Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




INTERFERENCE JULY 2020 -  They said they were only doing what they were told. So were the camp guards at Auschwitz. But with a planning consent liable to cause Human Rights violations, would all those in the chain not be held to be contributory and/or vicariously liable. Nazi camp guards were hanged as war criminals. They claimed to be following orders! Proceeds of crime style confiscation Orders, is one way to put off irresponsible corporations. Would that extend to shareholders' dividends?





A parcel of land just outside the village envelope @ Herstmonceux in East Sussex, was sold by Tim Watson to developers, who lodged an identical application in all but name, and we think, subsequently that the land was re-sold. At each stage increasing the price of the potential development land, so distancing it from the ability of the developers to build affordable housing - but also seeking to put some distance between the company that applied, hence was responsible for carrying out the proper studies and reports.


It seems that this might have a lot to do with surface water run off, and Lime Well. Both issues potentially preventing the implementation of house build.


As you may imagine, the further from the responsibility or negligence in the application, the more likely that the house builders might escape Scott-free from claims, unless apprehended.






Ah, but what claims? It seems that in the rush to profits, that the historic building in Lime Park was glossed over, inasmuch as in not fully investigating the details (closing ones eyes to potential problems) they may have proceeded from an outline application to a full application, but with an incomplete picture for follow on developers, and finally, the end purchasers of the houses they intend building.


If they had carried out a full and proper investigation of the pitfalls, the directors of the company concerned would have to declare that a good percentage of the land in question could not be built on. And so the speculative purchase price would have represented a loss. In not carrying out the proper investigations, they could proceed on the basis of having instructed a specialist and blame the specialist for not doing a thorough job. But will the Court wear that, or will they see through it.




NOAH'S ARK - The well adjacent to the proposed development site will suffer contamination if this development proceeds. This picture was taken in 2019. The rainbow is taken as a sign from above, that Wealden will not heed. What are the odds of a rainbow appearing in exactly the same place several times. On other occasions those witnessing the event did not have a camera to hand. The happening has been captured twice.



We think that the Court will not swallow such argument. This is because there are letters on file raising the issue of the well in Lime Park, as being the only source of water for the occupants of the historic generating buildings.




In the UK and internationally, it is illegal to interfere with the peaceful enjoyment of property. Where the proposed development is bound to contaminate the water supply from this historic well, the developers will have violated the Human Rights of the occupiers in Lime Park. It is just a matter of time before such occurrence, based on the geographical location of units on the filed development plan, all being on the southern side of the plot owned by the developers.


Further, in failing to take note of this right and make reasonable adjustments such that any contamination might be avoided, the build of houses in close proximity, might be construed as a malicious act, calculated to cause harm.





That this follows on the heels of around twenty years of malicious actions on the part of the District Council, may be seen as more of the same and not a coincidence, because Wealden D.C., knew about the Lime Well being the only source of water for certain occupiers in Lime Park. Hence, the local authority fall foul of Section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, wherein it is incumbent on the local planning authority to protect the rights of all those in the deemed line of fire. WDC failed to protect the Rights of those in the property adjacent. Guilty as charged. All parties will be required to divulge files and documents relating to these matters.





The Developers might decide to take sides with any of those reliant on the water from Lime Well, against the District Council, where it seems reasonable that the Council should have alerted the applicant's to the existence of Lime Well, that could be seen clearly from the field in question well before and during the application - and where the application actually included the earlier photograph above in an a report prepared for one of the applicants. But for a claim like that against the Council to succeed, it would have to be as soon as practical, and not once the development has proceeded. After development of the site proceeds, and not having made reasonable adjustment, the Court may take a dim view.


There is also the matter of climate change, and pollution of the water course from run off. The applicant's and the Council should have taken note of the climate emergency, in the housing designs and subsequent committee decisions. Where virtually no sustainable energy features are incorporated.







