Received an 'Alleged Breach of Condition' from Council Planning Control - Help!

antrobus

the_r_sole wrote: »

You can get planning permission without ownership of the land, it doesn't mean you can force an owner to do that work when permission is granted.
Seems strange that the seller didn't include a right of way to carry out the works since they were selling it separately.
The person carrying out the works has to comply with the conditions, no one else.

Planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements (based on that section of The 1990 Town & Country Planning Act) are private agreements made between local authorities and developers and can be attached to a planning permission to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. The land itself, rather than the person or organisation that develops the land, is bound by a Section 106 Agreement - so this is something any future owners will need to take into account.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/conditionsandobligations

katipip

sgtpepper wrote: »

That's what we thought, the not complying with conditions would effect the new dwelling not ours, but maybe we could be fined in the process.

I can't see how you can be fined for something that was carried out by another person, that wasn't on your land, didn't require your consent and was totally beyond your power to stop or intervene.

The more I consider it the more convinced I am that you have nothing to worry about - unlike your new build neighbour who has done work contrary to the conditions of the planning permission.

System

antrobus wrote: »

Planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements (based on that section of The 1990 Town & Country Planning Act) are private agreements made between local authorities and developers and can be attached to a planning permission to make acceptable development which would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms. The land itself, rather than the person or organisation that develops the land, is bound by a Section 106 Agreement - so this is something any future owners will need to take into account.

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/planning/applications/decisionmaking/conditionsandobligations

This a planning condition, a planning obligation is something completely different and nothing to do with this matter

sgtpepper_2

katipip wrote: »

I can't see how you can be fined for something that was carried out by another person, that wasn't on your land, didn't require your consent and was totally beyond your power to stop or intervene.

The more I consider it the more convinced I am that you have nothing to worry about - unlike your new build neighbour who has done work contrary to the conditions of the planning permission.

This is the latest reply from the council;

"I refer to your email in relation to 11 Main Street, the content of which has been noted.

I understand that the new build property 11a was built by someone who did not have control over your property 11 Main Street, however the planning permission included both properties and there is the requirement that a drive and garage was created for 11 Main Street. The provision of this driveway and garage formed part of the decision making process for the approval of the new build property and provided additional parking to mitigate for any impact the new build may have.

Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that the ‘the local planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a “breach of condition notice”) on— .
(a)any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or .
(b)any person having control of the land,’

The original applicant and the builder no longer have control of the land, unfortunately enforcement action cannot be taken against them. As you are the land owners you have control over the land and the Council could take enforcement action for the compliance of the condition.

In your email you state that you intend to alter and make provision for a driveway and garage at the property. As a way to resolve the breach of condition we could explore how you intend to layout the driveway and garage and if this overcomes the reasons for the conditions being placed on the planning permission it may resolve the planning enforcement issues once implemented.

It may be beneficial to meet with you to go through the planning permission as approved with the driveway and garage layout and look at your intentions in relation to providing them. If you would like to go forward with this please contact me or provide a list of dates and times that are convenient.

Kind regards

XXX"

In the first paragraph is doesn't seem clear that she understands that we also had no control over what was happening at number 11 let alone 11A as we didn't even own the property at the time.

katipip

I think the council are trying it on.

By their own admission:-

"Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that the ‘the local planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a “breach of condition notice”) on— .
(a)any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or .
(b)any person having control of the land,’

I understand category B to refer to the person having control of the land that is actually being built on.

You do not fit into either category A or B so, surely the issue has nothing to do with you.

sgtpepper_2

katipip wrote: »

I think the council are trying it on.

By their own admission:-

"Section 187 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 states that the ‘the local planning authority may, if any of the conditions is not complied with, serve a notice (in this Act referred to as a “breach of condition notice”) on— .
(a)any person who is carrying out or has carried out the development; or .
(b)any person having control of the land,’

I understand category B to refer to the person having control of the land that is actually being built on.

You do not fit into either category A or B so, surely the issue has nothing to do with you.

Technically the plans fell on our land and theirs, and it is only on our piece of land that the work hasn't been carried out. Though B doesn't apply to an individual.

moneyistooshorttomention

I would be wondering whether to send the Council a letter, laying out quite clearly all the reasons why this was nothing to do with my house, and stating that, if they persist with trying to say that it is =

- then I would obviously consult a solicitor specialising in such matters and then send them a letter with the solicitor's verdict on it (proving I'm right) and a bill for them to repay me for my solicitors costs.

In other words the gist of the letter would be a (more politely/legally) phrased comment to effect of "Stop hassling me like this. You ARE in the wrong. If you persist then I will make YOU pay the costs of my proving you wrong."

Another possible alternative being that I am wondering whether you have any decent standard councillors in your area? Councillors can vary and I would probably not think like that these days (as some of the ones hereabouts are dire) - but I would have done so/have done so before in a previous area.

MisterBaxter

the_r_sole wrote: »

You can get planning permission without ownership of the land, it doesn't mean you can force an owner to do that work when permission is granted.
Seems strange that the seller didn't include a right of way to carry out the works since they were selling it separately.
The person carrying out the works has to comply with the conditions, no one else.

Having planning consent doesn't force anyone to commence the works but once the planning consent has been enacted (works started) then there is the expectation that any conditions attached to the planning consent are met. In this case it seems that there were conditions attached to the planning consent and as works started the planning authority are now requiring those conditions to be met.

If there were outstanding planning conditions attached to the property/land at the time of the sale they should have been made clear and all parties should have known that they were expected to meet the requirements of these conditions.

My understanding is that when land/property changes ownership part way through a development the planning consent and any conditions will pass to the new owners; there would be no need for the owner to re-apply for planning consent unless they were changing the design which again supports the notion that the consent rests with the land and not the owner and the fact that the consent and all of its liabilities and obligations can also pass to the new owner. Certainly in housing it is not uncommon for a developer to buy a large package of land, obtain planning consent and then sell of parcels with the consent in place; the obligations fall to the developers who purchased and not the initial applicant, in the case of the OP this is a very small version of this principle.

Under the planning act I would say that the OP falls in to the category of person having control over the land (in part). They took over control when they purchased the property/land.

Think of it this way of the property had been built in contravention of planning laws then the planning authority could enforce and demolish; the fact that the land/property had since changed hands wouldn't mean that the contravention had simply gone away just because the original applicant/builder wa no longer on the scene.

OP - whatever you do don't tell the planning authority that they are in the wrong until you have had proper advice that you can rely on; you don't want to rub them up the wrong way too early on in the process just in case you need to start negotiations with them. If you get legal advice that suggest that they are wrong pay the legal advisor to write the letter on your behalf; it will be worth the costs.

Anything I have said above is opinion based on my own limited experience of working with developers who buy land with consents in place; it may be worth paying for some time with a planning consultant to get some proper advice; unless the solicitor you use understands planning law the advice they can give may be limited.

antrobus

the_r_sole wrote: »

This a planning condition, a planning obligation is something completely different and nothing to do with this matter

Unless the permission otherwise provides, planning permission runs with the land and any conditions imposed on the permission will bind successors in title.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/7715/324923.pdf

katipip

Using the councils logic perhaps they would like to respond to this possible situation.

Supposing I own 50 acres of land and apply for planning permission to build 2 houses on every acre. Planning Permission is granted.

I then change my mind and sell off the 50 acres to 50 different people. Each person gets 1 acre.

49 of the people choose to use their newly acquired land land for pasture whilst 1 person uses the planning permission and builds his 2 houses.

Does that force the other 49 people to build 2 houses each just because 1 owner has done so???

No, surely not.