10 Year Rule and immunity under the 4 year rule.

[ProDave]

Can you get a closer view by getting up close to the trees, to show if the brickwork is visible going down to the ground below the caravan?

 

On face value, it still looks like a caravan, so everyting I am seeing at the moment says it's a caravan with a house concealed inside it.

[joe90]

Yes, concealment is obvious to me as well.

[ToughButterCup]

Heres an image of the blockwork inside the shell of what was the caravan 

Note the laurel planted a few weeks ago.  

[IanR]

31 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

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)

 

Definitely one for the EA. There should be an EA officer at the Council. If there is effluent being released it's a prosecutable offence.

 

19 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

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

 

 

If that's the current situation, then the building (dwelling-house) is definitely being concealed by the Caravan shell

 

Edited to add:

The entrance walls also require planning.
It's quite unbelievable that the LPA aren't starting a new enforcement.

Edited January 4, 2022 by IanR

[ToughButterCup]

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?

[Onoff]

15 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

Nobody has ever  heard of anyone building a structure inside a caravan

 

Bloody clever mind. 

 

I have thought of building a structure to look like a caravan.....

[ProDave]

Well to keep things simple.

 

From the outside it looks like a caravan.  it does not look like a dwellinghouse.  Therefore if there is a dwellinghouse hidden inside there, it must have been concealed as you do not see the dwellinhouse from the outside.

 

Another tack then.  What is the time limit for building control enforcing action against a structure that has been built that does not meet building regs?  It is certain that this dwellinghouse would net comply with building regs for a number of reasons, so I would be making sure they were aware of this construction and perhaps they might enforce it's demolition?

 

Local press might be fun. If only to name and shame the council into doing something.

 

I don't see the motive argument.  The guy that built his house behind a stack of hay bales could have claimed they just happened to be there and it was not his intention to hide the house.

 

The firepalce and fire hazard argument does not stack up for me either.  If you just wanted warmth, it is perfectly possible to install a wood burning stive inside a caravan and it remains as a caravan, still on wheels and still moveable.  This is just someone trying to be clever and game the system.  I hope he is happy living in his tiny sub standard dwellinghouse.  It can't be much wider than about 8ft inside now it is blocked up.

 

[joe90]

@ToughButterCup is it only you trying to sort this out or are others nearby? What about your MP (planners not doing their job?). 

[ToughButterCup]

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?

[Onoff]

2 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

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  ?

 

Looking for a new project to take on? ?

 

It's what happens to old gits I'm afraid. I've taken it upon myself to wander the streets in a hi-viz picking up other people's litter of late. I get off on the sense of indignation.

[joe90]

17 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

But this  Old Git is feeling more like - Right then - bring it on. Head Down @rse Up Go.

Good fir you mate, why should they get away with it when you had to fall in line with planning rules. Might be worth looking at the Ombudsmen, do your homework (unlike the council), next step, local paper story to embarrass the LPA. 

[IanR]

11 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

One (if not the) key point is the one made by @ProDave ; what about precedent ? 

 

Thankfully the Planning Inspector has not made the Dwelling-house lawful, he's only quashed the incorrect enforcement notice against the caravan, so no precedent set.

 

It's for the LPA for restart enforcement against the Dwelling-house. If you are not already, keep on at the LPA to take action. The squeaky wheel gets the oil.

 

Have they given their reasoning for why they believe it is no longer enforceable, in writing. Has it brought up a consideration that we have over-looked within this thread?

 

If their argument is incorrect and can be challenged, then that's a good basis for a formal complaint if they don't then take action once it is pointed out to them.

 

On the subject of the over-flowing cesspit, I'm surprised the EA didn't respond. In a similar, but lesser polluting local example, we had the EA Officer out the following week, when the local Pub's Treatment Plant started spewing untreated sewage into the adjacent ditch (undersized treatment plant and new Owner refusing to have it emptied like the old owner did).

 

Your situation is more clear-cut, and installation that does not meet the Binding Rules and I assume the operator does not have a permit from the EA. Should be an open and shut case for the EA.

[joe90]

This final paragraph is the invitation from the inspector to the LPA to settle the issue of the “building” .

 

43. My conclusion is therefore not to correct the notice but only to quash the notice. 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.

[ProDave]

2 minutes ago, joe90 said:

This final paragraph is the invitation from the inspector to the LPA to settle the issue of the “building” .

 

43. My conclusion is therefore not to correct the notice but only to quash the notice. 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.

So this could still be a lengthy process.

 

The owner could apply for a lawful development certificate.  When that is refused, he could apply for planning permission for the "dwelling".  When that is refused he could appeal the planning refusal.

 

Only then when the appeal is dismissed could the council take enforcement action?

[joe90]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So this could still be a lengthy process.

Oh yes, but best to start it ASAP. Here is a start for you…..(from the planning portal)

 

You will not need to apply for planning permission if you wish to erect a new; or alter, maintain, improve or take down* an existing fence, wall or gate if the following conditions are met:

• in regard to its height:
  • it is next to a highway used by vehicles (or the footpath of such a highway) and it would not exceed one metre in height (from ground level);

Edited January 4, 2022 by joe90

[IanR]

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Only then when the appeal is dismissed could the council take enforcement action?

 

The LPA can act now with an enforcement notice if they believe there is a breach of planning control (which surely they must do).

 

The Notice would most likely be put on hold if the Owner then applied for a CLEUD, and then picked up again when the CLEUD was rejected.

 

I believe the Owner previously (2015) submitted a planning application, which was rejected and appeal dismissed, so another (retrospective) planning app would hopefully not delay an enforcement notice.

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, IanR said:

The LPA can act now with an enforcement notice if they believe there is a breach of planning control (which surely they must do).

Only if they can be bothered or are pushed into it by local residents/press/Etc

[ToughButterCup]

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.

[ToughButterCup]

36 minutes ago, IanR said:

The LPA can act now with an enforcement notice if they believe there is a breach of planning control (which surely they must do).

...

 

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? ?

 

[IanR]

2 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

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. 

 

And, he's ignoring the second option the LPA has to challenge the Residential Use of the building set out by the Inspector in para 38:

"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."

 

I would assume the HoP has either been badly briefed by one of his minions, or has chosen to obfuscate the matter to get the MP off his back, in the knowledge the MP will not look in to the detail.

 

Can you reply to the HoP and cc the MP to politely correct his mistake?

[ProDave]

11 minutes ago, ToughButterCup said:

 

... 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. ...’

Okay, so the "building" can remain on site.

 

But what was the planning USE of the caravan when first sited?  I seem to recall but lack the memory to be accurate that it was allowed as a site office.  This could be an important point, because if it was allowed as anything other than a dwellinghouse, then the change of use issue has not been dealt with by the LPA.

 

It does seem like the LPA are no longer bothered about enforcing removal, so it does sound like it is time to hit the press.

 

And I would STILL be contacting building control, to see if now that the planners have classed it as a dwellinghouse, you think it does not comply with building regulations for a dwellinghouse so see if they will take any enforcement, as that is a completely separate an new avenue to explore.  All the time it was a caravan, it was exempt from building control, but (should have) become of interest to building control when they started building the dwellinghouse inside it.

[saveasteading]

There was an article in The Guardian last week about the lack of enforcement on fly-tipping and waste sites.

The bottom line was that EA are vastly under-resourced and officers have written orders to try to ignore the biggest problems, and that the local officers (planning and EA) are sometimes very scared to act due to the circumstances.

I wonder if the planners are ducking this for similar reasons.

[ToughButterCup]

Letter on 

49 minutes ago, saveasteading said:

...

I wonder if the planners are ducking this for similar reasons.

 

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. ?

[Onoff]

As the "process" generally takes so long, a trick is to do something like this then produce offspring and get them into the local schools. Chuck in an elderly dependant for whom it would be detrimental to uproot. Seen it done by both ends of the social spectrum. In all cases the buildings have stayed, become legitimised and indeed been sold on. 

[ToughButterCup]

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

Edited January 5, 2022 by ToughButterCup