ToughButterCup

Quite unselfconciously, my sister used to sing on the loo. She never understood why we all roared when she sang Onward Christian Soldiers. Diaphram compressions helped formulate the correct emphasis: thats when my brother - a Shakespeare student muttered Speak on Sweet Lips that never told a lie. Families eh?

Ian , it's just an 'ole, 'ole in the ground. Open to all-comers. Been there since 2014 - look on Google Earth Pro Image History: you can see it clearly from outer space. It is unlawful to build one without planning permission, (been banned for a while now) unlawful to leave it open to the air, and not to pump it regularly. The cesspit leaks like a seive, discharges to the open ground downhill every time it rains, and has done for 6 years now. Stinks like France on a bad day , but mostly it stinks them out ( they dug it up-wind of their van-house (house-van?). Basic error that. I fantasize about popping a weedkiller-sugar bomb in the middle of it with a delayed fuse, delayed to explode in a strong westerly wind....Their pigs would love the extra protein. From October to March the pigs are knee-deep in sheet in the associated floodplain. When I have dead rats to dispose of, I throw them over the fence into the cesspit. They float for a bit, I'm waiting for the complaint with something like glee. Eventually the lead with which I force-feed the rats seems to take over. Worthy opponents rats. The shed down-hill (to the left of) from the cesspit is now an island. But if all day every day you are paddling in Scheisse from pigs and humans, you soon get used to it I expect. Bet the inside of that dwell-van hums .... Trump-like, he has to double-down at every setback now. The screw is turning slowly, but inexorably. He has managed alienate every land-owner around, and will not be able to discharge to a stream. Even if he applies for PP (next to impossible now) he has been told that a pre-condition for PP is a satisfactory Perc result. Which isn't happening. He's made the basic mistake of buying an old clay quarry (supplied clay for the canal nearby) so the water has nowhere to run. Apart from convection and transpiration, water stays in that location. Every year when it rains he has to pump surface runoff uphill to another part of his property. Which then comes back downhill. To be serious for a moment, how low must your self-esteem be to consider living like that? I actually feel sorry for both of them living there. All they have to do is MTFU and buy a property elsewhere. They've given it their best - its time to move on. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, letter edited, tweaked, in the post tomorrow, Recorded Delivery.

No, well spotted, thanks.

Your post @Onoff prompted me to review what has happened over the last few years. There was so much goodwill when first we met ... I helped the owner of the caravan move his caravan onto the site shovelled many many tonnes (10?) of MoT1 off the road outside his property : the delivery driver just dumped it on the road because the owner wasn't in helped him pull his cars off the flooded part of the property with my digger helped get his JCB running helped him fell a tree that was in the way of his BFO walls, but then...... My offence was to be given Planning Permission when his was refused. Am I persona non grata now phhhhhhhhhhhhh. You know folks I have a good mind to buy a beaten up old caravan put it out of sight on our land, surround it with hay bales and then build myself a palace of a workshop inside it. After four years block it out from within, wait another six years and then Taddddaaaa, a workshop with loo (connected to our digester) wifi (from the house with our spare CAT6 cable) , and water T'd off from just before our water supply goes through the meter. Oh damn my German heritage. There's zero chance of me doing that. ?

Oooooooooooo yesssssaaa, @joe90 its against Regs awreet. The point @IanR was making, I think, is don't give the HoP the excuse to say '... Not my game squire ...' by introducing issues not under the HoP's remit. So, I'll redraft that paragraph focussing on the absence of PP for the cesstank. PP is (through Enforcement) his remit. BTW, the local Environmental health folk (stink cops) have been out to sniff the air - and actually wanted to come into our house to breathe deeply. No point guv, I said. But he still wanted to. More fool him. In we walked; God luv' im our cat had broken wind long and hard - as only cats can. Bless the inventor of wet cat food. Christ it's bad in here said Mr Environmental Health. Mmmmmmmmmm. Peed myself telling the story in the pub that night.

Box of Quality Street on the way Ian. Thanks. Ian (PS, minus the strawberry ones ?)

