Jump to content


Planning Residential or not?


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1893 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I am 67 years old and severely disabled as a result of Polio contracted at age 9 Months. For the past 25 years I have been confined to a wheelchair full time. For this reason I sought and bought a bungalow on a flat and level site so that it could be easily adapted to meet my special needs. The bungalow which I now own and occupy is built on part of a site which was formerly an American Navy Air Force Base during World War 2. There are in excess of 150 similar such properties on this site.

 

I bought the bungalow in 2002, and shortly after was fortunate enough to be given a “Disabled Facilities Grant” by the Local Council to install ramps to facilitate easy entry from the outside, adapt the bathroom, and install central heating. One of the conditions of that grant was that I remain “Resident” for at least 5 years. Therefore it came as something as a surprise when within a year I received an Enforcement Notice from the Local Council saying that I had to vacate on the grounds that I was contravening one of the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission under which my property was developed which stated the property was “Holiday Use Only” and could NOT be utilised for residential purposes.

 

Of course I fought the case which went all the way to Crown Court in December 2005. At that hearing the Judge threw the case out saying that the action taken by the Council was an abuse of the legal system and a waste of public money. Council did not really accept the Judge’s ruling and still held that the Enforcement Order was valid. However, Council did decide not to take any further action against me personally, but warned that if I ever vacated for any reason, they would take similar action against the next occupants if they deemed it necessary to maintain the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission.

 

Following that, and for almost 10 years, Council took no enforcement action against the many other occupants who had taken up residence in similar properties to mine developed under the same Planning Permission containing the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Until very recently that is, when they began issuing Enforcement Notices against a number of other properties whose occupants have been long term residents here.

 

Since my case of 2005, I and a number of other interested parties have continued our research. What we have uncovered is quite interesting:-

 

 

1. In April of 1971, there was a Section 37 Agreement granted on all this land which was formerly an American Navy Air Force base. This Agreement permitted the development of “Dwellings” amongst other structures, but stipulated that the “Dwellings” may not be used for “Residential Purposes” for the period from 2nd January to 28th February in any given year.

 

Note:- “Residential Use” was permitted for the remainder of the year – that is from March to December inclusive. My understanding of such Agreements is that they cannot be rescinded at the whim of a Local Council Planning Department without obtaining a “Deed of Release”. Something which to my certain knowledge has never been done. However, what Local Council Planning Departments do have the power and authority to do is “Lift” restrictions on such agreements.

 

Some development took place and was successful, the properties sold well. Some years later, a new developer took possession of the land, and seeing the success the previous developer had enjoyed, that developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement.

 

 

2. In 1986, Planning Permission was granted to build the bigger and better bungalows, BUT, within that Permission the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” was introduced. A good number of the bigger and better bungalows were constructed under this Planning Permission, mine being one of those.

 

Note:- Council either did not realise or chose to ignore the previously existing Section 37 Agreement which was still in force and does allow “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year.

 

Some years later, Council may have realised that the 1986 Planning Permission was flawed because of the previously existing Section 37 Agreement.

 

3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1991. Here a resolution was floored. The intention was apparently to rescind the Section 37 Agreement, but they did not have the power or authority to do that. At that meeting, the resolution that was floored was worded in such a way that all it achieved was to relieve the restriction as to when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. This much was within their power to do – that is – relieve restrictions. Nevertheless, two days after that meeting, a Memo was sent to the Council Land Registry Department saying that the Agreement of April 1971 (Section 37 Agreement), allowing “Residential Use”, had been cancelled. I have copies of the notes of that meeting, including the wording of the resolution that was passed, and the memo to the Land Registry Department.

 

Note:- There seems to be deliberate deception by the Officers involved. Planning and Development Committee did not have the power to rescind/cancel the Section 37 Agreement, so they amended it, then informed the Local Land Registry that it had been cancelled. This was a lie.

 

 

Shortly after that Planning and Development Meeting, Council began issuing numerous “Enforcement Notices” on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, causing considerable worry, stress, inconvenience and financial duress to many people. Many, if not all of these actions by Council were successful, lots of families were evicted.

 

Of late, since Council began issuing Enforcement Notices again based on contravention of conditions contained within the 1986 Planning Permission – some of these have been challenged by owners and occupiers of the properties concerned.

 

We have it on record that Council have admitted that the Section 37 Agreement is still in force and has never been rescinded. Now, one of the new Enforcement Orders has been challenged by the owner of the property who pointed out that according to the original Section 37 Agreement of April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991, the property in question had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round.

 

Council admitted in a telephone conversation that this was the position, and that the “Enforcement Order” had been withdrawn and the case closed. However, they refused to put this in writing. This is of great interest. Why do Council refuse to put this in writing?

 

The theory is that if Council admit the Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year is still in force on all this land, then the 1986 Planning Permission attempting to introduce a more onerous “Holiday Use Only” condition is unenforceable. That would effectively mean that all the successful actions Council took for eviction on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, were in fact “Illegal Evictions”! It would also mean that following the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991 when restrictions were lifted as to the periods when the properties could not be used for residential purposes – all 150+ properties have the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round.

 

So my position and question is this:-

 

I have been arguing with Council over the years on many different levels and aspects of Planning Law that my property has the benefit of “Full Residential Permission”. Not least because it would significantly increase its value and make it easier to sell if I ever decide to re-locate. All of my arguments have been dismissed as irrelevant as in their view the 1986 Planning Permission stands and the “Holiday Use Only” condition is valid and enforceable.

 

Now, of late, I learn that the original Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Occupation” for 10 months of the year still stands. I also know that the restriction on the 2 months of the year when it could not be used for “Residential Occupation” was lifted in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991. Thus allowing “Full Residential Permission” all year round. This means that the “Holiday Use Only” condition in the 1986 Planning Permission was never valid or imposable in full in the first place, and that since March 1991, well before taking me to Court, my property had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council Officials were well aware of that before taking me to Court.

 

My problem is how to get Council to admit that, put it in writing, and have that recorded in the Local Land Registry, and the National Land Registry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am no expert in planning law but as I see this, the council can resolve not to enforce conditions of planning consent, but that would not prevent it from later resolving to remind that former non enforcement resolution.

 

I suspect the only remedy that you could seek is judicial review, which can be horrendously expensive.

 

You would be arguing that when you bought the property, based on the 1991 decision, you had a "legitimate expectation" that year round residential use would be permitted.

 

This is in the context of a former local authority lawyer but not in planning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've had some interesting interaction with our local planning in apposing a monstrous 3 story multiple town house build on the site of a small cottage amongst tradition 2 story semis.

 

Despite showing that the proposed multiple car access would be dangerous, and the development was a monstrous eyesore completely out of keeping with the area and did NOT meet planning guidelines in many areas including newer living space guidelines, the planning office went ahead and approved it stating that the recommended guidelines were only guidelines that they didn't need to consider!!!

 

It was eventually blocked by the highways as the proposed access was dangerous.

 

Makes you wonder what planning departments are playing at?

 

If you are going to train a virus to escape vaccine-induced immunity

you would do exactly what (England) are doing

Jemma Geoghegan - evolutionary virologist, University of Otago

+ the vast majority of the worlds scientific community

 

"unrepentant and inveterate liar" “Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

Boris Johnson Mendax est

Remember when Johnson or Patel are on stage - Its your choice to BOOO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Many thanks stevemLS,

 

Your reply leaves me a little confused what does "the council can resolve not to enforce conditions of planning consent, but that would not prevent it from later resolving to remind that former non enforcement resolution". actually mean?

 

In my case I have proof that the "Holiday Use Only" condition in Council's 1986 Planning Permission was NEVER legally imposable in the first place. And that Council acted outside their authority by attempting to cancel the original Section 37 Agreement which permitted "Residential Occupation" - then covering that up by memo to their Local Land Registry.

 

Council have now admitted that a recent "Enforcement Notice" issued on a property similar to mine and developed under the same Planning Permission has been withdrawn and case closed on the grounds that the original Section 37 Agreement, and the amendment made to it which lifted the period when it could not be used for "Residential Purposes" are valid and in force. But Council refuse to put that in writing.

 

I have asked Council to confirm that if their decision applies on that dwelling, then it also applies to mine - but they seem unwilling to respond.

 

Surely there must be some way to get Council to admit without going to the horrendous expense of asking for a Judicial Review on the matter.

 

It seems to be so unfair that someone in a position such as I am now should have to commit to HUGE legal expense just to prove that that what I claim is right and just?

 

The Law is an ass and you seem not to able to get justice unless you can pay for it.

 

That's not right.

 

Bob Watkins

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tobyjugg2,

 

I totally agree that local planning authorities seem to be mindless in every aspect of their considerations and decisions.

