Building with no cutilage

[Ben Beardmore]

I have a piece of land with a stone wall boundary. It measures approx 30m x 30m. There is a stone storage building located in one corner of the land. It is on a separate title and has a right of way across my land. This building has no curtilage whatsoever. It is owned by a lady who 4 years ago converted, without planning permission, into a single bedroom AirBNB property. These "guests" are using my land for recreational purposes and they always leave a mess. They do not have my permission.

Part of her marketing blurb was the extoll the virtues of the open land outside which is my land.
Taking into account the fact that her building has no curtilage, would I be within my rights to :-
1. Erect a fence/wall very close to the wall of her building on the two sides which face my land. I would of couse provide a gate to allow access to the door of her building?
2. Could I padlock the gate but allow access through yhe gate on request?
3. One alternative that I am considering is making an access gateway immediately adjacent to her building and creating a narrow fenced in strip from that gateway to her door.

A schematic layout can be seen here https://snipboard.io/Dza0Z1.jpg

[JNugent]

You indicate the locations of two doors into that small property, one of
which fronts the street (highway).

Why would she need access across your land if she has a door that
provides access from the street?

In what form does the "right of way" exist?

Is it a covenant?

Rights of way are not the same as rights of access to the land as a whole.

And of course... have you complained to the local authority of the
non-permitted use of the building?

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 08:49:02 -0800 (PST), Ben Beardmore
<letsh...@gmail.com> wrote:

>1. Erect a fence/wall very close to the wall of her building on the
>two sides which face my land. I would of couse provide a gate to
>allow access to the door of her building?

You could certainly do that, yes.

>2. Could I padlock the gate but allow access through yhe gate on request?

That would probaly be too restrictive. If the building has a right of access
across your land, then it needs to be capable of being exercised without
requiring any action on your part.

>3. One alternative that I am considering is making an access gateway
>immediately adjacent to her building and creating a narrow fenced in
>strip from that gateway to her door.

You could do that, too.

You could also report it as a breach of planning.

Mark

[Colin Bignell]

I was under the impression that converting from B8 (storage) to C3
(dwelling house) is now a permitted development.

--
Colin Bignell

[GB]

Dredging my memory from the last time Ben raised this issue, I think the
whole area is a conservation area. See here:

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/your-home/owning-historic-property/conservation-area/



This whole issue is bothering Ben quite a lot, and I wonder if there is
some direct action he can take that would inhibit the uses he complains
of? Bear in mind that he doesn't live nearby.

For example, he could plant the whole area with something dense and
thorny. If he did that, would he have to keep the area clear over which
there's a right of way? Or, if the plants naturally spread to cover the
whole ground is that simply acceptable? I imagine that, in that case,
the user of the ROW might have a right to clear a path, but that puts
the onus on them to do something.

[Simon Parker]

The facts presented in your post rang a bell, even more so when I looked
at the image.

I note they accord with those discussed in the thread "Encroachment
shown on Planning Application" from 28th June 2021, started with
Message-ID: <e845bace-a08b-4922...@googlegroups.com>
also posted by you.

I am not aware of any material changes in the underlying legislation nor
of relevant clarifications in case law that will change any of the
answers given in that thread.

That said, here are my initial thoughts on the matter.

Rather than considering erecting fences, wall, gates, etc. which may
involve significant cost and which may be vandalised / removed /
interfered with without your consent or knowledge [1], why not first
consider alternative solutions that may be without charge, or at a much
lower charge than such building work?

In the first instance, have you contacted the local authority regarding
the unauthorised use to which the former stable is being put? What was
their response when you pointed this out to them?

Your previous thread mentioned a planning application. What was the
result of that planning application?

Additionally, have you considered contacting AirBNB? They have a
specific contact point for neighbours that are being inconvenienced by
the activity of an AirBNB host and / or their guests. This article goes
into more detail: https://www.airbnb.co.uk/help/article/3290

As another thought, rather than erecting a fence, you could in the first
instance erect a post outside the door that adjoins your land and affix
a notice to it explaining that there is a right of way across the land
but that the land may not be used for recreational purposes and that no
furniture or other items may be placed on it.

Similarly, you should have no difficulty finding the property on AirBNB
so you can easily check the booking calendar on the listing to see when
it is occupied. You can then arrange for someone that lives locally to
visit the property with a pre-printed sheet of paper advising them of
the same restrictions on the land as affixed to the notice mentioned
above. It could be stuck in an envelope marked "For the attention of
the AirBNB guests" if handing it to them directly is considered too
confrontational.

Finally, regarding the mess that the AirBNB guests are leaving behind,
you could consider advising the owner of the property of this and that
should the trespass and littering continue, you will have the littering
professionally cleared and pass the cost of this to her as you are
legally entitled to do. And if she doesn't pay the invoices, sue her
using Money Claim Online. Then use the littering and clear-up cost
thereof as the basis for complaints to the council about anti-social
behaviour at the property and the effect it is having on your land.

Hopefully there's some food for thought there?

Regards

S.P.

[1] My recollection is that you are not local to the land and it is not
practical to install CCTV. [2]

[2] That said, an acquaintance at work was having issues with stalking
and installed a trail camera (rechargeable batteries, solar powered,
night vision, motion activated) which cost less than £100 high up in a
tree on their drive to secure the evidence they needed to get the police
interested. [3] (It looked like a bird box from the ground.)

[3] Which victims of stalking will tell you is far harder than it ought
to be.

[notya...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 18:13:02 UTC, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> I have a piece of land with a stone wall boundary. It measures approx 30m x 30m. There is a stone storage building located in one corner of the land. It is on a separate title and has a right of way across my land.

A public right of way and / or an easement [just for her] possibly giving other rights e.g. service access, vehicles etc.?

> This building has no curtilage whatsoever. It is owned by a lady who 4 years ago converted, without planning permission, into a single bedroom AirBNB property.

If the building was residential no PP is required to let it out long or short term. If it had some other use then PP would be required and to obtain a "certificate of lawful use" the owner would need to demonstrate that the use had continued for ten years or more. Depending on location it may need PP for regular short lets as a holiday home. Check with your council.

> These "guests" are using my land for recreational purposes and they always leave a mess. They do not have my permission.

In England they are trespassers, in Scotland they can do this.

>
> Part of her marketing blurb was the extoll the virtues of the open land outside which is my land.
> Taking into account the fact that her building has no curtilage, would I be within my rights to :-
> 1. Erect a fence/wall very close to the wall of her building on the two sides which face my land. I would of couse provide a gate to allow access to the door of her building?

Yes in England, probably in Scotland.

> 2. Could I padlock the gate but allow access through yhe gate on request?

Unlikely.

> 3. One alternative that I am considering is making an access gateway immediately adjacent to her building and creating a narrow fenced in strip from that gateway to her door.

Less likely to lead to legal problems.

>
> A schematic layout can be seen here https://snipboard.io/Dza0Z1.jpg

Of course she may offer to pay rent for your land to use as a garden, park cars, pitch tents etc. Make sure she is liable for any rates arising from this.

[Alan Lee]

On 17/01/2024 10:36, notya...@gmail.com wrote:
>> These "guests" are using my land for recreational purposes and they always leave a mess. They do not have my permission.
> In England they are trespassers, in Scotland they can do this.

They cannot do that in Scotland.There is the "Land Reform (Scotland) Act
2003, that in Scotland everyone has the right to be on land for
recreational purposes and to cross land for such purposes."

You can go across private land, but, in this case, it isnt open land, so
there is no access, due to privacy / security etc. There are lots of
clauses about the right to roam, otherwise anyone could walk into your
garden and have a picnic.
Guidance says this:
"The “right to roam” must be exercised reasonably and helpfully, very
good guidance is provided in the expertly drafted Scottish Outdoor
Access Code. This Code highlights that the right needs to be exercised
responsibly. The law also sets boundaries on the extent of the right so
that the benefits of private ownership are still respected. Thus, for
example, the “right to roam” will not extend to include land that is
adjacent to dwelling houses, farm buildings, compounds, schools, and the
like."

There are specific points in the legislation about rubbish etc, if
someone is littering the Land, they are no longer adhering to the
Legislation (leave no waste), so are then trespassing.


--
Remove the '+' and replace with 'plus' to reply by email

[Ben Beardmore]

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 23:39:36 UTC, Colin Bignell wrote:


> I was under the impression that converting from B8 (storage) to C3
> (dwelling house) is now a permitted development.
>
> --
> Colin Bignell

That may the case but the main reason it got refused was lack of amenty space, which seemongly is a rquirement for a dwelling.

[Ben Beardmore]

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 09:03:03 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
@Simon,

You have a good memory! See above for details ofevents since my posts 3 years ago.

Whilst I am 200 miles away from the site, my co-leaseholder lives immediately adjacent and can see what happens onsite 24/7. They are a young couple and they have chickens and geese onsite.

I eventually arranged for AirBNB to pull the listing but this was only after I got a local Councillor to email them with a copy of the Enforcement order. AirBNB woud not do anything in response to my repeated emails.
As for the littering, the Council have said that they cannot get involved because the littering is happening onprivate land.

[Ben Beardmore]

On Tuesday 16 January 2024 at 22:53:12 UTC, JNugent wrote:

> You indicate the locations of two doors into that small property, one of
> which fronts the street (highway).
>
> Why would she need access across your land if she has a door that
> provides access from the street?
>
> In what form does the "right of way" exist?
>
> Is it a covenant?
>
> Rights of way are not the same as rights of access to the land as a whole.
>
> And of course... have you complained to the local authority of the
> non-permitted use of the building?

The exact wording on her title document is:-
___________________________
"The land has the benefit of of the following right granted by the Assignment dated 28 Sept 1976 referred to above:-
"Together with the right of waynsd passage over the land shown on the said plan fronting AAA Street for all purposes in connection with the use of such building and as reserved unto Christina Brockleghurst by an assignment dated 3rd of October 1960 and made betweenChristina Brocklehurst and Ann Jackson and Nicholas Hislop of the other part"
Unless otherwise mentioned the title includes any legal easements granted by the registered lease( s) but is subject to anyrights that it reserves, so far as those easements and rights exist and benefit or affect the registered land.
____________________________________________________-
To clarify....
Brocklehurst did the original assignment to the previous owners of my land ie Jackson and Hislop.

The "lady" who bought the building in 2019 and immediately knocked out a doorway directly out to the pavement on the East side with total disregard to it being a conservation area. The then did internal work to make it an AirBNB and let it out as such.
Many neighbours complanined and Plnning asked her to submit an application. She submitted on for conversion of an "Office" into a "dwelling" . Planning declared it invalid. But she still kept onwith the AirBNB
Six months later she submitted an applicayion for conversion of "Storage Building" to a "Holiday Let" Sui Generis.
Planning again refused permission. But she still continued with the AirBNB.
She was served with an enforcement order to stop letting and undo the internal works she had done.
She then lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.
The Inspectorate upheld the Enforcement order.
She now is barred from making any new application for two years.
She is nothing if not determined and so she will be back so I want to get ahead of her and fence her in.

My understanding is that such an easement just can't be eliminated without her permission -which will never happen! Hence my thinking of creating an opoening in my perimeter wall immediately adjacent to her building and then making a short and narrow fenced in passage way to the door on the South wall.

[Ben Beardmore]

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 08:55:57 UTC, GB wrote:


>
> This whole issue is bothering Ben quite a lot, and I wonder if there is
> some direct action he can take that would inhibit the uses he complains
> of? Bear in mind that he doesn't live nearby.
>
> For example, he could plant the whole area with something dense and
> thorny. If he did that, would he have to keep the area clear over which
> there's a right of way? Or, if the plants naturally spread to cover the
> whole ground is that simply acceptable? I imagine that, in that case,
> the user of the ROW might have a right to clear a path, but that puts
> the onus on them to do something.

Yes, it sure does bother me as this woman has no regard for Planning rules and other peoples property. She is devious and cunning.
Thanks for the thorney plant idea but I need to keep the land there open as there are three garages cum storage units there. Plus my co-leaseholder keeps chickens and geese there.

[Mark Goodge]

Not necessarily. It may be, but it may not. It would be worth querying with
the planning department, at least.

Mark

[JNugent]

Hmmm... I have an idea that "...all purposes in connection with the use
of such building..." could well be interpreted as meaning more than a
simple "right of way" to a particular spot.

Had the drafters and signatories of that document meant it only to apply
to easement of a right of way to what was then the only door into the
building, they could have done so with a saving in ink.

[Pamela]

The last point is not entirely correct. The Council does have power to
force untidy private land be cleared up, although it may not wish to do
so. Of course the Council's assessment of what constitutes untidiness
may not be the same as your own.

For what it's worth, I recently quoted in this group, section 215 of the
Town and Country Planning Act:

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

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

[Owain Lastname]

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 11:54:31 UTC, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> Plus my co-leaseholder keeps chickens and geese there.

In that case I would suggest adding a few cockerels.

That should wake up the BnBers nice and early and lead to lots of negative reviews.

That and some angle grinding in the garages etc. Nothing that changes the use on your part or would interfere with the other party's use of a storage unit.

Owain

[Jon Ribbens]

I don't see how that helps - it is the OP who is the owner of the land,
and he wants action taken against the people doing the littering, not
against himself!

But I don't see why the council is claming they *cannot* get involved,
when they certainly can investigate fly-tipping when it is reported
to them by the land-owner - they can refuse to get involved, but if so
that is their choice, not because they can't.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/fly-tipping-council-responsibilities#investigation-penalties-and-prosecution

[Colin Bignell]

I hadn't realised this was a continuing problem, nor that a planning
application had been refused.


--
Colin Bignell

[Colin Bignell]

Can't they train them as attack geese? The farmyard geese I have
encountered in the past seem to have had that training.


--
Colin Bignell

[notya...@gmail.com]

Right to roam codified the position in Scotland that there is no law of trespass.

[David McNeish]

Nonsense, what do you think it's called when you stray outside your right to roam?

[Jon Ribbens]

> Right to roam codified the position in Scotland that there is no law
> of trespass.

No it didn't.

[Mark Goodge]

On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:57:34 -0800 (PST), "notya...@gmail.com"
<notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Right to roam codified the position in Scotland that there is no law of trespass.

The Trespass (Scotland) Act 1865 might disagree with you.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/28-29/56

There's a useful discussion of it here:

https://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/outdoors/trespassing-laws-is-it-illegal-to-trespass-in-scotland-and-what-are-the-freedom-to-roam-rules-3055424

Mark

[GB]

On 17/01/2024 09:51, Ben Beardmore wrote:

I would look for a solution that doesn't cost too much, and which is not
easily vandalised.

I take it that you could increase the fertility of the ground by
spreading manure on the bit near the offending building? You might need
to do that every couple of weeks for a year or two to make the soil
properly fertile?

Plus, regularly rotavating that area would create a no-go zone.



If planning permission has been refused for the change of use, why has
the planning enforcement team done nothing, and how could you gee them up?

[Jeff]

> Yes, it sure does bother me as this woman has no regard for Planning rules and other peoples property. She is devious and cunning.
> Thanks for the thorney plant idea but I need to keep the land there open as there are three garages cum storage units there. Plus my co-leaseholder keeps chickens and geese there.
>

Can you clarify "my co-leaseholder"; do you not hold the freehold of the
land in question?

Regards
Jeff

[Ben Beardmore]

On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 10:36:31 UTC, notya...@gmail.com wrote:

> > A schematic layout can be seen here https://snipboard.io/Dza0Z1.jpg

To bring you all up to date on this saga, here are the main events:-

1. She bought the old building in 2019 and did internal works without Planning permission. Six months later she put it on AirBNB. It was a storage building. Never was a dwelling.
2. She knocked out a new doorway on the East side to give direct access to the street – even though this is a conservation area.
3. Neighbours alerted planning who asked for a Prior Approval application. She responded with a submission "Prior approval application for change of use from office to dwelling". Her site plan showed a land-grab of half my open land.
4. Planning refused it but she kept the AirBNB going.
5. In 2021she then applied for Change of use from a storage building (class b8) to holiday let accommodation (sui-generis)” .The site plan again was false.
6. Planning refused it but she kept the AirBNB running.
7. Neighbours pressed Planning and they eventually issued an enforcement order for thr work done to be reversed.
8. She then lodged an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate.
9. The Inspectorate upheld the enforcement order
10. AirBNB only acted after we go a local Councillor to email them with the copy of the Enforcement
11. Air BNB stopped and now she is barred for 2 years from submitting a new application.

This lady is nothing if not determined so she will be back. She has total disregard for legalities and rules. On top of that she is pretty cunning. So she will be back with a new plan hence I want to take contingent action.

As to the easement , here is the text from her title document…………

The land has the following right:-
“Together with the right of way and passage over the land shown on the said plan in connection with the use of such building and as reserved unto Eva Brocklehurst”……….

(( Brocklehurst was the owner two stages prior to me))

In response to some of your posts, I would add the following:

A). I don’t want to plant thorny buses on my land, I need to keep it open to give vehicle access to my garages that are located on the site.

b) Whilst I am 200 miles away, my co-owner lives only 5 metres away from the site, so no there’s no need for a remote camera access for me. She runs chickens and geese on the land

C) Long term we plan to develop the site now that planning rules are being relaxed for housing, so we are quite prepared to erect a secure fence close to her building with a short passage way to her door on the South side to a new gateway on the East wall. By so doing, it will eliminate any risk of adverse possession.

[Simon Parker]

Warning! Lengthy post ahead! :-)

First and foremost, I recommend viewing each battle separately in your
mind. You seem to have won several battles, congratulations. Yes, you
haven't yet won the war but try not to get battle fatigued. (Easier
said than done, I know.)

Be glad about the victories in which you have prevailed and remind
yourself often that:

o Planning permission was refused.
o An Enforcement Notice has been served.
o The property is no longer on AirBNB.

That's progress.

May I ask, is the property still being used as a holiday let / as
accommodation or is it now empty and you are merely preparing for the
next round of battles?

Also, what is the progress with complying with the Enforcement Notice?
When was it served? Has the period to appeal expired? Have they lodged
an appeal? If so, have you submitted your comments on the appeal? What
is the outcome of the appeal? When does/did the period for challenging
the decision in the High Court expire? What are the LA doing about
ensuring the Enforcement Notice is complied with?

The answers to all of these questions are available without charge (and
therefore cheaper than anything else you can do right now) and may guide
you as to what your best next step is.

Speaking generally, the fact your co-leaseholder overlooks the site is
excellent news. Have you / they considered installing a CCTV system
monitoring the site so you can gather evidence? [1] I would suggest
that would be an excellent move at this stage as evidence could be key
going forward.

As for the littering, I feel I should clarify and will take this
opportunity to elaborate on what I said in my previous post.

If I understand correctly, (and apologies in advance if I have
misunderstood), you now seem to be in a lull between battles?

If that is the case, (and even if it isn't!), it affords you an
excellent opportunity to fortify your defences and prepare for the next
round of battles.

I recommend spending this time ensuring that the owner of the building
understands that you are aware of your legal rights and are fully
prepared to enforce them.

In your shoes, my first next step would be to bring myself up to speed
with the enforcement process so you know precisely where you are. (See
questions above.)

Next, I would spend a modest sum of money installing CCTV as suggested
above. Ensure the CCTV coverage has a full view of all of the land and
all cameras are positioned within the range of the "night vision".
(e.g. if the infra-red LEDs have a range of 50metres, your
co-leaseholder has a garden that is 30m long and the land is 30m across,
then you're 10 metres short if you affix cameras to their house, so
either get longer range infra-red LED, a separate LED gun or (cheapest
option!) move the cameras closer.). Personally, I'd consider installing
a minimum of three cameras, probably at the centre of the north, east
and south walls, but it depends on where the co-leaseholder lives and if
it is possible to get cables directly to the land without significant
effort. If hardwiring isn't possible, providing their property is
within 30m of the land, consider installing an external Wi-Fi repeater
on the outside of their house closest to the land and then install
wireless cameras. Note that the "wireless" in the camera name only
refers to the signal. They still need power so if there's no power on
site you're into solar cells, leisure battery and inverter territory
which is suddenly getting much more expensive so you'll need to take a
decision based on the cost versus perceived benefit. I still think it
is worth it for evidence gathering purposes down the line.

Tangentially, don't forget to set the masks on the recording device so
that you're not recording what is going on inside other people's
properties, (i.e. mask recording of any windows of neighbouring
properties the cameras overlook). Similarly, mark "movement" areas so
the recording can be tagged allowing you quickly to find the footage
where things are happening should the need arise without needing to
trawl through hours of footage.

