSIDERED THE REPRESENTATIONS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPEAL”
WHY IS THERE NO REFERENCE AT ALL IN YOUR DECISION LETTER TO THIS CULVERT FLAP VALVE
THEN? MORE IMPORTANTLY -
IT WILL FLOOD MY GARDEN AND HOME SITUATED ON THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE STOLEN FLOOD
PLAIN -
To arrive at an “impartial” decision one first has to unselectively evaluate ALL of the evidence!
DECISION LETTER
FIFTH DISCREPANCY:
“ I accept that an alternative site with a lower probability of flooding is not reasonably
available as the appeal site is required to replace that part of the appellants original
site taken for the Awsworth by-
COMMENT: If you had really “considered the representations made in connection with this appeal” then how did you manage to miss the letter from Derbyshire County Council and their accompanying map which shows that the appellant had 877sm of Compulsory Purchase Order land RETURNED to Dastardley Dicks ownership? And how did you manage to miss the photographic evidence of the 800sm of CPO land that was also RETURNED to Dastardley Dicks ownership on the 25th of October 2007? Making a total of 1677sm of RETURNED CPO land in total.
DECISION LETTER
SIXTH DISCREPANCY:
“The proposal is one for storage and conditions limiting the use to that purpose or requiring the further approval of items to be stored are unnecessary.”
COMMENT: So although you state that “the equipment will be stored, undisturbed, for
significant periods in time” (obviously our definition of a ‘significant period in
time’ based upon actual experience wildly differs to yours) and you also state that
“no part of this proposal involves the repair, processing and manufacture of any
items” (what no welding, shot blasting, grinding and pressure testing next to the
perimeter fence?) in the same breath you state that it is quite unnecessary to impose
conditions limiting the appellants use of the stolen flood land for storage. So translated
into plain English what you are really saying is Rayden Engineering can actually
do what they have always done -
A quick analysis of other appeal decisions made by Mr Jeremy Eagles DipTP DMS MRTPI
reveals a distinct favouritism toward the developer, irrespective of the consequences
for those left to live with the decision. A village pub which provoked an outcry
-
If you are by any chance the former principal planning officer for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council, then you also knew the same individuals as Rayden Engineerings very own Dastardly Dick does. And if you are by any chance the former principal planning officer for Hinckley and Bosworth Borough Council then you would have also had associations with the same umbrella organisations affiliated to the same organisations as Rayden Engineerings very own Dastardly Dick belongs too!
DISCREPANCY METER
The outlook from the rear upper floor windows of the terraced properties is dominated by the large pieces of equipment, plant and materials in the Appellant’s present yard. The proposal would bring this area of open storage closer to the rear of the adjoining dwellings.”
PLANNING INSPECTOR JEREMY EAGLES
“However if the south-
PLANNING INSPECTOR JEREMY EAGLES
NOT ANOTHER DECISION MAKERS UTOPIAN ‘DES RES’ DEVOID OF WHAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO LIVE WITH SURELY?
COMMENT: Er.... In order to ‘significantly reduce the visual impact’ of the ‘large
pieces of equipment, plant and materials’ which dominate the rear upper floor windows,
the ‘illustrative’ and ‘unconsidered’ hypothetical planting scheme will have to
incorporate rather large trees of a significant height, which at 3 metres away from
the 15 affected properties will also plunge those properties into permanent darkness!
How intellectually well thought out -
♪ ♪ ♪ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♪
“Its a small small world....its a small small world......