Researching Legal Cases where my LPA has been involved.

[ProDave]

How about getting a local, or even a national paper to run a story.

 

Headline: "If you want to build a house, get planning permission for a stable block and the council will never take enforcement action"

 

Quote the HOP statement above.

 

That should ruffle a few feathers.

 

This would be good in the Daily Wail.

[ToughButterCup]

2 hours ago, newhome said:

So are they using the caravan as a permanent residence rather than a temporary arrangement whilst they build a house? How long have they been using it? 

 

I would widen the net and look for similar cases elsewhere to ascertain whether other councils had been successful in taking enforcement action that you can use as evidence of successful enforcement. 

 

Any mention of this in the parish council minutes (or whatever they are called in England these days)? What do other local residents think and are you likely to have any support from others who live locally? 

 

Yes, yes and yes.

Widening the net is a good idea. Doing that will be a bit hit and miss, but....

 

1 hour ago, daiking said:

[...]

What is making you try to enforce planning rules when you’re not a council planner?

 

The  ' ... It's up to them argument ...'   The quick answer - because the Planners won't.

And I am not enforcing anything: I can't. But I can point to Injustice (or what I see as that). I may be wrong, in which case I will just have to suck it up. But I'm not into the ' ..... but it's too hard for me ..... ' argument presented by someone whose salary we all pay.

 

I have  asked myself : what would my reaction be if the person in question  (the person pushing the planning legislation to it's limit) were my very best mate. What would I do then?

I would talk to him and work it through.  But, in this case, despite lots of good will and effort on my part,  that hasn't worked. Detail isn't appropriate here. 

 

No, @ProDave, that's the other side.

 

Maybe what is driving this is my misguided sense of having to follow rule. The evidence - at least locally - is that some people do what they please. And get away with it because of the  '  .... That's up to them .... ' approach. 

 

In which case, what's the point?

Stuff it, I'll build a shed on my land and then use it as an office, ignore our GCNs, kill them at will if they are in the wrong place, tap into the local water supply and tell nobody, lie to the planners for as long as I can get away with it. When judgements go against me, I'll Appeal, when that fails, I'll just do it anyway. 

[PeterW]

Through experience over the past few years, the only departments in local councils that have had their budgets ring fences - and usually increased - is the legal department. 

 

A short letter to the council solicitor outlining your concerns that not only is there a breach of the T&CPA, but the council is unwilling to enact its statutory duty (as the enforcer of the T&CPA) should galvanise them into action as that is a direct reason for the LGO to get involved and councils do not need that sort of hassle ..!

 

It will probably get you removed from your local planning officers Christmas card list, and you need to make sure your own build is squeaky clean, but it will get a reaction ...  

[newhome]

Is there anything in Martin Goodall's blog that would help? Maybe BH could fund a copy of his book under the Tool Loan scheme? 

[daiking]

1 hour ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

The  ' ... It's up to them argument ...'   

 

Not at all. What I was trying to establish was whether there was genuine harm happening here or are you making it personal?

 

What would your therapist say?

Edited June 8, 2018 by daiking

[ToughButterCup]

30 minutes ago, PeterW said:

[...]

A short letter to the council solicitor outlining your concerns that not only is there a breach of the T&CPA, but the council is unwilling to enact its statutory duty (as the enforcer of the T&CPA) [...]

[...]

 

I have had a few very civilised chats with the local Enforcement Officer. We are on first name terms. So my preference is for careful preparation based on a thorough review of the particular documentation in this case, and generally understanding what the global issues are.

Going in harder is for later: much later.

As for squeaky cleanness - there are some advantages in the plodding Germanic approach I tend to use (without realising that that's what people (Debbie) calls it)

 

@daiking PMSL. 

You have a point, up to a point. There is local concern - the LPC have talked to me about it and it is a standing matter for discussion every time I show my face anywhere near a local councillor. I never raise the matter with them. It was the County councillor  who emailed me to ask about progress.

You are right to raise it though; I'll think about it. It's not doing me any good because it diverts effort and attention from the build, but  I'm watching that

As for my therapist: she (Debbie) would say '  .... pick your fight... ' and ' .... get the bloody roof finished....'

 

Want something done? Ask a busy person.

@newhome, I follow his blog assiduously: skim the irrelevant stuff and enjoy his beautifully crafted sentences for those bits in which I might have some interest.

 

 

 

[newhome]

2 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

pick your fight

 

Wise words. Unless it impacts you personally it's likely to be more beneficial to walk away and do something more productive and satisfying. Save your energy for fighting the important battles, and don't sweat the small stuff. 

[Jeremy Harris]

There are several things that are almost certainly influencing the planning departments reluctance to get involved.  Planning officers aren't paid well -  when I made an FoI request for details of their salaries a few years ago (in connection with the justification for charging £90 for a half hour 'phone call) they sent me a spreadsheet, and the head of planning for Salisbury District Council was paid just over £28k.  I'm not sure how much hassle I'd accept for £28k, to be honest.  Next there is the general staff shortages that are impacting all councils, as a consequence of the tight squeeze on council revenue.  This seems to have resulted in a reluctance to do anything that might cost money.  Finally, planning officers, in particular, are very used to complainants, and have learned over the years that they can make the majority go away by just not doing anything, so reducing their workload a bit.

 

@PeterWs advice is probably the best course, as once their legal people are involved, and if they take the risk of litigation seriously, then things do seem to happen.  Our council tax hassle is a good example.  As soon as I spoke to their legal chap and outlined the law regarding a rateable heriditament the council backed off very quickly, and didn't give me any more hassle.

[epsilonGreedy]

1 hour ago, daiking said:

Not at all. What I was trying to establish was whether there was genuine harm happening here or are you making it personal?

 

 

I can understand RA's frustrations. The 10,000 year history of the human civilization can be essentially distilled down to a struggle to live in ever more dense communities. Religion, myths and rules are glue around which this human story has been formed.

 

About 1200 Fitbit steps from my house there is a blot on the landscape which is a Chinese doll of permitted development rights abuse. Swmbo knows my blood pressure rises for 20 minutes if our evening walk passes this testament to local planning enforcement failure. The said 3000 sq ft blot on the landscape has been overextended multiple times and the heated footprint of the house must be well over 50% of the plot area. The front of the garden/garage has been clearly pushed beyond the historical frontage of a country lane and this transgression has been compounded because the grass verge which allows two cars to pass anywhere else along this 200m lane has been landscaped by the owners of the Blot with rocks and scrubs.

 

Last year the wife of the property started haranguing drivers for using this lane if they could not demonstrate a need for access, matters boiled over into a Facebook hate campaign and police intervention.

 

A little further digging revealed the husband had recently served a suspended sentence for violence. Someone who knew a bit about the husbands business background said experienced tradesmen would not work in his business because of payment problems and he was well know in the locality for abusing the apprentice employment scheme.

 

I can elect to walk past my example of local planning failure, poor old RA is reminded of highly paid public sector incompetence every time he climbs his scaffolding.

Edited June 8, 2018 by epsilonGreedy

[newhome]

5 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

I can elect to walk past my example of local planning failure, poor old RA is reminded of highly paid public sector incompetence every time he climes his scaffolding.

 

And I get that, but it's important to decide whether something is important enough to you personally to invest time and energy in, because you never get that investment back. 

 

I assume from your comment that RA can see the caravan from the scaffolding? It didn't come across in the previous posts where the caravan was located. I would point out that scaffolding comes down though so unless you can see the offending structure from your house, or it's very close by, or might impact the price of your property then it's a walk away decision in my view. 

[daiking]

12 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

I can understand RA's frustrations. The 10,000 year history of the human civilization can be essentially distilled down to a struggle to live in ever more dense communities. Religion, myths and rules are glue around which this human story has been formed.

 

About 1200 Fitbit steps from my house there is a blot on the landscape which is a Chinese doll of permitted development rights abuse. Swmbo knows my blood pressure rises for 20 minutes if our evening walk passes this testament to local planning enforcement failure. The said 3000 sq ft blot on the landscape has been overextended multiple times and the heated footprint of the house must be well over 50% of the plot area. The front of the garden/garage has been clearly pushed beyond the historical frontage of a country lane and this transgression has been compounded because the grass verge which allows two car to pass anywhere else along this 200m lane has been landscaped by the owners of the Blot with rocks and scrubs.

 

Last year the wife of the property started haranguing drivers for using this lane if they could not demonstrate a need for access, matters boiled over into a Facebook hate campaign and police intervention.

 

A little further digging revealed the husband had recently served a suspended sentence for violence. Someone who knew a bit about the husbands business background said experienced tradesmen would not work in his business because of payment problems and he was well know in the locality for abusing the apprentice employment scheme.

 

I can elect to walk past my example of local planning failure, poor old RA is reminded of highly paid public sector incompetence every time he climes his scaffolding.

 

So, if you failed to solve a big problem your resolution would be to punitively punish small problems? To make you 'feel' better?

 

52 minutes ago, recoveringacademic said:

 

@daiking PMSL. 

You have a point, up to a point. There is local concern - the LPC have talked to me about it and it is a standing matter for discussion every time I show my face anywhere near a local councillor. I never raise the matter with them. It was the County councillor  who emailed me to ask about progress.

You are right to raise it though; I'll think about it. It's not doing me any good because it diverts effort and attention from the build, but  I'm watching that

As for my therapist: she (Debbie) would say '  .... pick your fight... ' and ' .... get the bloody roof finished....'

 

Why aren't the LPC doing more then? Other than moaning at someone (you) who can't say no? Is it your 'duty' to help?

[epsilonGreedy]

6 minutes ago, newhome said:

I assume from your comment that RA can see the caravan from the scaffolding? It didn't come across in the previous posts where the caravan was located.

 

 

It was my guess based on the satellite image.

[epsilonGreedy]

15 minutes ago, daiking said:

So, if you failed to solve a big problem your resolution would be to punitively punish small problems? To make you 'feel' better?

 

 

You need to break this assertion down into simpler steps for my small brain.

[daiking]

2 minutes ago, epsilonGreedy said:

 

You need to break this assertion down into simpler steps for my small brain.

 

What you have described sounds like a bad thing and should have been stopped.

 

In the case of this OP, I still don’t know what the problem is. Is there some actual harm or is it nimby jobsworth rule following because rules are an effective safety blanket?

 

Are you condoning being a bully when you can be because the system was a coward when it should have done something?

[Jeremy Harris]

From what's been posted before I think the issue is that the plot was refused PP for a dwelling, but the owners may be living there, with the foundations down for a "stable block", which it seems is very likely to be a dwelling in disguise in due course.  I think there's probably enough evidence to suggest that the landowners are intent on living there, by hook or by crook, without going through the planning system.

 

Given the extreme hassle that @recoveringacademic had in gaining planning consent, and all the ludicrous hoops he had to jump through to get it, I can fully understand the frustration at seeing a neighbour just flout the law and seem to be getting away with it.  I'd feel much the same in that position.

 

The problem is really one of getting the law applied equally in the same area, together with the apparent unwillingness of the local authority to enforce its own decisions.

[newhome]

I don't know why the LA doesn't enforce their decisions either in truth, especially as there is evidence of enforcement notices being applied in other areas, such as the link I posted above that was a house not a shed, and the very large house that someone posted previously that was due to be demolished for being too tall. What makes this particular case different from others I wonder? That said this must impact many more people locally so a combined effort is what is needed, not the expectation that one individual will do all of the legwork. 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

I know the area vaguely, having stayed on an airstrip nearby years ago, and I have a feeling that the only house that is really impacted by this development is @recoveringacademic s, as it's a fairly sparse linear development along that lane, with his new build pretty much at the extreme limit of development (which may well be why PP was refused for the plot in question).

[ToughButterCup]

And here, in his usual elegant prose, is Martin Goodhall's  summary of a recent judgement in relation to Isolated House(s) in the Countryside    ( @JSHarris's point above).

 

Indeed, had this judgement been available at the time of the application for the land in question, Planning Permission might well have been given. However, the decision would still turn on the Delegated Officer's interpretation of national policy. The point at issue is that over-interpretation of policy is not a good idea.

 

' ...   Excessive legalism in the planning system is always to be deprecated. The Court therefore agreed with the respondents’ submission that its task is to construe the words of the policy itself, reading them sensibly in their context. This is not a sophisticated exercise, and it need not be difficult. It is, in fact, quite straightforward. Planning policies, whether in the development plan or in the NPPF, ought never to be over-interpreted. As this case showed, over-interpretation of a policy can distort its true meaning – which is misinterpretation. ...'Goodhall April 2018 Accessed June 2018

For the sake of completeness, here's the source documentation. I believe the ramifications of this decision could very well have a significant bearing on the outcome of planning applications submitted by self-builders. 

 

In brief, the NPPF and associated planning documentation should not be over-interpreted. My choice quotation from the documentation;

 

Excessive legalism in the planning system is always to be deprecated. 

(Martin Goodhall  April 2108 accessed June 2018)  and

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
PLANNING COURT
MRS JUSTICE LANG DBE

Accessed June 2018 http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2018/610.html

 

 

 

[Temp]

I think this is the part of the GPDO that allows site workers to live in a temporary van. Might have been amended but I haven't checked..

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/596/schedule/2/part/4/crossheading/class-a-temporary-buildings-and-structures/made

Class A – temporary buildings and structures

Permitted development

A.  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.

The problem is there is no time limit as to how long the development/operations can last once planning permission has been granted and work started. The council would have to argue that development had ceased but the owner could easily start work again and then stop again, repeat indefinitely.

 

 

 

[Stones]

Schedule 1 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 / Schedule 2 of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 both refer to paragraphs 2 - 10 of the First Schedule of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, which details the permitted use of land as a caravan site where a caravan site licence is not required (to obtain a caravan site licence, you require planning permission).

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Eliz2/8-9/62

 

Paragraph 9 states

 

Building and engineering sites

 

Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13 of this Schedule, a site licence shall not be required for the use as a caravan site of land which forms part of, or adjoins, land on which building or engineering operations are being carried out (being operations for the carrying out of which permission under Part III of the Act of 1947 has, if required, been granted) if that use is for the accommodation of a person or persons employed in connection with the said operations.

 

Many people believe that this paragraph means they can live on site with their families.  For those individuals who are employed in connection with the relevant building operations that may be true, but the paragraph does not cover family members not employed in that process, children being a good example.

 

Whilst it may be the case that individual Planning Authorities are more relaxed about their interpretation of this paragraph, and individual circumstances will differ, the only way to be sure that you can permanently reside on site is to obtain planning permission.  The most straightforward way of doing so is to include provision of the static caravan in your main planning application.