Can I sue my council
Discussion
hunton69 said:
Steffan said:
Poor drafting I presume. I would hope the planners will interpret this reasonably.
LolThese planners have told me that where the buildings used to stand I cannot turf those areas I have to seed them. Work that out.
robinessex said:
hunton69 said:
Steffan said:
Poor drafting I presume. I would hope the planners will interpret this reasonably.
LolThese planners have told me that where the buildings used to stand I cannot turf those areas I have to seed them. Work that out.
Steffan said:
I appreciate that as with most individuals with some administrative function in the public secotor if you antagonise those individuals there can be consequences in their approach to your transgressions in any application that passes under their scrutiny. The op is as I understand it currently the owner of a property with enforcement proceedings outstanding. The planners are being difficult. Hence me earlier comments re ruffling feathers. If the planners are in control with the law behind them I would suggest the OP actions all their reasonable requirements. It may be unwelcome but from what I have seen on here the enforcement procedures are lawful. Therefore the OP should comply. If there are doubts concerning the lawfulness I would suggest testing those weaknesses lawfully with due process. Generally one lawful enforcement procedures are started it is much simpler to comply.
I have complied with every part of the enforcement notice apart from restoring the land to the original level. That is the problem it's an impossible request with out a land survey pre the breach.robinessex said:
What seed do you have to use? How many seeds per sq mtr do you have to sew? Can you seed it any day except Sunday? How often do you have to cut it, and to what length? Can you sit on it? Can the dog walk on it? Can you have a dog? Ad finitum.............
Part of what you have said is also an objection, they are questioning the length I cut the grass.I would hope that those in the know will understand why they have said that.
hunton69 said:
robinessex said:
What seed do you have to use? How many seeds per sq mtr do you have to sew? Can you seed it any day except Sunday? How often do you have to cut it, and to what length? Can you sit on it? Can the dog walk on it? Can you have a dog? Ad finitum.............
Part of what you have said is also an objection, they are questioning the length I cut the grass.I would hope that those in the know will understand why they have said that.[/quote
It would seem that the nit picking is directed at the OP. Food for thought for everyone who follows the same path. I hope things are resolved in a reasonable way.
Planning officers are generally idiots with too much power.
In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
There was recently an local issue nearby where a land owner removed the hedge between his garden and the small paddock he also owned. He then grass seeded the paddock to make it look nice. He was then jumped upon by the local planning officer for "increasing the curtilage" of his garden. So, other than a line on a map, how/do you deliniate the boundry of your garden? Fence, hedge, row of plants. What is a garden anyhow (in legal terms)? I've no idea of the outcome though.
From Wikipedia
Under common law, which derives from English law, curtilage has been defined as "the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house."[2] Black's Law Dictionary of 1891 defined it as:
"The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house. In its most comprehensive and proper legal signification, it includes all that space of ground and buildings thereon which is usually enclosed within the general fence immediately surrounding a principal messuage and outbuildings, and yard closely adjoining to a dwelling-house, but it may be large enough for cattle to be levant and couchant therein."
In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start.
From Wikipedia
Under common law, which derives from English law, curtilage has been defined as "the open space situated within a common enclosure belonging to a dwelling-house."[2] Black's Law Dictionary of 1891 defined it as:
"The enclosed space of ground and buildings immediately surrounding a dwelling-house. In its most comprehensive and proper legal signification, it includes all that space of ground and buildings thereon which is usually enclosed within the general fence immediately surrounding a principal messuage and outbuildings, and yard closely adjoining to a dwelling-house, but it may be large enough for cattle to be levant and couchant therein."
In urban properties, the location of the curtilage may be evident from the position of fences, wall and similar; within larger properties it may be a matter of some legal debate as to where the private area ends and the 'open fields' start.
Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 29th April 09:09
robinessex said:
There was recently an local issue nearby where a land owner removed the hedge between his garden and the small paddock he also owned. He then grass seeded the paddock to make it look nice. He was then jumped upon by the local planning officer for "increasing the curtilage" of his garden. So, other than a line on a map, how/do you deliniate the boundry of your garden? Fence, hedge, row of plants. What is a garden anyhow (in legal terms)? I've no idea of the outcome though.
That is why they don't want us to turf the other areas and cut the grass to the same length as the rest of the garden.Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 29th April 09:09
They are so thick that if you want a manicured lawn seeding with the right preparation produces a better lawn than laying turfs.
We have 4 acres and only approx. 20% is curtilage
blueg33 said:
Planning officers are generally idiots with too much power.
In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
The clever ones go into private practice because that is the only time they earn money.In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
One said to a mate of mine who has done well for himself "What university did you go to so that you can afford your house" his answer was "The university of life". Don't think the guy got it.
hunton69 said:
blueg33 said:
Planning officers are generally idiots with too much power.
In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
The clever ones go into private practice because that is the only time they earn money.In 30 years I can only think of 2 that I respect and they are now in private practice.
Sadly for the op they seem to be exercising their right to be irrational malicious buggers.
I have seen a huge decline in the quality of planning officers in the last 15 years. I bet most of them have no idea what the T and C Act says.
One said to a mate of mine who has done well for himself "What university did you go to so that you can afford your house" his answer was "The university of life". Don't think the guy got it.
10 Pence Short said:
Were certificates of lawful development issued, or letters issued by the planning department that specifically said no enforcement action would ever be taken?
A quick up date. I must not waffle in future.
Correspondence that I had prior to purchase was a letter written by the council that said.
" I can confirm that an enforcement investigation has been opened on this site(090533/comp) relating to several outbuildings that had been constructed in the absence of a planning consent. It has been determined during the course of this investigation that two large outbuildings and three smaller buildings buildings toweards the rear of the site need to be demolished and the land restored to it's original form. An enforcement notice will be drafted and served should the land owner(upon completion of sale) fail to undertake these actions.
There were no disclaimers at the bottom of this letter.
This letter was sent out to solicitors who were acting for potential buyers.
The five buildings refered to were the 2 bungalows and 3 garages. We therefor assumed that after 3 years and 4 enforcement cases the council were now satisfied that the pool and dog kennel were legal as they did not include them in there letter above.
I do understand that they did not have a certificate of lawfullness.
This was repeated to us at a site meeting 2 months after we purchased by 2 senior enforcement officers.
My question is how much weight does that letter carry?
Edited by hunton69 on Friday 22 August 08:06
Op
I have concluded that this one is too tricky for an internet forum to provide any useful advvice above what you already have. You need a planning lawyer, not a planning consultant or a regular lawyer, but a specialist with proper in depth legal knowledge and experience of the planning act as applied and judgements that have been made the create precedent.
I have concluded that this one is too tricky for an internet forum to provide any useful advvice above what you already have. You need a planning lawyer, not a planning consultant or a regular lawyer, but a specialist with proper in depth legal knowledge and experience of the planning act as applied and judgements that have been made the create precedent.
Both the above are correct IMHO.
IIRC this (and wasn't there another thread?) have at their core the OP mistakenly believing (or needing to believe as there is not much else he can rely on?) that the council's previous silence or lack of action on some of the buildings confers lawfulness on them and means they can't do anything about them now.
Legal advice required.
IIRC this (and wasn't there another thread?) have at their core the OP mistakenly believing (or needing to believe as there is not much else he can rely on?) that the council's previous silence or lack of action on some of the buildings confers lawfulness on them and means they can't do anything about them now.
Legal advice required.
TooMany2cvs said:
Big assumption. Big mistake.
Just because the letter didn't mention other bits as being specifically in breach does not mean that they weren't, nor does it meant that that the council wouldn't later enforce against those.
I agree on what you say.Just because the letter didn't mention other bits as being specifically in breach does not mean that they weren't, nor does it meant that that the council wouldn't later enforce against those.
However they misled myself ((or who ever purchased the property) by writting that to prospective buyers they also included photos of the those 5 in red and the other 2 in green.
We now have files on all the previous correspondence very interesting reading.
No one on here has picked up on a point that the council are concerned regarding maladministration
hunton69 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Big assumption. Big mistake.
Just because the letter didn't mention other bits as being specifically in breach does not mean that they weren't, nor does it meant that that the council wouldn't later enforce against those.
I agree on what you say.Just because the letter didn't mention other bits as being specifically in breach does not mean that they weren't, nor does it meant that that the council wouldn't later enforce against those.
However they misled myself ((or who ever purchased the property) by writting that to prospective buyers they also included photos of the those 5 in red and the other 2 in green.
We now have files on all the previous correspondence very interesting reading.
No one on here has picked up on a point that the council are concerned regarding maladministration
Inferences you make by their omission is another matter, let alone any issues on duties owed to you in correspondence to others.
hunton69 said:
However they misled myself ((or who ever purchased the property) by writting that to prospective buyers they also included photos of the those 5 in red and the other 2 in green.
The red highlighted the buildings they referred to.You _assumed_ the green meant more than it did.
TooMany2cvs said:
hunton69 said:
However they misled myself ((or who ever purchased the property) by writting that to prospective buyers they also included photos of the those 5 in red and the other 2 in green.
The red highlighted the buildings they referred to.You _assumed_ the green meant more than it did.
We are not (well I am not) sufficiently au fait with the specifics of the case to judge either wy. Up to the OP. Best of luck but I am not at all certain how solid the case actually is.
Steffan said:
We are not (well I am not) sufficiently au fait with the specifics of the case to judge either wy. Up to the OP. Best of luck but I am not at all certain how solid the case actually is.
Have a read back through the thread - the council's planning documentation is all on their website, of course, and the OP's told us when he bought the place.TooMany2cvs said:
The red highlighted the buildings they referred to.
You _assumed_ the green meant more than it did.
But the question from all the solicitors (acting for propective buyers)to the council was questioning the legality of all 7 buildings not 5 of them. The councils reply is that they now believe 5 are unlawfull.You _assumed_ the green meant more than it did.
Why would they only have an opinion on 5 buildings when the questions were about 7 buildings. That does not make sense. If they did not take into account the other 2 buildings then I believe there answer was misleading.
So I would not say that we have assumed that the green ones mean't more
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff