Local doctor ( Sedges Resident) makes a fierce response to false allegations made by the Architect as petition grows rapidly to 474 signatures of objection

He wrote back stating

”This only inspires me more to fight this case. I will not be bullied or intimidated by your tactics. 

This only serves as even more evidence of you using abhorrent tactics and false accusations to push forward your agenda.

I would like to point out several of the RIBA code of conducts which I believe you have breached: ( RIBA is the Royal Institute of Architects)

1.4 Members shall not allow themselves to be improperly influenced by their own self-interest.  ( You own the plot of land and have designed the property, you have been influenced by your own self interest to profit from the sale of the 4 properties for around £2.2 million) 

2.1 Members must not make or be a party to any statement which is: (a) untrue; (b) misleading (your crowdfunding page on Crowd justice is untrue and misleading, you have made false accusations and misleading statements which have already been reported to crowdjustice. Your crowd justice page states “While rejecting proposals from two BAME applicants on this small redundant site, Hastings Council granted permission for another 210 “standard new houses by white developers, on large areas of nearby land - a total of 400 houses in all”

This statement is misleading and defamatory. It is also deceptive. This statement is factually incorrect. There have not been two BAME applicants who have had their proposal rejected. There has just been one . Mr Azad’s proposal was not rejected in 2015, it was withdrawn once he realised the land was unsuitable for development.

13.1 Members should consider the environmental impact of their professional activities, including the impact of each project on the natural environment (your design has not considered the environmental impact on the oak tree, hazel trees, protected Newts or dormice in the area, an ecology report was conducted but it was not extensive as there was limited access)

4.2 Members shall not discriminate unlawfully on the grounds of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage or civil partnership, pregnancy or maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, nationality, culture or socio-economic background.  

(You have continuously reported that "white" residents have objected to your development, you have discriminated against them based on their race. You keep mentioning "white residents" which shows you are unlawfully discriminating the opinions of residents based on their race. You have also judged the success of other applicants from The Grove school site who had their proposed development approved based on their race rather than their merit)

4.3 Members shall not victimise or harass anyone (You have attempted to harass and victimise me and other neighbours by threatening to report us to the police and GMC for objecting to your development. I am now a victim because you have harassed me and have threatened to ruin my career as a doctor because I oppose your development)

 4.4 Members shall treat all persons fairly, with courtesy and respect and without bias. ( You have shown no respect to myself or the local residents, you presume because residents are "white" that their opinion doesn't count, you have a biased opinion of local residents. You have not treated the residents of the Sedges fairly)

  14.1 Members shall have proper concern and due regard for the effect that their professional activities and completed projects may have on users, the local community and society ( You have failed to understand the impact your proposed design has on the local community who strongly oppose your development. It will have a major impact on the safety and enjoyment of the play park adjacent to the plot. The playground will be overlooked, making users of the park potentially feel uncomfortable. It will impinge upon residential amenity for residents. Furthermore this development will have a significant impact upon the neighbours’ enjoyment of their rear gardens & living spaces. The potential for overlooking and loss of privacy for residents of The Sedges, Rushmere Rise and Meadowsweet Close is alarming

Ultimately your proposed development would have a significant impact upon the neighbour’s enjoyment of their rear garden and rear living space through the potential for overlooking and loss of privacy. In this regard, there would be clear conflict with part (a) of Policy DM3 of the Hastings Local Plan - Development Management Plan 2015 (DMP) which, amongst other things, requires new development to achieve a good living standard for neighbours by avoiding an adverse impact on privacy. For these same reasons there would be conflict with the National Planning Policy Framework’s policy for achieving well-designed places where it seeks to ensure development achieves a high standard of amenity for existing users of any particular place”

The Architect and their barrister is yet to respond

474 have signed so far.

Please share the petition on Facebook and social media

Please click on the link and leave a comment , We have only had 32 comments so far

To share the post on Facebook

Click the link, join the group and click share

https://www.facebook.com/groups/314515571947222/permalink/5377758212289574/

Thanks for reading

We will not be bullied and intimidated by this Architect/ developer. 

Ultimately the planning inspectorate will make the final decision