Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Encroachment shown on Planning Application
361 views
Skip to first unread message
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 5:57:23 AM6/28/21
to
Imagine a square piece of land with a perimeter wall and with one building ( a stable) on it located right in one corner with no free space between it an the walls on two sides. This building takes up about 5% of the overall area. About 100 years ago the freeholder issued two leases- one for the 95% area and one for the 5%.
The lease for the 5% gives it a right of access over the 95%. The 95% is mostly open space with a couple of temporary buildings (garages) on it.
The Land Registry has recorded the title for both areas and the respective plans clearly show the outlines marked in red for each area. There is no curtilage showing around the building. Hence no amenity space around this building
Now for the problem....
The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself amenity space.
As the owner of the 95% what can I do?
Can I build a wall close up to the building and make an access gate directly out on to the side street.
If I appointed a surveyor to draw up every thing accurately could this be established and defended legally
The lease for the 5% gives it a right of access over the 95%. The 95% is mostly open space with a couple of temporary buildings (garages) on it.
The Land Registry has recorded the title for both areas and the respective plans clearly show the outlines marked in red for each area. There is no curtilage showing around the building. Hence no amenity space around this building
Now for the problem....
The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself amenity space.
As the owner of the 95% what can I do?
Can I build a wall close up to the building and make an access gate directly out on to the side street.
If I appointed a surveyor to draw up every thing accurately could this be established and defended legally
Roger Hayter
Jun 28, 2021, 6:13:36 AM6/28/21
to
the building owner gets planning permission for a house and garden involving
your land in no way gives him any additional rights over your land. Indeed, he
will not be able to carry out the plan as approved unless he can negotiate use
of your land with you. Perhaps he knows that planning permission for a
dwelling with no land outside its walls apart from a right of way would not be
granted. This puts you in a strong position to sell him land if you want to
and name your price.
OTOH, I think you would be able to mark out and fence a route he could use to
get to his house and prevent him entering the rest of your land. You would
need to check this with a solicitor who could analyse the deeds though. He may
for instance have a right to enter your land by application in order to
maintain his building. You need to check on this. But you don't need to let
him use half your land as a garden unless the deeds say so. Planning
permission wiil have no effect on your rights.
--
Roger Hayter
Jon Ribbens
Jun 28, 2021, 6:35:42 AM6/28/21
to
On 2021-06-28, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in
> 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a
> approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension
> out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a
> plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively
> he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself
> amenity space.
As I understand it, submitting planning proposals for land you do not
> The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in
> 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a
> approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension
> out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a
> plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively
> he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself
> amenity space.
own is permitted. It may be that if the proposal is granted, the
applicant will be coming to you with an offer to buy out (part of)
your land, which you may of course accept or refuse. Perhaps it might
be a good idea to write a letter to the applicant pointing out that
you own most of the land in their plan and that therefore their plan
cannot go ahead without your permission.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 7:20:13 AM6/28/21
to
I wrote to him 3 months ago pointing out that he only had right of access. He did not respond. And I would not sell any land to him anyway.
But I should have mentioned that he has been dishonest with a previous planning application for the same building without an extension. He applied for retrospective approval for residential purposes by stating falsely that it had been used as an office prior to 2013. Had it been used as an office the he would have been able to get approval relatively easily. He also drew an imagined boundary line across my plot in this instance knowing that he would be unlikely to get residential approval if there was zero curtiledge around the building. He application then stated that the building had a "side door that gave access to the garden area ie my land. He withdrew the application earlier in the day of the Council Planning however the Council decided to discuss and vote on it anyway. They refused unanimously.
To add to his transgressions he converted the building for residential use and let it out as an AirBNB without planning.
The building is around 150 years old and is in a Conservation Area. Despite that, he hacked out a doorway directly out on to the street.
I quite like the idea of fencing/walling him off but how close could I go to his building?
But I should have mentioned that he has been dishonest with a previous planning application for the same building without an extension. He applied for retrospective approval for residential purposes by stating falsely that it had been used as an office prior to 2013. Had it been used as an office the he would have been able to get approval relatively easily. He also drew an imagined boundary line across my plot in this instance knowing that he would be unlikely to get residential approval if there was zero curtiledge around the building. He application then stated that the building had a "side door that gave access to the garden area ie my land. He withdrew the application earlier in the day of the Council Planning however the Council decided to discuss and vote on it anyway. They refused unanimously.
To add to his transgressions he converted the building for residential use and let it out as an AirBNB without planning.
The building is around 150 years old and is in a Conservation Area. Despite that, he hacked out a doorway directly out on to the street.
I quite like the idea of fencing/walling him off but how close could I go to his building?
Mark Goodge
Jun 28, 2021, 7:46:48 AM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 04:09:38 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I wrote to him 3 months ago pointing out that he only had right
>of access. He did not respond. And I would not sell any land to
>him anyway.
It won't have any material effect on the determination of the planning
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>I wrote to him 3 months ago pointing out that he only had right
>of access. He did not respond. And I would not sell any land to
>him anyway.
application, but it would probably still be worth submitting a comment
on the application which includes a copy of the title deeds showing
ownership, together with a statement that no agreement has been reached
to permit development of the land that you own.
That way, if he does get planning permission and then later attempts to
start work, justifying that with the fact that he has permission, you
can point to the fact that the ownership issue was in the public domain
at the time of the application and he has no excuse for not being aware
of it.
Mark
Philip Hole
Jun 28, 2021, 8:06:05 AM6/28/21
to
Firstly, it in not uncommon for developers to discuss with potential
sellers a price (and details such as access) on condition that they
would get full approvals.
Once they have an agreement they can proceed to planning approval even
though it is not their property.
Planning approval is primarily concerned with local aesthetics eg a 36
storey in a residential area.
It then needs Building Control approval. Structure and amenities.
Once they have this they can go back to the property owner and arrange
transfer of ownership.
If the owner has not previously agreed, he can get an injunction
stopping any further development or encroachment. With costs, it would
not be too expensive.
No developer is going to plough ahead with all the expense of obtaining
approvals when there is no chance that he will be allowed to build.
All you need do now is to find a surveyor or solicitor and ask them if
they would represent you if necessary.
--
Flop
Norman Wells
Jun 28, 2021, 8:23:33 AM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 12:09, Ben Beardmore wrote:
JNugent
Jun 28, 2021, 8:23:41 AM6/28/21
to
officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
Roger Hayter
Jun 28, 2021, 8:43:13 AM6/28/21
to
records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
planning decision.
--
Roger Hayter
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 9:56:26 AM6/28/21
to
> Why do you want a war rather than a discussion?
He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
It has set all the alarm bells ringing. Prevention is better than cure and I certainly want to avoid any possibility of adverse possession in future.
Mark Goodge
Jun 28, 2021, 9:58:16 AM6/28/21
to
committee are legally obliged to disregard any information about an
application that comes via any route other than the formal application
and consultation process. Allowing back channel communications to
influence the decision-making is precisely how corruption happens.
For a small application like this, it's unlikely to go to committee
anyway. Most single-building domestic applications are dealt with under
delegated powers by officers alone. If the OP would prefer it to be
determined by the committee, so that he can go along in person and speak
as an objector, then he needs to get in touch with his local councillor
and ask them to call it in for committee determiniation. But that's
probably unnecessary, and in any case is unlikely to affect the outcome
of the application. What's more important is to make sure that the
ownership is fully documented and the documentation readily available.
Mark
JNugent
Jun 28, 2021, 9:59:28 AM6/28/21
to
which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
as possible.
Guy Gorton
Jun 28, 2021, 10:21:36 AM6/28/21
to
differences. Think of a car park behind a row of shops and next to it
the solid wall of a commercial building. No problem. But M & S took
on the lease of the commercial building and needed to have fire escape
doors for the shopping public.
The freeholder and leaseholder of the car park granted M & S a Licence
to use the fire doors and to use the ground between them and the
public road as an exit route. But using the doors for anything else
or using any of the car park space is strictly prohibited in the
Licence. M & S pay a fee for this Licence every year.
Going back a few years, a previous occupant of that building decided
it would be good to create a MOT testing station so made a big hole in
the wall next to said car park as the entrance. Not a word to the
Freeholder or Leaseholder. As Freeholder, we built a low brick wall
on our land whch made his nice new doorway unusable. We were
unpopular in the local press but it was necessary to protect the
Freehold.
Maybe you can find some parallels here that may help you.
Guy Gorton
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 10:22:42 AM6/28/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 11:13:36 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
> Perhaps he knows that planning permission for a
> dwelling with no land outside its walls apart from a right of way would not be
> granted. This puts you in a strong position to sell him land if you want to
> and name your price.
>
> OTOH, I think you would be able to mark out and fence a route he could use to
> get to his house and prevent him entering the rest of your land. You would
> need to check this with a solicitor who could analyse the deeds though. He may
> for instance have a right to enter your land by application in order to
> maintain his building. You need to check on this. But you don't need to let
> him use half your land as a garden unless the deeds say so. Planning
> permission wiil have no effect on your rights.
>
The wording regarding the easement on his title document is as follows:-
> Perhaps he knows that planning permission for a
> dwelling with no land outside its walls apart from a right of way would not be
> granted. This puts you in a strong position to sell him land if you want to
> and name your price.
>
> OTOH, I think you would be able to mark out and fence a route he could use to
> get to his house and prevent him entering the rest of your land. You would
> need to check this with a solicitor who could analyse the deeds though. He may
> for instance have a right to enter your land by application in order to
> maintain his building. You need to check on this. But you don't need to let
> him use half your land as a garden unless the deeds say so. Planning
> permission wiil have no effect on your rights.
>
"The land has the benefit of the following right:-
"TOGETHER WITH the right of way and passage over the land shown in the said plan fronting on to B**** Street for all purposes in connection with the use of the building ................
In my title it says:-
""Reserving unto the Vendor full and free right of way and passage over the land hereby assigned from B**** Street shown in the said plan to and from the stable and other buildings retained by the vendor and also shown on such plan for all purposes in connection with the use of such building or buildings.""
So this might suggest a remedy whereby if construct a wall to create a physical border then open up a doorway through the perimeter wall to the street immediately adjacent to his building then that might satisfy the easement requirement. He still gets his access and separation would mean that he could not use the main site for an amenity or for parking, storage or whatever.
Mark Goodge
Jun 28, 2021, 11:33:15 AM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
they will be told to disregard it, and if they give any indication that
they have not disregarded it then that will be grounds for an appeal
should the decision go against the applicant.
This is fundamental to the decision-making process for planning
applications. The decision must be based solely on the documentation
which forms an official record of the application, both that supplied by
the applicant and any material supplied by consultees, supporters or
objectors. And the only way, as a third party, to get your material into
the official record is to send it to the stipulated consultation
response address.
(In practice, what will usually happen if you send something to a
committee member, or to the chief planning officer, is that you will be
asked if you want it to be considered a submission to the consultation,
and if you say "yes" they will simply forward it for you. But that's a
rather long-winded way of achieving something that you can just as
easily do yourself).
Mark
sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
they will be told to disregard it, and if they give any indication that
they have not disregarded it then that will be grounds for an appeal
should the decision go against the applicant.
This is fundamental to the decision-making process for planning
applications. The decision must be based solely on the documentation
which forms an official record of the application, both that supplied by
the applicant and any material supplied by consultees, supporters or
objectors. And the only way, as a third party, to get your material into
the official record is to send it to the stipulated consultation
response address.
(In practice, what will usually happen if you send something to a
committee member, or to the chief planning officer, is that you will be
asked if you want it to be considered a submission to the consultation,
and if you say "yes" they will simply forward it for you. But that's a
rather long-winded way of achieving something that you can just as
easily do yourself).
Mark
Fredxx
Jun 28, 2021, 12:21:33 PM6/28/21
to
If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
Personally, I think he's going to be in a fighting mood. Applying for
planing permission costs money, especially if drawings have been drafted
by a professional.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 1:04:57 PM6/28/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 17:21:33 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>
> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
>
> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
>
> Personally, I think he's going to be in a fighting mood. Applying for
> planing permission costs money, especially if drawings have been drafted
> by a professional.