Draft letter for comment. I would be grateful for your comments on this letter before I send it later this week. Many thanks Dear (HoP) Subject: Appeal against Enforcement, The (..... address.....) Appeal Reference 3241296 : and Your email to Councillor (...) 15th December (both documents attached) I write to express my concern about an email that you sent to Councillor (...) . The email contains several factual errors, each of them material to the progress of this matter. To summarise, you appear to argue that the Appeal (referred to above) has been decided in favour of the Appellant to the extent that the property is immune from further Enforcement action, That is not the case. In the email to Councillor .(..) you say ‘... The notice was appealed and the appeal was upheld in favour of the appellant ...’ The Appeal was not upheld in favour of the Applicant. The Enforcment (P LG 6 105) Notice was Quashed (Paragraph 1). A quashed Notice means that further Enforcment action can be considered. You also say ‘...The council cannot therefore use enforcement powers to seek its removal...’ That statement is wrong. The Inspector himself mentions in paragraph 38 the section of the Act under which further action may be taken by the Enforcement Team ( 171 B 3 ) In relation to the open cesspit at the property, you mention that action against the owner is possible by the Environmental Health Team. While that is indeed the case, you omit to record the fact that the cesspit is unlawful because neither Planning Permission nor Building Regulations Approval exists for the cesspit as required by law. Your office was told about this matter - by me - over a year ago. I would be grateful if you would write to me (via Councillor ....) telling me what action your department intends to take, and an indication of the timescale for that action. Yours sincerely, . Cc. Councillor (....), Forton Parish Council. Attachments

Letter on I subscribe to @IanR's notion that the HoP was badly advised. So I need to be persistent: And (winces) I think all self builders have that characteristic in spades Yes @ProDave you are right, that issue has been ducked too: it was permssion to stay for him (the owner) pending the outcome of the Planning Application. So he moves his partenr in and then, after 3 years of failing to get anywhere, claims a housing need so when the LPA kick him out then they will need to house him. One of the heavies (shoulders like a barn door, neck like tree stump) growled in my ear when the last lot of enforcement fireworks went off ... he had parked his car in our drive - I opened my mouth to tell him to feck off'a my drive, only to hear myself ask if I could possibly get him a Digestive biscuit and a cup of Earl Grey tea. ".... See it all 't time mert: we kick em off only to see em claim 'ousin' : they fookin' looves 't outskirts o' Blackpool, looves it" My son's girl friend is a CSI - she goes to more murders there than anywhere else. We'll see about ducking @saveasteading, we'll see about that. ?

Hence my incredulity when (last month) the HoP at the LPA wrote in an email to me via my local Councillor: ... With regard to the caravan and the building works undertaken an enforcement notice was served in October 2019. The notice was appealed (in 2020 date added by me) and the appeal was upheld in favour of the appellant with the Inspector stating that the works had existed for a period of 4 years and had the effect of turning the caravan into a building which could lawfully remain on the site. The council cannot therefore use enforcement powers to seek its removal. ...’ I'm trying really hard to be charitable. But, for a Head of Planning to write that takes some believing. The Inspector QUASHED the Notice he DID NOT not uphold the Appeal. You gonna tell 'em @IanR : tell em straight like? ?

Just rung the EA and described the situation. They suggest I ring back in a month or so to check progress: which I will do.

Well, @joe90, nearly only me. Everyone wants this thing to go away, and our little nook is out of the way, easily forgotten about. I've talked to our Planner (the one we employed). She's of the opnion that MPs are just an alternative Postal Service Parish Councils are useful , but to a very limited extent the LPA seem to me to be triaging cases not on a first come first served basis this case involves the soft and smelly stuff : people avoid dealing with that My local Councillor listens, sympathises and asks the HoD of the LPA, but I have a very strong sense that both men have too much to do and they've been asked to do that for less resource than they've had up to now. So a reply which misses important elements (all itemised in this thread) of a full response simply don't get written: Councillor has 'done' his job, and responds to me. So the very strong feeling I get from Officialdom is something like ==== Let it simmer down; the cesspool will get a crust on it, it only smells - well thats tough - and the owner of the plot is expert at being just aggressive enough to put officials off - and builds wall high enough to keep the rest of us from seeing whats going on, the LPA didn't know that he had built a dwelling inside his van - because he was damn well not going to show anyone. Its a bit like "Nowt to see here folks. Move on. Its only one overpriviledged old git banging on about it anyway" But this Old Git is feeling more like - Right then - bring it on. Head Down @rse Up Go. Must be nearing the end of my build ? Local paper ? Formal Complaint to the LPA and then Local Government Ombudsman? One (if not the) key point is the one made by @ProDave ; what about precedent ? ================================================================ What if any Tom, Tamsin, Dick, Roberta, Harry, Harriette, buys a field with outline planning for a stable on it: asks the LPA for permission to pop a caravan on it while applying for full permission, LPA says yes, pending full PP . All that he'll need to do then is build a little bijou Des Res inside it - well protected (as in this case) with a BFO wall a nasty snarly Rhodesian Ridgeback doggy. Oh and the Laylandii, and the laurel bushes - notice them? Eh? Mr Head of Planning - what then? 'Cos at the moment, it looks like you (corporately) couldn't give a damn. Had this happened next to your property Mr Head of Planning, whassa betting this would never have occured? Or do you believe Shergar is still alive?

Thanks everyone for the responses. The issue at hand is postive deception and deliberate concealment '... Other matters have been raised in relation to whether planning permission is required for temporary buildings and the issue of deliberate concealment. The Council offer no evidence that there has been an act of positive deception in this case. ...' ( ibid paragraph 42) I think this is one of those issues where the adjectives (positive and deliberate) are very important. In each case we we have to ascribe motive to the actions taken - according to the Inspector. Its possible to read the Inspectors words to infer that postive deception and deliberate concealment are - in this case - the same thing: deliberate and positive both refer to the act of concealment or attempt to decieve. The owner would argue (I think) that since the internal fireplace caused a fire hazard, it is reasonable to mitigate that hazard by building blockwork from the inside. The LPA would argue that since they were never able or willing to look inside the structure, they could not have known that the structure is (on the balance of probability to use the Inspector's words) a dwelling house; hence the decision to quash the Enforcement Notice. Trying to keep it simple: The fact is that it is a dwelling house, not a caravan Nobody has ever heard of anyone building a structure inside a caravan The issue of concealment appears to depend on motive (positive, deliberate) So apply the 10 year rule Enforce the unlawful construction of the cesspit Get the EA to act on the foul liquor issue Using the appropriate channles, all of the above processes have been started by me over a year ago. Silence has been the loud reply. Local press?

Heres an image of the blockwork inside the shell of what was the caravan Note the laurel planted a few weeks ago.

This image illustrates the foundations created to support the building within. (To be uploaded when the server lets me in a few minutes: I just need to fool it into allowing me) Here you are @ProDave....

This image illustrates the proximity of the dwelling house to the road: taken from the roadside.

In trying to form a judgment as to whether the 'dwelling house' was built covertly, I attach the following annotated images. A plan of the area showing the track which separates our properties, and the location of the caravan / dwelling house, tucked away under the trees. A screenshot from Google Maps showing the area before the caravan was placed on the site under the trees. The walls were built as soon as the caravan was placed under the trees. Heres an image from Google Earth Pro showing a plan of the area in more detail. Notice the unlawful open cesspit, it hasn't been emptied in 4 or 5 years: the foul liquor floods the field every time it rains. The shed to the LHS of the image is surrounded by foul drain overflow. (The LPA are refusing to enforce the absence of planning permission on the unlawful cesspit) Further images to follow.

