Delicate, annoying opportunism. Advice needed

[ToughButterCup]

If driving past Lancaster on the M6, you see the tell-tale mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion, that'll be me. And here's why. Advice please.

 

The land next door to me has planning permission for stables.  The owner applied for and was refused planning permission for a separate house on the same land. The subsequent appeal was rejected.

The owner continues to live there in a caravan. I asked for advice from my Councillor. This is the response she got from the Head of Planning (verbatim)

 

We are investigating it and will take any necessary enforcement action if and when a breach of planning control is clearly identified. Unfortunately [... name...]  is currently using Part 4 of the General permitted Development Order to justify the caravan remaining on site. This allows for the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land. Any building, structure, works, plant or machinery permitted by Class A must be removed when the works are complete.
We will check to see what works [s/he]  is carrying out and whether they have or need permission. If not we will take appropriate action. If the works are either permitted development, or have the benefit of planning permission then even if [s/he]is carrying out those works at a slow pace, that would be sufficient to allow [...] to remain with [his/her] caravan on the site. We did try to enforce a similar case a few years ago where we felt that the works being carried out were of such a small scale and being carried out at such a slow pace  but an appeal was submitted and the council lost. We therefore have to be careful that our case is robust this time.

 

One interpretation of the Head of Planning's response is that it seems to be OK to take 10 years to 'finish' the job because at the end of that time, the person has a right to build. 

 

What does temporary (above)  mean?

 

I am in dire need of advice on a strategy to deal with this issue.

 

A good outcome for me would be for the applicant to build the stables, and then move out. Or apply successfully for planning permission, and remain.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

It's a trick that used to always work down here - get PP for an agricultural building, get permission for temporary accommodation, then after the allotted span keep it there and get a lawful development cert.

 

Our local authority stopped it by stipulating a time limit on temporary accommodation, and by applying stringent rules as to whether or not there was a justified requirement to live on site during the works.  That's stopped it dead, to the detriment of a friend of mine I've mentioned before who's been trying to get PP to build on her rare breeds chicken farm for over a decade now, and still lives in a caravan on site.  In her case they keep granting her 3 year extensions, because she can always demonstrate the need to be on site at night, because of foxes etc.

[jamiehamy]

My advice is blunt - let it go. 

 

You have a house to build and some sort of planning battle is the last thing you or anyone needs. At the end of the day, look at it from the other side - they want to build a house there. They are probably only doing what any one of us might just do and playing the system. Let's say your build takes far longer than planned - and neighbours down the road started complaining because the place is an eyesore with a half built house on it? Stranger things have happened. You would be at the receiving end of the very same type of complaint.

 

Either way, you say you'd be happy if they build the stables and go, or they get permission and build the house and stay - so it's obviously the caravan part that's annoying you - which is fair enough. 

 

But I think you need to pick your battles - and I don't think this is one worth fighting when you have far more important things to be doing. If it was me, the last thing I'd want when I'm building my house is to pick a fight with my neighbours if I could help it. 

 

You did ask for a strategy - that would be mine!  

[ToughButterCup]

22 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

[...]

Our local authority stopped it by stipulating a time limit on temporary accommodation, and by applying stringent rules as to whether or not there was a justified requirement to live on site during the works. 

[...]

 

Is that stipulation a locally applied bit of legislation?

 

8 minutes ago, jamiehamy said:

My advice is blunt - let it go. 

[...]

But I think you need to pick your battles - and I don't think this is one worth fighting when you have far more important things to be doing. If it was me, the last thing I'd want when I'm building my house is to pick a fight with my neighbours if I could help it. 

[...]

 

I'm not fighting with my neighbour, I'm cross with the behaviour. Curiously, I also have a grudging admiration for his doggedness. 

@jamiehamy, you sound like a close relative of mine @MrsRA. That's exactly what she'd say I suspect.

[jamiehamy]

lol. Let's do this another way.  List all the challenges you've got right now (including this one because it's a fair thing to get annoyed about) on a piece of paper and cut them out - then prioritise them,top to bottom. See where this one comes out. Then start working from the top down. Revisit monthly and re-prioritise as you go. 

 

That's your answer  

 

(my money is that this one will keep slipping to the bottom but I could be wrong!)

[ToughButterCup]

You are right. I should just get on with it. 

I sense a slight shift in my thinking - just keep gentle, polite, consistent pressure on the Council to  draw things to a close. A carefully worded letter every few months will do.

Ian

[Jeremy Harris]

44 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

Is that stipulation a locally applied bit of legislation?

 

 

I'm not fighting with my neighbour, I'm cross with the behaviour. Curiously, I also have a grudging admiration for his doggedness. 

@jamiehamy, you sound like a close relative of mine @MrsRA. That's exactly what she'd say I suspect.

 

Down here they put a restriction into the local planning policy, that temporary accommodation needed to build must have a fixed time limit, not more than three years, I think.  Having said that, I've never seen that applied to building an agricultural building, only either building a dwelling or having to be present overnight at an agricultural site for a justifiable reason (like my friend who needs to be there to deal with foxes at night).

