Question of ownership

Can you please emphasise the real reason for the appeals failure?

I attended the hearing that took place at Rother District Council’s offices.

I was vocal in asking for the application to be refused. Many of those present said the matters I raised were pertinent to the refusal of Mr Hall’s planning application.

However the most pertinent evidence that came to the attention of the government’s inspector, Mr Head, was that no title deeds were held at the Land Registry in the name of Mr Hall.

With no such title being held Mr Hall’s planning application had to fail.

The lack of title deed was pointed out to Mr Head by Rother’s solicitor, who was present at the hearing.

Mr Head decided that as he was now attending the applicant’s appeal he would listen to both sides and give Mr Hall extra time to prove his ownership of the said land.

As can be clearly read in the attachments sent out with the final decision, Mr Hall failed to prove ownership of said land.

Rother’s solicitor stated that the title deed showed Lord De La Warr’s Trust as the owners of the said land and this has been the case for many years.

Mr Hall refused to understand why this was so, and asked the Inspector if he had bought land from someone that had no right to sell it?

At this time Mr Head stated that it was Mr Hall who needed to clarify his valid ownership of the said land but would, nonetheless, make a full decision on all matters arising to the application.

In the attachment it says that Mr Head has no doubt that Mr Hall believes that he owns the land but hasn’t shown that he does.

I saw that a letter in the paper from Mr Hall’s father also confirms that Rother should have found out about land ownership before allowing things to go this far. Had they done so we the taxpayers wouldn’t be needing to pay the expensive costs that are bound to follow.

Has Rother’s solicitor now been paid or will he be waiving his invoice? I doubt it!

TREVOR HAWKINS

Clinch Green Avenue

Bexhill-on-Sea