In the somehwat poetic words of the Inspector , the former caravan is '... on the balance of probabilities ... a dwelling house. '

and and How well was this dwelling house hidden? Before answering that question, I'd like to I ask the commentatriat whether it would be unfair on my part (to the property owner) to publish photographic evidence here? I appreciate that your replies will have no legal status beyond simple unqualified opinion. The images that I would publish are images of a 'dwelling house' that everyone 'sees' every day. Most people think and always have thought that they walk past a caravan. I would like to publish that evidence here. The photos I have taken over the years have been from a public road that runs outside both our properties. Other images material to the discussion have been taken from outer space (you can see the overflowing open cesspit on Google Earth [ not Google Maps] - and you can see how the caravan has been placed underneath a canpoy of trees - visible in winter , but not in summer) Perhaps the Moderation Team would like to offer a more focused opinion on the matter? I will of course abide by your decision. I'll PM a few of the team to canvas opinion.

Welcome. These days, for knowledge work, (probably a desk study in your case) location doesn't matter as much as it used to. Our architect (for example) works in Hereford, Manchester and Lancaster. When I ask him to do something for us, it really doesn't matter if he's based in Chile. It might be an idea for you to have a look at other publicly available online desk-based studies for your location. Have a look at a wide selection of the authors' work . That'll give you a simple metric of the quality of the surveyour's work. Then ask around - locally if you want - . Best of luck Ian

I’d be grateful if you could check my thinking please. In short, I think our Local Authority Head of Planning has missed a key point in a Decision in an Appeal Against Enforcement. It is his contention that the dwelling house built inside a caravan (yes, you read that correctly) is immune from further Enforcement under the Four Year Rule (Full details here). It is my contention that, under the 10 Year Rule , the Decision handed down by the Inspector shows that the dwelling house is not immune from Enforcement. This post is not about a neighbour dispute. It is about our LPA’s apparent unwillingness to follow through in a case which involves unlawful building and a persistent and determined attempt to deceive everyone involved. Alleged Immunity from further Enforcment. I wrote to our Councillor about the matter. Here’s the HoP’s response via email to me. Referring to Appeal Decision Ref APP/U2370/C/19/3241296 (paragraph 32) he writes; ‘... With regard to the caravan and the building works undertaken an enforcement notice was served in October 2019. The notice was appealed (in 2020) and the appeal was upheld in favour of the appellant with the Inspector stating that the works had existed for a period of 4 years and had the effect of turning the caravan into a building which could lawfully remain on the site. The council cannot therefore use enforcement powers to seek its removal. ...’ Clear as day: the LPA are saying they can’t deal with the matter. Later in the same Appeal Decision (para 38) the Inspector writes ‘... It may be argued that upon completion of all the facilities within the structure in February 2015 the building’s residential use began straight away thereafter. This would imply that this was the first use of the building and there was no change of use to a dwellinghouse. This in turn implies a breach under section 171B(3) and case law has established that if a dwellinghouse is erected unlawfully and used as a dwellinghouse from the outset the unlawful use can still properly be the subject of enforcement action within ten years, even if the building itself, as a structure, becomes immune from enforcement action after four years. ...’ Clear as day: the Inspector is saying the LPA can deal with the matter. Or have I missed something? I really hope I have missed something because if I haven't then something serious could be amiss. The full Appeal Decision Notice can be downloaded here from the Planning Inspectorate. Paragraphs 32 and 38 are the key ones. https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3241296&CoID=1134608

When will there ever not be too much to do? 6 years in, and it's just the same, it never stops. We've some serial selfbuilders here on BH. Gotta take my hat off to them. Seriously well organised, gutsy people.

Nearly. I'm almost sure that its part of the Germanic family of languages.

Market? They aren't interested. I asked them why not..... because it's not ready .... was the answer. Can I have 2 please? I asked. Never could (or can) keep my trap shut. ?

Imagine my reaction when I found this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1TkiN309_4 And then imagine my disappointment when, delving deeper into the background and contatcting the development team, I find that the only interest they had was in securing more funding for their project. The outcome for people who might need the product(s) was of no concern at all. And we all need six fingers per hand don't we?

Exactly. I find that proper leather gloves make a huge difference to my hand grip strength: I'm always looking for ways to compensate for my stump-filled hands. A wrist brace is an idea I haven't explored... thanks.