Dealing with planning enforcement
Discussion
I'm hoping some people here have some knowledge on the subject of planning enforcement.
I live in a row of 4 cottages at the end of an un-categorised road. For 30+ years residents of the cottages have parked on some land opposite accessed via a 5 bar gate. There were old bricks and pavers set into the ground . I have used it for the 11 years I've lived there. Roughly 3 years ago I bought a parcel of land from the owner and created a more formal parking area for myself and my neighbours. I removed a low bank to create a new entrance, installed a post and rail fence, some hornbeam hedging and put down a type 1 base over some permeable membrane.
A planning enforcement officer popped around the other day to investigate a change of use.
I've now received an email from the officer stating that I need to apply for planning permission for the creation of a hard standing area for the use of parking. I've stated that I don't believe I've materially changed the use of the land or the surface type and asked if a change of surface type would satisfy them.
I'm going to seek some professional advice, but I'm just looking for any experience here. Any tips or pointers would be great. My understanding is that they can't issue an enforcement for the use of the land if it's been taking place for over 10 years. I can back this up with google maps and personal photos.
I live in a row of 4 cottages at the end of an un-categorised road. For 30+ years residents of the cottages have parked on some land opposite accessed via a 5 bar gate. There were old bricks and pavers set into the ground . I have used it for the 11 years I've lived there. Roughly 3 years ago I bought a parcel of land from the owner and created a more formal parking area for myself and my neighbours. I removed a low bank to create a new entrance, installed a post and rail fence, some hornbeam hedging and put down a type 1 base over some permeable membrane.
A planning enforcement officer popped around the other day to investigate a change of use.
I've now received an email from the officer stating that I need to apply for planning permission for the creation of a hard standing area for the use of parking. I've stated that I don't believe I've materially changed the use of the land or the surface type and asked if a change of surface type would satisfy them.
I'm going to seek some professional advice, but I'm just looking for any experience here. Any tips or pointers would be great. My understanding is that they can't issue an enforcement for the use of the land if it's been taking place for over 10 years. I can back this up with google maps and personal photos.
Sanderling said:
My understanding is that they can't issue an enforcement for the use of the land if it's been taking place for over 10 years. I can back this up with google maps and personal photos.
I would concur with that. IMHO the 4 year rule wouldn't apply because it's a change of use and not a dwelling so the 10 year rule applies. If you have evidence that the land had hard standing and was used for parking for over ten years you should be able to apply for a Lawful Development Certificate.I recommend contacting Equus and engaging him for advice. He's just helped me obtain an LDC for an outbuilding and is incredibly knowlegeable.
Covmutley, the piece I bought is a small section from around an acre parcel. The area I bought is the same spot I have parked in for over 11 years and my neighbour has parked in for 30 years or more. The ground had hard standing, but was somewhat overgrown with weeds and leaf litter as it's in a very wooded area and no one maintained it regularly.
48K, that's great and exactly why I posted on here. Thanks very much.
48K, that's great and exactly why I posted on here. Thanks very much.
Then as you say, you should be able to demonstrate the use has been over 10 yrs and so is immune from enforcement action.
As said above it's a lawful development certificate you can submit. To be honest, if you jet them know the use has been parking for 30 yrs and there was hard standing, I doubt you would then get an enforcement notice and the issue may just go away. What a waste of valuable planning officer time when we have a housing crisis and an energy crisis that all needs fixing!
As said above it's a lawful development certificate you can submit. To be honest, if you jet them know the use has been parking for 30 yrs and there was hard standing, I doubt you would then get an enforcement notice and the issue may just go away. What a waste of valuable planning officer time when we have a housing crisis and an energy crisis that all needs fixing!
I have replied to their email and informed them of the details. Hopefully they are open to a discussion.
It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
Sanderling said:
I have replied to their email and informed them of the details. Hopefully they are open to a discussion.