 

One has to wonder if their decisions are based on logic (which they seem to lack) - or probably and more likely on the possibility of some personal gain.

 

I don't trust ANY of them

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seen the latest?

Further reduction in even the limitations the planning depts ignore?

eg some London properties no planning permission needed to add another storey

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/09/osborne-tears-up-planning-laws-londoners-build-extra-storeys-on-homes

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33472405

 

If you are going to train a virus to escape vaccine-induced immunity

you would do exactly what (England) are doing

Jemma Geoghegan - evolutionary virologist, University of Otago

+ the vast majority of the worlds scientific community

 

"unrepentant and inveterate liar" “Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

Boris Johnson Mendax est

Remember when Johnson or Patel are on stage - Its your choice to BOOO

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Tobyjugg2

 

Yes I saw that, here in Cornwall they seem to be building more and more on Greenfield Sites and not using Brownfield.

 

In my case my property stands on what used to be an airfield in WW2, on this site they seem to allow building for "Holiday Use" - and bear in mind these are "Permanent Structures" built to a standard under Building Regs for full time occupation, but Council Planners will not permit Residential Use. Makes no sense.

 

At one stage when I asked for Residential Use, they said it could not be permitted as they would not allow such development in a Rural Area!!! Where is the logic?

Link to post
Share on other sites

To Tobyjugg2

 

Yes I saw that, here in Cornwall they seem to be building more and more on Greenfield Sites and not using Brownfield.

 

In my case my property stands on what used to be an airfield in WW2, on this site they seem to allow building for "Holiday Use" - and bear in mind these are "Permanent Structures" built to a standard under Building Regs for full time occupation, but Council Planners will not permit Residential Use. Makes no sense.

 

At one stage when I asked for Residential Use, they said it could not be permitted as they would not allow such development in a Rural Area!!! Where is the logic?

 

How you tried complaining regarding these discrepancies which seem to evidence that there is not a fair and common application of guidelines to the council, not the planning dept.

I was in the process of researching it until highways rejected the one I was involved with.

 

Complain with your evidence of dual standards to The local council itself, with a copy to your local MP, particularly in your case with the government stance of needing more houses.

... Then LGO

http://www.lgo.org.uk

 

 

If you are going to train a virus to escape vaccine-induced immunity

you would do exactly what (England) are doing

Jemma Geoghegan - evolutionary virologist, University of Otago

+ the vast majority of the worlds scientific community

 

"unrepentant and inveterate liar" “Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

Boris Johnson Mendax est

Remember when Johnson or Patel are on stage - Its your choice to BOOO

Link to post
Share on other sites

tobyjuggs2

 

I've already done pretty much all you suggest. Complained direct to the Council and to my MP, who simply forwarded my complaint to the Council who then gave me an inane response - something like "we have already expended too much time on this issue". Please refer to previous correspondence. All of which focused on the 86 Planning Permission which I still hold was illegal and unenforceable in the first place. But Council will not admit that.

 

Now, given the latest information I have to hand, I have proof that Council acted illegally by trying to impose new and more onerous conditions on planning permission.

 

So I have taken your suggestion to heart, and have now submitted a complaint to the Local Council Ombudsman. We shall see how they respond to that - I have been promised a reply within 5 working days. I will keep you informed of the progress.

 

Many thanks for your advice so far.

 

Wheels60

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have sent the following letter to Council, Head of Legal Services, we shall see if they respond at all and what they might say.

 

Ms Elizabeth Dunstan

Cornwall Council

East Wing

Camborne One Stop Shop

Delcoath Avenue

Camborne

TR14 8SX

15th July 2015

 

Further Indisputable Argument and Fact

 

Dear Ms Dunstan,

 

You will be well aware of my long and protracted arguments about the “Residential Status” of my property. I have always maintained that “Full Residential Use”, with no period when the property must be left vacant, should be permitted.

 

All your arguments to the contrary have been based on the conditions imposed under Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP which you maintain are valid and enforceable. However, some facts that I was not previously aware of have come to light which prove beyond doubt that the “Holiday Use Only” condition contained within 6/86/1533/OPP was never valid or legally enforceable.

 

Let me detail the history and agreements in place over the land on which my property stands.

 

1. Section 25 Agreement dated 3rd May 1960, which under Paragraph 2, Item 1(i) states:-

“shall be used for residential purposes except during the period from 1st day of March to the 31st day of October (both days inclusive) in any one year”. “Residential Permission” is therefore permitted from and including the dates from 1st day of September to 28th/29th February (whichever is applicable if it be a leap year) each year.

 

2. Section 37 Agreement dated 26th April 1971 replaces the Section 25 Agreement. It states under Paragraph 3(i):-

 

No property:- “shall be used for residential purposes during the period from the 2nd day of January to the 28th day of February in any one year”.

This leaves “Residential Permission” in place for the period 1st March in one year to 1st January in the following year (both dates inclusive).

 

Note:- Such Agreement cannot be rescinded. No Local Planning Authority has the power to rescind this Agreement.

 

In 1986 a new developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was granted but now included a “Holiday Use Only” condition – which is contrary to and more onerous than previous agreements for development on this land. It is fact that Local Authorities are not permitted to introduce new and more onerous conditions in any Planning Permission where previous Agreements are in place.

 

Local Authorities ARE empowered to “Lift” restrictions, but ARE NOT empowered to impose new and more onerous conditions. However, this is exactly what Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP sought to do.

 

It would seem that some years later Council may have realised their errors insofar as Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP contained the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” and was not legally imposable in view of the prior existing Section 37 Agreement which allowed “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year.

 

An attempt was made to rectify this and make the 86 Planning Permission legally enforceable.

 

3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting 4th March 1991.

At this meeting a resolution was floored and passed with the apparent intention of rescinding the Section 37 Agreement. Something which the Officers at that meeting did not have the power or authority to do. However, the actual wording of the resolution which was floored and passed was:-

 

“Note 8. St Merryn Holiday Village – Section 37 Agreement. RESOLVED THAT the Section 37 Agreement in respect of the above prohibiting the use of the properties between 2nd January – 28th February be rescinded accordingly”.

 

Note:- In this manner the Section 37 Agreement was which allowed “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year was NOT rescinded (They didn’t have the power to do that anyway), but what was achieved was to “Lift” the periods when the properties COULD NOT be used for “Residential Purposes”. The resolution says:- “in respect of the above prohibiting the use of the properties between 2nd January – 28th February be rescinded accordingly”. I repeat that Local Council DO have the power and authority to “Lift” restrictions, but NOT to impose new and more onerous conditions. Thus by passing this resolution in the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1971, they permitted “Residential Use” all year round.

 

NEVERTHELESS

 

It became obvious the intention was to rescind the Section 37 Agreement altogether from what followed:-

 

4. Internal Memorandum dated 6th March 1991 from Head of Legal Services to Land Charges Department.

 

Which says:-

 

“ St Merryn Holiday Village - As you are aware, we have already cancelled the 1960 Planning Agreement relating to St Merryn Holiday Village. I would be grateful if you would also note on the Register that the Planning and Development Committee on the 4th March, 1991 resolved to cancel the Agreement dated the 26th April, 1971 and also note your copy of the Agreement accordingly annexing this memorandum to it confirming that it has been cancelled”.

 

Signed by:- Sally Lloyd-Jones (Solicitor)

 

Note:- This appears to be deception. The Section 37 Agreement dated 26th April 1971 had not been cancelled. Sally Lloyd-Jones was well aware that all that had been achieved was to relieve the periods covered by the Section 37 Agreement when “Residential Permission” was not permitted. By her actions ALL the properties covered by the original Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971 now enjoy “Residential Permission” all year round. But this Memo states that the Agreement dated 26th April 1971 (The Section 37 Agreement) had been cancelled. Simply not true!

 

I now draw your attention to the 1989 Appeal against periods when the properties must be left vacant. This appeal was against Permission No:- 43706/C. Planning Permission 43706/C is directly linked to the Section 37 Agreement.

 

North Cornwall District Council requested that Appeal be heard under the direction of an Inspector.

Inspector D. A. Hill was appointed to hear the Appeal.

 

The Inspector’s ruling was:-

 

“The condition attached to the amended outline planning permission 43706/C is simply a seasonal restriction which prohibits the occupation of the bungalows in January and February. There is no holiday use only condition attached to this permission”.

 

Consequently, the Inspector did not believe that he was able to introduce a holiday use only condition.

 

He ruled:-

 

“As the condition which is the subject of these appeals does not refer to holiday use, to introduce such a holiday use condition would be more onerous on the appellants and I do not regard that as a course of action which would be legitimately open to me”.

 

This is a ruling by an Inspector that was appointed by Council to hear the Appeal. The outcome was that he allowed the “Lifting” of the periods when the properties could not be used for “Residential Purposes”, but at the same time he did not allow the imposition of a new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” as requested by Council. His comment was that “I do not regard that as a course of action which would be legitimately open to me”.

 

Given this ruling in 1989 by an Inspector appointed by Council to rule on the matter, it makes nonsense of the introduction of a “Holiday Use Only” condition in 6/86/1533/OOP. It was not an option that was legitimately open to Council Planning at the time, as proven by the Inspector’s ruling some 3 years later. Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was not imposable in respect of the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Council had no power to introduce such new and more onerous condition, as proven by the Inspector’s ruling in 1989.

 

Now I ask some serious questions to which I will demand a response in writing:-

 

a) Given the above unquestionable and indisputable evidence, will you now admit that my property does have, and has always had “Residential Permission” with no period when it must be left vacant since 4th March 1971?

b) Will you confirm that Ms Sally Lloyd-Jones who is a qualified solicitor and was Head of Legal Services at North Cornwall District Council at the time should have been aware that she did not have the authority to cancel/rescind the Section 37 Agreement of 4th March 1971 in that Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991?

c) Will you admit that the Memorandum from Ms Sally Lloyd-Jones dated 6th March 1991 was misleading, and sought to claim that the Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971 had been cancelled/rescinded – when it clearly had not?

d) Will you admit that in recent Enforcement Orders issued by Cornwall Council Enforcement Officers stating that there was a “Contravention of Planning Conditions” at a number of properties here was un-founded? Especially as one such claim for “Enforcement” was challenged and then withdrawn “Case Closed” on the grounds that the original Section 37 Agreement of 26th April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991 was accepted as valid and in force – thus giving that property “Full Residential Permission” all year round. If it applies to that property, it applies to mine!

e) Will you now admit that the “Holiday Use Only” condition contained within Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP was never legally imposable as it was more onerous than previous Agreements which Council had no authority or power to cancel/rescind?

f) Will Council Planning Department now inform Land Registry Departments to reflect that my property has the benefit of “Residential Permission” all year round and confirm this in writing for my attention?

 

Regardless of all previous arguments about the status of my property, the above is indisputable and irrefutable evidence that we have “Residential Permission” all year round. I want the questions answered in writing, and recorded on my Land Title and the Land Registers both local and national.

 

It remains at my discretion whether I seek compensation for the unnecessary stress, inconvenience and duress I was put under, and whether or not any action should be taken against Officers of the then North Cornwall District Council, or Cornwall Council as is now – for attempting to enforce restrictions that are not lawfully enforceable, and for claiming that Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP is valid and enforceable in full when it clearly is not.

 

Please note that I have copies of ALL the relevant documents:-

 

i) Section 37 Agreement of 4th March 1971

ii) Notes of Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th April 1991

iii) Memo from Sally Lloyd-Jones to Land Registry Department of 6th April 1991

iv) Planning Permission 6/86/1533/OOP

 

Signed:-

 

 

Any comments from anyone would be appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would remove the paragraph near the end starting "It remains at my discretion" and soften quite a number of the terms to enable to come across more as unfairly treated but reasonable rather than confrontational.

 

The latter would put them immediately on the defensive, whereas wronged and reasonable seeking help and justice is probably more likely to get a positive response.

 

If you are going to train a virus to escape vaccine-induced immunity

you would do exactly what (England) are doing

Jemma Geoghegan - evolutionary virologist, University of Otago

+ the vast majority of the worlds scientific community

 

"unrepentant and inveterate liar" “Moral emptiness and epidemiological stupidity”

Boris Johnson Mendax est

Remember when Johnson or Patel are on stage - Its your choice to BOOO

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi tobyjugg2,

 

I appreciate your comments, BUT, throughout this whole argument Council have been "Over Authoritative", seeming to make the rules up as they go along to suit their own purposes.

 

They have ignored Planning Law, done things that are outside their power and authority to do, attempted a "Cover Up" by sending untruthful memo to Land Registry Departments, and also committed perjury in Court over this and a few other matters I am aware of by failing to reveal the full facts. There is such a thing in Law as "Lying by Omission" which Council are CERTAINLY guilty of.

 

I really think it is time to stop being polite and apologetic for asking the questions I raised, and to CONFRONT them with the absolute and indisputable proof of their mistakes, and demand and explanation, an apology, and admission of the facts.

