Can I sue my council

[Steve H]

hunton69 said:

The council have also admiited that they did not consider if the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house.

They don't need to look at that issue if they consider the buildings to be outside the curtilage; they will consider one issue at a time and reject PD rights on the first breach. It is pretty odd if they never even considered curtilage when acting on the previous complaints but I'm not sure how that helps you as it seems that the process was abandoned rather than completed.

Regarding curtilage, as the buildings are not yet ten years old you would normally need some evidence that the land had been continually used for domestic purposes for ten years to establish domestic curtilage.

hunton69 said:

No search was going to tell us that the council's planning department was so incompetent that during 2 enforcement cases they did not consider those 2 principles.

Any sensible investigation should have shown that the previous council interest in the buildings had not been formally concluded.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

We now agree with the local authority's decision as the evidence against some of the buildings that we now have (we did not have that evidence when we purchased the property) proves that those buildings could never be classed as permitted development.

What can be built under PD rights is established in the General Permitted Development Order. If the development meets the criteria within this, it is PD, if it doesn't' it is not PD.

What evidence do you have now that you didn't have then?

I'll try one more time as you seem to be studiously avoiding the question, what do you hope to gain from your legal action?

Consider it this way, if you are unable to explain your position to a group of people on an Internet forum who are only hearing your side of the story, how much success do you think you will have in a court where you will be expected to answer questions.....

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

Any sensible investigation should have shown that the previous council interest in the buildings had not been formally concluded.

Are you saying that an enforcement case close is not concluded

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

What can be built under PD rights is established in the General Permitted Development Order. If the development meets the criteria within this, it is PD, if it doesn't' it is not PD.

What evidence do you have now that you didn't have then?

I'll try one more time as you seem to be studiously avoiding the question, what do you hope to gain from your legal action?

Consider it this way, if you are unable to explain your position to a group of people on an Internet forum who are only hearing your side of the story, how much success do you think you will have in a court where you will be expected to answer questions.....

Page 3 about half way down you will see my answer about legal action

Exactly my point if it meets the PD criteria. It didn't in 2007 so they should of served the previous owner a notice to demolish and I would of bought the property with out the 7 buildings.

[Steve H]

hunton69 said:

Steve H said:

Any sensible investigation should have shown that the previous council interest in the buildings had not been formally concluded.

Are you saying that an enforcement case close is not concluded

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the early investigations did not result in any action but there was no written confirmation from the council that they had investigated the construction of certain buildings and that they would be taking no further action on the issue.

Had they made such a statement (and closed the case) then I can't see how they would have been able to come back to you in 2011 and reverse the decision.

[hunton69]

Steve H said:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the early investigations did not result in any action but there was no written confirmation from the council that they had investigated the construction of certain buildings and that they would be taking no further action on the issue.

Had they made such a statement (and closed the case) then I can't see how they would have been able to come back to you in 2011 and reverse the decision.

Have you checked out there web site the 2 cases in 2007 state that they were closed.

Although the headings say unauthorised works I know that the residents complained about the buildings.
They were told that the buildings were PD and that the two bungalows could be lived in by family members only. If the owner rented them out then they would no long be permitted development and they could take action.
That is a lie as no PD buildings can be lived in by anyone.
The locals knew no different and believed them.

Not sure if the planning officer was hood winking them or confused regarding the following Under PD an owner can put a caravan in there grounds and it may be lived in by family only

[Steve H]

I haven't checked the website but if you want to put a link up I'll take a look, I'm just replying to what I see on here.

So far though, you haven't told me anything that commits the council to anything regarding their investigation in 2007 and that should have been flagged when you were buying the property.

Stuff that they apparently said to the neighbours is irrelevant (or at least no help to you) unless you have copies of letters that the council sent to them.

[hunton69]

Would I have a case if when I purchased the property there was not an enforcement case pending. However after I purchased the council then opene another enforcement case and that results in an enforcement notice to demolish all of the buildings

[10 Pence Short]

Not unless the council were not entitled to make that decision.

You seem massively keen to talk about the council but not at all about the report your solicitors compiled and the information you actually relied upon when purchasing the property. Why is that?

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

Not unless the council were not entitled to make that decision.

You seem massively keen to talk about the council but not at all about the report your solicitors compiled and the information you actually relied upon when purchasing the property. Why is that?