It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
It happens - the neighbour thing. Cost me a couple of grand in the end.It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
AI relies on the information you put in, however this is the response (which is kind of the answer that I would have come up but it would have taken me a couple of hours... as opposed to 5mins with AI... it's the future 
)
1. The historic parking use
The strongest point in your favour is that parking appears to have taken place on the land for a very long time - possibly 30+ years by successive occupiers of the cottages.
If you could prove that:
- the land opposite the cottages has been used continuously for parking by residents for more than 10 years; and
- the nature and extent of that use has remained broadly the same,
then there may be a basis for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the land for parking.
The fact that previous occupiers parked there before you arrived could be very helpful, provided evidence exists.
2. The works undertaken 3 years ago
This is where the position becomes more difficult. What you describe goes beyond simply spreading gravel on an existing parking space. It includes:
- purchasing a separate parcel of land;
- removing a bank;
- creating a new vehicular access;
- installing post-and-rail fencing;
- planting a hedge;
- laying membrane and Type 1;
- creating a more formal parking area.
A Council could well regard this as operational development requiring planning permission.
The critical question would be whether the works were:
- merely an improvement to an existing parking area; or
- the creation of a new and materially different parking facility.
From your description ("created a more formal parking area"), an enforcement officer might be inclined towards the latter.
3. Change of use / residential curtilage
The Council may also ask whether the land has changed from:
- agricultural land, to
- residential parking land associated with the cottages.
That issue is separate from the physical works.
If I were preparing an LDC case, you would want evidence of:
- historic aerial photographs;
- old photographs showing the bricks/pavers and vehicles parked there;
- witness statements from long-term residents;
- Land Registry plans showing the historic parcel;
- evidence of parking before your ownership.
The key question would be whether the parking area you have today occupies substantially the same footprint as the historic parking area.
The likely Council arguments
A Council might say:
"There may have been some informal parking on the land historically, but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control."
Your likely response
You would argue:
"The land has been used continuously for residential parking for decades. The works merely improved and formalised an existing parking area and did not create a new use."
Whether that succeeds would depend heavily on the evidence and the extent of the physical changes.
Assessment
Based solely on what you've described:
- The historic parking use sounds potentially capable of benefiting from immunity if properly evidenced.
- The engineering works undertaken 3 years ago are unlikely to benefit from a 10-year immunity argument because they are too recent.
- The success of any application would probably turn on whether those works are viewed as a new development or merely improvements to an existing long-established parking area.
If this were in a planning appeal or LDC application, I would be gathering as much evidence as possible about the pre-existing parking arrangement, because that is likely to be the strongest aspect of the case. Photographs showing vehicles parked on the old brick/paver surface before you bought the land could be particularly valuable.
One other question: when you say you "created a new entrance", was there previously any vehicular opening through the 5-bar gate, or did vehicles historically enter the land from a different point? That detail could be quite important.
)1. The historic parking use
The strongest point in your favour is that parking appears to have taken place on the land for a very long time - possibly 30+ years by successive occupiers of the cottages.
If you could prove that:
- the land opposite the cottages has been used continuously for parking by residents for more than 10 years; and
- the nature and extent of that use has remained broadly the same,
then there may be a basis for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the land for parking.
The fact that previous occupiers parked there before you arrived could be very helpful, provided evidence exists.
2. The works undertaken 3 years ago
This is where the position becomes more difficult. What you describe goes beyond simply spreading gravel on an existing parking space. It includes:
- purchasing a separate parcel of land;
- removing a bank;
- creating a new vehicular access;
- installing post-and-rail fencing;
- planting a hedge;
- laying membrane and Type 1;
- creating a more formal parking area.
A Council could well regard this as operational development requiring planning permission.
The critical question would be whether the works were:
- merely an improvement to an existing parking area; or
- the creation of a new and materially different parking facility.
From your description ("created a more formal parking area"), an enforcement officer might be inclined towards the latter.
