Enforcement: a new twist on an old story.

[ToughButterCup]

Are you sitting comfortably? Then I'll begin.

 

This is worth the read,  it'll put a smile on your face.   Remember yer man who hid his house behind bales and then took the bales away revealing a palladian mansion with all the bells and whistles? Well this is the West Lancs version of that. Humble, gritty, adds a few interesting twists - but essentially the same. Sit tight. Full references at the end.

 

Not 25 yards away from our site lies a caravan in a field. Not any old caravan: a transforming caravan, a magic caravan which used to be one, but now isn't.

How do I know? The Inspector (very nice man) says so ( '...on the balance of probabilities ...' ).

 

The occupier of the caravan in the field applied for PP, failed, appealed, failed, got an Enforcement Notice for his troubles , appealed and  well - judge for yourself.

He was  living in the caravan pending the award of planning permission: but that was denied at Appeal. The ensuing Enforcement Notice was also Appealed but that Appeal was quashed.

But why?

 

Well, what used to be a caravan isn't one any more.

 

Ya wot?

See, he blocked it out FROM INSIDE. Built some foundations, and blocked the thing out from inside. Built a bathroom living room and kitchen. But for all the world, it looks like a caravan. Except in winter when you can see it better (no leaves) The bog window is now filled with breeze blocks, the bottom of the caravan sports - you guessed it - breeze blocks. Try towing the caravan and  '... in fifteen seconds ...' this caravan   would self destruct.

So its now a wee hoos ( as @ProDave and the Scottish brethren would say). And since the LPA didn't demonstrate 

Quote

... on the balance of probability it has not been demonstrated that there has been a change of use of any building to use as a single dwellinghouse.

 

the Enforcement Notice was quashed. 

 

So, to sum up, what was at one time a caravan ( using the legal definition of a caravan) 

Quote

... A caravan is defined at section 29(1) of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 (CSCDA) as any structure designed or adapted for human habitation which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed, or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer) and any motor vehicle so designed or adapted. It excludes (a) any railway rolling stock which is for the time being on rails forming part of a railway system, or (b) any tent....

 

was made into a house during the 5 or more years that this little saga has been going on.

 

Quote

... I conclude, on the balance of probability, that the structure is a building and is not a caravan. I conclude that the building operation is development for the purposes of section 55(1).

 

Moral? 

If ya can't take a joke don't ........

 

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?Caseid=3241296&CoID=0

Edited June 16, 2021 by ToughButterCup

[ProDave]

Is this just a different technicality?  It is no longer a "caravan" but is now a "building" erected without planning permission and deliberately hidden inside a caravan.

 

So surely this does not mean he has got away with it, it just means a different enforcement notice is needed to demand the removal of a hidden building erected without planning permission?

 

I bet it has just bought him a bit more time, but surely the council will still enforce it's removal, eventually?

[joe90]

47 minutes ago, ProDave said:

but surely the council will still enforce it's removal, eventually?

Let’s hope so, despite having planning problems in the past myself (don’t ask) I still hate people who don’t abide by the law, frankly they should demolish it and fine him the costs. No excuse ?‍♂️

[Pocster]

19 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Let’s hope so, despite having planning problems in the past myself (don’t ask) I still hate people who don’t abide by the law, frankly they should demolish it and fine him the costs. No excuse ?‍♂️

Crumbs @joe90 I’ll knock mine down and start again ?

[ToughButterCup]

Yes @ProDave it is a different technicality. One brought about by the time it took for the wheels of the LPA to grind.

 

I have a significant level of sympathy with the LPA and the person applying for PP. The orignal refusal of PP seemed to me to be spurious: there's that bit of Appeal-based legislation which says that decisions must be consistent. 25 meters North of this person's land is my place, and from the documentation, it seems that mine is more 'visible' than his planned house , yet he was refused.

Micropolitics in play there, I suspect.

 

And what does the LPA do about someone who is prepared to destroy the caravan they bought by building a house inside it?  I mean thats the kind of thing  @pocster would do innit?

[IanR]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

I bet it has just bought him a bit more time, but surely the council will still enforce it's removal, eventually?

 

I think he now stands half a chance of keeping it. The Appeal Inspector has found that the enforcement against the building can no longer be taken as it's been there for more than 4 years and no claim of concealment has been made by the Council. The question left is whether its Residential Use can be enforced against.

 

To test that the Council will have to start its enforcement all over again.

Edited June 16, 2021 by IanR

[ProDave]

6 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

I think he now stands half a chance of keeping it. The Appeal Inspector has found that the enforcement against the building can no longer be taken as it's been there for more than 4 years and no claim of concealment has been made by the Council. The question left is whether its Residential Use can be enforced against.

 

To test that the Council will have to start its enforcement all over again.

So the lesson from this is breach planning law in one visible way (in this case a caravan).  Wait for enforcement action for THAT to start.

 

Then quietly breach planning law in a different way (a hidden building)

 

Ensure by planning applications and appeals you can drag out the original enforcement notice for >4 years.  Then they can't enforce the second breach.

 

Is that about the summary?

 

If he now removes the outer skin of what is left of the "caravan" then he has complied with the first enforcement notice.

[Lorenz]

But if he had built a barn, (I do not know what the land is like) he would be allowed to convert it to a house under current legislation without planning even, I have read?

 

Edited June 16, 2021 by Lorenz

[IanR]

8 minutes ago, Lorenz said:

But if he had built a barn, (I do not know what the land is like) he would be allowed to convert it to a house under current legislation without planning even, I have read?

 

The Change of Use to resi can only happen after the "barn" has been there 10 years, and the Barn could only be built if there is Agricultural Permitted development to do so, which requires a viable agricultural business.

 

10 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Ensure by planning applications and appeals you can drag out the original enforcement notice for >4 years.  Then they can't enforce the second breach.

 

Is that about the summary?

 

I doubt he planned it, but he's been helped by the the Council making an error in their enforcement. ie. claiming the building was a caravan.

Edited June 16, 2021 by IanR

[Lorenz]

12 minutes ago, IanR said:

The Change of Use to resi can only happen after the "barn" has been there 10 years, and the Barn could only be built if there is Agricultural Permitted development to do so, which requires a viable agricultural business.

Or horses it would seem? Glad for the input, seen quite few recent barns near me being converted or a completely new house being built. Just been small horse paddocks. All a farmer needs do is keep planting barns

[IanR]

1 minute ago, Lorenz said:

Or horses it would seem? Glad for the input, seen quite few recent barns near me being converted or a completely new house being built. Just been small horse paddocks. All a farmer needs do is keep planting barns

 

Not for horses though (unless agricultural working horses). Equestrian doesn't fall within Agricultural.

 

I'd say they've probably got planning for the Change of Use and conversion, there's no Change of Use PD (yet) on stables.

 

There's also a max of 465 sqr m (or if you game the rules to push it up to 865 sqr m) allowable for the Change of Use, and if you do so you then loose Agricultural PD for 10 years, so unfortunately it can't be done again and again.

[ToughButterCup]

3 hours ago, ProDave said:

...

Ensure by planning applications and appeals you can drag out the original enforcement notice for >4 years.  Then they can't enforce the second breach.

Is that about the summary?

...

 

Nearly.  During that period, the caravan became a house. So the owner shot himself right in the 10 Year Rule (see below)

The Notice is merely quashed. And 

Quote

The matter of the use of the building would need to be resolved, without prejudice, by a future enforcement notice, or by a lawful development certificate or planning application.

 

Earlier the Inspector commented:

 

Quote

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 [before , it was a caravan. My emphasis]. 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.

 

Ah, thank the Good Lord for the 10 year rule, eh?

3 hours ago, IanR said:

I think he now stands half a chance of keeping it....  To test that the Council will have to start its enforcement all over again.

 

I think I agree Ian. 

He is also, pending the outcome of that process,  able to submit another Planning Application.  But this time, I have a strong feeling that the Enforcement is likely to be as water-tight as @pocster's glazing or @Onoff's shower tray. In other words, he won't be able to live in the field in anything pending a successful planning application.

 

The excellent thing about this decision is that the owner has had to allow the Inspector to have access. We now - six years later - know exactly what is there. And we know what truth claims were made about what is on the field. 

Edited June 16, 2021 by ToughButterCup

[SteamyTea]

Just for a laugh, let us assume that we double the number of houses in the country, so from around 35 million to 70 million.  That would be near enough one house per person.

We would double the land area that is housing, but not the infrastructure, we would not be doubling the population.  So we would use up another 2% of the land area.

We really need to reassess our thinking on planning.

 

[joe90]

17 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

He is also, pending the outcome of that process,  able to submit another Planning Application. 

Ian, can you not herd some of your newts over there ?.

[epsilonGreedy]

3 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Just for a laugh, let us assume that we double the number of houses in the country, so from around 35 million to 70 million.  That would be near enough one house per person.

We would double the land area that is housing, but not the infrastructure, we would not be doubling the population.  So we would use up another 2% of the land area.

We really need to reassess our thinking on planning.

 

 

Although I live in a picture postcard conservation area village, I agree with that. Planning controls amplify wealth disparity.

 

If the Government decreed that a building plot should never be more than 10% of build cost and flooded the market with approved build plots to reach that 10% target, the result would be a better country.

[epsilonGreedy]

22 hours ago, ToughButterCup said:

See, he blocked it out FROM INSIDE. Built some foundations, and blocked the thing out from inside.

 

 

There must be some peculiar internal room dimensions given the loss of 200mm for the block walls.

[ToughButterCup]

26 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

There must be some peculiar internal room dimensions given the loss of 200mm for the block walls.

 

That word: says it all.

I have a great deal of sympathy for all concerned in this sorry matter. Many factors have contibuted  to an entirely unsatisfactory outcome for all.

The root of it: mis-handled micropolitics, I think

[SteamyTea]

4 hours ago, epsilonGreedy said:

If the Government decreed that a building plot should never be more than 10% of build cost and flooded the market with approved build plots to reach that 10% target, the result would be a better country.

Not the Government as such, it is LA's and the NIMBYs.

If a Government gets involved, all that will happen is that the price goes up.

My alternative to to get the LA/Objectors to pay for the lost value, to the person who wants to build, but has been refused.  That will sharpen the mind.

[epsilonGreedy]

26 minutes ago, SteamyTea said:

Not the Government as such, it is LA's and the NIMBYs.

If a Government gets involved, all that will happen is that the price goes up.

My alternative to to get the LA/Objectors to pay for the lost value, to the person who wants to build, but has been refused.  That will sharpen the mind.

 

In Andrew Marr's History of Modern Britain he describes the Town & Country Planning Act of 1947 as one of the most significant pieces of UK legislation, it is the reason we live in a green and pleasant land not blighted by ribbon development along roads as seen in the US.

 

I now think that green and pleasant lives should trump a green and pleasant land.

 

LA's do what Central Government and Acts of Parliament dictate. If there was a political will to flood the market with building plots valued at 10% of build cost it would happen though I don't think people would appreciate the resulting 30% fall house prices.   

[SteamyTea]

3 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

flood the market with building plots valued at 10% of build cost

What is the build cost:

£10,000

£50,000

£100,000

£500,000

£1m

 

No, just make the objectors pay.

There could be a surcharge on mortgages that keep the borrowings down.

It will be interesting to see how many farmer's try and sell off land for building when they stop getting paid for just owning it, and to claim new subsidies they will have to improve it.

Valuing nature is pretty easy in concept, ass is valuing public spaces, but the devil is in the detail.

[Lorenz]

9 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

LA's do what Central Government and Acts of Parliament dictate. If there was a political will to flood the market with building plots valued at 10% of build cost it would happen.   

I don't think they would want to do that, I am sure they could do it, but certain organisations would loose a lot of donations.....

 

[epsilonGreedy]

13 minutes ago, Lorenz said:

I don't think they would want to do that, I am sure they could do it, but certain organisations would loose a lot of donations.....

 

 

"They" want to be in power so if there is a general will amoung the people it could happen. I think there are other countries where land values are closer to this 10% of build cost level, when I lived in rural France the local mayor on behalf of the community was selling building plots at a fraction of UK plot prices.

 

I don't think it will happen because retired people would not want to see the value of their homes knocked down 30%. The 45 to 65 year olds will not want to see their inheritances devalued. The over mortgaged aged between 25 and 50 would not want to face negative equity. It would only happen if 1 million angry young people filled with revolutionary fervour march on London and take over, I live in hope. 

[markc]

So true, everybody wants to help others get on the housing ladder .... unless its going to affect them.

Put interest rates up, saving is profitable again, house prices come down because borrowing is more expensive.

 

[Lorenz]

6 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

"They" want to be in power so if there is a general will amoung the people it could happen. I think there are other countries where land values are closer to this 10% of build cost level, when I lived in rural France the local mayor on behalf of the community was selling building plots at a fraction of UK plot prices.

 

I don't think it will happen because retired people would not want to see the value of their homes knocked down 30%. The 45 to 65 year olds will not want to see their inheritances devalued. The over mortgaged aged between 25 and 50 would not want to face negative equity. It would only happen if 1 million angry young people filled with revolutionary fervour march on London and take over, I live in hope. 

But they are kept in power by the systems in place and there is a lot of money around the building game, so they do not want to open it up, when so much can be gained and would appear to be gained.

Yes if people join together, but where are the local self build groups?

I agree, I had a french girlfriend and her parents bought their building plot from the local council in the Champagne area, the whole estate was like that, they paid 1 or 2 thousand  for the serviced plots, and then another 80k for a house of their choice to be built and very nice the whole estate was. I think it can still be done over there as you can pick any house off the peg with any builder, which already have passed approval.

Prices seem to be coming down to me, the real selling price and asking prices also seem to be coming down. I have always liked old houses, but they are increasingly becoming dead ducks as maintaining them is becoming very expensive, Would like to build as near to passive as possible, but I also have to compare that to how much an old one will cost to buy and maintain and if they come down far enough, they maybe an option.

There is not the immigration anymore, the government statistics are based on old data, I expect to see the population declining and many houses will be empty now as europeans move to other countries in europe away from the UK.

[epsilonGreedy]

4 minutes ago, Lorenz said:

But they are kept in power by the systems in place and there is a lot of money around the building game

 

 

I thought they were kept in power by something called democracy. I believe we are spectating on the end-game of liberal democracy but things must be moving faster than I thought.