As I have said many times it does not really matter what the report said. In my complaint to the council about the two cases in 2007 the reply is with have 4 years to serve an enforcement notice.
That means that any one who buys a property with permitted development with out a certificate of lawfulness that is less than 4 years old could be served a notice to demolish such buildings.

A solicitors report would not help as it would only reveal that the previous owner built under PD which in its self is ok

What makes my case worse is they investigated twice prior.

[Steffan]

hunton69 said:

10 Pence Short said:

There seem to be two intertwined issues;

1) The OP doesn't agree with the local authority's decision(s) and

2) The OP wants recompense in the event that his property no longer has the buildings that were present when he bought it.

What happens with 1 should determine whether 2 becomes moot or not.

We now agree with the local authority's decision as the evidence against some of the buildings that we now have (we did not have that evidence when we purchased the property) proves that those buildings could never be classed as permitted development.

The previous owner determined where the curtilage was the council never considered curtilage untill after I bought the property and then they decided in March 2011 was a much smaller area none of the buildings were now not in the curtilage.( what makes it worse is he built 3 of the buildings in the wrong place so even if the council had agreed his curtilage area 3 of them were still illegal)
The council have also admiited that they did not consider if the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house.
No search was going to tell us that the council's planning department was so incompetent that during 2 enforcement cases they did not consider those 2 principles.

It does seem odd. I presume the contract for sale (it was a repo) was typical Caveat Emptor approach beloved of insolvency practitioners acting for a bank. Generally they will not warrant anything IME because they simply do not have the details or want the risk. I do wish you well with your Solicitor and I will be interested in the decision if the OP posts it.

[TooMany2cvs]

Steve H said:

hunton69 said:

Have you checked out there web site the 2 cases in 2007 state that they were closed.

I haven't checked the website but if you want to put a link up I'll take a look, I'm just replying to what I see on here.

http://www3.threerivers.gov.uk/online-applications/propertyDetails.do?activeTab=relatedCases&keyVal=00000Q00LI000

[10 Pence Short]

hunton69 said:

A solicitors report would not help as it would only reveal that the previous owner built under PD which in its self is ok

What makes my case worse is they investigated twice prior.

On whose advice regarding the buildings did you rely before committing to the purchase?

[hunton69]

Please consider the following:

1: The property had not been subject to an enforement case regarding these 7 out buildings
I purchase the property in 2010 searches reveal that the 7 out buildings were built in 2007 without planning permission but built using permitted development planning.
The council then open a case following complaints in early 2011 and then they serve an enforcement notice on all the buildings telling me to demolish them.

2: The are no pending enforcement case currently open regarding these 7 buildings.
After I purchase the property in 2010 the council opens another case and the result is they serve a notice to demolish them.

3: The property did have an enforcement case lodged agains the property in 2007 and that case was closed. I purchase the property and the searches reveal that there had been 2 enforcement cases in 2007 and there was currently another one in 2009 that is still open. I contact the council and the senior planning officer's team leader tells me that it does not involve all of them. I purchase the property in 2010. The senior planning officer writes 4 times out lining that the investigation is about 5 of the 7 buildings.
They then conclude the case and serve me a notice to demolish them all.

Would I have a valid complaint about any of these options?

[hunton69]

10 Pence Short said:

On whose advice regarding the buildings did you rely before committing to the purchase?

The advice was that there was an enforcemnt case against un lawfull out buildings and there had been 2 cases in 2007.
I did not buy the property for all of those buildings I only wanted the pool and one other building.
I was told that a swimming pool is allowed to be built using permitted development planning. I therefore never believed the pool to be in jeapody.
See how simply it was for the enforcement officers in 2007 to establish if the pool complied.


Class E Permitted development
The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—
(a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose
incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance,
improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or
(b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid
petroleum gas.

Development not permitted
E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if—
(a) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the
curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total
area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);
(b) any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land
forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse;
(c) the building would have more than one storey;
(d) the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed—
(i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof,
(ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of
the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or
(iii) 3 metres in any other case;
(e) the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5 metres;
(f) the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of
a listed building;
(g) it would include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised
platform;
(h) it relates to a dwelling or a microwave antenna; or
(i) the capacity of the container would exceed 3,500 litres.
E.2 In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is within—
(a) a World Heritage Site,

Having read that why did we worry regarding the pool. Yes the other buildings were more complicated to determine if they complied.
The only thing they had to consider was curtilage and they admit they didn't. Why

[bltamil1]

10 Pence Short said:

hunton69 said:

A solicitors report would not help as it would only reveal that the previous owner built under PD which in its self is ok

What makes my case worse is they investigated twice prior.

