fused spur

[ban-all-sheds]

The fact is that 'Approved Document P' does, indeed, suggest that what you say is true - and many people seem to believe that it is true (presumably because of that document, and books which have 'copied from it'). However, that is just a (seemingly not very well written) 'guidance' document, and the 'actual law' (Schedule 4 of the Building Regs) appears very clear in saying that installation of any 'outdoor lighting installation' is notifiable.

But it would be churlish to refuse to follow the guidance.

 

[SaladFingers]

I didn't think 'any' outdoor lighting was notifiable, unless it wasn't fixed to the house.

 

[JohnW2]

The fact is that 'Approved Document P' does, indeed, suggest that what you say is true - and many people seem to believe that it is true (presumably because of that document, and books which have 'copied from it'). However, that is just a (seemingly not very well written) 'guidance' document, and the 'actual law' (Schedule 4 of the Building Regs) appears very clear in saying that installation of any 'outdoor lighting installation' is notifiable.

But it would be churlish to refuse to follow the guidance.

Since, as far we are aware, this matter has never got to court, we don't have any helpful case law, so have no guidance as to how a court would view all this. On the face of it, the AD appears not to simply be 'interpreting' the law, but actually contradicting it, in a way that even a court couldn't do.

In practice, I would hope that following the guidance of a document issued by government would be regarded as a pretty good 'defence' (against a charge of having broken the law) - and I would hope would introduce sufficient confusion/uncertainty that a prosecution wouldn't be successful(which would, of course, have to be established "beyond a reasonable doubt").

Whatever, the inconsistencies/contradictions obviously should be removed - and then we wouldn't need to have these discussions.

Kind Regards, John
Edit: paragraph order corrected!

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I didn't think 'any' outdoor lighting was notifiable, unless it wasn't fixed to the house.

Read Schedule 4.

 

[JohnW2]

I didn't think 'any' outdoor lighting was notifiable, unless it wasn't fixed to the house.

That's what we're debating. Schedule 4 of the Building Regs (i.e. 'the law') is very clear in saying that 'extending a circuit' to provide any outdoor lighting (without exceptions) is notifiable - but the 'guidance document' (Approved Document P), which is not law, says something closer to what you're suggesting. Of course, if the outdoor lighting involves 'a new circuit' (rather than extending an existing one), it would be notifiable, anyway.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

In practice, I would hope that following the guidance of a document issued by government would be regarded as a pretty good 'defence' (against a charge of having broken the law) - and I would hope would introduce sufficient confusion/uncertainty that a prosecution wouldn't be successful(which would, of course, have to be established "beyond a reasonable doubt").

It's the Local Authority who would have to bring the prosecution.

IANAL, but I don't think there's a chance in hell that the council's legal dept would regard prosecuting someone who had followed guidance approved by the Secretary of State as a wise move.

 

[JohnW2]

IANAL, but I don't think there's a chance in hell that the council's legal dept would regard prosecuting someone who had followed guidance approved by the Secretary of State as a wise move.

Exactly - as I said, the chances of a successful prosecution would, I think (hope!), be low in that situation, so if they were sensibly advised, they would probably not attempt it. I also suspect that they've probably got far more important things to worry about.

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

Well - the recent Waltham Forest LBC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government case shows that our complacence may be misplaced.

Some poor householder got slapped with an enforcement notice because he'd followed the guidance on permitted development dormer conversions and his council didn't agree with it. It went all the way to the High Court, who ruled that the guidance was wrong.

 

[JohnW2]

Well - the recent Waltham Forest LBC v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government case shows that our complacence may be misplaced. ... Some poor householder got slapped with an enforcement notice because he'd followed the guidance on permitted development dormer conversions and his council didn't agree with it. It went all the way to the High Court, who ruled that the guidance was wrong.

Interesting - although you're presumably talking about a Planning matter, rather than a BC one - and LAs have always tended to be much more aggressive in terms of Planning.

I wonder what now happens about this guidance which the High Court has decided is wrong?!

Kind Regards, John

 

[ban-all-sheds]

I believe the guidance is being rewritten.

More interestingly, I wonder what now happens to all the people with illegal loft conversions.

 

[JohnW2]

I believe the guidance is being rewritten. More interestingly, I wonder what now happens to all the people with illegal loft conversions.

It would be nice/interesting if they tried to act against some other victim who had the inclination and resources to pursue the matter 'as far as it took'. There are a couple of more levels of the UK judicial system to pursue, not to mention the invocation of European Law. One would hope that, at some level, it would be agreed that a precedent set by the High Court indicating that compliance with government-written guidance could leave one on the wrong side of the law should not be allowed to stand!

Kind Regards, John