What is reasonable in the circumstances, might be to relocate the proposed housing such as not to come within the 100 meter radius.


That the developers own the land further north, and being closer to the village of Herstmonceux, where such development is more appropriate Local Plan wise, they have the ability to make reasonable adjustments, to avoid infringing the Human Rights of those who rely on water from Lime Well.


Should those reasonable adjustments fail for any reason, there should be a Bond, a significant sum of money to cover restitution, to be lodged with the Court.


This is seen at Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life



1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.


And Article 1 of Protocol 1 in the Human Rights Act 1998 provides:



(1) Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law.


(2) The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of a state to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties.



The European Court of Human Rights has indicated that this Article contains three distinct rules ((1) Sporrong (2) Lonnroth v Sweden (1982) 5 EHRR 85):


(1) The general principle of peaceful enjoyment of property (first sentence of the first paragraph);


(2) The rule that any deprivation of possessions should be subject to certain conditions (second sentence, first paragraph);


(3) The principle that States are entitled to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest, by enforcing such laws as they deem necessary for the purpose (second paragraph).




THE AVERAGE COST OF BUILDING A HOUSE - According to My the average cost of building a house in the UK is £1,800 per square metre. Cheaper houses start at £1,400 per metre square, rising to £3,000 a meter for luxury houses.


Peaceful enjoyment of possessions include the right of property (Marckx v Belgium (1979) 2 EHRR 330)


 “Possessions” are not limited to physical goods: in Gasus Dosier-und Fordertechnik GmbH v The Netherlands (1995) 20 EHRR 403 it was considered immaterial that the property in issue was fully owned by the applicant, or whether it simply had a security right in it (retention of title). But to qualify under this Article the right or interest must have an economic value, or be of a pecuniary nature. In addition to property, possessions include:

- Company shares: Bramelid & Malmstrom v Sweden, (1982) 29 DR 64.


- Patents: Smith Kline and French Laboratories Ltd v The Netherlands (1990) 66 DR 70;


- Goodwill in business: Van Marle & Ors v The Netherlands (1986) 8 EHRR 483;


- Licence to serve alcoholic beverages: Tre Traktorer Aktiebolag v Sweden (1989) 13 EHRR 309;


- Ownership of a debt (where it has crystallised): Agneesens v Belgium (1998) 58 DR 63;


- An award, of court or arbitration, which is final and enforceable with no right of appeal on the merits:


(1) Stran Greek Refineries


(2) Stratis Andreadis v Greece (1994) 19 EHRR 293 and Pressos Compania Naviera SA & 25 Ors v Belgium (1997) 21 EHRR 301;


- Interests in a pension scheme Wessels-Begervoet v The Netherlands (1986) (Admissibility Decision Application No. 00034462/97 October 10 2000

In Matthews v MoD [2002] 3 All ER the Court of Appeal accepted that a right of action in tort was a possession.







Where it is a criminal offence to pollute groundwater, those enjoying water from an established well, have the moral high ground. Such illegality reinforcing the right to peaceful enjoyment and security of that enjoyment.


It cannot be that the occupiers have to suffer actual contamination of the well water, before peaceful enjoyment ceases. It must be that the developers have to agree to halt development that holds the potential to cause contamination, for the peaceful enjoyment to continue without threat.


In such circumstances, injunctions restraining building work and just satisfaction would be a remedy.




It is a criminal offence not to do something that is required to safeguard the financial position of others, or cause those others to be at risk as to loss. The failure of the local authority to obtain legal advice as to the Human Rights of those using Lime Well, where they obtained legal advice as to water run off through Lime Pond, may be held to be fraud stemming from negligence, or a deliberate act on the part of the Council to avoid knowing, such as to cause loss and carry forward a violation of the well user's Human Rights.






2, 4, 6, 8 DEFECATE - The big guys always think they can dump all over the little guys, and mostly they get away with it. But very occasionally the law gets in the way. The law is the great equalizer, maybe not so in the UK, but sometimes surprisingly in Europe, and very rarely in the International Court of Justice.













THE SHIT CREEK CHAIN - Tim Watson started the planning process, Gleeson, Thakeham, Latimer and Clarion were all involved at some point. Wealden is the binder in the mix, used to licking developer's backsides to be able to rake in the CIL payments and planning fees to justify their planning department. Why not have a Central Government application process, to cut out the bribes and favours?


Latimer to deliver 70 new homes in Herstmonceux - 7 March 2018


Clarion Housing Group’s private development company, Latimer, will deliver 70 new homes near Hailsham in East Sussex.

Latimer bought the 6.20 hectare agricultural site in Herstmonceux on 1st March from Thakeham Group.

The scheme, which has a GDV of £21.5m, comes with outline planning permission for 45 homes for private sale homes, 17 homes for affordable rent and eight homes for shared ownership.

The deal follows on from the Group’s acquisition last October of a site on land south of the A271 at Amberstone, on which it will build more than 100 new homes. 

Richard White, Director of Land and Planning at Latimer and Clarion Housing Group said: “We want to deliver 50,000 new homes over 10 years and we aim to achieve this by buying land ourselves, like this site in Herstmonceux, which we can turn into housing.

“This scheme has a great location as it’s positioned in an attractive village on the edge of the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“We are pleased to secure the site which further underlines our commitment to delivering much-needed new housing in East Sussex.”

Latimer has appointed Thakeham Client Ltd (part of the Thakeham Group) to build the development, which will have a mix of one-, two-, three- and four-bedroom homes.

Steve Tuhey, Managing Director at Thakeham Client, said: “We are delighted to be working with Clarion on this important development. Thakeham has a track record of working with Clarion and we’re delighted to be bringing our in-house design, planning, project management and construction skills to bear on this prestigious site.”

Work on site is due to start at the end of this year and completion is planned for 2021.



According to their website, accessed in July 2020, Latimer is part of Clarion Housing Group. Latimer Developments Limited. Registered office: Level 6, 6 More London Place, Tooley Street, London SE1 2DA. Registered in England and Wales. Registration number: 05452017.


It appears that Latimer Developments purchased the suspect site from Clarion Housing Group in March 2018, registered with H M Land Registry on the 28th of June 2018. 


The price paid was £2,950,000 two million nine hundred and fifty thousand pounds plus £590,000 five hundred and ninety thousand pounds VAT, totalling £3,540,000 three million five hundred and forty thousand pounds. The title number is ESX390309.


It is believed that the estate agent, Tim Watson, purchased the site in the period between 1980 - 1995 for around £30,000.


We await details of any future transfers.


Thakeham Developments Limited
Thakeham House, Summers Place

Stane Street, Billingshurst, West Sussex

RH14 9GN.

Registered in England and Wales, 

Company Registration No. 07278594.


Clarion Housing Group Limited is a charitable registered society (Reg No 28038R).

Registered with the Regulator of Social Housing (Reg No LH4087) VAT No (675 646 394).

Registered office: Level 6

6 More London Place

Tooley Street, London

SE1 2DA.


James Thomson (CEO)
Gleeson Homes (Head Office)
6 Europa Court
Sheffield Business Park
S9 1XE




INCONVENIENCE? - Or interference. That is the question. When does inconvenience become a Human Rights violation? Where the inconvenience causes, leads to, or even potentially sets in motion the means to cause human rights violations, then arguably, Article 1 of Protocol 1 is breached.




AIDING AND ABETTING? - As contractors for the developers, who it appears are intent on creating a situation where a water supply becomes contaminated, Southern Water could be held to be conspirators, to such Human Rights abuses. Hence, we are looking at climate and human rights crimes.








Please use our A-Z INDEX to navigate this site




This website is protected by Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Injustice Alliance avers that the right to impart information is a right, no matter that the method of communication is unpalatable to the State.