3. Change of use / residential curtilage
The Council may also ask whether the land has changed from:
- agricultural land, to
- residential parking land associated with the cottages.
That issue is separate from the physical works.
If I were preparing an LDC case, you would want evidence of:
- historic aerial photographs;
- old photographs showing the bricks/pavers and vehicles parked there;
- witness statements from long-term residents;
- Land Registry plans showing the historic parcel;
- evidence of parking before your ownership.
The key question would be whether the parking area you have today occupies substantially the same footprint as the historic parking area.
The likely Council arguments
A Council might say:
"There may have been some informal parking on the land historically, but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control."
Your likely response
You would argue:
"The land has been used continuously for residential parking for decades. The works merely improved and formalised an existing parking area and did not create a new use."
Whether that succeeds would depend heavily on the evidence and the extent of the physical changes.
Assessment
Based solely on what you've described:
- The historic parking use sounds potentially capable of benefiting from immunity if properly evidenced.
- The engineering works undertaken 3 years ago are unlikely to benefit from a 10-year immunity argument because they are too recent.
- The success of any application would probably turn on whether those works are viewed as a new development or merely improvements to an existing long-established parking area.
If this were in a planning appeal or LDC application, I would be gathering as much evidence as possible about the pre-existing parking arrangement, because that is likely to be the strongest aspect of the case. Photographs showing vehicles parked on the old brick/paver surface before you bought the land could be particularly valuable.
One other question: when you say you "created a new entrance", was there previously any vehicular opening through the 5-bar gate, or did vehicles historically enter the land from a different point? That detail could be quite important.
andya7 said:
AI relies on the information you put in, however this is the response (which is kind of the answer that I would have come up but it would have taken me a couple of hours... as opposed to 5mins with AI... it's the future )
1. The historic parking use
The strongest point in your favour is that parking appears to have taken place on the land for a very long time - possibly 30+ years by successive occupiers of the cottages.
If you could prove that:
- the land opposite the cottages has been used continuously for parking by residents for more than 10 years; and
- the nature and extent of that use has remained broadly the same,
then there may be a basis for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the land for parking.
The fact that previous occupiers parked there before you arrived could be very helpful, provided evidence exists.
2. The works undertaken 3 years ago
This is where the position becomes more difficult. What you describe goes beyond simply spreading gravel on an existing parking space. It includes:
- purchasing a separate parcel of land;
- removing a bank;
- creating a new vehicular access;
- installing post-and-rail fencing;
- planting a hedge;
- laying membrane and Type 1;
- creating a more formal parking area.
A Council could well regard this as operational development requiring planning permission.
The critical question would be whether the works were:
- merely an improvement to an existing parking area; or
- the creation of a new and materially different parking facility.
From your description ("created a more formal parking area"), an enforcement officer might be inclined towards the latter.
3. Change of use / residential curtilage
The Council may also ask whether the land has changed from:
- agricultural land, to
- residential parking land associated with the cottages.
That issue is separate from the physical works.
If I were preparing an LDC case, you would want evidence of:
- historic aerial photographs;
- old photographs showing the bricks/pavers and vehicles parked there;
- witness statements from long-term residents;
- Land Registry plans showing the historic parcel;
- evidence of parking before your ownership.
The key question would be whether the parking area you have today occupies substantially the same footprint as the historic parking area.
The likely Council arguments
A Council might say:
"There may have been some informal parking on the land historically, but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control."
Your likely response
You would argue:
"The land has been used continuously for residential parking for decades. The works merely improved and formalised an existing parking area and did not create a new use."
Whether that succeeds would depend heavily on the evidence and the extent of the physical changes.
Assessment
Based solely on what you've described:
- The historic parking use sounds potentially capable of benefiting from immunity if properly evidenced.
- The engineering works undertaken 3 years ago are unlikely to benefit from a 10-year immunity argument because they are too recent.
- The success of any application would probably turn on whether those works are viewed as a new development or merely improvements to an existing long-established parking area.