Also, be sure to install "CCTV in operation" signs advising those
passing over the land that "Images are being recorded for the purpose of
crime prevention and public safety. Please contact <new gmail address
created for the purpose of the sign - but which you actively need to
monitor> for further information about the scheme." You can buy these
signs for under a tenner on-line. I suggest you'll need two signs. One
affixed to "your gateway" and a second on a post outside the door on her
building which adjoins your land so that those using the door see the sign.

Finally (for the CCTV), configure the recorder to overwrite every 28
days (or more frequently) but do not retain general recordings for
longer than this. Archive any recordings you may later need
evidentially to a separate device before they are overwritten.

With the CCTV installed (hopefully!), I'd next send the owner of the
property a letter. It ought to carry more weight and she ought to take
it more seriously if the letter were sent by a solicitor so consider
paying a modest sum to ask a solicitor to draft the letter for you.

I would suggest that the letter needs to remind her that the property
cannot be used for accommodation purposes and that if she attempts to
use it in this manner, you will notify the planning department at the
local authority immediately that she is in breach of the Enforcement
Notice with which she has been served.

Additionally, (subject to confirmation by somebody that has read the
full document relating to the right of way), I would suggest the letter
should remind her that she only has a right of way across your land.
Therefore she can pass and repass and avail of other ancillary rights
reasonably necessary to allow enjoyment of the right of way, (such as
the temporary loading or unloading of a vehicle), but that use of the
right of way does not include using it as an amenity area for her property.

As a side note on easements, I recommend that you research McAdams Homes
v Robinson [2004] EWCA Civ 214. [3]

The case concerned a bakery which enjoyed an easement over land for its
drainage. The bakery was to be converted into two homes and the
question was whether the change of use caused the easement to be
suspended or lost.

In the judgment, Neuberger LJ posed two questions: (1) whether
development on dominant land represents a radical change in character or
change in identity of dominant land?; and (2) whether use of dominant
land as redeveloped would result in substantial increase or alteration
of burden on servient land? If the answer to both questions is yes then
the right to enjoy the easement is suspended or lost.

It is *possible* (but by no means certain!) that by developing the
property the right to enjoy the easement could be suspended or lost.
Getting a legal determination on this would be expensive, but, as above,
it is something I recommend you research so you are aware of your
ultimate "nuclear" option, should you ever need it in the future.

Back to the letter:

It has reminded her that the property cannot be used as accommodation
and it has reminded her of the limited scope of her easement over your land.

Finally, I would suggest if informs her that on several occasions,
guests at the property have trespassed onto your land and then left
litter behind on your land and that should she or her guests litter your
land in the future, you will have the litter professionally removed and
pass the cost of this onto her as you are legally entitled to do.

With the letter sent, I would then add two weapons to your arsenal for
potential future confrontations. (Although one weapon has two prongs,
so you may consider that a third weapon if you so wish?)

The first is a written notice advising users of the property that they
only have a right of way across the land and that your land may not be
used for amenity purposes and that anyone so doing is trespassing. As
such, you are asking the trespassers to leave your land immediately and
remove anything and everything that is also trespassing on your land,
(e.g. tables, chairs, wine glasses, etc.)

Then, should you or your co-leaseholders see anyone using your land
recreationally, simply go to them and hand them a copy of the notice
you've prepared in advance. No need to be confrontational. No need to
argue with them. No need to even get into a discussion with them about
it. Simply hand them a copy of the notice, invite them to read it and
then wait whilst they follow it.

The second (and third?) weapon is in dealing with litter. Anytime she
or her "guests" leave litter on your land, the temptation is for your
co-leaseholders to clear it up. However, I suggest resisting that
temptation and instead paying someone to do it for you, (it doesn't need
to be a big company - a local self-employed cleaner happy for the extra
work will do). If rates there are similar to here, and it takes around
an hour to do the clear-up, it will cost you something like £20. Ask
the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder rather than
disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with Waste Transport legislation.

Once you / your co-leaseholder are in receipt of their invoice for the
work, I recommend you then forward the invoice and a covering letter to
the owner of the building insisting that they pay it. (Something like
"On date <d> at or around <time> we witnessed (and have a recording of
(if CCTV installed)) guests at the property trespassing onto our land
whereupon they left litter thereby causing a nuisance. The enclosed
invoice is the reasonable costs we have incurred in clearing the litter
thereby removing the nuisance for which you are liable and we insist you
pay these costs within 30 days. Be advised that if you do not pay the
invoice within the next 30 days, we will add collection costs and
interest to the amount owed and may begin legal action for recovery of
said amounts.")

If they refuse to pay / don't pay, on day 31 send a second letter and
another invoice. (I am assuming that you / your co-leaseholders operate
the land on a commercial basis as you mention garages which are rented
out. If that is not the case, please advise as this could substantially
change the next bit.)

The second letter should state per the Late Payment of Commercial Debts
(Interest) Act 1998, you are adding an additional charge of £40 to the
debt along with statutory interest until it is paid. Enclose a second
invoice detailing these amounts.

The second letter should also include wording similar to the following:
"If the full amount outstanding, as set out in this letter, is not paid
within 30 days of the date of this letter be advised that we will begin
legal action, without further warning, for a court order requiring
payment. The cost of the legal proceedings and any other amounts which
the court orders must also be paid, in addition to the debt.

"This letter is being sent to you in accordance with the Practice
Direction on Pre-Action Conduct (the PDPAC) contained in the Civil
Procedure Rules (CPR) which stipulate that you should acknowledge
receipt of this letter within 14 days. Please be advised that the court
has the power to sanction your continued failure to respond."

31 days later, issue a claim using Money Claim Online for the debt,
remembering to add your fixed commencement costs of £50 to the amount
claimed.

Your £20 invoice for clearing the land is now a claim for £110 plus
statutory interest (£20 (cleaning) + £40 (late payment) + £50 (fixed
commencement)). In short, guests littering your land is going to get
very expensive for her.

The second prong of dealing with the littering is to involve the local
authority. When I suggested this previously, you took that as meaning
involve them in clearing the land and I apologise for not having made
things clearer.

You want to contact the Anti-Social Behaviour team at the local council
as littering is classed as anti-social behaviour. You should be in a
position to show them the CCTV of the people littering on your land and
a copy of the invoice of the costs you've incurred in clearing up the
litter. Insist that they deal with it as anti-social behaviour and the
council should serve relevant notices on the owner.

A final point, which is very important:

I wouldn't install the gate and fence as you're proposing as I consider
it be a legal minefield and, as a general rule of thumb, I try to avoid
those at all costs - particularly when there are cheaper, more legally
robust options which don't involve negotiating minefields. :-)

Regards

S.P.

[1] Doesn't need to be expensive. Annke (made by Hikvision) do full HD
kits including a 1Tb HDD for around the £125 mark. [2]

[2]
https://uk.annke.com/products/el200-4ch-4-cam-system?variant=43890166989012

[3] https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2004/214.html [4]

[4] I always recommend reading the judgment in full, but in this case,
the Law Gazette have an helpful article summarising the case. [5]

[5] https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/easement-change-of-use/41541.article

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-18, GB wrote:

> On 17/01/2024 09:51, Ben Beardmore wrote:

>> Yes, it sure does bother me as this woman has no regard for Planning rules and other peoples property. She is devious and cunning.
>> Thanks for the thorney plant idea but I need to keep the land there open as there are three garages cum storage units there. Plus my co-leaseholder keeps chickens and geese there.
>>
>
>
>
> I would look for a solution that doesn't cost too much, and which is not
> easily vandalised.
>
> I take it that you could increase the fertility of the ground by
> spreading manure on the bit near the offending building? You might need
> to do that every couple of weeks for a year or two to make the soil
> properly fertile?

Aren't the geese already doing that?

[JNugent]

A couple of pigs would do that better. Of course, that'd need a kissing
gate at the entrance to the land.

[GB]

You kiss pigs?!

[Fredxx]

On 18/01/2024 12:32, Simon Parker wrote:

<snip>

> Finally (for the CCTV), configure the recorder to overwrite every 28
> days (or more frequently) but do not retain general recordings for
> longer than this.  Archive any recordings you may later need
> evidentially to a separate device before they are overwritten.

Why the 28 day limit? If you get a SAR then that is the time to wipe any
recording longer than 28 days.

> Additionally, (subject to confirmation by somebody that has read the
> full document relating to the right of way), I would suggest the letter
> should remind her that she only has a right of way across your land.
> Therefore she can pass and repass and avail of other ancillary rights
> reasonably necessary to allow enjoyment of the right of way, (such as
> the temporary loading or unloading of a vehicle), but that use of the
> right of way does not include using it as an amenity area for her property.

Access has historically not included vehicles, and I thought there was
some relatively recent legislation on the matter?

<snip>

> The second (and third?) weapon is in dealing with litter.  Anytime she
> or her "guests" leave litter on your land, the temptation is for your
> co-leaseholders to clear it up.  However, I suggest resisting that
> temptation and instead paying someone to do it for you, (it doesn't need
> to be a big company - a local self-employed cleaner happy for the extra
> work will do).  If rates there are similar to here, and it takes around
> an hour to do the clear-up, it will cost you something like £20.  Ask
> the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder rather than
> disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with Waste Transport
> legislation.

I'm intrigued why should the co-leaseholder is responsible for litter,
especially if in the rental contract it is specified that anything left
on this land will attract a cost.

<snip>

> You want to contact the Anti-Social Behaviour team at the local council
> as littering is classed as anti-social behaviour.  You should be in a
> position to show them the CCTV of the people littering on your land and
> a copy of the invoice of the costs you've incurred in clearing up the
> litter.  Insist that they deal with it as anti-social behaviour and the
> council should serve relevant notices on the owner.

If the co-leaseholder was a housing association then the council could
act, but not against a private landlord?

[Adam Funk]

You both get muddy but the pig enjoys it? Wait, that's wrestling.

[Owain Lastname]

On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
> Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with
> Waste Transport legislation.

Fly-tipped waste from a non-domestic user - which this appears to be - is not disposable in domestic waste at all, so it will have to be taken to the tip as commercial waste by a licenced transporter, and then paid for at the tip. You can't take it yourself as it's not your waste.

She should also have a non-domestic waste contract arranged or she is in breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the council can issue a Section 47 Notice

If you are found to be disposing of your waste illegally you may be prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a fine of £50,000 and up to 12 months imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and 5 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine at the Crown Court.

I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a storage building as sleeping accommodation too.

Owain

[Roger Hayter]

If the easement for the building provides access "for all purposes" there
would also have to be a field gate of sufficient width for vehicles.

--
Roger Hayter

[Roger Hayter]

On 18 Jan 2024 at 19:38:11 GMT, "Owain Lastname" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com>
wrote:

Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste? If this is
wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise! In practice it
may make a difference if the property is usually actually lived in by the
owner, which I think was the original idea of Airbnb.

--
Roger Hayter

[Simon Parker]

On 18/01/2024 19:38, Owain Lastname wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
>> Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
>> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with
>> Waste Transport legislation.
>
> Fly-tipped waste from a non-domestic user - which this appears to be - is not disposable in domestic waste at all, so it will have to be taken to the tip as commercial waste by a licenced transporter, and then paid for at the tip. You can't take it yourself as it's not your waste.
>
> She should also have a non-domestic waste contract arranged or she is in breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the council can issue a Section 47 Notice
>
> If you are found to be disposing of your waste illegally you may be prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a fine of £50,000 and up to 12 months imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and 5 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine at the Crown Court.

I am eminently aware of the legislation concerning the handling waste,
which is why I made a point of stating that the cleaner should not
remove the waste from site or dispose of it. (See my post elsewhere in
the thread for my "rule" on not deliberately encouraging criminal
behaviour in my posts.)

I avoided going into too much detail as I didn't want to bog the thread
down with side issues.

However, as the matter is now on the table...

I doubt that the owner of the building has a commercial contract in
place for the removal of waste as is required for properties used the
majority of the time as an AirBNB.

However, as the OP and their co-leaseholder have used their land
commercially for some time, I assumed they may have facilities in place
for the disposal of waste generated on the site. They would therefore
be entitled to place the waste collected by the cleaner they've hired to
remove the litter from their land into said commercial waste collection
facilities without breaching waste transportation and disposal legislation.

> I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a storage building as sleeping accommodation too.

The LA have already served an Enforcement Notice. What do you propose
the Fire Service do to trump this?

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

On 18/01/2024 21:01, Roger Hayter wrote:
> On 18 Jan 2024 at 19:38:11 GMT, "Owain Lastname" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
>>> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with
>>> Waste Transport legislation.
>>
>> Fly-tipped waste from a non-domestic user - which this appears to be - is not
>> disposable in domestic waste at all, so it will have to be taken to the tip as
>> commercial waste by a licenced transporter, and then paid for at the tip. You
>> can't take it yourself as it's not your waste.
>>
>> She should also have a non-domestic waste contract arranged or she is in
>> breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the council can issue a
>> Section 47 Notice
>>
>> If you are found to be disposing of your waste illegally you may be
>> prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a fine of £50,000 and up to 12 months
>> imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and 5 years imprisonment and an
>> unlimited fine at the Crown Court.
>>
>> I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a
>> storage building as sleeping accommodation too.
>>
>> Owain
>
> Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?

I give you Section 75 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as
amended) [1]

Subsection 7 makes clear that: "commercial waste" means waste from
premises used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a trade or business.

A property let on AirBNB is a "premises used wholly or mainly for the
purposes of a trade or business" so the waste generated in the course of
that trade or business is commercial waste.

Same for a landlord at the end of a let. The rubbish left behind in the
property by their departing tenants is commercial waste and they cannot
legally load it into their vehicle and take it to the local HWRC.

> If this is wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!

Google "City of York" and "Neil Cook". (Spoiler Alert: He had 3 holiday
rentals and had been warned by the LA that he needed commercial waste
arrangements in place for them. His solicitor Jeremy Scott said: "He
took a couple of bags of rubbish and took them to the household
recycling depot. He thought he was doing the right thing. It was on a
small number of occasions." York magistrates fined Cook £466 and
ordered him to pay a £47 statutory surcharge and £200 prosecution costs.)

> In practice it
> may make a difference if the property is usually actually lived in by the
> owner, which I think was the original idea of Airbnb.

If the owner occupies it most of the time and lets in on AirBNB
occasionally, it is not a "premises used wholly or mainly for the
purposes of a trade or business". Rather it is "household waste".

Bedford Borough Council have a PowerPoint presentation turned into a PDF
if you're interested. [2]

Regards

S.P.

[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/75
[2]
https://bbcdevwebfiles.blob.core.windows.net/webfiles/Files/Environmental_and_Waste_Services.pdf

[Roger Hayter]

On 19 Jan 2024 at 00:07:52 GMT, "Simon Parker" <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thanks. I'm behind the times. I didn't realise Airbnb had become a holiday
letting agency. I thought it was still a sort of multiway exchange holiday
arrangement!

--
Roger Hayter

[Simon Parker]

On 18/01/2024 18:46, Fredxx wrote:
> On 18/01/2024 12:32, Simon Parker wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Finally (for the CCTV), configure the recorder to overwrite every 28
>> days (or more frequently) but do not retain general recordings for
>> longer than this.  Archive any recordings you may later need
>> evidentially to a separate device before they are overwritten.
>
> Why the 28 day limit? If you get a SAR then that is the time to wipe any
> recording longer than 28 days.

One should not delete any of the data subject's personal data between
receiving the access request and responding to it *unless one would have
done so in the normal course of business*.

Deleting data in response to a DSAR is a criminal offence.

However, if during the normal course of business one automatically
overwrites one's CCTV footage, (say every 28 days), and if one is
exceptionally busy when the DSAR comes in and it therefore takes time to
respond, (say 29 or 30 days for example), one would still be within the
time-frame for responding but would be able to state that the recording
requested has been deleted in the normal course of business and is
therefore no longer available.

As a general rule of thumb, I do not encourage the posters to whom I am
responding nor those reading my posts to engage in criminal activity.

For one thing, it could be considered a breach of the moderation policy
(i) which discourages "posts which appear to encourage criminal activity
(example: using violence as a way of solving a dispute)".

>> Additionally, (subject to confirmation by somebody that has read the
>> full document relating to the right of way), I would suggest the
>> letter should remind her that she only has a right of way across your
>> land. Therefore she can pass and repass and avail of other ancillary
>> rights reasonably necessary to allow enjoyment of the right of way,
>> (such as the temporary loading or unloading of a vehicle), but that
>> use of the right of way does not include using it as an amenity area
>> for her property.
>
> Access has historically not included vehicles, and I thought there was
> some relatively recent legislation on the matter?

I haven't seen the full text of the document containing the grant in
question so I am unable to comment definitively on the instant case.

However, if the wording doesn't state that the easement is for
pedestrian or vehicular access, or specify a width of access which might
assist in clarifying the matter, this would be a question of fact the
answer to which would depend upon the interpretation of the grant and/or
the surrounding circumstances.

From memory, the easement grants access "at all times for all purposes"
which I take to include vehicular access. Do you concur?

When I made the statement above about loading and unloading a vehicle, I
did so with Bulstrode v Lambert [1953] 1 WLR 1064 in mind which
confirmed that a right to "pass" (to an auction mart as it happens)
included a right to load and unload as this was necessary for the
enjoyment of the right. I assumed that as the building was previously
used for storage, the easement was granted in expectation that a degree
of loading and unloading of items stored in the building would take
place and was therefore included within the grant.

However, your statement above has forced me to look it up so I'll rely
on Snell & Prideux v Dutton [1995] 1 EGLR 259 instead which confirmed
that a right to "use" may well include a right to unload, particularly
since "use" is the word used in the grant in the instant case, if memory
serves me correctly.

I'm not aware of the recent legislation to which you refer. Do you have
a title or a cite?

> <snip>
>
>> The second (and third?) weapon is in dealing with litter.  Anytime she
>> or her "guests" leave litter on your land, the temptation is for your
>> co-leaseholders to clear it up.  However, I suggest resisting that
>> temptation and instead paying someone to do it for you, (it doesn't
>> need to be a big company - a local self-employed cleaner happy for the
>> extra work will do).  If rates there are similar to here, and it takes
>> around an hour to do the clear-up, it will cost you something like
>> £20.  Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
>> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with Waste
>> Transport legislation.
>
>
> I'm intrigued why should the co-leaseholder is responsible for litter,
> especially if in the rental contract it is specified that anything left
> on this land will attract a cost.

What rental contract?

The guests at the AirBNB have been trespassing on the OP's land, which
he holds with a co-leaseholder, and leaving litter behind. The OP lives
a significant distance away, the co-leaseholder lives a few metres away.

Which of the leaseholders do you believe will have taken responsibility
for removing the litter left behind on their land by the guests of the
AirBNB?

> <snip>
>
>> You want to contact the Anti-Social Behaviour team at the local
>> council as littering is classed as anti-social behaviour.  You should
>> be in a position to show them the CCTV of the people littering on your
>> land and a copy of the invoice of the costs you've incurred in
>> clearing up the litter.  Insist that they deal with it as anti-social
>> behaviour and the council should serve relevant notices on the owner.
>
> If the co-leaseholder was a housing association then the council could
> act, but not against a private landlord?

I have no idea what you're asking, or more importantly, why?

Could you clarify please?

Regards

S.P.

[JNugent]

Hmmm... not so easy to control animals unless there's an attendant on
hand 24/7.

[JNugent]

On 18/01/2024 07:38 pm, Owain Lastname wrote:
> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
>> Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
>> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with
>> Waste Transport legislation.
>
> Fly-tipped waste from a non-domestic user - which this appears to be - is not disposable in domestic waste at all, so it will have to be taken to the tip as commercial waste by a licenced transporter, and then paid for at the tip. You can't take it yourself as it's not your waste.
>
> She should also have a non-domestic waste contract arranged or she is in breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the council can issue a Section 47 Notice
>

> If you are found to be disposing of your waste illegally you may be prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a fine of £50,000 and up to 12 months imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and 5 years imprisonment and an unlimited fine at the Crown Court.

>
> I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a storage building as sleeping accommodation too.
>
> Owain

Gawd... I'd hate to be kept in the Magistrates' Court for up to twelve
months, wouldn't you?

Mind you, it doesn't sound as bad as having to stay in the Crown Court
for up to five years.

[Roland Perry]

In message <l0tht4...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>On 18 Jan 2024 at 19:38:11 GMT, "Owain Lastname" <spuorg...@gowanhill.com>
>wrote:
>
>> On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
>>> Ask the cleaner to pass the litter to you / your co-leaseholder
>>> rather than disposing of it themselves to avoid issues with
>>> Waste Transport legislation.
>>
>> Fly-tipped waste from a non-domestic user - which this appears to be - is not
>> disposable in domestic waste at all, so it will have to be taken to
>>the tip as
>> commercial waste by a licenced transporter, and then paid for at the tip. You
>> can't take it yourself as it's not your waste.
>>
>> She should also have a non-domestic waste contract arranged or she is in
>> breach of Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the council can issue a
>> Section 47 Notice
>>
>> If you are found to be disposing of your waste illegally you may be
>> prosecuted. The maximum penalty is a fine of £50,000 and up to 12 months
>> imprisonment in the Magistrates Court and 5 years imprisonment and an
>> unlimited fine at the Crown Court.
>>
>> I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a
>> storage building as sleeping accommodation too.
>>
>> Owain
>
>Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?

I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
circus not my monkey.

>If this is
>wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!

A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
rules.

>In practice it may make a difference if the property is usually
>actually lived in by the owner, which I think was the original idea of
>Airbnb.

Mission creep!!
--
Roland Perry

[Jeff]

> C) Long term we plan to develop the site now that planning rules are being relaxed for housing, so we are quite prepared to erect a secure fence close to her building with a short passage way to her door on the South side to a new gateway on the East wall. By so doing, it will eliminate any risk of adverse possession.
>

The only problem that I can foresee with the fence idea is that the
woman might try to say that you have abandoned that piece of land and
subsequently claim adverse possession. Now, I think that is harder than
it used to be, but she still might try it on.

Jeff

[GB]

Cattle grid!

[Roger Hayter]

I don't know the relevant law, but there are plenty of examples in rural areas
of rights of way, both public and private, that cross land where livestock is
kept. In practice the right user would be very unpopular indeed if they
routinely let animals out.



--
Roger Hayter

[Owain Lastname]

On Friday 19 January 2024 at 00:06:36 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
> > I think the local Fire Service would be concerned about someone using a storage building as sleeping accommodation too.
> The LA have already served an Enforcement Notice. What do you propose
> the Fire Service do to trump this?

Apart from an Enforcement Notice, or if a fire service Enforcement Notice isn't complied with, they can issue a Prohibition Notice, which stops the building being used immediately.

People can ignore planning enforcement notices with comparative impunity as it takes councils ages to decide on whether action should be taken. Fire service likely to be a lot more proactive.

Owain

[Ben Beardmore]

Good point! But that piece of land would only measure 1m x 3m

The easement she enjoys on her property goes back 200 years but in 2019 she opened up a doorway on the East side othe building. so techniclly it is redundant. I understand easements are difficilt to extinguish unless both parties agree.
Any suggestions?

[JNugent]

Did you ever see Bill Tidy's cartoon "Rodin's Cattle Grid" in Punch?

Mind you, it was a long time ago...

[Ben Beardmore]

On Thursday 18 January 2024 at 12:33:07 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:

> On 17/01/2024 10:04, Ben Beardmore wrote:
> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 09:03:03 UTC, Simon Parker wrote:
> > @Simon,
> >
> > You have a good memory! See above for details ofevents since my posts 3 years ago.
> >
> > Whilst I am 200 miles away from the site, my co-leaseholder lives immediately adjacent and can see what happens onsite 24/7. They are a young couple and they have chickens and geese onsite.
> >
> > I eventually arranged for AirBNB to pull the listing but this was only after I got a local Councillor to email them with a copy of the Enforcement order. AirBNB woud not do anything in response to my repeated emails.
> > As for the littering, the Council have said that they cannot get involved because the littering is happening onprivate land.
> Warning! Lengthy post ahead! :-)
>
> First and foremost, I recommend viewing each battle separately in your
> mind. You seem to have won several battles, congratulations. Yes, you
> haven't yet won the war but try not to get battle fatigued. (Easier
> said than done, I know.)
>
> Be glad about the victories in which you have prevailed and remind
> yourself often that:
>
> o Planning permission was refused.
> o An Enforcement Notice has been served.
> o The property is no longer on AirBNB.
>
> That's progress.
>
> May I ask, is the property still being used as a holiday let / as
> accommodation or is it now empty and you are merely preparing for the
> next round of battles?

It's the lull before the next storm.

Her appeal aginst the enforcement oder was thrown out and so she is barred for 2 years from making a new planning applicatio

>


> Speaking generally, the fact your co-leaseholder overlooks the site is
> excellent news. Have you / they considered installing a CCTV system
> monitoring the site so you can gather evidence? [1] I would suggest
> that would be an excellent move at this stage as evidence could be key
> going forward.

I like the idea of the CCTV with recording activated by ethe PIR of "cross line" triggering. I am pretty experience setting up CCTV caeras. I use Vivotek and Hikvision cameras.

>
> As for the littering, I feel I should clarify and will take this
> opportunity to elaborate on what I said in my previous post.
>
>
>

I have organised a sin which will leave her ( and her guests) in no doubt about the situation

See. https://snipboard.io/CJHxgf.jpg

[Serena Blanchflower]

One thought - from someone with no legal background, so I don't know if
there are any pitfalls - would be to let her have that 1m x 3m strip, in
exchange for giving up her right to any access over the remaining land.
Given that you're willing to give that strip up anyway, doing that might
fix the problem once and for all and simplify the situation, for both of
you, if/when either of you come to sell, or develop, your plot.

--
Best wishes, Serena
Today's mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground.

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 19 Jan 2024 20:37:03 +0000, Serena Blanchflower
<nos...@blanchflower.me.uk> wrote:

>One thought - from someone with no legal background, so I don't know if
>there are any pitfalls - would be to let her have that 1m x 3m strip, in
>exchange for giving up her right to any access over the remaining land.
>Given that you're willing to give that strip up anyway, doing that might
>fix the problem once and for all and simplify the situation, for both of
>you, if/when either of you come to sell, or develop, your plot.

A similar thought had occurred to me. Except that I'd offer to sell the
strip, rather than give it away :-)

Mark

[Serena Blanchflower]

Yes, I'd meant to include the option of including a financial element to
the price ;)

--
Best wishes, Serena
Why is it unwise to share your secrets with a clock? Well, time will tell.

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:

> In message <l0tht4...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:

>>Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
>
> I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
> circus not my monkey.
>
>>If this is
>>wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
>
> A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
> the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
> bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
> litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
> rules.

Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
public litter bins?

(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
that.)

[Roger Hayter]

My only datapoint is when a council workman in Welshpool in Powys came up to
me and told me not to put household rubbish in a litter bin. He seemed
satisfied, if surprised, when I said it was rubbish from my car.


--
Roger Hayter

[JNugent]

But... BB is a leaseholder, not the freeholder...

He'd have to get the freeholder to consent, surely?

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 20 Jan 2024 12:05:54 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <l0tht4...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>
>>>Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
>>
>> I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
>> circus not my monkey.
>>
>>>If this is
>>>wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
>>
>> A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
>> the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
>> bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
>> litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
>> rules.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
>public litter bins?

They can only be used for uncontrolled waste. Uncontrolled waste is the
residual waste which is not otherwise explicitly defined in legislation as
belonging to one of the categories of controlled waste or hazardous waste.
The three categories of controlled waste are industrial, commercial and
household waste.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/section/75

All three of those categories have regulations governing their disposal, and
one of them is that you can't dispose of it anywhere other than via a
regulated waste disposal service (which includes the council bin lorries and
taking it to the tip yourself).

Basically, as far as household waste is concerned, there are only three
legal ways to dispose of it:

1. Put it in a council-approved receptacle (eg, a wheelie bin) and make the
receptacle available for collection on the council's collection schedule.

2. Take it yourself from your home to an appropriate and licensed waste
disposal facility. (This can be the council tip, but it can also be things
like WEEE collection points run by retailers).

3. Engage someone else to collect it and dispose of it lawfully. Anyone who
does this for you needs to be a licensed waste carrier.

(Another option is to find a use for it. If it's going to be re-used, rather
than disposed of, then it's not waste. So you could donate, say, unwanted
furniture to a charity and they can come and collect it, without needing a
waste carrier licence, because if they're going to find a use for it then it
isn't waste even though you no longer want it).

Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of
disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.

>(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
>RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
>that.)

That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal
prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.

[Roland Perry]

In message <2ips7kx...@news.ducksburg.com>, at 12:05:54 on Sat, 20
Jan 2024, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> remarked:

>On 2024-01-19, Roland Perry wrote:
>
>> In message <l0tht4...@mid.individual.net>, at 21:01:24 on Thu, 18
>> Jan 2024, Roger Hayter <ro...@hayter.org> remarked:
>
>>>Is not the waste from a Airbnb normally treated as domestic waste?
>>
>> I has been everywhere I've stayed, but as the customer it's not my
>> circus not my monkey.
>>
>>>If this is
>>>wrong there are a lot of people in for an unpleasant surprise!
>>
>> A lot of people feel over-entitled to do things the council hasn't got
>> the time or energy to enforce. I know a B&B (lacking anywhere to put
>> bins for logistical reasons) which puts all the rubbish in a nearby
>> litter bin, for example - which is definitely against the fly-tipping
>> rules.
>
>Just out of curiosity, what are the legal restrictions on use of
>public litter bins?

Litter, not household refuse.

>(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
>RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
>that.)

Here we have voluntary litter pickers, who are despised by council
workers for "stealing their jobs", and have been issued with stickers by
the council saying "The this bin-bag we filled up and have left next to
this litter bin isn't fly tipping".

Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
have,
--
Roland Perry

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:23:42 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:

>Here we have voluntary litter pickers, who are despised by council
>workers for "stealing their jobs", and have been issued with stickers by
>the council saying "The this bin-bag we filled up and have left next to
>this litter bin isn't fly tipping".

Here, the council supplies branded blue bin bags to volunteer litter
pickers.

>Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
>have,

They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle
uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who
transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).

Mark

[Adam Funk]

I figured it would be something like that --- thanks.

So if I eat something out of a wrapper at home, put the empty wrapper
in my pocket, and drop it in a litter bin on the way somewhere, it's
fly-tipping? Whereas if I eat it on the way (either walking or in a
car) it's OK to put the wrapper in a litter bin?

>>(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
>>RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
>>that.)
>
> That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
> controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal
> prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.

I suspect it's intended to mean "no household waste" but the signs
were printed without legal advice.

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:22:49 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of
>> disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.
>
>I figured it would be something like that --- thanks.
>
>So if I eat something out of a wrapper at home, put the empty wrapper
>in my pocket, and drop it in a litter bin on the way somewhere, it's
>fly-tipping? Whereas if I eat it on the way (either walking or in a
>car) it's OK to put the wrapper in a litter bin?

Technically, yes. But enforcing it down to that level is impractical, even
if it's not de minimis. If you see someone take something out of their
pocket and put it in a litter bin, there's no indication at all of where it
came from originally. But if they put a bin bag of rubbish into a bin, then
that is a good indication that it isn't just waste from what they have
consumed while out and about.

>>>(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
>>>RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
>>>that.)
>>
>> That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
>> controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal
>> prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.
>
>I suspect it's intended to mean "no household waste" but the signs
>were printed without legal advice.

If it said "no household waste" then some wag would almost certainly
interpret it to mean that it's OK to put commercial waste in it.

Given that very few people have any concept of "uncontrolled waste", and
uncontrolled waste isn't defined anywhere (other than the fact that it isn't
included any of the categories of waste), a sign which said "uncontrolled
waste only" would be meaningless to most people. "Litter only" would
probably be understandable. But many people would argue that litter isn't
litter if you put it in a bin, it's only litter if you drop it on the
street. So "pedestrian rubbish only" is probably the best compromise between
legally correct and understandable.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 15:22:49 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-01-20, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> Taking household waste to a litter bin isn't one of the lawful means of
>>> disposal, so as far as the law is concerned it's fly-tipping.
>>
>>I figured it would be something like that --- thanks.
>>
>>So if I eat something out of a wrapper at home, put the empty wrapper
>>in my pocket, and drop it in a litter bin on the way somewhere, it's
>>fly-tipping? Whereas if I eat it on the way (either walking or in a
>>car) it's OK to put the wrapper in a litter bin?
>
> Technically, yes. But enforcing it down to that level is impractical, even
> if it's not de minimis. If you see someone take something out of their
> pocket and put it in a litter bin, there's no indication at all of where it
> came from originally. But if they put a bin bag of rubbish into a bin, then
> that is a good indication that it isn't just waste from what they have
> consumed while out and about.

Right.

>>>>(Cromford in Derbyshire has labels on the bins like "PEDESTRIAN
>>>>RUBBISH ONLY". I think that's the only place I've seen something like
>>>>that.)
>>>
>>> That's probably not enforceable; waste from a private vehicle is not
>>> controlled waste so (provided it isn't hazardous waste) there's no legal
>>> prohibition on disposing of it in a public litter bin.
>>
>>I suspect it's intended to mean "no household waste" but the signs
>>were printed without legal advice.
>
> If it said "no household waste" then some wag would almost certainly
> interpret it to mean that it's OK to put commercial waste in it.
>
> Given that very few people have any concept of "uncontrolled waste", and
> uncontrolled waste isn't defined anywhere (other than the fact that it isn't
> included any of the categories of waste), a sign which said "uncontrolled
> waste only" would be meaningless to most people.

That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).

<https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>

> "Litter only" would probably be understandable. But many people
> would argue that litter isn't litter if you put it in a bin, it's
> only litter if you drop it on the street. So "pedestrian rubbish
> only" is probably the best compromise between legally correct and
> understandable.

True. Just to complicate matters further, though, the High Peak Trail
goes to Cromford, so there are three kinds of road users potentially
needing to use the bins. [grin]

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 19:26:36 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>That reminds me of the linguist Geoff Pullum's column about "THIS
>REFUSE HAS BEEN CHECKED FOR ILLEGAL PRESENTATION" labels on rubbish
>bags in Edinburgh (the short answer is that "illegal presentation"
>means putting them out too early so the seagulls can have them them).
>
><https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=1507>

"The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start
building it until the 1700s were almost over."

That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch, Newmarket
and Newborough.

Mark

[Jon Ribbens]

I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
"New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
the others beat that?

[Andy Walker]

I don't suppose you'd allow Newgrange, ~5200 years old [and so
older than Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, but no longer in the UK,
and I don't expect it was called "Newgrange" when it was built, even
in translation]?

--
Andy Walker, Nottingham.
Andy's music pages: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music
Composer of the day: www.cuboid.me.uk/andy/Music/Composers/Prokofiev

[Jon Ribbens]

On 2024-01-23, Andy Walker <a...@cuboid.co.uk> wrote:
> On 22/01/2024 23:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start
>>> building it until the 1700s were almost over."
>>> That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
>>> Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
>>> Newmarket and Newborough.
>> I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
>> "New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
>> the others beat that?
>
> I don't suppose you'd allow Newgrange, ~5200 years old [and so
> older than Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, but no longer in the UK,
> and I don't expect it was called "Newgrange" when it was built, even
> in translation]?

It doesn't sound like it, because the whole point is things that have
been called "New" for a very long time and so whose names are highly
inaccurate due to having become so over time. We could rename the moon
"new moon" today and it would be extremely inaccurate but it wouldn't
count ;-)

[Roland Perry]

In message <0pltqittkm7gcdrrl...@4ax.com>, at 21:05:24 on
Mon, 22 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

New Court at both Trinity and St Johns in Cambridge were built in the
1820's
--
Roland Perry

[billy bookcase]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.uk> wrote in message news:TU9UtGAy...@perry.uk...

>
> New Court at both Trinity and St Johns in Cambridge were built in the 1820's

Er...

New College Oxford

Founded 1379

Being newer than University, Balliol, and Merton Colleges.



bb

[Roland Perry]

In message <envqqi1lrr7aul761...@4ax.com>, at 20:32:36 on
Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

>On Sun, 21 Jan 2024 19:23:42 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>Here we have voluntary litter pickers, who are despised by council
>>workers for "stealing their jobs", and have been issued with stickers by
>>the council saying "The this bin-bag we filled up and have left next to
>>this litter bin isn't fly tipping".
>
>Here, the council supplies branded blue bin bags to volunteer litter
>pickers.

I don't know if they supply their own bags, but the litter pickers have
been issued with the stickers. Sadly, they do the picking (and dumping
the bags next to litter bins) a little after the daily emptying of the
bins [and side-waste] by the council; so typically sit there 23hrs.

>>Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
>>have,
>
>They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle
>uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who
>transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).

Circular argument here, because one of the biggest sources of the litter
they pick is discarded fast-food packaging. Next is probably discarded
beer cans etc. Not sure what they do about discarded beer *glasses*.

Several of the pubs are between a rock and a hard place, because they
don't have an off-sales licence, so claim they don't need to supply
safer plastic receptacles because that would be admitting they are in
contravention of their licence.

And for the last couple of years would also be against the council's
vendetta on single-use-plastic. So we now have single-use glass :(
Plus the risks of broken glass.

(OK not every glass will be discarded immediately, but they must get
through quite a few based on the number scattered nearby especially at
weekends).

Another conundrum is bikes hauled out of the river by magent-fishermen.
The council says they are "lost property" and should be reported to the
police and not as fly-tipping. The police, on the other hand, have stuck
lost property on their list of things they no longer do.

If the magnet fishermen thrown them back in the river that's breaking
the Environment Agency Byelaws. If they take them [or indeed supermarket
trolleys] away, in theory that's theft, and if they leave them on the
river bank it's fly tipping.

If a public spirited member of the public took them to the County's
waste disposal facility, would they need a carrier's licence?
--
Roland Perry

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-23, Andy Walker wrote:

> On 22/01/2024 23:31, Jon Ribbens wrote:
>> On 2024-01-22, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>>> "The New Town in Edinburgh is called that because they didn't even start
>>> building it until the 1700s were almost over."
>>> That's absolutely brilliant. And completely true. See also Newcastle,
>>> Newport, the New Forest, Newbridge, Newchapel, Newtown, Newchurch,
>>> Newmarket and Newborough.
>> I wonder which of those is (now) the least accurate use of "New".
>> "New Forest" dates from around 1079, so 945 years old. Do any of
>> the others beat that?
>
> I don't suppose you'd allow Newgrange, ~5200 years old [and so
> older than Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, but no longer in the UK,
> and I don't expect it was called "Newgrange" when it was built, even
> in translation]?

The Pont Neuf ("New Bridge") isn't that old (opened in 1604 CE) but it
is the oldest still-standing bridge over the Seine in Paris.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:19:15 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <envqqi1lrr7aul761...@4ax.com>, at 20:32:36 on
>Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:

>>>Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
>>>have,
>>
>>They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle
>>uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who
>>transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).
>
>Circular argument here, because one of the biggest sources of the litter
>they pick is discarded fast-food packaging. Next is probably discarded
>beer cans etc.

It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser
has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.

This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they
leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible
for what happens to them after that.

Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer
who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they
take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household
waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the
carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it
there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.

>Not sure what they do about discarded beer *glasses*.

Intact, undamaged glasses can either be returned to the premises they were
removed from, or washed and donated to a charity shop (which will generally
be pleased to have them). The person who removed the glass from the premises
is potentially guilty of theft, but since they subsequently abandoned
possession of the glass, if the finder cannot reasonably identify the
premises it was stolen from then the finder is entitled to appropriate it
and deal with it as they see fit.

Damaged or otherwise unusable glasses discarded in a public place are, like
burger cartons, uncontrolled waste and can go into a public litter bin.
Although, being fully recyclable, volunteer litter pickers are encouraged to
keep them separate and present them for recycling where possible.

>Another conundrum is bikes hauled out of the river by magent-fishermen.
>The council says they are "lost property" and should be reported to the
>police and not as fly-tipping. The police, on the other hand, have stuck
>lost property on their list of things they no longer do.
>
>If the magnet fishermen thrown them back in the river that's breaking
>the Environment Agency Byelaws. If they take them [or indeed supermarket
>trolleys] away, in theory that's theft, and if they leave them on the
>river bank it's fly tipping.
>
>If a public spirited member of the public took them to the County's
>waste disposal facility, would they need a carrier's licence?

Legally, that would depend on how and why the bike got into the river. if
the original owner of the bike decided to get rid of it, but couldn't be
bothered to take it to the tip so just threw it in the river, then it would
be controlled waste. But if it had been stolen, and then abandoned by the
thief, it would be uncontrolled waste.

In practice, given that it would be almost impossible to tell the
difference, a prosecution for unlawfully transporting controlled waste would
be equally impossible as there would be no way to prove, to the satisfaction
of a court, that it was certainly controlled waste. So the pragmatic answer
is that any waste retrieved from a public open space is treated as
uncontrolled waste, even if there's a possibility that it might actually
have been controlled waste when dumped. So nobody will be prosecuted for
taking it to the tip without a licence.