 

I KNOW I am right, I just need Council to admit to the facts. Once that is done there will a case for me to seek compensation, and not only that, perhaps a number of previous occupants of properties on this site that were illegally evicted in the past over a period of more than 10 years will also have cause to seek compensation!

 

Sorry if I sound belligerent and aggressive, but Council's attitude and approach over the last 10 years has made me feel that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

Hi ALL!

 

I wonder if anyone can help?

 

 

I am led to believe that under Planning Law there is a rule which says

that no Local Planning Authority can impose "new and more onerous conditions"

when granting Planning Permission/Consent over any land where a previous Agreement (Such as a Section 37 Agreement) containing less onerous conditions/restrictions is still valid and in force. Can anyone confirm this and advise where I can download and print off please.

 

I also understand that where such an Agreement with less onerous conditions/restrictions is still valid and in force,

it cannot be rescinded without first securing a "Deed of Release" signed by all interested parties.

 

 

The "Interested Parties" would of course include all successors in Title who have since purchased small parcels of the land covered by the original Section 37 Agreement.

 

 

Can anyone confirm this for me please?

Link to post
Share on other sites

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi and thanks for replying,

 

Yes it is related but things have moved on a bit - quick precis:-

 

1971 Section 37 Agreement allowing residential permission 10 months of year. 50+ properties built with no "Holiday Use Only" or "Must be Left Vacant for 2 Months" restrictions. Just "Must not be used for Residential Purposes" for 2 months (January and February) each year.

 

1986 new Planing for bigger bungalows granted but now contained "Holiday Use Only" and "Must be Left Vacant for 2 Months" conditions.

 

1989 under Appeal the 2 month restriction on when properties could not be used for residential purposes was lifted. At that Appeal Council had asked that a "Holiday Use Only" condition be imposed. But the Inspector hearing the Appeal (D Hill), said that to impose a "Holiday Use Only" restriction would be a new and more onerous condition and he felt that this was not an option that was open to him, so he denied it.

 

1991 Planning Meeting. At this meeting the resolution passed was to lift the 2 month restriction (Again) when properties could not be used for residential purposes. BUT, Council claimed afterwards that they had rescinded the whole of the original Section 37 Agreement. They COULD NOT have done that - no "Deed of Release" - no authority to cancel or rescind.

 

2003 Council took action against me for contravening the "Holiday Use Only" Condition in the 1986 Planning Permission. They lost the case in Crown Court December 2005. But refused to accept Judge's decision, holding that the Order against my property was still valid and in force. But took no further action against me or anyone else for over 10 years.

 

Current position is Council have admitted on the one hand that the Section 37 Agreement has , in their words, "not been formally discharged", , which means that it is still in force. On they other hand Council STILL claim that it was rescinded in 1991 at their Planning Meeting, and that's NOT TRUE!

 

Following the 1991 Planning Meeting, Council evicted many families for non compliance with the "Holiday Use Only" Condition, but that stopped after I won my case in 2005, until recently that is. Earlier this year they tried to evict a neighbour of mine under the same pretext, but when that was challenged by citing the existence and continued validity of the Section 37 Agreement and the "Lifting" of restrictions in the 1991 Planning Meeting, Council withdrew the Notice. However, they refused to put the reasons in writing. All they did do was write a letter to the owner saying that:- "under investigation no breach was found. If no breach was found then that proves that Council admit that the"Holiday Use Only" and "Must be left Vacant" conditions of the 86 Planning Permission are unenforceable.

 

However, in correspondence with myself and others, Council are still claiming that the 86 Planning Permission OVERRIDES the original Section 37 Agreement, and are still claiming that it was rescinded/cancelled in the 1991 Planning Meeting. We all know that it was not rescinded, but Council won't admit it.

 

I have been informed (from reliable sources) once again that under Planning Law no Local Planning Authority can impose new and more onerous conditions unless the previous Agreement has been rescinded, which it has not. For that reason I would dearly love to find and quote that legislation to Council to prove that the new and more onerous conditions in the 1986 Planning Permission were never enforceable in the first place.

 

I would be extremely grateful for any assistance anyone can offer in finding proof of this piece of legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year the LGO just said that the matter still under consideration by the Legal Department of the Local Council. I heard nothing further on the matter. The property was purchased Freehold from the previous private owners. The old US Airforce was based here in WWII and at that time I think it was known as HMS VULTURE.