If this were in a planning appeal or LDC application, I would be gathering as much evidence as possible about the pre-existing parking arrangement, because that is likely to be the strongest aspect of the case. Photographs showing vehicles parked on the old brick/paver surface before you bought the land could be particularly valuable.
One other question: when you say you "created a new entrance", was there previously any vehicular opening through the 5-bar gate, or did vehicles historically enter the land from a different point? That detail could be quite important.
All good points. I will start gathering statements from Neighbours and put together some pictures. )1. The historic parking use
The strongest point in your favour is that parking appears to have taken place on the land for a very long time - possibly 30+ years by successive occupiers of the cottages.
If you could prove that:
- the land opposite the cottages has been used continuously for parking by residents for more than 10 years; and
- the nature and extent of that use has remained broadly the same,
then there may be a basis for a Lawful Development Certificate for the use of the land for parking.
The fact that previous occupiers parked there before you arrived could be very helpful, provided evidence exists.
2. The works undertaken 3 years ago
This is where the position becomes more difficult. What you describe goes beyond simply spreading gravel on an existing parking space. It includes:
- purchasing a separate parcel of land;
- removing a bank;
- creating a new vehicular access;
- installing post-and-rail fencing;
- planting a hedge;
- laying membrane and Type 1;
- creating a more formal parking area.
A Council could well regard this as operational development requiring planning permission.
The critical question would be whether the works were:
- merely an improvement to an existing parking area; or
- the creation of a new and materially different parking facility.
From your description ("created a more formal parking area"), an enforcement officer might be inclined towards the latter.
3. Change of use / residential curtilage
The Council may also ask whether the land has changed from:
- agricultural land, to
- residential parking land associated with the cottages.
That issue is separate from the physical works.
If I were preparing an LDC case, you would want evidence of:
- historic aerial photographs;
- old photographs showing the bricks/pavers and vehicles parked there;
- witness statements from long-term residents;
- Land Registry plans showing the historic parcel;
- evidence of parking before your ownership.
The key question would be whether the parking area you have today occupies substantially the same footprint as the historic parking area.
The likely Council arguments
A Council might say:
"There may have been some informal parking on the land historically, but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control."
Your likely response
You would argue:
"The land has been used continuously for residential parking for decades. The works merely improved and formalised an existing parking area and did not create a new use."
Whether that succeeds would depend heavily on the evidence and the extent of the physical changes.
Assessment
Based solely on what you've described:
- The historic parking use sounds potentially capable of benefiting from immunity if properly evidenced.
- The engineering works undertaken 3 years ago are unlikely to benefit from a 10-year immunity argument because they are too recent.
- The success of any application would probably turn on whether those works are viewed as a new development or merely improvements to an existing long-established parking area.
If this were in a planning appeal or LDC application, I would be gathering as much evidence as possible about the pre-existing parking arrangement, because that is likely to be the strongest aspect of the case. Photographs showing vehicles parked on the old brick/paver surface before you bought the land could be particularly valuable.
One other question: when you say you "created a new entrance", was there previously any vehicular opening through the 5-bar gate, or did vehicles historically enter the land from a different point? That detail could be quite important.
Not sure if that's your question or the AI, but Vehicle access was via the 5 bar gate and there was pedestrian access across the bank.
@Vaud
Esri also do an aerial 'wayback' which can sometimes fill in the blanks with Google Earth - https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#mapCenter=...
@Sanderling
All AI except for the opening sentence...
It is likely that whatever you say/write/etc. the Enforcement Officer will say 'please submit a planning application', as it is the easiest route for them. At this point you could submit a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application for the existing use OR submit a full application.
If you went the full app route then your application would/should focus on the 'fact' that it is time exempt from enforcement and that you could apply for an LDC. If you went the LDC route then 'it is either lawful or it isn't'.
Going the LDC route they might argue (as AI highlighted) 'but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control...
and if they are satisfied that they are correct (i.e. your information/etc. wasn't confirmed 'on the balance of probability') then they will refuse and you would then need to submit a planning application...
So, you might just go for an application straight off, thus avoiding the potential risk of 'paying for it twice'.
Potentially you will be seeking a change of use (presumably agricultural?) to residential use/curtilage, so there will be some planning policy to contend with that they would use in their argument (if they are minded to refuse).
However if you can show the history of the site over the past 30 years then your argument is that you were simple carrying out maintenance, repair, or improvement of an existing surface (...and some engineering work to remove the bank) and in this case it would be more difficult for them to refuse it given the historical use.
Esri also do an aerial 'wayback' which can sometimes fill in the blanks with Google Earth - https://livingatlas.arcgis.com/wayback/#mapCenter=...
@Sanderling
All AI except for the opening sentence...
It is likely that whatever you say/write/etc. the Enforcement Officer will say 'please submit a planning application', as it is the easiest route for them. At this point you could submit a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC) application for the existing use OR submit a full application.
If you went the full app route then your application would/should focus on the 'fact' that it is time exempt from enforcement and that you could apply for an LDC. If you went the LDC route then 'it is either lawful or it isn't'.
Going the LDC route they might argue (as AI highlighted) 'but three years ago the owner engineered a new access, removed a bank, erected boundary treatments and constructed a formal parking area. Those works represent a fresh breach of planning control...
and if they are satisfied that they are correct (i.e. your information/etc. wasn't confirmed 'on the balance of probability') then they will refuse and you would then need to submit a planning application...
So, you might just go for an application straight off, thus avoiding the potential risk of 'paying for it twice'.
Potentially you will be seeking a change of use (presumably agricultural?) to residential use/curtilage, so there will be some planning policy to contend with that they would use in their argument (if they are minded to refuse).
However if you can show the history of the site over the past 30 years then your argument is that you were simple carrying out maintenance, repair, or improvement of an existing surface (...and some engineering work to remove the bank) and in this case it would be more difficult for them to refuse it given the historical use.
Sanderling said:
Griffith4ever said:
It happens - the neighbour thing. Cost me a couple of grand in the end.
I guess it's a good life lesson if nothing else. Container stayed. I've moved since, but, I'm leaving it there :-) I still rent the land.
Sanderling said:
I have replied to their email and informed them of the details. Hopefully they are open to a discussion.
It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
Is there a neighbour who doesn't use the parking facility? It would be strange for someone using it to effectively dob themselves in.It does just feel like a waste of everyone's time! IMO it's a big improvement and it's disappointing to think it's probably a neighbour that has reported it even after I regularly cut hedges, clear ditches and repair the track.
Andya7 or others may confirm or refute this but I think that a successful planning application has a more permanent effect than a lawful development certificate. As understand it, a LDC in these circumstances would still require continuous ongoing use which may be something of a given but would still leave the situation open to further review at a later date. Possibly only an issue if you were selling and a potential buyer wanted something concrete or possibly wanted to develop further on land that had formal permission in place that classed the land as non-agricultural etc.
A third alternative would also be to refuse when they ask you to apply for permission and suggest that the evidence that you have shown them that proves over ten years of continuous use means they should take no further action as any enforcement would ultimately be unsuccessful. This can be as effective in practical terms as a LDC but without the added paperwork.
A third alternative would also be to refuse when they ask you to apply for permission and suggest that the evidence that you have shown them that proves over ten years of continuous use means they should take no further action as any enforcement would ultimately be unsuccessful. This can be as effective in practical terms as a LDC but without the added paperwork.
Spurry said:
What's the betting that if you had not used the land as such, and waited until a bank holiday , improved the ground and said you were not a 'resident' everything would be fine.
Not sure if the absence of a caravan would matter.
I am not entirely sure that your obvious anti-traveller rhetoric is relevant or accurate. Not sure if the absence of a caravan would matter.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff