Can I sue my council

[hunton69]

Also I would of settled on the old pool 180 sq meters and a gym approx 70 sq meters but my new build is 340 sq meters. Did that to p-ss them of

[hunton69]

This is on the council web site

Enforcement action is discretionary
This is an important aspect of planning enforcement – if something is a breach of planning control this is not, in itself, a reason to take enforcement action. Even when it is technically possible to take action the Council is required by Central Government policies and legislation to first decide if such formal action would be “expedient”. Expediency is a test of whether the unauthorised development/activities are causing harm having regard to the Development Plan policies and other material planning considerations. This means that formal enforcement action is discretionary and all the relevant planning circumstances of each case must first be considered.

When investigating alleged breaches a detailed site visit will be undertaken and the planning history studied.

Expedient

Correct me if I'm wrong but what was the point in issuing me with a notice to demolish all of the buildings when I could apply for a certificate of lawfullness on a new build. That I did and actually made it larger than what I would of settled on if we could of sat down and negotiated.
As I have already said I never wanted them all.


Also this section on the web site
Types of Permitted Development
Household extensions and alterations – e.g. small single storey rear extensions, some side extensions, porches, loft conversions and small outbuildings (depending on scale and location)

I Have been told that you should never p_ss of a planning officer that I did.

I believe they failed in the basic duty and should of been dilligent in the work 2007 and it then became personal in 2011

Lets face it I've done the same to some of you guys on this thread

[hunton69]

TooMany2cvs said:

And it's still going on... But I don't think the legals went the way the OP wanted...

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

I took advice on here regarding the legals. I am looking at other options but need to get hold of all previous correspondence

Not sure if you guys can advise the enforcement says I have to restore the land to the original level. the court summons said restore the land to original condition. How can a summons be different to the order

[hunton69]

Steffan said:

Poor drafting I presume. I would hope the planners will interpret this reasonably.

Lol

These planners have told me that where the buildings used to stand I cannot turf those areas I have to seed them. Work that out.

[hunton69]

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.

[hunton69]

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]

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.

Edited by robinessex on Tuesday 29th April 09:09

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.
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

[hunton69]

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.

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]

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

[hunton69]

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.

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]

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.
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

[hunton69]

Breadvan72 said:

I am not a solicitor.

Thank you for your replies.

Wow

You know the answers and yet you don't know all the facts.

And your in the legal profession.

The information I have revealed on this forum is just the tip of the ice berg.