Planning Permission - LBA

snorbit

So, I have decided to put up a fight.

I have discovered that the land that is the subject of the LBC does not have planning permission as a car park. It had temporary permission a few years ago, but this has since expired.

Surely this is the killer argument to any claim?

Therefore, my reply letter has the following structure:

1. Planning Permission (let's save time/cost in the spirit of the PD by dropping this in light of lack of planning)
2. LBA Content/PD (if you wish to persist, at least provide me with the info req'd by the PD*)
Locus Standi (notwithstanding the issue of planning, does your client have landowner's auth to act on their behalf? Offer to write to them to do this)
3. Signage Infringements/IPC Code of Practice (is this even worthwhile?)
4. FoPA (No proof I was driver, NTK indicates attempt to claim from keeper, have not met req's)

*looks like the PD has been updated since the original advice on here. There is no Annex A and it appears far less detailed than previously - does this benefit claimants?

This will end up being a very long letter, circa 10 sides. Tactically, is it best to make all of my points from the get-go. I would think this would help if/when I end up in front of a judge

Coupon-mad

Surely this is the killer argument to any claim?

No, this has been discussed before. It can feature in a defence but unlikely to be a killer blow. This also needed to be in your thread, not separate, to help others know what case this is about.

pogofish

I think you will find that many PPC-infested car parks have some sort of issue with the planning but neither POPLA or the IAS seem to give a hoot about it. I can think of three in my own area alone.

It might be a different matter at court though.

Loadsofchildren123

Make a formal complaint to the council's planning dept so that some action gets taken

Umkomaas

Unless the LA is prepared to do anything about this, then why should a small claims court take any initiative? I don't even think it's within their scope to do so in the context of your case (other views might be available).

A blind alley, IMHO, other than as a low order point to make, to paint a picture of the general flouting of any formal procedures with which this private parking skimdustry is required to comply.

pogofish

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

Make a formal complaint to the council's planning dept so that some action gets taken

Thanks to a few years in the building trade at the start of my career, my faith in council planning enforcement is very, very weak. Plenty companies knew that they effectively had the planners over a barrel so long as they paid lip-service to the process and didn't take the piddle too obviously.

IME "action" most often means the offender/neglectful so-and-so concerned is simply told to get an application-in for retrospective permission whilst their day to day operation barely misses a beat.

IMO if someone discovers a planning issue with a car park, it might be better to save it for a rainy day if it ever goes to court - where it is much more likely to be given serious consideration.

snorbit

pogofish wrote: »

Thanks to a few years in the building trade at the start of my career, my faith in council planning enforcement is very, very weak. Plenty companies knew that they effectively had the planners over a barrel so long as they paid lip-service to the process and didn't take the piddle too obviously.

IME "action" most often means the offender/neglectful so-and-so concerned is simply told to get an application-in for retrospective permission whilst their day to day operation barely misses a beat.

IMO if someone discovers a planning issue with a car park, it might be better to save it for a rainy day if it ever goes to court - where it is much more likely to be given serious consideration.

Well, its reasonably likely to go to court now Gladstones are on the case! Any claimed contract in relation to parking on the land is illegal

Loadsofchildren123

The general consensus is that if the planning authority isn't bothered, the court won't be persuaded either. It's a point to run, but not one of your strongest arguments.

However, I put together quite a persuasive argument (partially cribbed from an excellent counsel-drafted Skeleton on a Prankster blog) about the principle that you cannot found a cause of action on an act which was illegal. Never saw the light of day in court so I can't give any feedback on whether it was well received!

I agree that the planning dept won't be that bothered if it's just the signs that didn't have consent, but the entire use of the site? Maybe Swansea (where I am) is better than other councils, because they take it quite seriously and shut down a site recently being used as a temporary car park. Perhaps there was pressure from local residents and multiple complaints.

Just don't assume that if the local authority won't care, the small claims court will.....

snorbit

Thanks for this - I have complained to the planning authority. Its not so much a case that they don't care, more that they don't appear to be aware.