On whose advice regarding the buildings did you rely before committing to the purchase?

Blimey, this thread is like catnip!

Unfortunately the previous owner did not build under Permitted Development Rights, as the buildings in question clearly fall outside of what is permitted. It appears that this has been determined by the planning authority and upheld by the Planning Inspectorate at your appeal in 2011. Anyone can claim that they have 'built under PD', but that doesn't make it so.

The 'investigations' in 2007 did not come to the conclusion that the buildings were legal, it simply came to a 'no further action' conclusion based upon the particular complaint received. Whilst this does seem odd, it does not give rise to a claim from a third party, some 6 years later.

The report/information you relied on when making the purchase most certainly are relevant, since you would certainly be asked this question if you have your day in court. I suspect you are reluctant to tell us this as it would torpedo your case.....

[hunton69]

The above post is from the Town and Country planning act.

Many on here have said what buildings did the 2007 enforcement case investigate.

It does not matter because

If a planning officer comes to investigate a complaint.

He has to ask the following

Do you have planning permission for that building if the answer is yes then the owner will provide a copy of the planning consent.

If the answer is no then that building will have to be removed.

If the owner say it is built using class E permitted development planning then the officer has to consider The town and country planning act and what does that say The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2362/pdfs/...

And the council's reply to me is

The officers at the time did not consider curtilage not once but twice.

And the enforcement notice said in 2011 The buildings are unlawfull because they are not in the curtilage.

Edited by hunton69 on Monday 17th February 16:57

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

I was told that a swimming pool is allowed to be built using permitted development planning. I therefore never believed the pool to be in jeapody.
See how simply it was for the enforcement officers in 2007 to establish if the pool complied.

Told by who? That statement is correct, up to the limitations of Class E which you set out immediately below. Didn't you say in one of your earlier posts that the ridge line of the swimming pool was 4.15m above ground level?

Class E also relies on outbuildings being 'incidental' to the enjoyment of the dwelling it relates to, one of the measures of 'incidental' is scale.....

You cannot rely on conversations you have had in the local about who said what to who, as it simply isn't relevant to the facts at hand. Unless you have it in writing from the Council that particular buildings are considered lawful development, any other correspondence (particularly verbal) will almost certainly be of little use to you.

[hunton69]

bltamil1 said:

Told by who? That statement is correct, up to the limitations of Class E which you set out immediately below. Didn't you say in one of your earlier posts that the ridge line of the swimming pool was 4.15m above ground level?

Class E also relies on outbuildings being 'incidental' to the enjoyment of the dwelling it relates to, one of the measures of 'incidental' is scale.....

You cannot rely on conversations you have had in the local about who said what to who, as it simply isn't relevant to the facts at hand. Unless you have it in writing from the Council that particular buildings are considered lawful development, any other correspondence (particularly verbal) will almost certainly be of little use to you.

When you buy a property would you go around and measure all the buildings? We did not
We only noticed the height after we purchased.
The council in there investigation should of taken that into account during there investigation.
We have it in writing from them : it appears the planning officer did not consider the criteria of curtilage or whether the buildings were incidental to the dwelling house but only considered heights and sitings etc. That proves he did not.

We have a local resident who is now miffed why the council did not take action in 2007 when they complained. They are going to write to the council for a copy of there complaint and the councils reply.

[bltamil1]

hunton69 said:

The above post is from the Town and Country planning act.

Many on here have said what buildings did the 2007 enforcement case investigate.

It does not matter because

Yes it does. That's why people keep asking you which buildings they related to.

hunton69 said:

If a planning officer comes to investigate a complaint.

He has to ask the following

Do you have planning permission for that building if the answer is yes then the owner will provide a copy of the planning consent.

If the answer is no then that building will have to be removed.

If the owner say it is built using permitted development planning then the officer has to consider The town and country planning act and the heading says The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/2362/pdfs/...

Where did you get that from? The Officer doesn't work from a script, and doesn't necessarily come out looking for breaches. They may choose only to investigate the complaint in front of them.