Breach of pre-planning

[Ferdinand]

It seems that the canine has decided to return to a state of slumber, so just proceed cautiously until something says stop. if you are roughly doing the right thing, then other priorities will probably be prioritised.

 

If there is anything you intend to communicate on a 'please reply within 14 days or I will assume it is ok basis', Thu 20 or Fri 21 may be a good day to send the email ;-). UNless you actually want something to happen.

 

YOu can even use the December post and 'x .. 14 or 21 .. days from the date of this letter'. There are lots of beneficial options, including quite useful deemed service dates measured from your date of proof of posting.

 

F

 

Edited December 13, 2018 by Ferdinand

[dnoble]

Hi Ferdinand. 

On 13/12/2018 at 09:17, Ferdinand said:

 

 

If there is anything you intend to communicate on a 'please reply within 14 days or I will assume it is ok basis', Thu 20 or Fri 21 may be a good day to send the email ;-). UNless you actually want something to happen.

 

 

Does this approach carry any legal planning weight?

This particular PO routinely takes several weeks to reply to emails but does seem to be a stickler for correct process. 

 

In hindsight I should have sent the deemed discharge notice on 21st Dec to take advantage of the 2 week lull in activity

 

[PeterW]

12 minutes ago, dnoble said:

Hi Ferdinand. 

 

Does this approach carry any legal planning weight?

This particular PO routinely takes several weeks to reply to emails but does seem to be a stickler for correct process. 

 

In hindsight I should have sent the deemed discharge notice on 21st Dec to take advantage of the 2 week lull in activity

 

 

You’re getting hung up about nothing - there are bigger things to get stressed about. 

 

Stick the gravel boards on, then just clear the concrete where you can and carry on. 

 

In the meantime, remove their access rights without a specific appointment (see the @JSHarris letter template) and then just carry on ...

 

Stop taking the victim position and just play the game with them..!

[dnoble]

This may be good advice. 

I'm concerned that getting arsey with them may just worsen the problems/slow things down

They do have quite a lot of power 

Where is the JSHarris letter template to be found? (this would have been useful a few weeks back)

[PeterW]

35 minutes ago, dnoble said:

They do have quite a lot of power 

 

No.... they don’t ....

 

They have power to enforce a material breach of planning, but given that has to be done through a court and they don’t have the money to do it - and lets be honest this is a minor infringement - then they will leave you alone. 

 

Build a 3 storey house where you have permission for a bungalow and stick dormers in the roof too, then you may expect a visit from the enforcement officer. 

 

Councils are too busy just doing the basics to worry about whether your temporary fence is in the right place or made of the right things. 

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, dnoble said:

Hi Ferdinand. 

 

Does this approach carry any legal planning weight?

This particular PO routinely takes several weeks to reply to emails but does seem to be a stickler for correct process. 

 

In hindsight I should have sent the deemed discharge notice on 21st Dec to take advantage of the 2 week lull in activity

 

 

Heh. They replied to your deemed discharge notice in less than 2 weeks ! 

 

Everything can effective have legal weight, depending on the circs - eg Courts would give more consideration to a party that can demonstrate that they have acted reasonably, and that can in turn help face the other party down and perhaps prevent them needing to actually go to court.

 

It is another thing that could help the planners decide to put their effort into somebody else's case rather than yours, as yours may seem more difficult.

 

But the other commentators are right - this is comparatively small beer.  As I said:

 

Quote

It seems that the canine has decided to return to a state of slumber, so just proceed cautiously until something says stop. if you are roughly doing the right thing, then other priorities will probably be prioritised.

 

A lot of weight attaches to being no nonsense, getting on and doing approximately the right thing, and not upsetting the neighbours.

 

F

 

Edited December 27, 2018 by Ferdinand

[dnoble]

1 hour ago, PeterW said:

 

No.... they don’t ....

 

They have power to enforce a material breach of planning, but given that has to be done through a court and they don’t have the money to do it - and lets be honest this is a minor infringement - then they will leave you alone. 

 

Build a 3 storey house where you have permission for a bungalow and stick dormers in the roof too, then you may expect a visit from the enforcement officer. 

 

Councils are too busy just doing the basics to worry about whether your temporary fence is in the right place or made of the right things. 

This is reassuring, Peter.

I'd be happy for them to just leave me alone, 

But in practical terms I do need the condition signed off, along with the pre-occupation conditions before I can move in etc. 

So there is some leverage they have. 

How would I force/encourage them to discharge condition in this circumstance? 

[Jeremy Harris]

They cannot reasonably refuse to discharge a condition if all reasonable measures have been taken to ensure that it was complied with, even if there was an error and some aspects had to be retrospectively corrected.

 

Worth remembering that there is an assumed right to grant PP, unless there is a specific policy reason not to.  I know it seems the other way around, but the reality is that planning officers don't have a great deal of power and that enforcement regarding non-compliance has to be on reasonable grounds.  It's clear there's been a very minor cock-up here, and that wouldn't be grounds to take any action, or refuse to sign off the condition once you've done all that could reasonably be expected of you (which is as @PeterW suggested, although I think you might well get away with doing sod all and just arguing that no harm has been done).

[ToughButterCup]

21 hours ago, dnoble said:

This may be good advice. 

I'm concerned that getting arsey with them

[...]

 

Tell ya wot. Re-visit this thread in a year.

And tell me then that you care about anything other than a valid, direct, well-written instruction with dates for compliance. 

Welcome to self-building.

[dnoble]

Well it's a year and you're right.

 

It kind of fizzled out without incident.

 

I did apply to a separate part of the council (partly as a joke) for permission to remove the relevant trees which was granted. I suppose this would have undermined their insistence on root protection but either way nothing came of it.

 

One of the stresses with self build is that you don't know until afterwards which bits are very important and which seem like they might be, but turn out not to.

 

A bit like life, I suppose...

[Big Jimbo]

2 hours ago, dnoble said:

Well it's a year and you're right.

 

It kind of fizzled out without incident.

 

I did apply to a separate part of the council (partly as a joke) for permission to remove the relevant trees which was granted. I suppose this would have undermined their insistence on root protection but either way nothing came of it.

 

One of the stresses with self build is that you don't know until afterwards which bits are very important and which seem like they might be, but turn out not to.

 

A bit like life, I suppose...

You should have tied him to one of the trees, and thrown rotten apples at him. Jumped up twat. (Him not you)