The exception, of course, is if it's actually hazardous waste, which is a
different kettle of fish.

Mark

[Sam Plusnet]

The first recorded use of the name Newmarket was in 1219, so no.

OTOH, Neápolis (Naples) was called that from the 6th century BC.

--
Sam Plusnet

[notya...@gmail.com]

Er New Forest created by William [I] the Conqueror. I suppose it was new - then...

[notya...@gmail.com]

In Bath there is the confusingly named Old Newbridge Hill. https://maps.app.goo.gl/DcGDqzmrewFyTopEA, I was on a bus [on teh A4] hit by a lorry that ran away down it once.

[Ben Beardmore]

Wow!. We do seem to have drifted off-topic.

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-23, Mark Goodge wrote:

...

> It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
> bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
> bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser
> has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
> purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
> And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
> whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.

If I eat the takeaway in the park and take the wrapper into my house,
is it still uncontrolled waste or does it become household waste when
it's indoors?

> This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
> particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
> council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
> solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
> them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they
> leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible
> for what happens to them after that.

Random idea: modify trademark law to allow councils to bill trademark
owners for branded litter.

[Mark Goodge]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 14:15:45 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-23, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>...
>> It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
>> bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
>> bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser
>> has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
>> purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
>> And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
>> whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
>
>If I eat the takeaway in the park and take the wrapper into my house,
>is it still uncontrolled waste or does it become household waste when
>it's indoors?

That's possibly an interesting edge case for the court to argue over. But
you can put it in your own bin, of course, either way.

>> This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
>> particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
>> council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
>> solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
>> them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they
>> leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible
>> for what happens to them after that.
>
>Random idea: modify trademark law to allow councils to bill trademark
>owners for branded litter.

A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed
as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it
(or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for
example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.

One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for
drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing
vehicle on the packaging. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute the
registered keeper of the vehicle if the packaging is subsequently discarded
on the highway or in another public place (such as a car park). So the
presence of the reg number on the carton is a strong deterrent to littering.
But not all drive through operators are willing to do this. So making it
compulsory would help, a lot.

Mark

[Dave Holland]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for
>drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing
>vehicle on the packaging.

That's an interesting scheme.

Given that litter can easily escape from bins, e.g. by the wind
blowing, or some clown tipping a bin over, or the bin liner bag
tearing, or a rubbish collector accidentally dropping something, etc
etc etc... what defence would you suggest to a registered keeper who
is prosecuted for littering when they know they properly disposed of
their rubbish?

Dave

[Mark Goodge]

It's usually pretty obvious when it's just been dumped from a car. Go into
some car parks, and there's a pile of litter immediately adjacent to where
the driver's door would have been. Similarly when it's on the side of the
road, having been thrown out of an open window. It would be very difficult
to argue successfully that it had coincdentially blown there from a litter
bin somewhere else.

Mark

[Roland Perry]

In message <69dvqilof9qrmasta...@4ax.com>, at 13:55:02 on
Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>

remarked:
>On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 08:19:15 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:
>
>>In message <envqqi1lrr7aul761...@4ax.com>, at 20:32:36 on
>>Sun, 21 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>remarked:
>
>>>>Although I'd love to see the waste carrier licence those volunteers
>>>>have,
>>>
>>>They don't have one and they don't need one, because they only handle
>>>uncontrolled waste. A waste carrier licence is only needed by someone who
>>>transports controlled waste (eg, household waste).
>>
>>Circular argument here, because one of the biggest sources of the litter
>>they pick is discarded fast-food packaging. Next is probably discarded
>>beer cans etc.
>
>It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
>bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
>bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser
>has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
>purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
>And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
>whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.

Rather than sit on the fence, if it's either a public carpark or a park
bench, is it or is it not controlled waste.

>This is a common issue with regard to takeaway fast food vendors,
>particularly those with a drive through. People often complain to the
>council about discarded burger cartons, for example, and suggest that we can
>solve the problem by charging the burger restaurant for the cost of clearing
>them up. But we can't. The cartons aren't waste at the point at which they
>leave the premises, and therefore the restaurant is not legally responsible
>for what happens to them after that.
>
>Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer
>who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they
>take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household
>waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the
>carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it
>there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.

And customers and volunteer litter pickers are supposed to know this
sort of thing, how precisely?

>>Not sure what they do about discarded beer *glasses*.
>
>Intact, undamaged glasses can either be returned to the premises they were
>removed from, or washed and donated to a charity shop (which will generally
>be pleased to have them). The person who removed the glass from the premises
>is potentially guilty of theft, but since they subsequently abandoned
>possession of the glass, if the finder cannot reasonably identify the
>premises it was stolen from then the finder is entitled to appropriate it
>and deal with it as they see fit.

What if the finder *can* identify the premises on a balance of
probability it was stolen from, but is not at that instant open for
business?

>Damaged or otherwise unusable glasses discarded in a public place are, like
>burger cartons, uncontrolled waste and can go into a public litter bin.
>Although, being fully recyclable, volunteer litter pickers are encouraged to
>keep them separate and present them for recycling where possible.

The litter pickers here only have landfill bags.

Including a couple of summers ago a four foot long pike (don't tell him
your name) which died and floated to the surface and someone fished (see
what I did there) it out of the river and dumped it on the footpath.
Took many days to find anyone who would take responsibility for dealing
with it.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <e5d5ri9tnmcl8d4hm...@4ax.com>, at 19:35:08 on
Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:

Assuming that keeper even notices the ruse.

>But not all drive through operators are willing to do this. So making it
>compulsory would help, a lot.
>
>Mark
>

--
Roland Perry

[billy bookcase]

"Roland Perry" <rol...@perry.uk> wrote in message news:4pBOihib...@perry.uk...

> In message <69dvqilof9qrmasta...@4ax.com>, at 13:55:02 on

> Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>>

>>Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer
>>who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they
>>take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household
>>waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the
>>carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it
>>there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.
>
> And customers and volunteer litter pickers are supposed to know this sort of thing, how
> precisely?

Eh ?

If customers and volunteer litter pickers are litter picking inside someone's
home then they're litter picking househol waste. If they are litter picking
inside someone's place of work then its commercial waste, and if they're
litter picking in the park then they will be litter picking uncontrolled waste.

What exactly is the problem ?

Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home,
eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
their places of work.

In which case I'd imagine CCTV coverage might be of help.


bb

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 15:30:57 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <e5d5ri9tnmcl8d4hm...@4ax.com>, at 19:35:08 on
>Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>

>>One voluntary scheme which has been very successful in some places is for
>>drive through vendors to print the registration number of the purchasing
>>vehicle on the packaging. That's sufficient evidence to prosecute the
>>registered keeper of the vehicle if the packaging is subsequently discarded
>>on the highway or in another public place (such as a car park). So the
>>presence of the reg number on the carton is a strong deterrent to littering.
>
>Assuming that keeper even notices the ruse.

They may not notice the first time. But, after their first FPN for
littering, they'll notice the second time.

Printing the reg number of the packaging does have a statistically
significant effect on the amount of litter discarded from vehicles.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 15:29:31 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.uk> wrote:

>In message <69dvqilof9qrmasta...@4ax.com>, at 13:55:02 on
>Tue, 23 Jan 2024, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
>remarked:
>

>>It's not circular. Assuming the packaging was part of a fast-food meal
>>bought from a takeaway and then consumed in a public place (eg, on a park
>>bench, or in a car in the car park) then it isn't waste until the purchaser
>>has finished using it to contain their food. Once it no longer serves the
>>purpose of containing the food, that is the point at which it becomes waste.
>>And therefore the location at which it becomes waste is what determines
>>whether it is controlled or uncontrolled waste.
>
>Rather than sit on the fence, if it's either a public carpark or a park
>bench, is it or is it not controlled waste.

If the contents of the carton were consumed in a public place, then the
packaging is uncontrolled waste.

>>Legal responsibility rests solely with the customer, as it is the customer
>>who is in possession of the carton at the time it becomes waste. If they
>>take the burger home and eat it there, then the carton becomes household
>>waste. If they take it to their place of work and eat it there, then the
>>carton becomes commercial waste. And if they take it to the park and eat it
>>there, then the carton becomes uncontrolled waste.
>
>And customers and volunteer litter pickers are supposed to know this
>sort of thing, how precisely?

The customers should know not to drop litter. The volunteer litter pickers
don't need to know where the litter came from.

>>Intact, undamaged glasses can either be returned to the premises they were
>>removed from, or washed and donated to a charity shop (which will generally
>>be pleased to have them). The person who removed the glass from the premises
>>is potentially guilty of theft, but since they subsequently abandoned
>>possession of the glass, if the finder cannot reasonably identify the
>>premises it was stolen from then the finder is entitled to appropriate it
>>and deal with it as they see fit.
>
>What if the finder *can* identify the premises on a balance of
>probability it was stolen from, but is not at that instant open for
>business?

In practice, it's de minimis.

>>The exception, of course, is if it's actually hazardous waste, which is a
>>different kettle of fish.
>
>Including a couple of summers ago a four foot long pike (don't tell him
>your name) which died and floated to the surface and someone fished (see
>what I did there) it out of the river and dumped it on the footpath.
>Took many days to find anyone who would take responsibility for dealing
>with it.

It would be the local authority (district). That's completely unambiguous.
But finding the right way to report it may be harder.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 27 Jan 2024 20:13:41 -0000, "billy bookcase" <bi...@anon.com> wrote:

>Unless that is you're seriosly suggesting that people take burgers home,
>eat them and then subsequently dispose of the carton in local parks or
>their places of work.

I suspect some people do, actually. But it's not really relevant to the
litter pickers.

What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical office
waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the wheelie
bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial
waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
incredibly difficult to detect.

Mark

[kat]

What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags are
generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people who work
from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?
--
kat
>^..^<

[Colin Bignell]

According to my local authority, who enquired why I had not submitted
any waste transfer notes, yes.

--
Colin Bignell

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 09:50:30 +0000, kat <little...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 28/01/2024 21:08, Mark Goodge wrote:

>> What does happen, quite a lot, is people taking work rubbish home and
>> putting it in a domestic bin. That's typically sole traders or small
>> businesses that are office based, and therefore only generate typical office
>> waste such as paper and the detritus from the office kitchen (eg, used
>> teabags). Provided they can keep it down to something like a bin bag of
>> rubbish a week, it's easy enough to take it home and put it in the wheelie
>> bin along with the household waste, thus saving on the cost of commercial
>> waste disposal. That's completely illegal, of course. But it's also
>> incredibly difficult to detect.
>

>What about working from home? The same work related paper and teabags are
>generated, and, obviously, just as hard to detect, but should people who work
>from home legally have a contract for the diposal of that waste?

It's not a situation that the legislators envisaged, possibly because the
Internet was not a big thing in 1990 so the vast majority of people working
from home would be tradespeople and the like (eg, plumbers) who obviously
generate commercial waste in the course of their work which can't easily be
passed off as domestic waste anyway. The concept of remote work for an
employer, or a sole trader working primarily or solely over the Internet,
wsn't really on their radar.

What that means is that, technically, any waste generated in the course of
working from home is commercial waste and therefore requires a commercial
waste disposal contract. In practice, the approach taken by most waste
disposal authorities (certainly, by mine) is that provided the waste
generated in the course of WFH is no more than would be generated by the
same person sitting on the sofa watching Netflix or reading books all day,
or engaging in typical home-based hobbies such as knitting or building a
model railway, then it's de minimis and therefore below the threshold for
any enforcement action.

After all, the teabag is the same teabag whether you drink the tea while
answering an email from your boss or while browsing cat videos. The local
authotity can't tell, and has no need to tell unless you are somehow
generating more waste than you would if you weren't working.

In that respect, it's the same as planning legislation. Technically, working
from home requires planning permission for change of use. In practice, it's
only ever enforced if working from home generates noticeable amounts of
externally-visible work-related activity (eg, people repairing cars on their
drive, or large numbers of visitors to a residential property). The law does
not concern itself about trifles.

Mark

[Dave Holland]

Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Jan 2024 12:56:53 +0000 (GMT), Dave Holland <da...@biff.org.uk> wrote:
>>what defence would you suggest to a registered keeper who
>>is prosecuted for littering when they know they properly disposed of
>>their rubbish?
>It's usually pretty obvious when it's just been dumped from a car.

I agree, but I deliberately wasn't asking about the usual case.

Did you have a sensible proposal for my question? It looks like this
scheme is shifting the burden of proof onto the innocent bin-user.
Given how often I see bits of rubbish blowing down the street on bin
day, even taking the litter home doesn't seem completely safe. On that
basis, I think declaring a loose piece of paper on the roadside as
deliberate litter seems optimistic at best.

Dave

[billy bookcase]

"Dave Holland" <da...@biff.org.uk> wrote in message
news:Srr*Ys...@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk...

The fact remains however that it's a lot less optimistic than would be
declaring a loose piece of paper on the roadside without a registration
number on it, as deliberate litter.

Given which, it offers both an incentive to registered keepers of vehicles
who lend their vehicles to others, and any drivers of such vehicles to
take special care in ensuring that any such packaging they do dispose
of isn't deposited in *overflowing* litter bins*. Either on the street,
or at home.

Which may be a very big sacrifice for them to make it must be admitted,
but then we all have our crosses to bear, in one way or another.



bb

[Simon Parker]

Mine too, FWIW. (See my reply to Mark Goodge elsewhere in the thread.)

Regards

S.P.

[Simon Parker]

Although local authorities sometimes do (concern themselves with
trifles, that is).

There was a well-publicised incident locally (which is probably why the
LA did it) of a lady running a business from home for which she bought a
professional grade Multi-Function Device. (Printer, Scanner, Document
Feeder, Multiple paper trays, etc., you get the idea.)

It could have been being used purely for home purposes but the delivery
label (from Amazon) was addressed to <Householder Name>, <Business
Name>, <Address>. The box in which the printer was delivered was placed
in the household cardboard recycling bin (blue in these parts) awaiting
collection by the LA's contractors. However, she was fined for
"Disposing of business waste in a domestic bin" or some such (fine of a
few hundred pounds from memory).

Knowing the person concerned and her business, it will have generated
quite a bit of cardboard waste, (bulk deliveries of a particular item in
cardboard boxes with the items them being sold individually for a
profit), and I imagine this had been spotted by those responsible for
collecting and emptying the bins and they checked the waste periodically
for evidence of business waste, which the delivery label for the MFD
confirmed.

Regards

S.P.

[Adam Funk]

Well, conditions for alcohol licences can be changed (at least at
renewal time, AIUI) --- maybe that should apply to other classes of
business too.

[Roger Hayter]

On 29 Jan 2024 at 10:42:55 GMT, "Mark Goodge"

And one could claim to never generate waste except during official breaks.
When one would be entitled to be at home not working.

--
Roger Hayter

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:58:26 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-25, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed
>> as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it
>> (or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for
>> example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.
>
>Well, conditions for alcohol licences can be changed (at least at
>renewal time, AIUI) --- maybe that should apply to other classes of
>business too.

You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And
planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So
implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be
unpopular, on several different levels.

Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which
is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
significant source of litter.

Mark

[Mark Goodge]

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:39:43 +0000, Simon Parker <simonpa...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think that's precisely the kind of situation, though, where working from
home does generate a significant increase in waste beyond that which would
be generated by someone just slobbing out on the sofa or indulging in their
favourite home-based recreational activities. So, in this case, it's not
actually a trifle.

More generally, using your home as base for retail activity is the sort of
thing which does tend to attract the attention of the local authorities. The
type of WFH which is de minimis is things like connecting to a remote
network in order to do computer-based office work that you'd otherwise do in
the office (eg, customer services work or computer programming), or running
a purely digital business from home (eg, web design or being a publishing
agent), but that doesn't involve any physical transport of goods or
materials to/from your home. Once you start shifting physical goods into and
out of your home at any noticeable volume, that's when all sorts of
authorities will start to pay you some attention.

Mark

[Adam Funk]

On 2024-01-29, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 13:58:26 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2024-01-25, Mark Goodge wrote:
>>
>>> A requirement to contribute to the cost of picking up litter can be imposed
>>> as a planning condition at the time that the takeaway first applies for it
>>> (or at any time subsequently when it applies for any other permission, for
>>> example an extension or rebuild). But that can't be done retrospectively.
>>
>>Well, conditions for alcohol licences can be changed (at least at
>>renewal time, AIUI) --- maybe that should apply to other classes of
>>business too.
>
> You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And
> planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
> subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So
> implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
> regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be
> unpopular, on several different levels.

Obviously takeaway operators wouldn't like it...

> Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
> significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which
> is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
> significant source of litter.

...but that reinforces the point that a withdrawable licence
accomplishes that goal.

[Mark Goodge]

On Tue, 30 Jan 2024 13:51:12 +0000, Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:

>On 2024-01-29, Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> You don't need a licence to operate as a takeaway from fixed premises. And
>> planning permission, once granted, continues in perpetuity unless a
>> subsequent application for further changes to the property is made. So
>> implementing your suggestion would require the creation of a licensing
>> regime for takeaways operating from fixed premises. Which I suspect would be
>> unpopular, on several different levels.
>
>Obviously takeaway operators wouldn't like it...

It would also increase the workload on local authority licensing
departments.

>> Street trading requires a licence, and they can be withdrawn. Being a
>> significant source of litter is a good enough reason to withdraw one. Which
>> is one of the reasons why street traders are, on the whole, not a
>> significant source of litter.
>
>...but that reinforces the point that a withdrawable licence
>accomplishes that goal.

A street trading licence is, in effect, a form of rental agreement to use
the street as premises. Because street traders have much lower overheads
than operators of fixed premises, that's a reasonable expense which still
allows them to typically undercut the prices of food sold from buildings.

The main issue with licensing fixed premises in the same way as street
traders - that is, a short term renewable licence - is that setting up a
business which operates from fixed premises is a much greater investment and
a much longer term commitment than having a trailer or a van. When starting
a business from fixed premises, you need to have a reasonable expectation
that you can carry on until either you decide to call it a day (or relocate)
or you go bust. If there was no certainty that the licence would be renewed
in three years, then the business may well be unviable. It would almost
certainly make a commercial mortgage a non-starter.

In practice, therefore, licensing of fixed premises takeaways would need to
be done on a similar basis to alcohol licences, which are long term and only
revocable with very strong justification. From a technical perspective, that
would work - pubs and bars operate to a long-term plan, and the licensing
system is set up in such a way as to enable them to do so provided they
adhere to the law. So a similar form of licences for takeaways would be
entirely practical.

However, the justification for imposing a licensing regime at all on pubs
and bars is because they are selling a legally restricted, and potentially
harmful, product. A pizza parlour, burger bar or kebab shop is not. In the
case of pubs, it is, fundamentally, the product which is being regulated -
the premises are merely ancillary to that. It would be very dfficult to make
a convincing argument that a sausage roll or a chicken sandwich poses as
much of a risk to the population as alcohol. But if it doesn't pose as much
of a risk, then why should it be regulated in the same way? And "litter"
isn't really the answer to that. Litter isn't a reason to close down a pub,
either. But if you can't withdraw a takeaway licence because of litter, then
there's no real basis left for licensing them at all.

And not all takeaways do generate a lot of litter. It's fairly uncommon to
see a Dominos box by the side of the road. But there are always plenty of
McDonalds and KFC wrappers. If you impose licensing on all takeaways, you're
punishing them all for the infractions of a few.

Personally, I think that a better option would be to make it possible to
levy a charge on takeaways which generate a lot of litter. And add to that a
requirement, as previously suggested, for drive through (or drive-thru)
takeaways to print the reg number of the vehicle collecting it. Between
them, that would deal with the majority of litter. And the rest would be
much less of a challenge to clean up.

Mark

[JNugent]

Never dispose of any envelopes, packaging, etc without first ensuring
that the recipient's name and address have been rendered totally
unreadable, preferably by shredding. For large packaging, only the bit
with the address labels really needs to be shredded.

Quite important, for reasons other than those discussed here, in this
era of the rapid home delivery.

[JNugent]

Get a cross-cut shredder like wot I have and used to use on work-related
papers (when I was working).

Let the local authority try to piece the paper back together in order to
try to prove that it was not domestic waste!

[Les. Hayward]

On 01/02/2024 09:55, JNugent wrote:

> Get a cross-cut shredder like wot I have and used to use on work-related
> papers (when I was working).
>
> Let the local authority try to piece the paper back together in order to
> try to prove that it was not domestic waste!
>
>

Or in my case, use it to light the stove.