Planning Permission with Conditions query

[denso13]

He does not have to tell any potential buyer that X,Y and Z have complained to the council.

I disagree. The seller has to make specific, and honest, declarations about disputes or possible disputes. http://freeconveyancingadvice.co.uk/sellers-property-information-form-third-edition.php point 2. Also http://www.hip-consultant.co.uk/blog/completing-the-sellers-property-information-form-123/

 

[geraldthehamster]

No, he would not. You don't seem to grasp the fact that only a local authority can initiate enforcement proceedings.

That's right. And the key phrase in the first document that I linked to is "that have remained unchallenged by enforcement action". "Challenged" doesn't mean someone has written to the council, it means challenged by the council.

Cheers
Richard

 

[^woody^]

It has to be a formal dispute though, undergoing some sort of process

Not just a random complaint about anything

 

[tony1851]

He does not have to tell any potential buyer that X,Y and Z have complained to the council.

I disagree. The seller has to make specific, and honest, declarations about disputes or possible disputes. http://freeconveyancingadvice.co.uk/sellers-property-information-form-third-edition.php point 2. Also http://www.hip-consultant.co.uk/blog/completing-the-sellers-property-information-form-123/

I agree that you are supposed to declare any disputes with neighbours, but the original issue here was whether or not a council could take enforcement action on breach of conditions after 4 years.

That is nothing to do with neighbours complaining about an extension.

(I had a neighbour complain to the council about something I built, but unfortunately for him he left it too late. An enforcement officer came round and asked me for proof that it was built > 4 years previously. This is another trap people fall into; we do not have to prove 'to the satisfaction of the council' that something was built > 4 years ago. That is like being guilty until proved innocent. I was able to (politely, of course) show the officer the door. Never heard anything back from them, and that was several years ago; neighbour has since moved.

 

[geraldthehamster]

(I had a neighbour complain to the council about something I built, but unfortunately for him he left it too late. An enforcement officer came round and asked me for proof that it was built > 4 years previously. This is another trap people fall into; we do not have to prove 'to the satisfaction of the council' that something was built > 4 years ago. That is like being guilty until proved innocent. I was able to (politely, of course) show the officer the door. Never heard anything back from them, and that was several years ago; neighbour has since moved.

If the council decide to issue an enforcement notice, then proving it is exactly what we do have to do:

http://www.planning-applications.co.uk/enforcement1b.htm

"In all cases if challenged you will need to produce sufficient evidence to prove, to the satisfaction of the Council, that the breach has occurred for longer than the appropriate period, without significant changes or breaks in the period of use."

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

Richard; the document you quoted is not the law, it is simply an advertising blurb written by planning consultants.
The law on enforcement was, until very recently, outlined in PPG 18, and circular 02/02 (PPG 18 has recently been withdrawn under the NPPF but nothing appears to have replaced it yet).

Nobody has to prove to a council that such-and-such a work was done more than 4 years ago. If you were correct, any official could turn up at the door and demand that we prove that something was built more than 4 years ago.

Tp prove something like this can often cost a householder time and money and if you were correct, a council would be taking on the role of judge and jury.

A council can serve a Planning Contravention Notice on a housholder, asking certain basic questions about any alledged contravention. Not replying to a PCN is a criminal offence. However, it does not require proof of any answer made by the householder.
If the council is not satisfied that work has been done more than 4 years previously, it is up to them to initiate proceedings and they, and the householder, formally put their separate cases to the Planning Inspector, who comes to a decision on the evidence.

If an innocent shopper came out of Tesco and was confronted by the store manager and asked to prove - 'to the satisfaction of the manager' - that he hadn't stolen a can of beans, there would be an outcry.

 

[geraldthehamster]

A council can serve a Planning Contravention Notice on a housholder, asking certain basic questions about any alledged contravention. Not replying to a PCN is a criminal offence. However, it does not require proof of any answer made by the householder.
If the council is not satisfied that work has been done more than 4 years previously, it is up to them to initiate proceedings and they, and the householder, formally put their separate cases to the Planning Inspector, who comes to a decision on the evidence.

You make a fair point, that the council aren't the final arbiter, but I think it comes to the same thing: you will still need to provide evidence that your castle has been up and unchallenged for four years, otherwise the council may issue an enforcement notice. If you appeal against it, you'll still need the evidence otherwise the council's contention will go unchallenged.

I'm only saying this to make the point that it's worth gathering evidence at the outset, in case you need it later.

Cheers
Richard

 

[^woody^]

Just to be clear, "challenge" means action by the planning authority, and not a letter from a neighbour or anybody, to anybody

 

[geraldthehamster]

Just to be clear, "challenge" means action by the planning authority, and not a letter from a neighbour or anybody, to anybody

Yes, I thought we'd established that.

Cheers
Richard

 

[^woody^]

Oh, I was not sure based on your comments and back tracking

 

[geraldthehamster]

Oh, I was not sure based on your comments and back tracking

I haven't backtracked on anything, I made that same comment yesterday afternoon with a link to support it.

Cheers
Richard