My father's rural (small quiet village) property adjoins some land that is owned by a millionaire. Earlier this year said millionaire applied for planning permission to build some warehouses and was refused. A couple of dozen people in the village also complained to the council.
Despite being refused planning permission, said millionaire is still going ahead and preparing the foundations for his proposed warehouses.
Various people, including my father, have spoken to the council about this latest development but to no avail. They seem unprepared to do anything.
This does make me wonder if said millionaire is greasing some palms somewhere at the local council, or is he just trying it on in the hope that the council will relent and allow him to build his warehouses ? Perhaps he is trying to utilise some legal loopholes ?
Can anything else be done to stop said millionaire in his tracks ?
No doubt if 'joe bloggs' tried this on he would be stopped in no time at all.
Until the building appears, contrary to planning, there is nothing the council can do. If said millionaire has said he is going to appeal the decision, then they won't do anything until that's settled. They can serve an order to demolish after this time.
Palm greasing is usually all above board and done by a section 106 agreement, in the form of improving local roads, drains and infrastructure.
Check to see if local MP is interested in taking it up - unless they both go to the same lodge of course.
Escalate in writing to local councillors and senior management in council.
Form a residents association and involve the press. Research the press to see who on the editorial staff is interested in making themselves a hero - even if it is a spotty 18 year old. Write the story for them.
Raise a small amount of money to cover costs.
Engage a solicitor to write to the council as well asking them to justify their inaction. Even more effective if done on behalf of residents association.
Check whether a Building Control application has been made.
Once you raise the profile and put a spotlight on the officers in the planning department and raise their level of discomfort they will have to act.
However, do try to make sure that the officers have a way out to save face if you can.
Some years ago I was involved in organising a group of this type to counter a proposed roadway into a local park. The proposed location was completely inappropriate for traffic reasons and would have threatened an area of the park used for small children to play.
This case was an uphill struggle because the developer was the parks department of the same council.
We used all of the techniques above and some others:
- The routing of the proposed road was between rows of lime trees. We contacted a professor at the local university who was prepared to write to the effect that there was a risk to the trees through possible root damage.
- The routing of the proposed road was within a designated distance of (what was then) a motorway. Different planning procedures involving central government apply (applied). As it happened, there is a railway line in between, but that is not mentioned in the legislation. The council hadn't done their homework.
Eventually, the council, both departments, were forced into attending a public meeting. We organised, solicitor, local press, councillors, MP and local TV to attend and made sure that the council officers were aware of who had been invited.
The meeting happened. The planning officers and parks department came along with a joint statement and new proposals and abandoning the original plan. Having produced a much better solution all round, including a better arrangement for the facility for which they were providing access, they made themselves heros.
We all went to the pub afterwards and parted friends.
So I think that the approach is to decide up front how much effort and money you are willing to spend and then turn up the heat until the desired outcome is achieved.
Until he has built a building without permission, he hasn't done anything wrong. Once it is built, _then_ report it and then he will have to take it down. I would assume also that building regs are not getting involved at this stage, so perhaps they will make him take the building down to inspect the foundations, even if he does get retrospective planning permission.
Could he be claiming that it is an agricultural building? I don't think (don't know) these are subject to planning permission. Presumably the land would then have to be designated as farm land. He probably has access to many costly & devious advisors.
I think most agricultural buildings of any size would need planning permission now but the route my neighbour took for a new barn was much easier than the hoops those putting up domestic buildings have to jump through.
I can't recall all the detail but basically all he had to do was to give a certain period of notice and if the Council didn't object he could go ahead with his building. There were several caveats including the obvious one that it had to be an agricultural building. The other 2 that I can remember were that he had to have a certain amount of land (10 hectare perhaps or is that the amount of land you need before you can get on the single payment gravy train?) and the barn had to be at least a certain distance (100m probably) away for any dwelling other than his own.
Building control and planning are 2 separate issues so is there anything to stop the landowner either getting BC consent or putting in a building notice to keep within that part of the law? (Assuming the buildings in question are subject to building control.)
The permitted developement rights for agricultural buildings are of course different from those for other types. Nevertheless they do still apply.
Building control would unlikely to give consent if they knew there was no planning permission. Not always the case but they are not doing their job very well if they don't liase with thier colleagues IMHO.
A man sneaks into a stables at night, and plugs in his Scorpio.
Climbing into the stall, he applies it to the horses neck. The horse wonders what the itching sensation is for several moments, before bursting into flames.
A foundation is still 'development' under the TCPA 1990 and will require planning permission. It is also relevent works under the Building Act and will require an application too.
Approved as in, you apply for approval with submitted drawings and specification and these are approved (ie they have beed checked and found to conform to the relevant sections of the building regs.
If one is so inclined, it's possible to argue that the "foundations" are, in fact a "hard-standing" and therefore exempt.
The local planners may see things differently, get pissed off and be as awkward as possible but, in my experience, those who become millionaires don't worry about such niceties.
Again, I'm not sure that's true. The "foundations" are just a hole in the ground filled with concrete *until* walls are built on them.
Are concrete-filled holes subject to building regs ?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.