 

One question.  What are the grounds for granting permission to live on site in a caravan?  Surely they wouldn't have granted permission for this to build the stables, would they?  If they granted permission for the caravan because of a demonstrated association with an agricultural business (my lady friend and her chickens again) then there would normally be quite stringent limits imposed as conditions.  Worth a read of the full planning file, not just the online stuff, perhaps.

 

On the other hand, I'm very inclined to agree with Jamie, do you REALLY want to waste a lot of emotional energy on a planning fight right at this moment?  If it's an "easy win", where the planning enforcement officer does all the work then perhaps it's worth just nudging them in that direction, but otherwise I'd just let things go.

 

Often, if someone wants to get around the planning laws they will, eventually, and it's pretty rare for local objections to have any significant impact.

Edited January 24, 2017 by JSHarris
typo - missed out a word

[ToughButterCup]

Just now, JSHarris said:

[...]

What are the grounds for granting permission to live on site in a caravan?  Surely they wouldn't have granted permission for this to build the stables, would they?  If they granted permission for the caravan because of a demonstrated association with an agricultural business (my lady friend and her chickens again) then there would normally be quite stringent limits imposed as conditions.  Worth a read of the full planning file, not just the online stuff, perhaps.

 

On the other hand, I'm very inclined to agree with Jamie, do you REALLY want to waste a lot of emotional energy on a planning fight right at this moment?  If it's an "easy win", where the planning enforcement officer does all the work then perhaps it's worth just nudging them in that direction, but otherwise I'd just let things go.

[...]

 

Thanks. I got cross a few hours ago but it's gone now. It's the fair-play issue which gets to me most.

And you are (all) right diplomatic nudges are the way forward. 

 

Now, where were those Thunderflashes a mate acquired for me a few years ago?

[joe90]

Neil, can't you " relocate"a few of your amphibian friends to your neighbours ?( sorry, not P.C. but could not resist). (Cough),  of course diplomacy all the way.

[IanR]

I definitely agree with the "pick your battles" option, but double-check the potential outcomes, just in case it could be deleterious to your own site.

 

While he has right to site a caravan, does he have the right to live in it? If there's not planning or PD for a dwellinghouse I can't see that he'd have the right to live on site during any works towards building a stables.

 

If he doesn't have the right to live there then he is of course in breach of planning. I'm not clear in this instance if that breach would be immune from enforcement after 4 or 10 years. If it would be considered an unauthorised Change of Use ie. agricultural or equestrian to dwellinghouse, then it would only require a 4 year breach.

 

It remains a breach until the LPA issue an Enforcement Order. So even though they have noticed it and are investigating it, they haven't stopped the clock until the Enforcement Order is issued.

 

If he gets beyond the 4 or 10 year period, which ever applies in this case, then he could obtain the Certificate of Lawful Existing Development, and therefore the right to continue to site, and live in a caravan there. 

 

That may not be a good outcome for your site. He won't have the right to build a new house, but he has the right to continue to live in a caravan, or pseudo-caravan for perpetuity.

 

One option could be informing the Council Tax office that he is living there. If he goes on the record to deny that then he won't be able to later claim that he's been in breach of planning.

Edited January 24, 2017 by IanR

[ToughButterCup]

 

35 minutes ago, IanR said:

While he has right to site a caravan, does he have the right to live in it? If there's not planning or PD for a dwellinghouse I can't see that he'd have the right to live on site during any works towards building a stables.

 

To quote the head of planning;

 

'.... Unfortunately [... name...]  is currently using Part 4 of the General permitted Development Order to justify the caravan remaining on site. This allows for the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land....'

and

'... If the works are either permitted development, or have the benefit of planning permission then even if [s/he]is carrying out those works at a slow pace, that would be sufficient to allow [...] to remain with [his/her] caravan on the site. ...'

 

I can't see the logic either - the works are in progress in relation to a stable. I could see the logic if the issue were to be in relation to a house.

[PeterW]

Check his PP on the portal - it should show you under what terms planning was granted and then you can challenge it if you really want that battle. 

 

From memory you cannot put accommodation onto an agricultural holding as it constitutes a change of use in its own right regardless of whether it is in line with GPDO. 

[IanR]

I looked on the portal, and there's no provision for a habitable caravan, so any temporary buildings allowed are for storage, welfare etc. in relation to the build of the stables.

 

If he's living in it then he's in breach of planning, and you'd be best to flush that out.

 

The planning for stables was 2003, expiring 2008. I assume he got started before 2008? When did the caravan turn up?

 

I also notice that he didn't loose the Appeal for the Dwellinghouse, but rather was a few days late in submitting the Appeal so the Inspectorate refused to hear it. He's likely to resubmit the application (with a few changes) expect a refusal, and get his Appeal in on time this time.

Edited January 24, 2017 by IanR

[Ferdinand]

It sounds as if Planning are doing what they can.

 

A complaint could be anonymous but could perhaps only put persistence in their project.

