Section 215 of Town and Country Planning Act 1990

[Fredxx]

A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to
their council planning department in regarding an old car on their drive
that he admits hasn't moved for 10 years or more.

He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a
Councillor. The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
assist as the court process is in train. She advised him to talk to
planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words indeed.

I don't suppose there are many councillors here, but can a councillor
genuinely claim they cannot intervene once the court process has
started? Is there a procedure or set of rules this councillor is following?

[Martin Brown]

On 14/02/2024 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
>
> A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to
> their council planning department in regarding an old car on their drive
> that he admits hasn't moved for 10 years or more.
>
> He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a
> Councillor. The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
> assist as the court process is in train. She advised him to talk to
> planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words indeed.

Why do you expect a councillor to help your friend keep an immobile
derelict rusting eyesore in his front garden? If he did this then all
the neighbours would be on *his* back. It is most unlikely that planning
actually noticed this - they will be acting on information received.

> I don't suppose there are many councillors here, but can a councillor
> genuinely claim they cannot intervene once the court process has
> started? Is there a procedure or set of rules this councillor is following?

I don't see why not. Seems to me the council is acting in the best
interests of the general public here!

--
Martin Brown

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 13:18:38 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>
>A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to
>their council planning department in regarding an old car on their drive
>that he admits hasn't moved for 10 years or more.

For the benefit of bystanders, a Section 215 notice is an enforcement order
issued by a Local Planning Authority (LPA) under the Town and Country
Planning Act 1990, instructing the landowner to clean up untidy land that is
causing a nuisance to neighbouring properties.

>He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a
>Councillor. The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
>assist as the court process is in train. She advised him to talk to
>planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words indeed.
>
>I don't suppose there are many councillors here, but can a councillor
>genuinely claim they cannot intervene once the court process has
>started? Is there a procedure or set of rules this councillor is following?

If the landowner has lodged a formal appeal to the magistrates, then yes,
the court process is in train and there is no mechanism for a councillor to
intervene. The only way that an appeal can be pre-empted is if the LPA
reaches an agreed resolution with the landowner prior to the court hearing.
So yes, your colleague can either take his chances in front of the bench, or
he can try to negotiate with the council. It's gone past the point at which
his councillor can help him.

Once issued, the only possible resolution of a Section 215 notice is either
through compliance, a sucessful appeal, prosecution for non-compliance
(which may fail, of course) or direct action[1] by the LPA. But compliance
is subject to negotiation - for example, a landowner may suggest that,
although it's impractical for him to comply right now, he will set a binding
timescale for compliance in the future when it is practical. Or, the
landowner might say that a complete clean-up is beyond his means, but he
will at least do enough to make it tolerable. And the LPA may well accept
such a proposal. Even if he has appealed against the notice, he can still
render the appeal moot by reaching that agreement now.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a Section 215 notice is rarely issued
out of the blue. The LPA will usually contact the landowner first, and ask
him to deal with the problem, and only move to formal action if there's no
mutually acceptable solution. Most Section 215 notices are issued following
complaints by other residents, so early dialogue may well have given some
insight into what those complaints were, and what would be enough to
persuade the complainants to withdraw. Or, he can present a counter-argument
as to why the complaints are unreasonable. That's the point at which it
would help to involve his councillor, because the councillor will often be
in a position to mediate between him and the complainants. Leaving it until
it's already waiting for the magistrates to decide is too late.

[1] If a landowner fails to comply with a Section 215 notice either in full
or by means of an agreed compromise, and does not successfully appeal
against it, the Local Planning Authority can either prosecute for
non-compliance, or send in their own staff to do the clean-up themselves. If
they take the latter option, they can subsequently send the bill to the
landowner, and if it remains unpaid then they can pursue the debt through
the courts.

Mark

[GB]

On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:

> If the landowner has lodged a formal appeal to the magistrates, then yes,
> the court process is in train and there is no mechanism for a councillor to
> intervene. The only way that an appeal can be pre-empted is if the LPA
> reaches an agreed resolution with the landowner prior to the court hearing.
> So yes, your colleague can either take his chances in front of the bench, or
> he can try to negotiate with the council. It's gone past the point at which
> his councillor can help him.

I'm slightly perplexed by that last sentence. The obvious way to deal
with this is through negotiation. Why can't the councillor assist the
landowner with this?

It's possible, for example, that the landowner has tried to discuss this
with the planners, but they have been too busy to do that. Or, he may
have put forward proposals that he feels have not been given adequate
consideration.

Mind you, the OP says the landowner was 'quite robust', so maybe the
planners perfectly reasonably don't want to sit down and discuss things
with him, in case he's 'quite robust' again. :)

> [1] If a landowner fails to comply with a Section 215 notice either in full
> or by means of an agreed compromise, and does not successfully appeal
> against it, the Local Planning Authority can either prosecute for
> non-compliance, or send in their own staff to do the clean-up themselves. If
> they take the latter option, they can subsequently send the bill to the
> landowner, and if it remains unpaid then they can pursue the debt through
> the courts.

Would the scrap value of the vehicle cover the cost of collecting it?

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:41:37 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> If the landowner has lodged a formal appeal to the magistrates, then yes,
>> the court process is in train and there is no mechanism for a councillor to
>> intervene. The only way that an appeal can be pre-empted is if the LPA
>> reaches an agreed resolution with the landowner prior to the court hearing.
>> So yes, your colleague can either take his chances in front of the bench, or
>> he can try to negotiate with the council. It's gone past the point at which
>> his councillor can help him.
>
>I'm slightly perplexed by that last sentence. The obvious way to deal
>with this is through negotiation. Why can't the councillor assist the
>landowner with this?

The councillor can't intervene with the court. If the landowner is willing
to discuss it with the LPA, then the councillor can be a party to that. But
the councillor can't act as an advocate for the landowner in any way. All
that the councillor can do is offer advice, and maybe help the landowner to
understand what the LPA wants. But the OP says that the councillor has
already offered the only advice worth giving at this stage, which is to
engage in discussion with the LPA. The implication of the OP's comments is
that the landowner doesn't want to do this, he simply wants the councillor
to step in and make the problem go away. And the councillor can't do that.

>It's possible, for example, that the landowner has tried to discuss this
>with the planners, but they have been too busy to do that. Or, he may
>have put forward proposals that he feels have not been given adequate
>consideration.

It's not plausible that they've been too busy to communicate with him. Most
of the initial contact will have been by ltter and/or email, rather than
face to face. If the planners are busy (which they usually are), then all
that means is that it will take them longer to get round to answering an
email or letter. They won't just ignore it, it will just start at the bottom
of a big pile. And it may also mean that he has to wait some time for an
appointment to have a meeting with them. But that's generally a good thing
if you're on the receiving end of something like this, because the longer it
drags out the more chance you have to get something done without it needing
to go to enforcement action.

>Mind you, the OP says the landowner was 'quite robust', so maybe the
>planners perfectly reasonably don't want to sit down and discuss things
>with him, in case he's 'quite robust' again. :)

I don't think they'd refuse to sit down and discuss it with him. Enforcement
officers are used to people thinking that being "robust" is a good way to
try to persuade them to drop a complaint.

>> [1] If a landowner fails to comply with a Section 215 notice either in full
>> or by means of an agreed compromise, and does not successfully appeal
>> against it, the Local Planning Authority can either prosecute for
>> non-compliance, or send in their own staff to do the clean-up themselves. If
>> they take the latter option, they can subsequently send the bill to the
>> landowner, and if it remains unpaid then they can pursue the debt through
>> the courts.
>
>Would the scrap value of the vehicle cover the cost of collecting it?

Probably, yes. So the simplest solution would be for the landowner to phone
a scrap company and say "I've got a scrap car you can collect". It would be
gone within a few days.

What's probably more of an issue is if the car has more than scrap value (or
would have more than scrap value if restored to working order). In which
case, the owner may well be reluctant to just dispose of it, particularly if
his long-term plans are to restore it himself. The OP hasn't said what type
of car it is, but it's one thing to scrap a clapped-out Vauxhall Astra and
entirely another if it's a Triumph Stag.

Mark

[Fredxx]

On 14/02/2024 14:22, Martin Brown wrote:
> On 14/02/2024 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>> A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to
>> their council planning department in regarding an old car on their
>> drive that he admits hasn't moved for 10 years or more.
>>
>> He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a
>> Councillor. The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
>> assist as the court process is in train. She advised him to talk to
>> planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words indeed.
>
> Why do you expect a councillor to help your friend keep an immobile
> derelict rusting eyesore in his front garden? If he did this then all
> the neighbours would be on *his* back. It is most unlikely that planning
> actually noticed this - they will be acting on information received.

There's the rub. No complaint has been received. His neighbours are
happy with the vehicle being there. They've even written letters in
support for his appeal.

>> I don't suppose there are many councillors here, but can a councillor
>> genuinely claim they cannot intervene once the court process has
>> started? Is there a procedure or set of rules this councillor is
>> following?
>
> I don't see why not. Seems to me the council is acting in the best
> interests of the general public here!

What precisely is it you don't see? Whose interests?

[Fredxx]

On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:

The council claim there was no complaint, or not putting one forward.
They've quoted a case Berg v Salford City Council to justify acting on
their own volition.

> Or, he can present a counter-argument
> as to why the complaints are unreasonable. That's the point at which it
> would help to involve his councillor, because the councillor will often be
> in a position to mediate between him and the complainants. Leaving it until
> it's already waiting for the magistrates to decide is too late.

This is now only 5 months after the serving of the 215.

The question I ask here, why is it too late? What can a councillor hide
behind so not to get involved. I've heard of a number of cases before
the courts where councillors get quite vocal.

[Fredxx]

On 14/02/2024 16:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:41:37 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> If the landowner has lodged a formal appeal to the magistrates, then yes,
>>> the court process is in train and there is no mechanism for a councillor to
>>> intervene. The only way that an appeal can be pre-empted is if the LPA
>>> reaches an agreed resolution with the landowner prior to the court hearing.
>>> So yes, your colleague can either take his chances in front of the bench, or
>>> he can try to negotiate with the council. It's gone past the point at which
>>> his councillor can help him.
>>
>> I'm slightly perplexed by that last sentence. The obvious way to deal
>> with this is through negotiation. Why can't the councillor assist the
>> landowner with this?
>
> The councillor can't intervene with the court. If the landowner is willing
> to discuss it with the LPA, then the councillor can be a party to that.

The councillor says that is not something they can do. That they cannot
act a go between. Hence my question why not?

I am told the vehicle is of an historical nature, one that doesn't need
MOT or tax. It has family roots and sentiments and the intention is to
put in back into a roadworthy condition.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 16:37:29 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/02/2024 16:04, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:41:37 +0000, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>>
>>>> If the landowner has lodged a formal appeal to the magistrates, then yes,
>>>> the court process is in train and there is no mechanism for a councillor to
>>>> intervene. The only way that an appeal can be pre-empted is if the LPA
>>>> reaches an agreed resolution with the landowner prior to the court hearing.
>>>> So yes, your colleague can either take his chances in front of the bench, or
>>>> he can try to negotiate with the council. It's gone past the point at which
>>>> his councillor can help him.
>>>
>>> I'm slightly perplexed by that last sentence. The obvious way to deal
>>> with this is through negotiation. Why can't the councillor assist the
>>> landowner with this?
>>
>> The councillor can't intervene with the court. If the landowner is willing
>> to discuss it with the LPA, then the councillor can be a party to that.
>
>The councillor says that is not something they can do. That they cannot
>act a go between. Hence my question why not?

Because, quite simply, if the landowner isn't willing to enter into
realistic discussion with the LPA then there is no prospect of a resolution
outside the court. Now that an enforcement notice has been issued, it can't
be withdrawn unless either directed to by a court (if the appeal is
successful), or a suitable resulution has been agreed between the landowner
and the LPA. And reaching a suitable resolution will require the landowner
to show genuine willingness to compromise, and be prepared to commit to a
legally binding agreement.

If the landowner really wants someone else to speak on his behalf in that
discussion, then he can always hire a solicitor to represent him. But he
can't expect a legally unqualified councillor to do it.

>> What's probably more of an issue is if the car has more than scrap value (or
>> would have more than scrap value if restored to working order). In which
>> case, the owner may well be reluctant to just dispose of it, particularly if
>> his long-term plans are to restore it himself. The OP hasn't said what type
>> of car it is, but it's one thing to scrap a clapped-out Vauxhall Astra and
>> entirely another if it's a Triumph Stag.
>
>I am told the vehicle is of an historical nature, one that doesn't need
>MOT or tax. It has family roots and sentiments and the intention is to
>put in back into a roadworthy condition.

In that case, what he probably needs to do is rent a lock-up or similar
where he can keep the car pending restoration.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:48:13 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:

>On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> It's also worth bearing in mind that a Section 215 notice is rarely issued
>> out of the blue. The LPA will usually contact the landowner first, and ask
>> him to deal with the problem, and only move to formal action if there's no
>> mutually acceptable solution. Most Section 215 notices are issued following
>> complaints by other residents, so early dialogue may well have given some
>> insight into what those complaints were, and what would be enough to
>> persuade the complainants to withdraw.
>
>The council claim there was no complaint, or not putting one forward.
>They've quoted a case Berg v Salford City Council to justify acting on
>their own volition.

That's not particularly common. But it's perfectly legitimate.

>> Or, he can present a counter-argument
>> as to why the complaints are unreasonable. That's the point at which it
>> would help to involve his councillor, because the councillor will often be
>> in a position to mediate between him and the complainants. Leaving it until
>> it's already waiting for the magistrates to decide is too late.
>
>This is now only 5 months after the serving of the 215.

But it's also after he's appealed to the magistrates. He didn't need to do
that. He could have entered into discussions in order to seek a resolution.
And if he had been a bit more willing to discuss the matter, and a bit less
"robust", as you call it, then the enforcement notice may not ever have been
issued in the first place.

>The question I ask here, why is it too late? What can a councillor hide
>behind so not to get involved. I've heard of a number of cases before
>the courts where councillors get quite vocal.

On the basis of what you've written here, I suspect that the councillor is
as pissed off with your colleague's attitude as the planning officers are.
If so, then there's nothing your colleague can do to change that, other than
by backing down and agreeing to enter into realistic discussions with the
LPA with the aim of reaching a genuine compromise.

Mark

[Roger Hayter]

On 14 Feb 2024 at 21:54:14 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

Is there any obligation on a councillor (not in this sub judice situation but
in general) to advocate for a constituent whose case the councillor believes
to be wholly unreasonable?


--
Roger Hayter

[billy bookcase]

"Fredxx" <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote in message news:uqiejd$2ld23$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to their council
> planning department in regarding an old car on their drive that he admits hasn't moved
> for 10 years or more.

a) As was noted by another poster there may be a suspicion that there is rather
more to this, than one rusting car in his drive.

More especially if its firmly established that in fact none of his neighbours has
complained; but then define neighbours.

As a matter of interest has the suggestion ever been made by either party
to this dispute, that one possible solution to this might for him to place
a nice new tarpaulin over the car ?

> He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a Councillor. The
> councillor has stated categorically that he cannot assist as the court process is in
> train. She advised him to talk to planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words
> indeed.
>
> I don't suppose there are many councillors here, but can a councillor genuinely claim
> they cannot intervene once the court process has started? Is there a procedure or set
> of rules this councillor is following?

But that question seems to be based on the assumption that without the
intervention or assistance of a councillor he's bound to lose the case.

And that that councillor, can either somehow affect the material conditions
which led the case being brought in the first place.

Or otherwise can somehow convince the Council that they were mistaken
in bringing the case.

Now on the very limited facts so far presented it might appear that they
indeed shouldn't have brought the case. And so they'll lose.

So what has your colleague got to be afraid of, apart from the possible
inconvenience of attending the proceedings in person ? Providing
that, is he can remember to be less "robust" in his answers.




bb


>
>

[Jeff]

>> I am told the vehicle is of an historical nature, one that doesn't need
>> MOT or tax. It has family roots and sentiments and the intention is to
>> put in back into a roadworthy condition.
>
> In that case, what he probably needs to do is rent a lock-up or similar
> where he can keep the car pending restoration.
>
> Mark
>

Surely just a car cover would be sufficient, then who knows what car is
under there, and the council would have no grounds for complaint.

Jeff

[GB]

On 14/02/2024 15:42, Fredxx wrote:

> There's the rub. No complaint has been received.

How would you know that?

[GB]

On 14/02/2024 15:48, Fredxx wrote:

> The question I ask here, why is it too late? What can a councillor hide
> behind so not to get involved.

It's not necessary for a councillor to hide behind anything. He can
simply choose not to get involved.

You seem to think the councillor has a duty to side with his
constituent. Why do you think that?

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 15 Feb 2024 10:13:31 +0000, Jeff <je...@ukra.com> wrote:

>
>>> I am told the vehicle is of an historical nature, one that doesn't need
>>> MOT or tax. It has family roots and sentiments and the intention is to
>>> put in back into a roadworthy condition.
>>
>> In that case, what he probably needs to do is rent a lock-up or similar
>> where he can keep the car pending restoration.
>>

>Surely just a car cover would be sufficient, then who knows what car is
>under there, and the council would have no grounds for complaint.

That would quite possibly be an acceptable solution, too. But the landowner
won't know that unless he's prepared to duscuss it with the LPA.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

>Is there any obligation on a councillor (not in this sub judice situation but
>in general) to advocate for a constituent whose case the councillor believes
>to be wholly unreasonable?

No, not at all. While a councillor should always be willing to discuss any
issue with any resident, and offer whatever advice the councillor feels is
appropriate, there is no obligation on the councillor to actively act as an
advocate for a resident, even in a case where they think the resident has a
valid point.

More generally, it's considered bad practice for a councillor to try to
persuade officers to apply the rules differently for someone they've been in
contact with, as compared with people who haven't spoken to their
councillor. A councillor can legitimately flag up situations where they
believe that the officers have either made an error or are unaware of
relevant facts. And where a decision is genuinely borderline, they are
entitled to offer their opinion. But they can't ask for special treatment.

To give a real life example from my own experience, I was contacted by a
resident in social housing who felt that they had been allocated unsuitable
housing due to their disability. I contacted the housing officer, and
discovered that the housing department had not been correctly informed of
the resident's disability. The housing officer, with the resident's
permission, followed that up with the resident's GP and the outcome was that
the resident was moved into a different, more appropriate priority group.
The last I heard was that they were happily living in a house which did meet
their needs. But that wasn't because I had asked the housing officer to bend
the rules or treat the resident differently, it was because I had asked the
housing officer to make sure that all the relevant facts were taken into
account.

On the other hand, there was a situation where I was contacted by a resident
who had been advised that their planning application was likely to be
refused. The resident asked me to intervene and do my best to get the
application granted. I declined, on the basis that I couldn't see any reason
why the pre-application advice from the planning officer was incorrect. The
application was deficient in several key policy areas and refusal was, as
far as I could see, the correct response. What I did do, was to advise the
resident to alter the plans to make them compliant with the policies. They
declined to take my advice, submitted the application anyway, and when it
was, as expected, refused, blamed me for not being helpful. Such is life.

Mark

[Fredxx]

The council claim they are acting on their own volition, and the word
'complaint' is never used by the LA.

I thought councils worked on transparency, though I can understand the
the fear of retribution.

[Fredxx]

The colleague now says that was a solution initially put forward by the LA!

[Fredxx]

I take your point, but where the colleague is told their councillor
cannot get involved is not the same as choosing not to. Hence my
original question that hasn't been answered.

At the very least I would have thought they would act as a mediator.

[Pamela]

On 15:42 14 Feb 2024, Fredxx said:
> On 14/02/2024 14:22, Martin Brown wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 13:18, Fredxx wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> A colleague has been served a 215 notice after being quite robust to
>>> their council planning department in regarding an old car on their
>>> drive that he admits hasn't moved for 10 years or more.
>>>
>>> He has appealed against the notice and tried to enlist the help of a
>>> Councillor. The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
>>> assist as the court process is in train. She advised him to talk to
>>> planning as they would prefer a dialogue. Wise words indeed.
>>
>> Why do you expect a councillor to help your friend keep an immobile
>> derelict rusting eyesore in his front garden? If he did this then all
>> the neighbours would be on *his* back. It is most unlikely that
>> planning actually noticed this - they will be acting on information
>> received.
>
> There's the rub. No complaint has been received. His neighbours are
> happy with the vehicle being there. They've even written letters in
> support for his appeal.
>

> [SNIP]

It appears the grounds for serving a section 215 notice depends on the
council's own visual impression and not that of the owner. I sense the
communications may well have touched upon the aesthetics and the parties'
value judgements.

"If it appears to the local planning authority that the amenity of a
part of their area, or of an adjoining area, is adversely affected by
the condition of land in their area, they may serve on the owner and
occupier of the land a notice under this section.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/215

Is there anything in the following document which may help?

"Town and Country Planning Act 1990, Section 215, Best Practice
Guidance"

<https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/
5a7973c5ed915d07d35b59cc/319798.pdf>

https://shorturl.at/kxMN6

[Fredxx]

On 15/02/2024 12:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On 14 Feb 2024 23:02:56 GMT, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> wrote:
>
>> On 14 Feb 2024 at 21:54:14 GMT, "Mark Goodge"
>> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On the basis of what you've written here, I suspect that the councillor is
>>> as pissed off with your colleague's attitude as the planning officers are.
>>> If so, then there's nothing your colleague can do to change that, other than
>>> by backing down and agreeing to enter into realistic discussions with the
>>> LPA with the aim of reaching a genuine compromise.
>>
>> Is there any obligation on a councillor (not in this sub judice situation but
>> in general) to advocate for a constituent whose case the councillor believes
>> to be wholly unreasonable?
>
> No, not at all. While a councillor should always be willing to discuss any
> issue with any resident, and offer whatever advice the councillor feels is
> appropriate, there is no obligation on the councillor to actively act as an
> advocate for a resident, even in a case where they think the resident has a
> valid point.

I think the issue was the way the councillor was trying to wriggle out
of assisting in any kind. And resorting to claiming they couldn't
intervene because 'rules' prevented them.

> More generally, it's considered bad practice for a councillor to try to
> persuade officers to apply the rules differently for someone they've been in
> contact with, as compared with people who haven't spoken to their
> councillor. A councillor can legitimately flag up situations where they
> believe that the officers have either made an error or are unaware of
> relevant facts. And where a decision is genuinely borderline, they are
> entitled to offer their opinion. But they can't ask for special treatment.

I don't think thy were being asked for special treatment?

> To give a real life example from my own experience, I was contacted by a
> resident in social housing who felt that they had been allocated unsuitable
> housing due to their disability. I contacted the housing officer, and
> discovered that the housing department had not been correctly informed of
> the resident's disability. The housing officer, with the resident's
> permission, followed that up with the resident's GP and the outcome was that
> the resident was moved into a different, more appropriate priority group.
> The last I heard was that they were happily living in a house which did meet
> their needs. But that wasn't because I had asked the housing officer to bend
> the rules or treat the resident differently, it was because I had asked the
> housing officer to make sure that all the relevant facts were taken into
> account.
>
> On the other hand, there was a situation where I was contacted by a resident
> who had been advised that their planning application was likely to be
> refused. The resident asked me to intervene and do my best to get the
> application granted. I declined, on the basis that I couldn't see any reason
> why the pre-application advice from the planning officer was incorrect.

Did you say rules prevented you from intervening or that you didn't
approve of the application?

[Fredxx]

Many thanks.

Interesting documents with actual cases. The most telling part, "Very
few s215 notices are actually appealed and of those that are only a
small proportion are upheld."

The grounds for appeal are also limited to sections 217/8. His argument
is that given his vehicle has been there for years, it doesn't "does not
adversely affect the amenity of any part of the area", otherwise there
would be a complaint.

He has since said the councillor said there had been a complaint, yet
the LA are unwilling to call this a complaint and refer to to this as a
report or query in their bundle. He's convinced something underhand is
going on.

I'm mindful of an interesting case that was highlighted on this group
(Miller v Jackson [1977]) but this wasn't associated with a Section 215
order.

He also seems to think that any enforcement should be carried out in 4
years or in some cases 10 years as per 171B etc of the Act. Both of
which are out of time.

[Martin Brown]

On 14/02/2024 21:54, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 15:48:13 +0000, Fredxx <fre...@spam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 14/02/2024 14:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>> It's also worth bearing in mind that a Section 215 notice is rarely issued
>>> out of the blue. The LPA will usually contact the landowner first, and ask
>>> him to deal with the problem, and only move to formal action if there's no
>>> mutually acceptable solution. Most Section 215 notices are issued following
>>> complaints by other residents, so early dialogue may well have given some
>>> insight into what those complaints were, and what would be enough to
>>> persuade the complainants to withdraw.
>>
>> The council claim there was no complaint, or not putting one forward.
>> They've quoted a case Berg v Salford City Council to justify acting on
>> their own volition.
>
> That's not particularly common. But it's perfectly legitimate.

More often than not there *is* a formal complaint but the complainant is
an immediate neighbour or "friend" of the individual being complained
about but does it anonymously. Councils have a duty of confidentiality.

>>> Or, he can present a counter-argument
>>> as to why the complaints are unreasonable. That's the point at which it
>>> would help to involve his councillor, because the councillor will often be
>>> in a position to mediate between him and the complainants. Leaving it until
>>> it's already waiting for the magistrates to decide is too late.
>>
>> This is now only 5 months after the serving of the 215.
>
> But it's also after he's appealed to the magistrates. He didn't need to do
> that. He could have entered into discussions in order to seek a resolution.
> And if he had been a bit more willing to discuss the matter, and a bit less
> "robust", as you call it, then the enforcement notice may not ever have been
> issued in the first place.

I reckon the councillor is very sensible to stay out of this entirely.
Planning have put it in the hands of their solicitors so that is now the
process going forwards. Your friend has only himself to blame for this.

Planning are usually quite reasonable so they must have been provoked.

>> The question I ask here, why is it too late? What can a councillor hide
>> behind so not to get involved. I've heard of a number of cases before
>> the courts where councillors get quite vocal.
>
> On the basis of what you've written here, I suspect that the councillor is
> as pissed off with your colleague's attitude as the planning officers are.
> If so, then there's nothing your colleague can do to change that, other than
> by backing down and agreeing to enter into realistic discussions with the
> LPA with the aim of reaching a genuine compromise.

+1

One reason I stopped being a Parish councillor was that I got tired of
people banging on my door at all times of day and night to complain
about being referred to planning or S.215 for rusting heap eyesores.

The "robust" ones who were typically incoherent with rage and righteous
indignation were particularly annoying. In one memorable case it was
their best mate who had grassed them up for building a rear extension
without planning permission (back in the days before some were
"permitted development").

--
Martin Brown

[GB]

On 15/02/2024 13:13, Fredxx wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 11:43, GB wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 15:42, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> There's the rub. No complaint has been received.
>>
>> How would you know that?
>
> The council claim they are acting on their own volition, and the word
> 'complaint' is never used by the LA.

The LA would be 'acting on their own volition', as nobody is able to
force them to take action. That doesn't preclude the car having been
brought to their attention by one or more people.

>
> I thought councils worked on transparency, though I can understand the
> the fear of retribution.

There's no justification for publishing the names of people who have
pointed the issue out to the council. Their comments are irrelevant. The
LA needs to make its own mind up whether the car is an eyesore.


>
>

[GB]

On 15/02/2024 21:57, Fredxx wrote:

> He has since said the councillor said there had been a complaint, yet
> the LA are unwilling to call this a complaint and refer to to this as a
> report or query in their bundle. He's convinced something underhand is
> going on.

He's putting too much emphasis on the words used. The Council probably
only regards complaints made about them as complaints. In this case, if
someone wrote in saying they don't like the car, it's perfectly
reasonable to describe it as a report


>

[GB]

On 15/02/2024 13:16, Fredxx wrote:
> On 15/02/2024 11:49, GB wrote:
>> On 14/02/2024 15:48, Fredxx wrote:
>>
>>> The question I ask here, why is it too late? What can a councillor
>>> hide behind so not to get involved.
>>
>> It's not necessary for a councillor to hide behind anything. He can
>> simply choose not to get involved.
>>
>> You seem to think the councillor has a duty to side with his
>> constituent. Why do you think that?
>
> I take your point, but where the colleague is told their councillor
> cannot get involved is not the same as choosing not to. Hence my
> original question that hasn't been answered.

I think your colleague is latching onto the particular words used, and
reading too much into it. Maybe, the councillor meant that he did not
want to get involved, but worded it so as to preclude any discussion.

>
> At the very least I would have thought they would act as a mediator.

Umm, why should they?



>
>

[Mark Goodge]

Bear in mind also that you are hearing a second hand account of the
councillor's comments, filtered as they are through someone who already has
issues with the council.

People often say "I can't" when what they mean is "I choose not to". For
example, "I can't do band practice on Thursday, it's my wife's birthday and
we're going out for a meal". "Can't" is obviously not absolute there, I
could always choose to go to the practice and tell my wife that we're not
going out for dinner that night. In some cases I might even do that (for
example, if it was the final dress rehearsal before a major concert). But
most people would understand that when I say "I can't" what I really mean is
"Something else is a higher priority", not "There is an unbreakable rule
which forbids me".

In this particular case, the initial comment back in the first post in the
thread that "The councillor has stated categorically that he cannot
assist as the court process is in train" reads to me more as a simple
statement of fact, that the councillor is no longer in a position to have
any meaningful influence over the case and therefore there would be no point
in getting involved any further. It doesn't mean there's any rule which
prevents him, simply that there's nothing useful he could do.

Mark

[GB]

Your colleague has lost any sympathy that I had for him. Instead of
simply accepting a very cheap, very reasonable proposal, he has chosen
to confront the council. He has, thereby, wasted council funds, and he
is continuing to do so. Now, with the court date looming, he wants his
councillor to rescue him.

I'm amazed that the councillor didn't just give him a 'quite robust'
response.

[Mark Goodge]

Then why didn't he do just that?

Mark

[Brian]

Yet it has been left to rust etc for 10 years in the open?

The two don’t exactly support each other, do they?

Even allowing for full restorations taking time / money etc, 10 years left
to rust is hardly evidence of a plan to restore it.

A vehicle doesn’t need to be of real value ( historic or money wise) to be
MOT / ‘Road Tax’ exempt- from memory 40 years. That would make my first new
car exempt. A Mk3 Escort Ghia 1.6, bought in 1983. A very nice car. Some
thief certainly thought so in 1991. But hardly Historic.