 

Does any of that help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

if people had been living there all year round for more than 6 years the planning restriction becomes redundant, just like any other possible enforcement under planning law. Then the only problem is getting a mortgage for a new buyer.

They know they cannot enforce but are happy to pretend that things are as they want them to be and wont volunteer anything. The same goes on matters like right to buy for short life properties in London (where roads were never built 30+ years ago.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ericsbrother,

 

Thanks for that. I thought that the period in question was 10 years, not 6. But either way you are right, my Council seem to think that a very old Notice against my property is still valid and in force. There must be a way I can get them to officially withdraw it, then I can apply for a "Certificate of Lawful Development or Use" under the 10 year rule. Trouble is that because I have been classed under their policy of "Unreasonable Customer Behavior" they won't respond to ANY communications I send to them!

 

I can but try I suppose. Where did you find this info about Notices becoming redundant and should be withdrawn?

 

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry... I haven't read the whole of this thread, but have you lived in this property for 12 months a year? If so, how long for? I'm wondering if you have earned a prescriptive right to continue to use the accommodation for the full 12 months a year which would mean it has full residential status rather than that of holiday use only, (less than 12 months a year...) TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi ThedaBara,

 

I have been living here 12 Months per annum for 14 years! (Apart from the odd holiday that is).

 

This term "Prescriptive Right" is a new one on me. Where can I look that one up Hee Hee! If I find it, can I ask Council to withdraw any notices they hold as valid against my property regarding residential use?

 

Problem is Council made mistakes by passing Planning Permission with unenforceable conditions, but they won't admit it and have tried to cover it up by claiming that they rescinded the previous Agreement which did not have the holiday use only condition. Trouble is, they didn't have the legal powers or authority to cancel it, but they won't admit that either and if you see the notes of the meeting they had, that was NOT the resolution that was passed - they just "Lifted" a condition on the original Agreement about a period when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. Then 2 days later falsely claimed that they had cancelled it altogether and began serving notices on lots of people for allegedly contravening the holiday use only conditions of the Planning Permission they claim is valid and in force and ignoring the fact that previous Agreement which DID allow residential use and HAS NOT BEEN CANCELLED!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi TB,

 

Lived here all year round for 14 years. Had a long fight with Local Council about mistakes they made over Planning issues and then tried to cover up.

 

Basically what they did was not within the bounds of their authority to do, but they wont admit it and have tried to claim they are within their rights to impose new and more onerous conditions on the land without first getting the original Agreement cancelled or rescinded.

 

They CLAIM they have rescinded it but they did not follow the correct procedure. First they have to get a "Deed of Release" signed by all interested parties (and that includes me) to lawfully rescind the original Agreement, and that was never done - so it still stands. Neither I nor the many other interested parties are likely to sign such a Deed which would then give Council the right to evict us would we?

 

I think this thing you describe as "Prescriptive Right to Continue" is an American thing. I can't find anywhere anything that says it applies in UK. Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

Many thanks. Wheels60

Edited by honeybee13
Paras.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… sounds complicated… I just wondered if the fact that you have stayed on the land continuously has changed the status of your occupancy from holiday to residential… You would be trespassing for some of the time as the owner of the land should prevent access for two months each year… This link is interesting. TB

 

http://www.osmondandosmond.co.uk/resources/item/322-adverse-possession-and-prescriptive-easements-over-unregistered-land

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi again,

 

It is complicated. But I would not be trespassing. I own my plot Freehold. The "Must be Left Vacant" condition was lifted twice. Once in 1989 under an Appeal, and again in 1991 at a Planning and Development Committee Meeting (this is one of the facts that Council are denying is true even though I have documentary proof) , so should not be a problem there.

 

The access roads are owned by a different landowner, but there is no problem there as we have an agreement with that landowner to use the access roads and we pay a maintenance charge to him for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm… so your freehold land is landlocked in that you don't own the access road… Are the rights to use the access road in your deeds or is it just an informal arrangement with the landowner? Are the access roads gated in order to prevent year round use?

Has the council ever tried to prevent you from accessing your land? I don't see how they can enforce the holiday use only thing unless they physically stop you from entering the land.

There is a place close to where I live and people can stay on their plots for 10 months of the year, then the access gates are locked from December 31 to March 1st, thereby preventing use all year round… TB

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...