 

An alternative complaint could be about nuisance. Think very carefully before doing this. One of my (single, female in this case) tenants had a neighbour who used to put in a vexatious complaint about dog barking every year - essentially the Council "we have an obligation to follow up but cannot tell you who complained for dataprotection reasons" (*) procedures meant that they provided a free third party harrassment service. I referred that to the Community Safety team for harrassment in the end to push back a little but it went hardly anywhere. My T was distraught, and it was tough preventing her family from sending the boys round.

 

Is there leverage with his open sewer, Natural England or the EHO or Health and Safety, and sensitive newts?

 

Would there be an regulatory reaction to the sewer if the EHO saw it while in search of rats that somebody had seen?

 

Though I think it may be the way to concentrate on your own house and readdress if still a problem when you are done.

 

Ferdinand

 

(*) The claim is a pile of pish. They could rewrite their procedures to treat repeated unresolved complaints as vexatious, and possibly even their DP rules so that names could be revealed.

 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

@IanR

 

Streetview shows a slab in about 2009, which may count as a start.

[IanR]

3 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

@IanR

 

Streetview shows a slab in about 2009, which may count as a start.

 I saw that, but he didn't clear the conditions until 2008, so it might be quite tight. Probably knows what he's doing, and got the slab down in time.

[ToughButterCup]

Thanks everyone for your interest and input.

I feel a bit of local networking coming on. 

[Temp]

I think Part 4 of the GPDO is also what allows builders to live on site so I don't think he is in breech of planning just by living there. The planners would have to prove he's not carrying out operations (eg not building). That might seem difficult but suppose he claimed progress was very slow because he had a bad heart or other health problems - then that might be good evidence he can't be a building. Children can't be site workers either so presumably he's not got any kids living there with him?

 

If he's been there since 2008 it won't be long before he's been there 10 years. However I think he has to be in breech of planning for 10 years before the council loose the power to take enforcement action. If they consider that he has been a legit site worker all this time then the 10 years hasn't started yet :-)

[ToughButterCup]

Thanks @Temp, I was hoping for a dose of clarity from you.

I read a hint into 

25 minutes ago, Temp said:

[...]

The planners would have to prove he's not carrying out operations (eg not building). That might seem difficult

[...]

 

Not so difficult if photographic evidence of inaction , complete with EXIF data (meta tags) were to be obtained. Perhaps?

 

Ian

[IanR]

31 minutes ago, Temp said:

I think Part 4 of the GPDO is also what allows builders to live on site so I don't think he is in breech of planning just by living there.

 

Only if the site already has a domestic use class. ie. if it is within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. (I believe - happy to be corrected if you can find a clause in the GPDO that says otherwise)

[PeterW]

Just now, IanR said:

 

Only if the site already has a domestic use class. ie. if it is within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. (I believe - happy to be corrected if you can find a clause in the GPDO that says otherwise)

 

Glad you can't find it as neither can I..!!!

[Ferdinand]

36 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

Thanks @Temp, I was hoping for a dose of clarity from you.

I read a hint into 

 

Not so difficult if photographic evidence of inaction , complete with EXIF data (meta tags) were to be obtained. Perhaps?

 

Ian

I thought EXIF rags could be edited at will?

[PeterW]

So just checked and section 4 is about temporary buildings for any reason. What cannot happen though is those temporary buildings be commuted to being permanent under the regs as far as I can see..

 

where is @Sensus when you need him ...?

[ToughButterCup]

5 minutes ago, IanR said:

Only if the site already has a domestic use class. ie. if it is within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse. [...]

and

4 minutes ago, PeterW said:

Glad you can't find it as neither can I..!!!

 

boys

 

6 hours ago, recoveringacademic said:

 This is the response she got from the Head of Planning (verbatim)

We are investigating it and will take any necessary enforcement action if and when a breach of planning control is clearly identified. Unfortunately [... name...]  is currently using Part 4 of the General permitted Development Order to justify the caravan remaining on site. This allows for the provision on land of buildings, moveable structures, works, plant or machinery required temporarily in connection with and for the duration of operations being or to be carried out on, in, under or over that land or on land adjoining that land. Any building, structure, works, plant or machinery permitted by Class A must be removed when the works are complete.
We will check to see what works [s/he]  is carrying out and whether they have or need permission. If not we will take appropriate action. If the works are either permitted development, or have the benefit of planning permission then even if [s/he]is carrying out those works at a slow pace, that would be sufficient to allow [...] to remain with [his/her] caravan on the site. We did try to enforce a similar case a few years ago where we felt that the works being carried out were of such a small scale and being carried out at such a slow pace  but an appeal was submitted and the council lost. We therefore have to be careful that our case is robust this time.

 

This is what Our Local King of Planning says is happening (in an email copied to me) - the applicant made an application to add a house to the site , and because he did that a blind eye was turned to the caravan.

 

But that application failed. Magically, the caravan is needed to support the build of the stable. And absolutely no progress in building is being made 

[ToughButterCup]

5 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

I thought EXIF rags could be edited at will?

 

Yes, they can. But they are better than nowt.