No he does not need to pat anything. It's free in the lease.
> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>
> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
>
> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
>
> Personally, I think he's going to be in a fighting mood. Applying for
> planing permission costs money, especially if drawings have been drafted
> by a professional.
He has only owner the property for 20 months so far.
He paid £30,000 for a derelict storage building. It's up North and the average price for a fully modernised terraced property of similar size is around £110,000.
He's a cheap skate the "drawings" submitted are A4 sized sketches drawn up with some open source software.
Hopefully, he might get frightened off if he has to pay several hundred for legal assistance.
GB
Jun 28, 2021, 1:05:23 PM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 14:38, Ben Beardmore wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you want a war rather than a discussion?
>
> I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
>
> He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
Nor, does he have to, as you know.
>
> I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
>
> He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
Has he notified you of the planning application, in accordance with S13?
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015/595/article/13/made
You have obviously found out about it, but he has to notify you and
complete a certificate as part of the planning application. He he?
His right of passage over your land is just that. It's not a right to
use it as a garden, nor a right to park a car. So, it would be daft for
him to build a house in accordance with a planning application that
specifies a certain amount of garden space, as it would not be possible
(within planning laws) to occupy the house without actually having that
garden space. If he went ahead, anyway, you'd tell any potential buyers,
and they'd run a mile.
>
> It has set all the alarm bells ringing. Prevention is better than cure and I certainly want to avoid any possibility of adverse possession in future.
>
land at a great price. Building walls is totally unnecessary.
Norman Wells
Jun 28, 2021, 1:05:41 PM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 14:38, Ben Beardmore wrote:
>
>
>> Why do you want a war rather than a discussion?
>
> I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
How has he done that simply by applying for planning consent?
>
> I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
> He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
right-of-way he has. If he wants to do anything else, he'll have to
discuss it with you because you hold all the cards.
> It has set all the alarm bells ringing. Prevention is better than cure and I certainly want to avoid any possibility of adverse possession in future.
to your land and does so for approaching 20 years, and you don't consent
when asked. You can look it up.
Neighbour disputes can be very ugly and are best not provoked.
Norman Wells
Jun 28, 2021, 1:05:56 PM6/28/21
to
trespass. All he can do is pass over the land, and that means moving.
He can't stop to have a picnic, sit on it, park a car on it etc etc etc.
But he does have right-of-way over the land 'for all purposes' in
connection with the use of the building, which you cannot legitimately
prevent or obstruct.
If you want a neighbour dispute, build your wall, but it's not in my
view advisable.
JNugent
Jun 28, 2021, 1:06:55 PM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 04:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>
>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>> planning decision.
>>
>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>> as possible.
>
> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
That's why I didn't suggest writing to individual committee members.
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
> wrote:
>
>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>
>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>> planning decision.
>>
>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>> as possible.
>
> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
Just the chairman and the chief officer (that duo covering all the bases
and avoiding any - ridiculous - charge od attempted corruption.
> they will be told to disregard it, and if they give any indication that
> they have not disregarded it then that will be grounds for an appeal
> should the decision go against the applicant.
> This is fundamental to the decision-making process for planning
> applications. The decision must be based solely on the documentation
> which forms an official record of the application, both that supplied by
> the applicant and any material supplied by consultees, supporters or
> objectors. And the only way, as a third party, to get your material into
> the official record is to send it to the stipulated consultation
> response address.
>
> (In practice, what will usually happen if you send something to a
> committee member, or to the chief planning officer, is that you will be
> asked if you want it to be considered a submission to the consultation,
> and if you say "yes" they will simply forward it for you. But that's a
> rather long-winded way of achieving something that you can just as
> easily do yourself).
Fredxx
Jun 28, 2021, 1:48:33 PM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 17:55, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 17:21:33 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>>
>> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
>> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
>>
>> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
>>
>> Personally, I think he's going to be in a fighting mood. Applying for
>> planing permission costs money, especially if drawings have been drafted
>> by a professional.
>
> No he does not need to pat anything. It's free in the lease.
If he has rights over this land for perpetuity for no consideration it
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 17:21:33 UTC+1, Fredxx wrote:
>
>> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>>
>> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
>> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
>>
>> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
>>
>> Personally, I think he's going to be in a fighting mood. Applying for
>> planing permission costs money, especially if drawings have been drafted
>> by a professional.
>
> No he does not need to pat anything. It's free in the lease.
would normally be treated as much his as it is yours.
> He has only owner the property for 20 months so far.
rights to your land for many years.
> He paid £30,000 for a derelict storage building. It's up North and the average price for a fully modernised terraced property of similar size is around £110,000.
> He's a cheap skate the "drawings" submitted are A4 sized sketches drawn up with some open source software.
> Hopefully, he might get frightened off if he has to pay several hundred for legal assistance.
consideration. Perhaps you can claw back the rights he has too. If he
builds then he sets a precedent which could be to your advantage?
Tim Jackson
Jun 28, 2021, 2:31:42 PM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:21:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
understood correctly, apart from bluster in planning applications,
nothing has yet been done that's not permitted by the easement.
Unless perhaps the AirBNB renters have used the OP's land as a garden
and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
the last year or so.
> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
Yup.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
>
> On 28/06/2021 14:38, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you want a war rather than a discussion?
> >
> > I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
> >
> > He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
> >
> > It has set all the alarm bells ringing. Prevention is better than cure and I certainly want to avoid any possibility of adverse possession in future.
>
> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>
> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
Can adverse possession arise in the circumstances described? If I've
> On 28/06/2021 14:38, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> >
> >> Why do you want a war rather than a discussion?
> >
> > I want to take contingent action to prevent a costly situation in future. He ignored the letter I sent him and he has been devious and dishonest in his previous planning application. He has flaunted the Conservation Area legislation.
> >
> > He has not approached me with a view to purchasing any of my land.
> >
> > It has set all the alarm bells ringing. Prevention is better than cure and I certainly want to avoid any possibility of adverse possession in future.
>
> Does he pay a lease or consideration for this right of way?
>
> If not, I might say the time limit for adverse possession has passed,
> and he was wise to ignore any letter you send him.
understood correctly, apart from bluster in planning applications,
nothing has yet been done that's not permitted by the easement.
Unless perhaps the AirBNB renters have used the OP's land as a garden
and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
the last year or so.
> I would get paid legal help from someone versed in land disputes PDQ.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Tim Jackson
Jun 28, 2021, 2:31:50 PM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 07:07:44 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore wrote...
This seems to depend on what land is "shown in the said plan fronting on
to B**** Street". Does his plan mark your area somehow, or just have a
red border around his own?
Although the easement is only for a right of way and passage, I can see
an argument developing over whether he has access to the whole area for
that purpose, especially if that's what's marked. Is he entitled to
take a tour the long way round your land, or just the most direct route
in and out?
to B**** Street". Does his plan mark your area somehow, or just have a
red border around his own?
Although the easement is only for a right of way and passage, I can see
an argument developing over whether he has access to the whole area for
that purpose, especially if that's what's marked. Is he entitled to
take a tour the long way round your land, or just the most direct route
in and out?
GB
Jun 28, 2021, 2:32:57 PM6/28/21
to
On 28/06/2021 17:55, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> He paid £30,000 for a derelict storage building. It's up North and the average price for a fully modernised terraced property of similar size is around £110,000.
To clear the site and build a house will cost say £150 psf minimum. A
house the size of a terraced house will be 600-800 sq ft, so his
building cost will be £90-120k. Plus £30k for the site.
How does this stack up financially against "a fully modernised terraced
property of similar size is around £110,000"?
Tim Jackson
Jun 28, 2021, 2:44:44 PM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 18:48:25 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
> If he has rights over this land for perpetuity for no consideration it
> would normally be treated as much his as it is yours.
Presumably the leases are not "in perpetuity"?
> If he has rights over this land for perpetuity for no consideration it
> would normally be treated as much his as it is yours.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 28, 2021, 4:53:16 PM6/28/21
to
Just so that you all can get a proper perspective, here is a link to the plans of what's involved
https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
Mark Goodge
Jun 28, 2021, 4:53:47 PM6/28/21
to
On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:24:18 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
documents you supply to be recorded as part of the planning process,
then they will not, and cannot, be taken into account in the
decision-making.
Mark
wrote:
>On 28/06/2021 04:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>>
>>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>>> planning decision.
>>>
>>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>>> as possible.
>>
>> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
>> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
>> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
>
>That's why I didn't suggest writing to individual committee members.
>Just the chairman and the chief officer (that duo covering all the bases
>and avoiding any - ridiculous - charge od attempted corruption.
The point is, that unless you explicitly give your consent for the
>On 28/06/2021 04:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>>
>>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>>> planning decision.
>>>
>>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>>> as possible.
>>
>> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
>> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
>> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
>
>That's why I didn't suggest writing to individual committee members.
>Just the chairman and the chief officer (that duo covering all the bases
>and avoiding any - ridiculous - charge od attempted corruption.
documents you supply to be recorded as part of the planning process,
then they will not, and cannot, be taken into account in the
decision-making.
Mark
Roger Hayter
Jun 28, 2021, 8:16:27 PM6/28/21
to
access to the main gate. Secondly, if you build a wall like that you are
giving him a strip of land. Confining his access to a fenced corridor say 10
feet wide along a route of your choosing while maintaining your own access to
the route may be possible. Get legal advice!
--
Roger Hayter
Roland Perry
Jun 29, 2021, 2:59:45 AM6/29/21
to
In message <8bbdcd41-e5c8-4c4b...@googlegroups.com>, at
12:50:20 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
be undertaken after he's purchased that strip of land behind the house
(and also for whatever reason the small property next door).
Some planning policies have minimum areas of private garden for a
residence.
Of course, there's no obligation for you to sell that strip of land,
even if he does get PP.
--
Roland Perry
12:50:20 on Mon, 28 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>Just so that you all can get a proper perspective, here is a link to
>the plans of what's involved
>
>https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
Looks to me as if he's applying for PP for a hypothetical development to
>the plans of what's involved
>
>https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
be undertaken after he's purchased that strip of land behind the house
(and also for whatever reason the small property next door).
Some planning policies have minimum areas of private garden for a
residence.
Of course, there's no obligation for you to sell that strip of land,
even if he does get PP.
--
Roland Perry
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 3:51:25 AM6/29/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 19:31:42 UTC+1, Tim Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:21:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:21:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
> Unless perhaps the AirBNB renters have used the OP's land as a garden
> and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
> the last year or so.
Yes, his AirBNB guests have bee using the land for exactly that purpose during the last few weeks. My fear is that a progress ive land grab will happen - starting with laying a patio etc
> and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
> the last year or so.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 3:51:34 AM6/29/21
to
Roger Hayter
Jun 29, 2021, 3:53:15 AM6/29/21
to
On 28 Jun 2021 at 17:24:18 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On 28/06/2021 04:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>>
>>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>>> planning decision.
>>>
>>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>>> as possible.
>>
>> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
>> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
>> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
>
> That's why I didn't suggest writing to individual committee members.
> Just the chairman and the chief officer (that duo covering all the bases
> and avoiding any - ridiculous - charge od attempted corruption.
No! You write to the address given by the council for comments/objections to
> On 28/06/2021 04:33 pm, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 14:32:29 +0100, JNugent <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 28/06/2021 01:43 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
>>>> On 28 Jun 2021 at 13:18:32 BST, "JNugent" <jennings&c...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It might also be a good idea to copy that letter to the chief planning
>>>>> officer and the chairman of the planning committee.
>>>>
>>>> While it is probably a good idea to get the information in the public planning
>>>> records by way of a written objection, the ownership of the land and the
>>>> unlikelibood of the proposal going ahead are of no direct releevance to the
>>>> planning decision.
>>>
>>> That's certainly what the law provides and it is the theoretical way in
>>> which the decision should be made. I am nevertheless sure that the
>>> planning committee would be grateful for as much background information
>>> as possible.
>>
>> The planning committee will not be given any information that was not
>> sent to them via the normal application and consultation process. If you
>> attempt to circumvent that (eg, by writing to them all individually)
>
> That's why I didn't suggest writing to individual committee members.
> Just the chairman and the chief officer (that duo covering all the bases
> and avoiding any - ridiculous - charge od attempted corruption.
planning applications. You can often do it online, which saves copying out all
the details. It could be one of the addresses you mention, but proably isn't.
>
>> they will be told to disregard it, and if they give any indication that
>> they have not disregarded it then that will be grounds for an appeal
>> should the decision go against the applicant.
>
>> This is fundamental to the decision-making process for planning
>> applications. The decision must be based solely on the documentation
>> which forms an official record of the application, both that supplied by
>> the applicant and any material supplied by consultees, supporters or
>> objectors. And the only way, as a third party, to get your material into
>> the official record is to send it to the stipulated consultation
>> response address.
>>
>> (In practice, what will usually happen if you send something to a
>> committee member, or to the chief planning officer, is that you will be
>> asked if you want it to be considered a submission to the consultation,
>> and if you say "yes" they will simply forward it for you. But that's a
>> rather long-winded way of achieving something that you can just as
>> easily do yourself).
>
> <shrug>
Roger Hayter
Norman Wells
Jun 29, 2021, 5:08:15 AM6/29/21
to
On 29/06/2021 06:44, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 19:31:42 UTC+1, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:21:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
>
>> Unless perhaps the AirBNB renters have used the OP's land as a garden
>> and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
>> the last year or so.
>
> Yes, his AirBNB guests have bee using the land for exactly that purpose during the last few weeks.
Then you need to get it to stop. The first step should be to get your
> On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 19:31:42 UTC+1, Tim Jackson wrote:
>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2021 17:21:21 +0100, Fredxx wrote...
>
>> Unless perhaps the AirBNB renters have used the OP's land as a garden
>> and not just for access. But if so, presumably it has only started in
>> the last year or so.
>
> Yes, his AirBNB guests have bee using the land for exactly that purpose during the last few weeks.
solicitor to write to the owner saying it's your land and his guests are
trespassing on it, threatening an injunction if he doesn't prevent it.
> My fear is that a progress ive land grab will happen - starting with laying a patio etc
notya...@gmail.com
Jun 29, 2021, 7:33:25 AM6/29/21
to
On Monday, 28 June 2021 at 10:57:23 UTC+1, letsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> Imagine a square piece of land with a perimeter wall and with one building ( a stable) on it located right in one corner with no free space between it an the walls on two sides. This building takes up about 5% of the overall area. About 100 years ago the freeholder issued two leases- one for the 95% area and one for the 5%.
> The lease for the 5% gives it a right of access over the 95%. The 95% is mostly open space with a couple of temporary buildings (garages) on it.
> The Land Registry has recorded the title for both areas and the respective plans clearly show the outlines marked in red for each area. There is no curtilage showing around the building. Hence no amenity space around this building
> Now for the problem....
> The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself amenity space.
>
> As the owner of the 95% what can I do?
> Can I build a wall close up to the building and make an access gate directly out on to the side street.
> If I appointed a surveyor to draw up every thing accurately could this be established and defended legally
You can apply for PP on someone else's land - e.g. a hotel in Buckingham Palace Gardens.
> Imagine a square piece of land with a perimeter wall and with one building ( a stable) on it located right in one corner with no free space between it an the walls on two sides. This building takes up about 5% of the overall area. About 100 years ago the freeholder issued two leases- one for the 95% area and one for the 5%.
> The lease for the 5% gives it a right of access over the 95%. The 95% is mostly open space with a couple of temporary buildings (garages) on it.
> The Land Registry has recorded the title for both areas and the respective plans clearly show the outlines marked in red for each area. There is no curtilage showing around the building. Hence no amenity space around this building
> Now for the problem....
> The 5% building, which has been vacant for 60 years, changed hands in 2020 and the new owner has submitted a planning application for a approval as a residence and the plans submitted include an extension out into the 95% area/ To make it worse, the applicant has submitted a plan view of 100% with a line across the entire site. So effectively he is trying to appropriate 50% of the entire site to give himself amenity space.
>
> As the owner of the 95% what can I do?
> Can I build a wall close up to the building and make an access gate directly out on to the side street.
> If I appointed a surveyor to draw up every thing accurately could this be established and defended legally
Did the applicant serve a s.21 notice on you. If not the application should have been invalidated.
The owner of the 5% can't build on your land, but can use it for access for construction in certain circumstances.
As there is easement (right of access) over your 95%, you can't extinguish this by blocking it with walls etc.
The owner of the 5% may be prepared to make a substantial payment for some or all of your 95% or there might be some possibility of joint development.
Whilst Land Registry plans are usually not accurate enough to settle minor encroachment issues, they should be good enough to prevent your new neighbour appropriating half the site.
GB
Jun 29, 2021, 8:19:23 AM6/29/21
to
compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
Assuming it includes part of your land then any Certificate A** at para
25 of the application form is untrue. That's a serious issue - see the
comments I made in a different post.
If you think that the application form is erroneous, I suggest you
discuss that with the planning officer. It may be sufficient to scupper
the present application, although there's nothing to stop the owner
reapplying.
** Cert A claims that the applicant owns the whole plot.
GB
Jun 29, 2021, 8:22:38 AM6/29/21
to
On 29/06/2021 06:50, Ben Beardmore wrote:
for properties is not that different to the build costs. Your neighbour
is starting with a storage building, converting which is bound to be
expensive. Probably comparable with new build costs.
Why does that matter? Well, it may not be worth your neighbour's while
to continue with his project, in which case it doesn't matter what
planning permissions he has.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 11:03:13 AM6/29/21
to
> >
> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>
Mark Goodge
Jun 29, 2021, 11:39:43 AM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>
>
>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >
>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>
>
>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
The blue bounded section shows the location, but the blue section is not
part of the application. If approved, the entire application will need
to be fully contained withing the red line on the site plan and the
location plan. So the certificate A declaration appears to be correct.
I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
correct property boundaries.
I would suggest that you contact the planning officer directly to
discuss your concerns. Her name is on the application, and her contact
details can probably be found by checking the main website of the
planning authority (and if not, firstnam...@authority.gov.uk seems
to be standard these days). Apart from the blue line, which is somewhat
oddly placed but has no legal significance, I can't see any indication
on the plans that the applicant intends to encroach on your property.
But a conversation with the planning officer may evince more information
than can be gleaned from the published plans.
Mark
Jennifer Perry
Jun 29, 2021, 12:25:40 PM6/29/21
to
In message <lmemdgl2df8k1tu6r...@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>The blue bounded section shows the location, but the blue section is not
>part of the application. If approved, the entire application will need
>to be fully contained withing the red line on the site plan and the
>location plan. So the certificate A declaration appears to be correct.
>
>I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
>half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
>more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
>correct property boundaries.
>
>I would suggest that you contact the planning officer directly to
>discuss your concerns. Her name is on the application, and her contact
>details can probably be found by checking the main website of the
>planning authority (and if not, firstnam...@authority.gov.uk seems
>to be standard these days). Apart from the blue line, which is somewhat
>oddly placed but has no legal significance, I can't see any indication
>on the plans that the applicant intends to encroach on your property.
>But a conversation with the planning officer may evince more information
>than can be gleaned from the published plans.
>
>Mark
--
Jennifer Perry
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> >
>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>
>>
>>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>
>You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
>Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
>is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>
>The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
>include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
So where has the OP derived the posted "hisplan" map?
><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> >
>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>
>>
>>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>
>You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
>Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
>is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>
>The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
>include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
>The blue bounded section shows the location, but the blue section is not
>part of the application. If approved, the entire application will need
>to be fully contained withing the red line on the site plan and the
>location plan. So the certificate A declaration appears to be correct.
>
>I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
>half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
>more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
>correct property boundaries.
>
>I would suggest that you contact the planning officer directly to
>discuss your concerns. Her name is on the application, and her contact
>details can probably be found by checking the main website of the
>planning authority (and if not, firstnam...@authority.gov.uk seems
>to be standard these days). Apart from the blue line, which is somewhat
>oddly placed but has no legal significance, I can't see any indication
>on the plans that the applicant intends to encroach on your property.
>But a conversation with the planning officer may evince more information
>than can be gleaned from the published plans.
>
>Mark
Jennifer Perry
GB
Jun 29, 2021, 12:26:58 PM6/29/21
to
On 29/06/2021 16:39, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
> <letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>
>>
>> Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>
> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
> not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
> Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
> is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>
> The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
> include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
> The blue bounded section shows the location, but the blue section is not
> part of the application. If approved, the entire application will need
> to be fully contained withing the red line on the site plan and the
> location plan. So the certificate A declaration appears to be correct.
>
> I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
> half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
> more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
> correct property boundaries.
I also found the application. Earlier today, whilst the OP's link still
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
> <letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>>>
>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>
>>
>> Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>
> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
> not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
> Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
> is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>
> The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
> include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
> The blue bounded section shows the location, but the blue section is not
> part of the application. If approved, the entire application will need
> to be fully contained withing the red line on the site plan and the
> location plan. So the certificate A declaration appears to be correct.
>
> I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
> half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
> more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
> correct property boundaries.
showed the street name on one of the plans! :)
The application form shows a site area of 41 sq m. It's hard to tell
from the plans, which don't have a scale, but that would possibly match
up with the area shown in red.
Consequently, all the OP needs to do is talk to the planner involved at
the council, and point out that the applicant only owns the land marked
by the red line, in case there's any doubt about that.
The OP's other concern, about inhabitants parking on his land, can be
dealt with expensively by lawyers and injunctions, or it can be dealt
with cheaply by spreading caltrops around. The OP appears to have a
business well equipped to manufacture caltrops.
Mark Goodge
Jun 29, 2021, 12:28:30 PM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:39:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
>half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
>more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
>correct property boundaries.
Sorry, having just checked this, the blue line shows "other land, not
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
>half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
>more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
>correct property boundaries.
being part of the application, that is under the control of the
applicant". Now, the applicant may simply be considering that their
right of access counts as "control" in this context, and it doesn't
directly affect the application anyway. But this is something that it
would be wise to discuss with the planning officer, even if all the
difference that makes is that the applicant has to submit a new location
plan with the blue line in a different place.
To reiterate; if you have any questions at all about a planning
application that directly affects your own property, then your first
port of call should be the case officer dealing with the application.
Communicating with the occupants of affected property is part of their
job, and you should not hesitate to make use of that.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 29, 2021, 12:30:44 PM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:02:11 +0100, Jennifer Perry
<jenn...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <lmemdgl2df8k1tu6r...@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>>
>>You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>>hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>>website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>>not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
>>Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
>>is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>>
>>The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
>>include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
>
>So where has the OP derived the posted "hisplan" map?
The "hisplan" map is in black and white on the website, and therefore
<jenn...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>In message <lmemdgl2df8k1tu6r...@4ax.com>, Mark Goodge
><use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> writes
>>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> >
>>>> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>>> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>>
>>You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>>hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>>website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>>not have them in the public domain. But the applicant has completed
>>Certificate A on the application documents, thus declaring that he/she
>>is the sole owner of all the land to which the application relates.
>>
>>The site plan which forms part of the aplication, though, does not
>>include any of your land - the "red line" is just the top right corner.
>
>So where has the OP derived the posted "hisplan" map?
doesn't show the legally significant difference between the red and blue
lines. It is a copy of the location plan on the application, but in the
absence of colour it's lacking a key part of the relevant information.
Mark
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 2:20:06 PM6/29/21
to
On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:39:43 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
> <
>
> >
> >> >
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
> <
>
> >
> >> >
> >> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
> >>
> >
> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
> not have them in the public domain.
Thanks, I had thought I had removed all clues.
> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
> >>
> >
> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
> not have them in the public domain.
I have put up a side-by-side image https://www.trapbarn.com/land/ which shows the "site plan" he has submitted.
Both the Site Plan and Location Plan shows a continuous blue boundary line the blue line for the land, and the building outlined in red.
The blue line goes along my perimeter and right across my plot.
Do you not think this is a deliberate construct to misrepresent the facts and mislead Planning into thinking the building has amenity.
And because he has signed certificate A then isn't that dishonest?
I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are working from home because of Covid
Mark Goodge
Jun 29, 2021, 4:16:18 PM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:39:43 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>> <
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>> not have them in the public domain.
>
>
>Thanks, I had thought I had removed all clues.
>I have put up a side-by-side image https://www.trapbarn.com/land/ which
>shows the "site plan" he has submitted.
>
>Both the Site Plan and Location Plan shows a continuous blue boundary
>line the blue line for the land, and the building outlined in red.
>The blue line goes along my perimeter and right across my plot.
>
>Do you not think this is a deliberate construct to misrepresent the facts
>and mislead Planning into thinking the building has amenity.
It won't make any difference.
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:39:43 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>> <
>>
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>> not have them in the public domain.
>
>
>Thanks, I had thought I had removed all clues.
>I have put up a side-by-side image https://www.trapbarn.com/land/ which
>shows the "site plan" he has submitted.
>
>Both the Site Plan and Location Plan shows a continuous blue boundary
>line the blue line for the land, and the building outlined in red.
>The blue line goes along my perimeter and right across my plot.
>
>Do you not think this is a deliberate construct to misrepresent the facts
>and mislead Planning into thinking the building has amenity.
>And because he has signed certificate A then isn't that dishonest?
his property.
>I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found
>that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are
>working from home because of Covid
Mark
Tim Jackson
Jun 29, 2021, 4:25:38 PM6/29/21
to
On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 17:28:26 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
Otherwise, the planning dept are not being given the full picture.
The position of the blue line might simply be to exclude the OP's
buildings, so that the applicant doesn't have to explain how he has
"control" of them too.
>
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:39:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
> >half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
> >more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
> >correct property boundaries.
>
> Sorry, having just checked this, the blue line shows "other land, not
> being part of the application, that is under the control of the
> applicant". Now, the applicant may simply be considering that their
> right of access counts as "control" in this context, and it doesn't
> directly affect the application anyway. But this is something that it
> would be wise to discuss with the planning officer, even if all the
> difference that makes is that the applicant has to submit a new location
> plan with the blue line in a different place.
I would certainly query how a mere right of way counts as "control".
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 16:39:39 +0100, Mark Goodge
> <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >I don't know why the location plan (the blue line) cuts your property in
> >half, but it's probably not directly relevant to the application. What's
> >more important is that the site plan (red line) does seem to show the
> >correct property boundaries.
>
> Sorry, having just checked this, the blue line shows "other land, not
> being part of the application, that is under the control of the
> applicant". Now, the applicant may simply be considering that their
> right of access counts as "control" in this context, and it doesn't
> directly affect the application anyway. But this is something that it
> would be wise to discuss with the planning officer, even if all the
> difference that makes is that the applicant has to submit a new location
> plan with the blue line in a different place.
Otherwise, the planning dept are not being given the full picture.
The position of the blue line might simply be to exclude the OP's
buildings, so that the applicant doesn't have to explain how he has
"control" of them too.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 5:27:15 PM6/29/21
to
On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 17:28:30 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Sorry, having just checked this, the blue line shows "other land, not
> being part of the application, that is under the control of the
> applicant".
I've looked and looked and can't see where that statement is
> Sorry, having just checked this, the blue line shows "other land, not
> being part of the application, that is under the control of the
> applicant".
Ben Beardmore
Jun 29, 2021, 5:27:32 PM6/29/21
to
On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 17:30:44 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> The "hisplan" map is in black and white on the website, and therefore
> doesn't show the legally significant difference between the red and blue
> lines. It is a copy of the location plan on the application, but in the
> absence of colour it's lacking a key part of the relevant information.
>
> Mark
Please refresh your browser cache and view the new graphics which clarify matter better
> The "hisplan" map is in black and white on the website, and therefore
> doesn't show the legally significant difference between the red and blue
> lines. It is a copy of the location plan on the application, but in the
> absence of colour it's lacking a key part of the relevant information.
>
> Mark
https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2021, 4:02:28 AM6/30/21
to
In message <iovmdgh5aca6iu0q0...@4ax.com>, at 21:16:14 on
Tue, 29 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>>I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found
>>that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are
>>working from home because of Covid
>
>You should still be able to email the planning officer directly.
And I bet they have phones at home (some of which will be VoIP within a
team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
redirected home.
--
Roland Perry
Tue, 29 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 10:22:03 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:39:43 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>>> <
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>>> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>>> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>>> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>>> not have them in the public domain.
>>
>>
>>Thanks, I had thought I had removed all clues.
>>I have put up a side-by-side image https://www.trapbarn.com/land/ which
>>shows the "site plan" he has submitted.
>>
>>Both the Site Plan and Location Plan shows a continuous blue boundary
>>line the blue line for the land, and the building outlined in red.
>>The blue line goes along my perimeter and right across my plot.
>>
>>Do you not think this is a deliberate construct to misrepresent the facts
>>and mislead Planning into thinking the building has amenity.
>
>It won't make any difference.
>
>>And because he has signed certificate A then isn't that dishonest?
>
>No, because Certificate A only applies to the red line site, and that is
>his property.
I'm puzzled. What *is* the purpose of the blue outline?
><letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 16:39:43 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Jun 2021 06:20:26 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
>>> <
>>>
>>> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> The planning application form should show the site area. How does that
>>> >> compare with the size of the applicant's plot?
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >Here are all the plan images https://www.trapbarn.com/land/
>>> You've given enough information there to identify the location, and
>>> hence to find the application details on the planning authority's
>>> website. I'm not going to mention those details, in case you'd rather
>>> not have them in the public domain.
>>
>>
>>Thanks, I had thought I had removed all clues.
>>I have put up a side-by-side image https://www.trapbarn.com/land/ which
>>shows the "site plan" he has submitted.
>>
>>Both the Site Plan and Location Plan shows a continuous blue boundary
>>line the blue line for the land, and the building outlined in red.
>>The blue line goes along my perimeter and right across my plot.
>>
>>Do you not think this is a deliberate construct to misrepresent the facts
>>and mislead Planning into thinking the building has amenity.
>
>It won't make any difference.
>
>>And because he has signed certificate A then isn't that dishonest?
>
>No, because Certificate A only applies to the red line site, and that is
>his property.
>>I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found
>>that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are
>>working from home because of Covid
>
>You should still be able to email the planning officer directly.
team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
redirected home.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 4:32:09 AM6/30/21
to
part of the various interpretations of the plans.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 5:09:06 AM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 08:53:39 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
The location and site plans have two borders marked on them:
1. Red line: Land which forms part of the application.
2. Blue line: Other adjacent land, not being part of the application,
which is under the control of the applicant.
The application will be determined on the basis of the documentation
relating to the land within the red line. A grant of permission to carry
out the development applied for does not authorise any work outside the
red line.
The purpose of the blue line is primarily informational, but can also be
taken into account by the planning authority when imposing conditions on
the approval of any application. For example, if an applicant applies
for, and is granted, permission to do X with the red line site, then a
condition can be imposed to prevent them doing Y with the blue line
site, on the grounds that X+Y would be unacceptable while X alone is
not. This is typically used to prevent salami-slicing of permitted
development rights.
It's worth noting that, in most cases, there's no incentive to the
applicant to inflate the size of the blue line. The application itself
won't give them any permission to do anything with it, but the
conditions imposed may end up restricting what they can do with it.
In this particular case, I can't see any obvious reason why the
applicant has included part of the OP's plot in the blue line (or,
indeed, why there's even a blue line at all). But neither the
applicant's property nor the OP's property have a UPRN assigned, and
their boundaries are not included in the Land Registry's published
cadastral boundary line data. I don't have access to the most detailed
OS mapping for the area, which will show boundaries, but it is possible
that the plot described by the OP has at some stage been two separate
plots, one of which now forms the blue line area on the application.
It is, therefore, entirely possible that there is genuine uncertainty as
to where the boundaries lie, and the applicant is just being
over-cautious by drawing the blue line more widely than actually applies
(because doing the opposite, and failing to declare land that should be
within the blue line, can invalidate the application).
That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
the sake of the record.
All of this is entirely separate to the question of whether the
application meets the criteria for approval. If the OP wishes to object
to the application then he can, of course, do so. But an objection which
imputes bad faith on the part of the applicant (eg, by accusing the
applicant of attempting to appropriate property) is not a material
planning consideration and will, therefore, be disregarded. If the OP
still thinks that the applicant is attempting something dishonest with
his land, then that is entirely a private matter that he will need to
deal directly with the applicant about (and, if necessary, via the
courts). It is completely irrelevant to the planning process.
>>>I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found
>>>that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are
>>>working from home because of Covid
>>
>>You should still be able to email the planning officer directly.
>
>And I bet they have phones at home (some of which will be VoIP within a
>team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
>and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
>redirected home.
You'd probably lose that bet, actually. Council officers don't usually
work from home, so the facilities to support that almost certainly
didn't exist pre-lockdown.
More generally, council officers (and particularly planning officers)
tend not to have published DDI numbers, because otherwise they are
overwhelmed with calls from people who just want to moan about
something. All inbound calls go via the switchboard. But the
switchboard, in most cases, isn't capable of routing calls to an
external number.
Mark
wrote:
1. Red line: Land which forms part of the application.
2. Blue line: Other adjacent land, not being part of the application,
which is under the control of the applicant.
The application will be determined on the basis of the documentation
relating to the land within the red line. A grant of permission to carry
out the development applied for does not authorise any work outside the
red line.
The purpose of the blue line is primarily informational, but can also be
taken into account by the planning authority when imposing conditions on
the approval of any application. For example, if an applicant applies
for, and is granted, permission to do X with the red line site, then a
condition can be imposed to prevent them doing Y with the blue line
site, on the grounds that X+Y would be unacceptable while X alone is
not. This is typically used to prevent salami-slicing of permitted
development rights.
It's worth noting that, in most cases, there's no incentive to the
applicant to inflate the size of the blue line. The application itself
won't give them any permission to do anything with it, but the
conditions imposed may end up restricting what they can do with it.
In this particular case, I can't see any obvious reason why the
applicant has included part of the OP's plot in the blue line (or,
indeed, why there's even a blue line at all). But neither the
applicant's property nor the OP's property have a UPRN assigned, and
their boundaries are not included in the Land Registry's published
cadastral boundary line data. I don't have access to the most detailed
OS mapping for the area, which will show boundaries, but it is possible
that the plot described by the OP has at some stage been two separate
plots, one of which now forms the blue line area on the application.
It is, therefore, entirely possible that there is genuine uncertainty as
to where the boundaries lie, and the applicant is just being
over-cautious by drawing the blue line more widely than actually applies
(because doing the opposite, and failing to declare land that should be
within the blue line, can invalidate the application).
That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
the sake of the record.
All of this is entirely separate to the question of whether the
application meets the criteria for approval. If the OP wishes to object
to the application then he can, of course, do so. But an objection which
imputes bad faith on the part of the applicant (eg, by accusing the
applicant of attempting to appropriate property) is not a material
planning consideration and will, therefore, be disregarded. If the OP
still thinks that the applicant is attempting something dishonest with
his land, then that is entirely a private matter that he will need to
deal directly with the applicant about (and, if necessary, via the
courts). It is completely irrelevant to the planning process.
>>>I have sent a notification of this to the Planning Office but found
>>>that having a conversation with an official is impossible as they are
>>>working from home because of Covid
>>
>>You should still be able to email the planning officer directly.
>
>And I bet they have phones at home (some of which will be VoIP within a
>team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
>and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
>redirected home.
work from home, so the facilities to support that almost certainly
didn't exist pre-lockdown.
More generally, council officers (and particularly planning officers)
tend not to have published DDI numbers, because otherwise they are
overwhelmed with calls from people who just want to moan about
something. All inbound calls go via the switchboard. But the
switchboard, in most cases, isn't capable of routing calls to an
external number.
Mark
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2021, 6:07:46 AM6/30/21
to
In message <01bodgtvgogqfq7o5...@4ax.com>, at 10:09:02 on
Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
residential then there could be local planning policies about the
minimum amount of private garden. But as only the Red area is being
considered, bigging up the amount of adjacent open space might be
fruitless.
>>And I bet they have phones at home (some of which will be VoIP within a
>>team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
>>and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
>>redirected home.
>
>You'd probably lose that bet, actually. Council officers don't usually
>work from home, so the facilities to support that almost certainly
>didn't exist pre-lockdown.
Round here I'd win the bet, because despite not many (but more than
zero) council officers having home-working arrangements already in place
as a work/life balance thing, at the beginning of the first lockdown
they were all sent home and arrangements made rapidly to keep them in
contact.
>More generally, council officers (and particularly planning officers)
>tend not to have published DDI numbers, because otherwise they are
>overwhelmed with calls from people who just want to moan about
>something.
I have a recent letter in front of me from a local planning officer, and
it has a DDI number on it.
>All inbound calls go via the switchboard. But the switchboard, in most
>cases, isn't capable of routing calls to an external number.
Which is why some councils (one I know of, not the same) when they sent
*their* officers home at the same time, issued them all with "council"
phone numbers within Teams [which quite a lot already had as a life/work
balance thing], which they make and receive calls with the public on,
and can have calls transferred from the switchboard.
The other scheme is to have officers divert their desk phone to their
home phone, and thus both external call and internal ones (either direct
dialled or a transfer from the switchboard) simply get forwarded to
their home number (or in some cases their council issued mobile phone).
--
Roland Perry
Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>In this particular case, I can't see any obvious reason why the
>applicant has included part of the OP's plot in the blue line (or,
>indeed, why there's even a blue line at all).
I ventured a suggestion earlier that maybe if the development is
>applicant has included part of the OP's plot in the blue line (or,
>indeed, why there's even a blue line at all).
residential then there could be local planning policies about the
minimum amount of private garden. But as only the Red area is being
considered, bigging up the amount of adjacent open space might be
fruitless.
>>And I bet they have phones at home (some of which will be VoIP within a
>>team-working application, hence a 'council-number') capable of making
>>and receiving calls from the public; or their desk phone will be
>>redirected home.
>
>You'd probably lose that bet, actually. Council officers don't usually
>work from home, so the facilities to support that almost certainly
>didn't exist pre-lockdown.
zero) council officers having home-working arrangements already in place
as a work/life balance thing, at the beginning of the first lockdown
they were all sent home and arrangements made rapidly to keep them in
contact.
>More generally, council officers (and particularly planning officers)
>tend not to have published DDI numbers, because otherwise they are
>overwhelmed with calls from people who just want to moan about
>something.
it has a DDI number on it.
>All inbound calls go via the switchboard. But the switchboard, in most
>cases, isn't capable of routing calls to an external number.
*their* officers home at the same time, issued them all with "council"
phone numbers within Teams [which quite a lot already had as a life/work
balance thing], which they make and receive calls with the public on,
and can have calls transferred from the switchboard.
The other scheme is to have officers divert their desk phone to their
home phone, and thus both external call and internal ones (either direct
dialled or a transfer from the switchboard) simply get forwarded to
their home number (or in some cases their council issued mobile phone).
--
Roland Perry
notya...@gmail.com
Jun 30, 2021, 6:24:04 AM6/30/21
to
What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
Quite clever / sneaky really.
OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any work to your land without permission.
GB
Jun 30, 2021, 7:21:10 AM6/30/21
to
On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
> the sake of the record.
Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
> the sake of the record.
conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
Yes, I know that he needs to try harder to contact the planning officer ...
But, in many cases, the owner of the neighbouring land might not study a
planning application carefully and notice that the site plan is incorrect.
> You'd probably lose that bet, actually. Council officers don't usually
> work from home, so the facilities to support that almost certainly
> didn't exist pre-lockdown.
>
> More generally, council officers (and particularly planning officers)
> tend not to have published DDI numbers, because otherwise they are
> overwhelmed with calls from people who just want to moan about
> something. All inbound calls go via the switchboard. But the
> switchboard, in most cases, isn't capable of routing calls to an
> external number.
trick.
Ben Beardmore
Jun 30, 2021, 7:22:19 AM6/30/21
to
On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 11:24:04 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 21:16:18 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > Mark
> Sorry I gave "S.21 notice" in a prior reply. The applicant has to notify anyone who's land the application relates to with 21 days notice and complete form B on the application.
> On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 21:16:18 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> > Mark
>
> What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
>
> Quite clever / sneaky really.
>
> OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any work to your land without permission.
Yes, I would never underestimate his intelligence or his deviousness.
> What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
>
> Quite clever / sneaky really.
>
> OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any work to your land without permission.
He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed. The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 7:55:44 AM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:34:19 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>> the sake of the record.
>
>Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
If the council imposed conditions on the land outlined in blue on the
>On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>> the sake of the record.
>
>Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
understanding that it belonged to the applicant, then it would be a
relatively simple matter for the true owner to get the condition
removed. It would be a somewhat bureaucratic process, and there may be
an application fee to pay, but there would be practically no prospect of
such an application being unsuccessful.
However, the best way to prevent that ever becoming necessary is to get
in touch with the planning officer. Even if they don't insist on the
applicant supplying a corrected blue line plan, the council won't impose
a condition on land that they know has been erroneously included.
>Yes, I know that he needs to try harder to contact the planning officer ...
firstnam...@authority.gov.uk will work (because, elsewhere in the
application, is an unredacted email address for a different officer at
the same authority).
>But, in many cases, the owner of the neighbouring land might not study a
>planning application carefully and notice that the site plan is incorrect.
may impact your property.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 8:00:01 AM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 03:23:42 -0700 (PDT), "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP
>would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has
>exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it
>is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
But he hasn't exaggerated the plot. The plot on the planning application
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP
>would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has
>exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it
>is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
is the red line. Any required elements of the development, including
amenity space, *must* be included within the red line. It is not
acceptable to submit an application that does not meet all the
requirements on the basis that some of them will be met by land outside
the application. The application itself has to contain all of it. If it
doesn't, and those requirements are not met within the red line, then
the application will be refused.
>Quite clever / sneaky really.
>
>OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have
>not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any
>work to your land without permission.
planning authority's website. But yes, the grant of permission to carry
out the development is not a grant of permission to carry out any work
on someone else's land.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 8:14:11 AM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 03:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations
>by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever
>getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He
>did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building.
>He even invented a street address that has never existed. The
>building never had direct access to the street but had only right
>of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway
>directly out on to the street again without approval in a
>conservation area.
Absolutely none of that has any relevance at all to the application
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations
>by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever
>getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He
>did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building.
>He even invented a street address that has never existed. The
>building never had direct access to the street but had only right
>of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway
>directly out on to the street again without approval in a
>conservation area.
currently under consideration, and complaining about it will not make
the slightest bit of difference to the decision.
>From the documents currently on the application, the only error that's
visible is that the blue line on the location plan is in the wrong
place. You do need to contact the planning officer about that. But
getting it fixed will not make the development any more or less likely
to be approved.
You also need to consider what you are trying to achieve here. Do you
merely want to ensure that the development, if/when approved, does not
encroach on your land? Or do you want to prevent it being approved at
all? Because these are different goals, and need to be approached
differently. The former can almost certainly be sorted out with an email
discussion with the planning officer. The latter will need you to
identify a material planning consideration relevant to the decision. And
"the applicant is a sneaky toad" (or variants thereof) is not one.
Potentially relevant objections include the question of whether the
development is appropriate for a conservation area, whether it
constitutes overdevelopment, and whether it meets the authority's
requirement for the provision of parking, amenity space, etc. But any
relevant objection has to be based solely on the documents supplied as
part of the application process. The identity and character of the
applicant have no bearing at all.
As a guide, you might want to look at previous applications to convert
the existing building to residential accommodation, and see why they
were refused. Many of the reasons for refusing those are likely to apply
to the current application, especially any related to the conservation
area status. If you want to stop it getting approved at all, that's
likely to be your most effective route.
Mark
GB
Jun 30, 2021, 8:46:17 AM6/30/21
to
On 30/06/2021 11:51, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed. The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
>
You clearly don't approve of the bloke! :)
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed. The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
>
It seems helpful that there should be a front door onto the street,
minimising the number of Air BnB'ers traipsing across your land.
Moreover, the restoration document appears to show a pre-existing door
onto the street. It's just been replaced with a new one, that may not be
satisfactory for the conservation area?
There is on-street parking, so are you finding a problem with cars
parked on your land?
Presumably, more concerning is the back door, opening onto your land and
inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
Roland Perry
Jun 30, 2021, 8:53:31 AM6/30/21
to
In message <4758d25f-5f65-4e8a...@googlegroups.com>, at
03:23:42 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
>What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would
>not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has
>exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in
>his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
I don't think that works, because while I understand the alleged ploy,
the planning enforcement officers will descend like a ton of bricks
if a property is put on the market with only the red amenity space.
But that assumes they'll grant the application in the first place, by
misreading the blue area as red.
--
Roland Perry
03:23:42 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
>What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would
>not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has
>exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in
>his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
the planning enforcement officers will descend like a ton of bricks
if a property is put on the market with only the red amenity space.
But that assumes they'll grant the application in the first place, by
misreading the blue area as red.
--
Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jun 30, 2021, 12:00:20 PM6/30/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 13:14:07 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>As a guide, you might want to look at previous applications to convert
>the existing building to residential accommodation, and see why they
>were refused. Many of the reasons for refusing those are likely to apply
>to the current application, especially any related to the conservation
>area status. If you want to stop it getting approved at all, that's
>likely to be your most effective route.
Just for reference, the building was previously the subject of an
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>As a guide, you might want to look at previous applications to convert
>the existing building to residential accommodation, and see why they
>were refused. Many of the reasons for refusing those are likely to apply
>to the current application, especially any related to the conservation
>area status. If you want to stop it getting approved at all, that's
>likely to be your most effective route.
application to convert it to residential accommodation, but without the
alterations as proposed in the current application. That was refused.
The notice of refusal, stated, inter alia, that
Insufficient information has been provided by the applicant
particularly with regard to a structural survey and the provision of
private amenity space and off-street parking facilities to enable the
proposal to be properly judged against Policies [redacted] of
[redacted] Plan and Planning Control Policy [...] "Space Around
Dwellings" [...] "Conservation Areas"
The proposed development would, by virtue of the orientation of the
main outlook, impact detrimentally on the privacy and living
conditions of neighbouring residents at [redacted]
(Edited to remove any locality specific names and references)
The officer's report on the previous application also made note of the
fact that the applicant had mentioned the right of way over the OP's
property, in the context of access and parking provision. But the report
goes on to say
However, this area is not included in the red edged application site
and cannot be considered to form part of the development scheme
There are no significant differences between the current application and
that previously refused which would be likely to affect this. The
applicant still does not have sufficient amenity space within the red
line, the conservation area considerations still apply, and the main
outlook will still overlook neighbouring properties in a manner likely
to be deemed unacceptable. If the OP wishes to formally object to the
current application, then reiterating the reasons for refusing the
previous application are likely to have the strongest effect.
Mark
Norman Wells
Jul 1, 2021, 1:19:54 AM7/1/21
to
On 30/06/2021 10:34, GB wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>> the sake of the record.
>
> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
No planning decisions can possibly affect him. It's his land. He
> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>> the sake of the record.
>
> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
decides what happens or what does not happen on it. Even if planning
permission were granted to someone else for a development of the whole
of his land, which is perfectly possible, whatever is planned can't go
ahead without his permission.
> Yes, I know that he needs to try harder to contact the planning officer ...
Norman Wells
Jul 1, 2021, 1:20:29 AM7/1/21
to
On 30/06/2021 12:55, Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:34:19 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>>> the sake of the record.
>>
>> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
>
> If the council imposed conditions on the land outlined in blue on the
> understanding that it belonged to the applicant, then it would be a
> relatively simple matter for the true owner to get the condition
> removed. It would be a somewhat bureaucratic process, and there may be
> an application fee to pay, but there would be practically no prospect of
> such an application being unsuccessful.
There's no point. It's his land and can presumably prove it if ever the
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 10:34:19 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>>> the sake of the record.
>>
>> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
>
> If the council imposed conditions on the land outlined in blue on the
> understanding that it belonged to the applicant, then it would be a
> relatively simple matter for the true owner to get the condition
> removed. It would be a somewhat bureaucratic process, and there may be
> an application fee to pay, but there would be practically no prospect of
> such an application being unsuccessful.
need arises. Anything that happens on it without his permission is a
trespass and can be prevented whatever planning consent exists.
Ben Beardmore
Jul 1, 2021, 1:22:45 AM7/1/21
to
On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 13:46:17 UTC+1, GB wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 11:51, Ben Beardmore wrote:
>
> > He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed. The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
> >
> You clearly don't approve of the bloke! :)
I haver never met him or spoken to him. My assessment is purely based on his documented actions!
> On 30/06/2021 11:51, Ben Beardmore wrote:
>
> > He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property. He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed. The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land. He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
> >
> You clearly don't approve of the bloke! :)
>
> It seems helpful that there should be a front door onto the street,
> minimising the number of Air BnB'ers traipsing across your land.
>
> Moreover, the restoration document appears to show a pre-existing door
> onto the street. It's just been replaced with a new one, that may not be
> satisfactory for the conservation area?
It is a new doorway he created. You can clearly see the new cement around the stones. This building used to be a stable and store room. The blocked off area above the door used to be a small wooden door which gave access to the hay loft and storage for other fodder. He has blocked it up using the stone taken out when the doorway below was created.
> It seems helpful that there should be a front door onto the street,
> minimising the number of Air BnB'ers traipsing across your land.
>
> Moreover, the restoration document appears to show a pre-existing door
> onto the street. It's just been replaced with a new one, that may not be
> satisfactory for the conservation area?
>
> There is on-street parking, so are you finding a problem with cars
> parked on your land?
> Presumably, more concerning is the back door, opening onto your land and
> inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
GB
Jul 1, 2021, 1:32:40 AM7/1/21
to
On 30/06/2021 13:14, Mark Goodge wrote:
> As a guide, you might want to look at previous applications to convert
> the existing building to residential accommodation, and see why they
> were refused. Many of the reasons for refusing those are likely to apply
> to the current application, especially any related to the conservation
> area status. If you want to stop it getting approved at all, that's
> likely to be your most effective route.
For the benefit of Ben, and anyone else interested, I reproduce a large
> As a guide, you might want to look at previous applications to convert
> the existing building to residential accommodation, and see why they
> were refused. Many of the reasons for refusing those are likely to apply
> to the current application, especially any related to the conservation
> area status. If you want to stop it getting approved at all, that's
> likely to be your most effective route.
part of the report from the 2007 application. I don't know how much
planning guidelines have changed over the years, but a significant
factor then was lack of amenity space.
"Analysis The application site consists of a vacant stone and slate
building with a tight curtilage of shrubs and waste materials. It is
located in the Horwich Town Centre Conservation Area. A pleasant area of
grassland lies between the site and Back Georges Street but otherwise
the surrounding area has been developed into high density housing.
The building is attractive and makes a positive contribution to the
character and appearance of the conservation area. There is clear
benefit in securing the future use of this building by granting planning
permission for a conversion into a sustainable use and the replacement
of the existing office use with residential would in principle
strengthen the compatibility with the surrounding land uses in the area.
However, conversions of such buildings must be supported by structural
surveys to ensure that they can withstand the development without
requiring major demolition and/or rebuilding works which may be
detrimental to the conservation area. The Applicant has stated that a
report has been prepared but this has not been submitted with the
application and the Council cannot therefore reasonably conclude that
the development would conform to UDP Policy D7 and PCPN 19.
Furthermore, the replacement of the office storage facilities with
habitable accommodation must be considered relative to all aspects of
housing policy. This proposal generates requirements for adequate
standards of privacy to be achieved to protect neighbouring occupiers
and amenity space to be provided for the enjoyment of future residents
(UDP Policy H3; PCPN 2).
The Council acknowledges that the Applicant is seeking to utilise the
existing openings and organise the internal layout so as to minimise the
impact on the external appearance of the building. It is important to
maintain the integrity of such buildings in the conservation area.
However, the existing number of windows to the building is very limited
and it is considered that there is reasonable opportunity to create
additional openings in the south facing elevation to offer enjoyable
views over the grassland and direct sunlight. At present the Applicant
is proposing to have the only main windows to main rooms facing towards
the surrounding houses. The Council has received letters of objection to
the consequential loss of privacy and these complaints are considered to
be sustainable. The distance between the eastern living room/bedroom
window would be 13.5 metres from the facing main windows of 14 Chapel
Street. The distance required by the Council's housing policies is 21
metres. There would also be an uncomfortable relationship between the
western window and 7 Owens Row, albeit at an oblique angle. Further
thought is necessary to create a solution that preserves the appearance
of the building whilst maintaining sufficient privacy for these
neighbours. A small area land adjoining the building has been included
within the red edged application site and the Council requires this to
be developed into an attractive garden area for the benefit of future
occupiers. The application is silent on what is proposed for this area
and the Council cannot properly judge whether the provision of private
amenity space would be acceptable. The Council's Highways Engineers and
the local residents have expressed concerns regarding congested
on-street parking in the area and the lack of provision of off-street
facilities in this proposal. The Applicant has responded by pointing out
a right of way over the grassland which has been used for access and
parking by vehicles using the office storage facilities. However, this
area is not included in the red edged application site and cannot be
considered to form part of the development scheme. The Council is unable
to adequately judge whether the proposal accords with UDP Policies A5
and A6 (Appendix 7) and PCPN 21. Horwich Town Council raised objection
to the application on the grounds of the impact on the privacy of
neighbours and the lack of off-street parking provision and private
amenity space. The Applicant did not seek pre-application discussions
and, whilst it is considered that there are potential solutions to the
deficiencies of the proposal, this application is recommended for
refusal due to insufficient information and the impact on privacy being
contrary to UDP Policy H3 and PCPNs 2 and 27. "
Norman Wells
Jul 1, 2021, 5:52:39 AM7/1/21
to
If the guests are merely sitting out on it and not causing any
disturbance, especially to you since you're so far away, I can't see
that it's any great problem. If anything permanent is put out there,
like a patio, that's different, but any temporary activities can easily
be curtailed whenever you want.
If you intend to sell the area or part of it in due course, this seems a
heaven-sent opportunity. You know someone who clearly wants it who will
doubtless be willing to pay a premium price.
Otherwise, you could think about regularising the guests' use of it by
allowing such activity on a formal rental basis.
In the meantime, perhaps you need a local agent who can monitor what's
going on and keep you informed.
Philip Hole
Jul 1, 2021, 5:55:13 AM7/1/21
to
On 30/06/2021 15:11, Norman Wells wrote:
>
> There's no point. It's his land and can presumably prove it if ever the
> need arises. Anything that happens on it without his permission is a
> trespass and can be prevented whatever planning consent exists.
>
A bit late in the day but, hopefully, not too late...
>
> There's no point. It's his land and can presumably prove it if ever the
> need arises. Anything that happens on it without his permission is a
> trespass and can be prevented whatever planning consent exists.
>
You can ask Land Registry to advise you of any attempted alterations to
the deeds for your registered land.
This will prevent a land grab where the ownership is transferred to a
third party.
They also send you a 'no change' reminder every six months.
--
Flop
notya...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2021, 5:57:38 AM7/1/21
to
On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 12:22:19 UTC+1, letsh...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 11:24:04 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 21:16:18 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > > Mark
> > Sorry I gave "S.21 notice" in a prior reply. The applicant has to notify anyone who's land the application relates to with 21 days notice and complete form B on the application.
> >
> > What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
> >
> > Quite clever / sneaky really.
> >
> > OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any work to your land without permission.
> Yes, I would never underestimate his intelligence or his deviousness.
>
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property.
If your local planners were bothered they could issue an enforcement notice. Development without planning is not an offence. More likely they will be happy to collect the rates.
> On Wednesday, 30 June 2021 at 11:24:04 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 29 June 2021 at 21:16:18 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> > > Mark
> > Sorry I gave "S.21 notice" in a prior reply. The applicant has to notify anyone who's land the application relates to with 21 days notice and complete form B on the application.
> >
> > What I think is going on here is that the applicant knows that PP would not be granted without amenity space for the property, so has exaggerated the plot. Once granted he can then build whatever it is in his own plot, but with no garden or parking.
> >
> > Quite clever / sneaky really.
> >
> > OTOH the planners won't verify the application if the formalities have not been completed, and of course the applicant can't carry out any work to your land without permission.
> Yes, I would never underestimate his intelligence or his deviousness.
>
> He demonstrated his lack of regard for rules and regulations by letting out this building as an AirBNB residence without ever getting Planning approval for it as a residential property.
> He did a quick refurb on what had been a derelict storage building. He even invented a street address that has never existed.
> The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land.
> He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 6:08:07 AM7/1/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:11:43 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
wrote:
You're missing the point. The applicant can't do anything on the OP's
land. But the risk here is that the applicant will get permission that
comes with a condition preventing any development on the OP's land.
Which would apply to the OP as well as to the applicant, thus
potentially restricting what the OP can do with his own land.
That may not be an issue if the OP has no intention of ever developing
the land. But it may still affect the value of the land should he ever
want to sell it in the future. So it would be wise to ensure that no
such condition is applied.
Mark
wrote:
land. But the risk here is that the applicant will get permission that
comes with a condition preventing any development on the OP's land.
Which would apply to the OP as well as to the applicant, thus
potentially restricting what the OP can do with his own land.
That may not be an issue if the OP has no intention of ever developing
the land. But it may still affect the value of the land should he ever
want to sell it in the future. So it would be wise to ensure that no
such condition is applied.
Mark
Roland Perry
Jul 1, 2021, 6:39:49 AM7/1/21
to
In message <893af42e-fb42-473e...@googlegroups.com>, at
02:57:25 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
relevant permission.
>> He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
>
>I don't think you need PP for that, only if the building is listed.
What he did might have exceeded what's permitted in a conservation area.
The local conservation officer might be able to comment.
--
Roland Perry
02:57:25 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
>> The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land.
>
>This is true for my flat, one has to cross land belonging to our management company, and along a private road owned by it and the neighbours.
>Not an issue.
I expect that's not an issue because you have paperwork granting you
>
>This is true for my flat, one has to cross land belonging to our management company, and along a private road owned by it and the neighbours.
>Not an issue.
relevant permission.
>> He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
>
>I don't think you need PP for that, only if the building is listed.
The local conservation officer might be able to comment.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jul 1, 2021, 6:39:49 AM7/1/21
to
In message <b728fec3-c6e8-4012...@googlegroups.com>, at
06:49:54 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
(And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
plant some prickly bushes there.
--
Roland Perry
06:49:54 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> Presumably, more concerning is the back door, opening onto your land and
>> inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
>
>Spot on. The guests have already been using the land - sitting out there
>with a table having drinks etc. I see this as the first step on a slippery slope.
How are the accessing the place where they are sitting?
>> inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
>
>Spot on. The guests have already been using the land - sitting out there
>with a table having drinks etc. I see this as the first step on a slippery slope.
(And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
plant some prickly bushes there.
--
Roland Perry
Norman Wells
Jul 1, 2021, 8:50:55 AM7/1/21
to
or refused in respect of the proposed development. None of any
conditions can validly apply to the OP's land.
GB
Jul 1, 2021, 8:52:12 AM7/1/21
to
On 30/06/2021 15:07, Norman Wells wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 10:34, GB wrote:
>> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>>> the sake of the record.
>>
>> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
>
> No planning decisions can possibly affect him. It's his land. He
> decides what happens or what does not happen on it. Even if planning
> permission were granted to someone else for a development of the whole
> of his land, which is perfectly possible, whatever is planned can't go
> ahead without his permission.
That's all true, but not quite the point.
> On 30/06/2021 10:34, GB wrote:
>> On 30/06/2021 10:09, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I think the OP needs to discuss this with the planning
>>> officer. There doesn't appear to be any deliberate attempt by the
>>> applicant to appropriate any of the OP's property as part of the
>>> planning application itself (red line), but the blue line does appear to
>>> be incorrect and it would be worthwhile getting that corrected, just for
>>> the sake of the record.
>>
>> Suppose that the Council grant the planning application, but impose
>> conditions on the land edged in blue. The planning applicant would not
>> care, but it could impact Ben Beardmore. How does Ben ensure that that
>> does not happen? Or, if does, how does he get it all unravelled.
>
> No planning decisions can possibly affect him. It's his land. He
> decides what happens or what does not happen on it. Even if planning
> permission were granted to someone else for a development of the whole
> of his land, which is perfectly possible, whatever is planned can't go
> ahead without his permission.
The applicant has represented to the council that he owns the plot edged
in blue. The council, in granting permission on the land the applicant
does own, may therefore impose conditions on the adjoining land he
claims to own.
If the applicant does not in fact own the land, but the OP does, that
then puts the ball in the OP's court to get that overturned. We are
assured by Mark Goodge that there should be no insurmountable problem
getting it overturned. However, it's far better to head off the problem
in the first place.
>
>> Yes, I know that he needs to try harder to contact the planning
>> officer ...
>
> In fact, he doesn't have to do anything.
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 9:31:17 AM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:31:40 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
>In message <b728fec3-c6e8-4012...@googlegroups.com>, at
>06:49:54 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
>remarked:
>>> Presumably, more concerning is the back door, opening onto your land and
>>> inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
>>
>>Spot on. The guests have already been using the land - sitting out there
>>with a table having drinks etc. I see this as the first step on a slippery slope.
>
>How are the accessing the place where they are sitting?
The building has doors opening onto the OP's property, as well as onto
the street.
>(And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
>residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
Yes. I suspect that the applicant thinks that using it as an Airbnb
rental doesn't count as "residential", and hence isn't in breach of any
planning policies. If so, the applicant may well be in for a rude
awakening.
>Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>plant some prickly bushes there.
Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
people will do as it says.
If the OP was minded to pursue this via legal avenues, then getting an
injunction to order the building's owner not to let tenants use the OP's
property would be possible. But even that would still have to be
enforced, which may be difficult if the OP is not regularly on the
premises and therefore can't easily tell when it's being breached.
At the very least, though, the OP needs to write to the owner of the
building and make it clear that tenants do not have permission to use
his land for amenity purposes (eg, sitting outside with a table and
chairs). If necessary, follow that up later with a solicitor's letter
reiterating the same point.
Mark
wrote:
>In message <b728fec3-c6e8-4012...@googlegroups.com>, at
>06:49:54 on Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
>remarked:
>>> Presumably, more concerning is the back door, opening onto your land and
>>> inviting residents to sit out on it? Not really a planning issue.
>>
>>Spot on. The guests have already been using the land - sitting out there
>>with a table having drinks etc. I see this as the first step on a slippery slope.
>
>How are the accessing the place where they are sitting?
the street.
>(And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
>residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
rental doesn't count as "residential", and hence isn't in breach of any
planning policies. If so, the applicant may well be in for a rude
awakening.
>Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>plant some prickly bushes there.
access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
people will do as it says.
If the OP was minded to pursue this via legal avenues, then getting an
injunction to order the building's owner not to let tenants use the OP's
property would be possible. But even that would still have to be
enforced, which may be difficult if the OP is not regularly on the
premises and therefore can't easily tell when it's being breached.
At the very least, though, the OP needs to write to the owner of the
building and make it clear that tenants do not have permission to use
his land for amenity purposes (eg, sitting outside with a table and
chairs). If necessary, follow that up later with a solicitor's letter
reiterating the same point.
Mark
Tim Jackson
Jul 1, 2021, 9:33:19 AM7/1/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:04:53 +0100, GB wrote...
[From the report on the 2007 planning application]
> The Council's Highways Engineers and
> the local residents have expressed concerns regarding congested
> on-street parking in the area and the lack of provision of off-street
> facilities in this proposal. The Applicant has responded by pointing out
> a right of way over the grassland which has been used for access and
> parking by vehicles using the office storage facilities. However, this
> area is not included in the red edged application site and cannot be
> considered to form part of the development scheme.
A right of way for access isn't the same as a right to park vehicles on
the OP's land. But if parking has been happening continuously for many
years, without complaint by the OP or his predecessors, is there a risk
of a claim of adverse possession?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
[From the report on the 2007 planning application]
> The Council's Highways Engineers and
> the local residents have expressed concerns regarding congested
> on-street parking in the area and the lack of provision of off-street
> facilities in this proposal. The Applicant has responded by pointing out
> a right of way over the grassland which has been used for access and
> parking by vehicles using the office storage facilities. However, this
> area is not included in the red edged application site and cannot be
> considered to form part of the development scheme.
the OP's land. But if parking has been happening continuously for many
years, without complaint by the OP or his predecessors, is there a risk
of a claim of adverse possession?
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@timjackson.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.plus.com' to reply direct)
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 10:00:45 AM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 12:23:23 +0100, Norman Wells <h...@unseen.ac.am>
Yes, they can. Conditions can be applied to land included in the "blue
line" plan if deemed appropriate. That's one of the reasons why
applicants are asked to provide that plan. But it's supposed to only
cover land that the applicant controls. Which is not the case here, and
which is why it would benefit the OP to get that clarified.
Mark
line" plan if deemed appropriate. That's one of the reasons why
applicants are asked to provide that plan. But it's supposed to only
cover land that the applicant controls. Which is not the case here, and
which is why it would benefit the OP to get that clarified.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 10:04:29 AM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 14:33:13 +0100, Tim Jackson <ne...@timjackson.invalid>
wrote:
No. Adverse possession would be extremely difficult to obtain in these
circumstances, not least because the applicant would need to show that
he had exercised sole use of the land in question (not merely shared
use) for the necessary period of time.
However, if parking has been permitted, then a court may agree that this
amounts to an acceptance that parking is included in the right of
access. This could later be problematic.
Mark
wrote:
circumstances, not least because the applicant would need to show that
he had exercised sole use of the land in question (not merely shared
use) for the necessary period of time.
However, if parking has been permitted, then a court may agree that this
amounts to an acceptance that parking is included in the right of
access. This could later be problematic.
Mark
Tim Jackson
Jul 1, 2021, 10:24:23 AM7/1/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 15:04:53 +0100, GB wrote...
[From the report on the 2007 planning application]
> .... The Applicant has responded by pointing out
[From the report on the 2007 planning application]
> a right of way over the grassland which has been used for access and
> parking by vehicles using the office storage facilities. However, this
> area is not included in the red edged application site and cannot be
> considered to form part of the development scheme.
> parking by vehicles using the office storage facilities. However, this
> area is not included in the red edged application site and cannot be
> considered to form part of the development scheme.
A right of way for access isn't the same as a right to park vehicles on
the OP's land. But if parking has been happening continuously for many
years, without complaint by the OP or his predecessors, is there a risk
of a claim of adverse possession?
the OP's land. But if parking has been happening continuously for many
years, without complaint by the OP or his predecessors, is there a risk
of a claim of adverse possession?
Tim Jackson
Jul 1, 2021, 10:37:01 AM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:02:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
remove the sign. Strictly theft, but I can't see the police being very
interested.
>
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:31:40 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
> >saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
> >plant some prickly bushes there.
>
> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
> courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
> people will do as it says.
Or that when the OP's back is turned, the building's owner won't just
> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:31:40 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
> >saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
> >plant some prickly bushes there.
>
> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
> courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
> people will do as it says.
remove the sign. Strictly theft, but I can't see the police being very
interested.
Ben Beardmore
Jul 1, 2021, 11:01:35 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 11:39:49 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> (And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
> residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
It was never used as an office.
> (And I'm beginning to lose track, was the place converted from office to
> residential anyway, despite the planning refusal?)
Ben Beardmore
Jul 1, 2021, 11:01:41 AM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 15:04:29 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
> Mark
@ Mark
>
> Mark
I really appreciate the clarity of thought you have brought to this interesting discussion. Apart form your super-sleuthing ability you appear to have first hand experience/familiarity with such matters.
Many thanks
Ben
Roland Perry
Jul 1, 2021, 11:35:39 AM7/1/21
to
In message <sgerdgpg6q0rs7n61...@4ax.com>, at 14:02:27 on
Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
access on foot (but no lingering) was permitted.
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>>Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>>saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>>plant some prickly bushes there.
>
>Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>courts.
One could leave a path through the bushes for those occasions when the
>>saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>>plant some prickly bushes there.
>
>Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>courts.
access on foot (but no lingering) was permitted.
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Jul 1, 2021, 11:35:47 AM7/1/21
to
In message <f00abda1-77c4-4a16...@googlegroups.com>, at
07:13:55 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
Did it go straight from light industrial to AirBNB?
--
Roland Perry
07:13:55 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Ben Beardmore <letsh...@gmail.com>
remarked:
--
Roland Perry
GB
Jul 1, 2021, 11:36:24 AM7/1/21
to
On 01/07/2021 14:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>> saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>> plant some prickly bushes there.
>
> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
> courts.
Is it possible to clarify this, please? There's a difference between
>
>> Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>> saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>> plant some prickly bushes there.
>
> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
> courts.
somebody having a right of access over my land and my having to
facilitate their access over my land, surely?
Building a wall or planting a all hedge might well be regarded as
obstructing access, but allowing vegetation to grow on one's own land is
not the same thing.
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 11:58:35 AM7/1/21
to
part of the job.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 12:08:50 PM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:02:12 +0100, GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> wrote:
>On 01/07/2021 14:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>>> saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>>> plant some prickly bushes there.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>> courts.
>
>Is it possible to clarify this, please? There's a difference between
>somebody having a right of access over my land and my having to
>facilitate their access over my land, surely?
A right of access generally means a right of unobstructed access.
>On 01/07/2021 14:02, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>>> saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>>> plant some prickly bushes there.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>> courts.
>
>Is it possible to clarify this, please? There's a difference between
>somebody having a right of access over my land and my having to
>facilitate their access over my land, surely?
>Building a wall or planting a all hedge might well be regarded as
>obstructing access, but allowing vegetation to grow on one's own land is
>not the same thing.
vegetation which obstructed their access, and to require the occupier of
the land over which the right applies to remove any deliberately planted
vegetation.
However, this depends very much on what the relevent documents actually
say. And if the documents are unclear, then professional legal advice
may be necessary in order to establish the facts of the matter.
Rights of access over private land are a common source of neighbour
disputes and, equally, a common source of work for solicitors. If
disagreements can't be sorted out amicably between the parties
concerned, then there's no magic bullet answer that can be found by
discussing the matter with random strangers on the Internet.
Mark
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 12:34:38 PM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 16:34:37 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
According to the history of the site, as given in various planning
documents, it started life as a store and site office for construction
work on a nearby building. Once that was complete, it became a general
light industrial/commercial premises. At some point in time, the
building was separated from the yard adjoining it and two separate
leases created, one of which (the yard) is now owned by the OP and one
(the building) by the applicant in this case. More recently, the
applicant had work carried out on the building in order to make it
habitable, and has since been letting it via AirBNB. This follows a
previous application, by a different applicant[1], to convert the
building to residential, which was refused.
The planning applications describe the building as an office, but that
appears to be mostly semantics based on its historic use as a site
office (ie, a glorified shed). It does not appear to have been used as
an office in the sense that most people would understand the term.
The work carried out by the current owner appears to have been carried
out without planning permission, and the current application seems
mainly to be to regularise that. However, the application is not listed
as retrospective, which it probably should be.
[1] The previous applicant completed Certificate B, rather than A, thus
indicating that he was not the owner of the building, and in the photos
attached to the application it has a "for sale" board at the front. I'm
speculating here, but my guess is that the previous applicant was a
potential buyer who had made the purchase conditional on getting
planning permission. When that was refused, the sale fell through, and
the current owner subsequently bought it instead.
Mark
wrote:
documents, it started life as a store and site office for construction
work on a nearby building. Once that was complete, it became a general
light industrial/commercial premises. At some point in time, the
building was separated from the yard adjoining it and two separate
leases created, one of which (the yard) is now owned by the OP and one
(the building) by the applicant in this case. More recently, the
applicant had work carried out on the building in order to make it
habitable, and has since been letting it via AirBNB. This follows a
previous application, by a different applicant[1], to convert the
building to residential, which was refused.
The planning applications describe the building as an office, but that
appears to be mostly semantics based on its historic use as a site
office (ie, a glorified shed). It does not appear to have been used as
an office in the sense that most people would understand the term.
The work carried out by the current owner appears to have been carried
out without planning permission, and the current application seems
mainly to be to regularise that. However, the application is not listed
as retrospective, which it probably should be.
[1] The previous applicant completed Certificate B, rather than A, thus
indicating that he was not the owner of the building, and in the photos
attached to the application it has a "for sale" board at the front. I'm
speculating here, but my guess is that the previous applicant was a
potential buyer who had made the purchase conditional on getting
planning permission. When that was refused, the sale fell through, and
the current owner subsequently bought it instead.
Mark
notya...@gmail.com
Jul 1, 2021, 12:47:49 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 11:39:49 UTC+1, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <893af42e-fb42-473e...@googlegroups.com>, at
> 02:57:25 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
> <notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
> >> The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land.
> >
> >This is true for my flat, one has to cross land belonging to our management company, and along a private road owned by it and the neighbours.
> >Not an issue.
> I expect that's not an issue because you have paperwork granting you
> relevant permission.
Indeed covenants in the original freehold, and a deed of grant in the leasehold. But then that is how this chap has access isn't it?
> 02:57:25 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021, "notya...@gmail.com"
> <notya...@gmail.com> remarked:
> >> The building never had direct access to the street but had only right of access over my land.
> >
> >This is true for my flat, one has to cross land belonging to our management company, and along a private road owned by it and the neighbours.
> >Not an issue.
> I expect that's not an issue because you have paperwork granting you
> relevant permission.
> >> He went further and carved our a doorway directly out on to the street again without approval in a conservation area.
> >
> >I don't think you need PP for that, only if the building is listed.
> What he did might have exceeded what's permitted in a conservation area.
> The local conservation officer might be able to comment.
Some things aren't allowed without PP e.g. felling trees, which elsewhere is allowed unless there is a Tree Protection Order.
> --
> Roland Perry
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 1:12:02 PM7/1/21
to
On Wed, 30 Jun 2021 12:55:38 +0100, Mark Goodge
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In this particular case, I am more than 99% certain that
>firstnam...@authority.gov.uk will work (because, elsewhere in the
>application, is an unredacted email address for a different officer at
>the same authority).
I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
Mark
<use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>
>In this particular case, I am more than 99% certain that
>firstnam...@authority.gov.uk will work (because, elsewhere in the
>application, is an unredacted email address for a different officer at
>the same authority).
I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
Mark
Roger Hayter
Jul 1, 2021, 3:40:17 PM7/1/21
to
On 1 Jul 2021 at 15:36:47 BST, "Tim Jackson" <ne...@timjackson.invalid> wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:02:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:31:40 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>> >saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>> >plant some prickly bushes there.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>> courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
>> people will do as it says.
>
> Or that when the OP's back is turned, the building's owner won't just
> remove the sign. Strictly theft, but I can't see the police being very
> interested.
There does seem to be an obvious case for CCTV surveillance.
> On Thu, 01 Jul 2021 14:02:27 +0100, Mark Goodge wrote...
>>
>> On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:31:40 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Could you put up a sign in that corner of your land, near the building,
>> >saying something about being private property and "keep off". Or maybe
>> >plant some prickly bushes there.
>>
>> Part of the problem is that the owner of the building has a right of
>> access over the OP's land. Planting bushes in front of the doors would
>> clearly obstruct that access, which would be open to challenge in the
>> courts. A sign would be OK, but of course you can't guarantee that
>> people will do as it says.
>
> Or that when the OP's back is turned, the building's owner won't just
> remove the sign. Strictly theft, but I can't see the police being very
> interested.
--
Roger Hayter
newshound
Jul 1, 2021, 4:10:06 PM7/1/21
to
understand and explain things so unambiguously.
Ben Beardmore
Jul 1, 2021, 4:15:45 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 17:47:49 UTC+1, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
> Some things aren't allowed without PP e.g. felling trees, which elsewhere is allowed unless there is a Tree Protection Order.
>
Hi Roland,
> Some things aren't allowed without PP e.g. felling trees, which elsewhere is allowed unless there is a Tree Protection Order.
>
Funny you should mention that as I have just received photos today indicating that this guy has recently cut down a tree on my land.
See the before and after photos at www.trapbatrn.com/tree
Hoe do you suggest I proceed from here and how much should I claim for tress pass and damage?
GB
Jul 1, 2021, 4:15:54 PM7/1/21
to
On 01/07/2021 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
> If
> disagreements can't be sorted out amicably between the parties
> concerned, then there's no magic bullet answer that can be found by
> discussing the matter with random strangers on the Internet.
>
So true that it bears repeating. :)
> If
> disagreements can't be sorted out amicably between the parties
> concerned, then there's no magic bullet answer that can be found by
> discussing the matter with random strangers on the Internet.
>
If I were the OP, I would wait for the planning decision. If it gets
turned down, because the applicant needs more amenity land, then I'd be
happy to discuss matters. At the same time as any land sale, I'd want to
get rid of the access issue and tie it all up neatly.
If the planning is granted, then the applicant no longer needs the
access, and it ought to be possible to agree a small transfer of land
for a patio in return for getting rid of the access issue. The grant of
planning permission might improve the value of Ben's land.
Either way, it's a win-win all round, if everyone is reasonable.
Ben Beardmore
Jul 1, 2021, 4:16:14 PM7/1/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 18:12:02 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>
> Mark
@ Mark
> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>
> Mark
I continue to be amazed at your sleuthing ability and it is greatly appreciated.
I should have had an alert about the doco from the "Trees and Asset Officer" but didnt. I opened the .msg file but what I saw was only the officer's email address. Couldn't see any text. Could you possible send it to my email... which is ben@.............. ( just add the domain name of my aforementioned web site.
This thread has obviously stirred your interest and I find it fascinating also because it was originally a 300 year lease issued by an estate that was acquired by the crown and awarded to someone who was prominent in a battle won by Cromwell's side back in the early 1700's. Some of the estate was acquired by a prominent local businessman and benefactor when the industrial revolution was gathering pace.
The building in question is in a conservation area and has changed hands several times and I guess this was because aspiring developers could turn a profit by making it residential. My research shows it was acquired by a certain Colin G in 2003 who paid £16,500 for the remainder of the lease. The next one may well have bought it subject to getting PP. The current owner bought it in 2019 and has taken a punt at £35,000. But then on top he has had the costs of a total refurbishment. Plus he has a further risk because the roof is close to collapse and the rear wall has a 3" crack running up from the doorway. Plus one lean-to has collapsed. Then again the rear extension will hide the crack! But the conservation criteria may mean he has to do the extension in stone rather than brick/blocks?
Mark Goodge
Jul 1, 2021, 4:49:24 PM7/1/21
to
On Thu, 1 Jul 2021 11:17:32 -0700 (PDT), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 18:12:02 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
>> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
>> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
>> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>>
>> Mark
>
>@ Mark
>I continue to be amazed at your sleuthing ability and it is
>greatly appreciated.
>
>I should have had an alert about the doco from the "Trees and Asset
>Officer" but didnt. I opened the .msg file but what I saw was only the
>officer's email address. Couldn't see any text. Could you possible send
>it to my email... which is ben@.............. ( just add the domain
>name of my aforementioned web site.
OK, done. It will come from my Gmail account, as I needed to open the
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 18:12:02 UTC+1, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>
>> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
>> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
>> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>>
>> Mark
>
>@ Mark
>I continue to be amazed at your sleuthing ability and it is
>greatly appreciated.
>
>I should have had an alert about the doco from the "Trees and Asset
>Officer" but didnt. I opened the .msg file but what I saw was only the
>officer's email address. Couldn't see any text. Could you possible send
>it to my email... which is ben@.............. ( just add the domain
>name of my aforementioned web site.
message in Outlook in order to forward it.
Mark
Roland Perry
Jul 2, 2021, 2:09:05 AM7/2/21
to
In message <1ntrdg9re1u2ngnv6...@4ax.com>, at 18:11:59 on
Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
Are there often bats to be found in airBNB properties, or is this a ruse
to send someone who will come back saying "you do know this isn't a barn
any more...?"
--
Roland Perry
Thu, 1 Jul 2021, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
to send someone who will come back saying "you do know this isn't a barn
any more...?"
--
Roland Perry
Ben Beardmore
Jul 2, 2021, 2:15:51 AM7/2/21
to
On Thursday, 1 July 2021 at 20:40:17 UTC+1, Roger Hayter wrote:
>
> There does seem to be an obvious case for CCTV surveillance.
>
> --
> Roger Hayter
@ Roger,
>
> There does seem to be an obvious case for CCTV surveillance.
>
> --
> Roger Hayter
Have thought about that but the problem is power supply and internet connection. My land with the sheds on it has no power so I investigated getting an low consumption electrical power supply. I am pretty competent on CCTV networks using PIR activation and with emote access to a PVR storage.
I looked at getting a low consumption mains connection and at a solar array but the cost of that plus the pole and camera and internet was prohibitive. What I really need is a keen pensioner who will visit regularly and who can take the odd photo and be my local eyes and ears on the ground.
Question is where do I find one of these from a long way off?
GB
Jul 2, 2021, 2:16:18 AM7/2/21
to
On 01/07/2021 18:11, Mark Goodge wrote:
> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>
> Mark
>
Surely, any bats will have fled when the work was done?
> I am now 100% certain, because the actual email address of the case
> officer now appears in a document added to the application today (from
> the "Trees and Asset Officer", who is requesting a bat survey).
>
> Mark
>
Norman Wells
Jul 2, 2021, 2:16:31 AM7/2/21
to
do you have that it was him?
Roland Perry
Jul 2, 2021, 2:19:09 AM7/2/21
to
In message <sbkvmn$nqi$1...@dont-email.me>, at 18:57:44 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021,
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
land, and nowhere else other than the OP's land to park a car?
>and it ought to be possible to agree a small transfer of land for a
>patio in return for getting rid of the access issue. The grant of
>planning permission might improve the value of Ben's land.
>
>Either way, it's a win-win all round, if everyone is reasonable.
>
--
Roland Perry
GB <NOTso...@microsoft.com> remarked:
>On 01/07/2021 17:08, Mark Goodge wrote:
>> If
>> disagreements can't be sorted out amicably between the parties
>> concerned, then there's no magic bullet answer that can be found by
>> discussing the matter with random strangers on the Internet.
>>
>
>So true that it bears repeating. :)
>
>If I were the OP, I would wait for the planning decision. If it gets
>turned down, because the applicant needs more amenity land, then I'd be
>happy to discuss matters. At the same time as any land sale, I'd want
>to get rid of the access issue and tie it all up neatly.
>
>If the planning is granted, then the applicant no longer needs the
>access,
Why is that, if the house still has its back door opening onto the OP's
>> If
>> disagreements can't be sorted out amicably between the parties
>> concerned, then there's no magic bullet answer that can be found by
>> discussing the matter with random strangers on the Internet.
>>
>
>So true that it bears repeating. :)
>
>If I were the OP, I would wait for the planning decision. If it gets
>turned down, because the applicant needs more amenity land, then I'd be
>happy to discuss matters. At the same time as any land sale, I'd want
>to get rid of the access issue and tie it all up neatly.
>
>If the planning is granted, then the applicant no longer needs the
>access,
land, and nowhere else other than the OP's land to park a car?
>and it ought to be possible to agree a small transfer of land for a
>patio in return for getting rid of the access issue. The grant of
>planning permission might improve the value of Ben's land.
>
>Either way, it's a win-win all round, if everyone is reasonable.
>
Roland Perry
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages