Local councils may limit car ownership to one car per bed ro - Page 4

Dyna · Jan 7th, 2011, 20:40

Thanks Laneystrider,

The links are really interesting. Since there are some quite absurd costs, this appeal has to be done on a "DIY" basis unless I get some really good leads and help. Hence I need all the help I can get with links or case laws helping me.

Sincerely Dyna

emmdee · Jan 9th, 2011, 17:22

Hey. I was on holiday with no internet for a few days.
Dyna, I just meant that cases involving materials changes of use of domestic premises are very common. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that there is a Court system and you can appeal to them is fundamentally fair. It’s not fair that having going to Court is expensive, but that’s not the planning authority’s fault any more than it’s yours (i.e. not at all).

Andy, we’ve had a planning system since 1947. One of the benefits of having it is that it puts the wider social good ahead of the individual’s good. LAs only act in the public interest where it’s reasonable and necessary. Without it there’d be a free-for-all. Enforcement is a necessary arm of the statutory process. If you genuinely think action taken under national law constitutes bullying, you’re either a crazy sub-Thatcherite “libertarian” or you’re stirring the sh*t a wee bit. I’ve been doing the job for 7 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that my authority receives around 1000 complaints every year, of which fewer than 100 will ever result in the type of Notice Dyna’s having to deal with. That’s not Council bullying by any definition.

I can tell you that action taken by a LA under an Act of Parliament which is in itself compliant with the HR Act can never be successfully challenged as being in breach of the HR Act. While your advice is obviously well-meant, Dyna would be well advised to ignore it for now and make his appeal to the Court. If he doesn’t, he won’t be able to challenge the decision in Europe.

FWIW, see Buckley v UK (1996), Chapman v UK (2001), R v SoS for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions ex parte Holding and Barnes PLC (2001) for HR related planning cases.

There’s no such thing as unfettered power to whatever you like with land and buildings. Councils take action sometimes and other times they take no action at all. Enforcement powers are discretionary in law. That’s about it. I can’t offer Dyna advice as to how he can appeal to the Court cheaply because I don’t know how. I don’t think there is a way, but I can at least put some info his way regarding HR and planning decisions. He seems to be pretty sanguine about it.
m.d.

Dyna · Jan 10th, 2011, 22:04

Hi,

Yes I do think I can successfully challenge the PA upheld of the LPA's enforcement notice.

In essence the appeal to the high court should be that the PA didn't interpret the planning law's clause of “change of use” correctly, when upholding the LPA's enforcement notice that vehicles can only be domestically parked at the dwellinghouse to be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

I don't think the HC will see doing winter maintenance on a small or moderate size boat or restoring your car as "change of use" but rather as
"incidental to the enjoyment" and there lays the key in my view since there are cases defining storage vs parking and restoring your car is definitely not parking. I could however get help here since I need more help finding those nuggets that can help with with the appeal.

I'm not really here to rave about what is fair and what isn't. Its my fundamental believe however that we need to stick together and help us out. If I lose this appeal it in essence means that there is a case law only allowing domestic parking of vehicles. That means that as soon as somewhat see you restoring your car/bike/boat etc the LPA can come after you. As M.D says it's not so that they necessary will but they can. I think we all can agree that this is not something that we want.

Sincerely Dyna,

PS: The only think I can say about fair was and still is: Yes that there is a court system is fair and what makes it fair to begin with. What makes the system not fair (and that is not the LPA's fault) is that the accused (me in this case) don't have any legal aid. I think we all can agree that it would not be fair if you didn't get legal aid when you was accused of say theft or any other criminal charge. My view is that when a government body is accusing anyone of anything (there is more than planning law) we should be entitled to legal aid. It's after all you are actually the one that is paying (partially at least) them to accuse you.

Jan 9th, 2011, 17:22	#32
emmdee Premier Member Last Online: Mar 14th, 2023 19:42 Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cardenden, Fife	Hey. I was on holiday with no internet for a few days. Dyna, I just meant that cases involving materials changes of use of domestic premises are very common. Maybe it’s just me, but the fact that there is a Court system and you can appeal to them is fundamentally fair. It’s not fair that having going to Court is expensive, but that’s not the planning authority’s fault any more than it’s yours (i.e. not at all). Andy, we’ve had a planning system since 1947. One of the benefits of having it is that it puts the wider social good ahead of the individual’s good. LAs only act in the public interest where it’s reasonable and necessary. Without it there’d be a free-for-all. Enforcement is a necessary arm of the statutory process. If you genuinely think action taken under national law constitutes bullying, you’re either a crazy sub-Thatcherite “libertarian” or you’re stirring the sht a wee bit. I’ve been doing the job for 7 years and I can tell you with absolute certainty that my authority receives around 1000 complaints every year, of which fewer than 100 will ever result in the type of Notice Dyna’s having to deal with. That’s not Council bullying by any definition. I can tell you that action taken by a LA under an Act of Parliament which is in itself compliant with the HR Act can never be successfully challenged as being in breach of the HR Act. While your advice is obviously well-meant, Dyna would be well advised to ignore it for now and make his appeal to the Court. If he doesn’t, he won’t be able to challenge the decision in Europe. FWIW, see Buckley v UK (1996), Chapman v UK (2001), R v SoS for the Environment, Transport, and the Regions ex parte Holding and Barnes PLC (2001) for HR related planning cases. There’s no such thing as unfettered power to whatever you like with land and buildings. Councils take action sometimes and other times they take no action at all. Enforcement powers are discretionary in law. That’s about it. I can’t offer Dyna advice as to how he can appeal to the Court cheaply because I don’t know how. I don’t think there is a way, but I can at least put some info his way regarding HR and planning decisions. He seems to be pretty sanguine about it. m.d. Last edited by emmdee; Jan 9th, 2011 at 17:25.*

Jan 7th, 2011, 20:40	#31
Dyna New Member Last Online: Jun 14th, 2014 13:41 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: London	Thanks Laneystrider, The links are really interesting. Since there are some quite absurd costs, this appeal has to be done on a "DIY" basis unless I get some really good leads and help. Hence I need all the help I can get with links or case laws helping me. Sincerely Dyna

Jan 10th, 2011, 22:04	#33
Dyna New Member Last Online: Jun 14th, 2014 13:41 Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: London	Hi, Yes I do think I can successfully challenge the PA upheld of the LPA's enforcement notice. In essence the appeal to the high court should be that the PA didn't interpret the planning law's clause of “change of use” correctly, when upholding the LPA's enforcement notice that vehicles can only be domestically parked at the dwellinghouse to be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. I don't think the HC will see doing winter maintenance on a small or moderate size boat or restoring your car as "change of use" but rather as "incidental to the enjoyment" and there lays the key in my view since there are cases defining storage vs parking and restoring your car is definitely not parking. I could however get help here since I need more help finding those nuggets that can help with with the appeal. I'm not really here to rave about what is fair and what isn't. Its my fundamental believe however that we need to stick together and help us out. If I lose this appeal it in essence means that there is a case law only allowing domestic parking of vehicles. That means that as soon as somewhat see you restoring your car/bike/boat etc the LPA can come after you. As M.D says it's not so that they necessary will but they can. I think we all can agree that this is not something that we want. Sincerely Dyna, PS: The only think I can say about fair was and still is: Yes that there is a court system is fair and what makes it fair to begin with. What makes the system not fair (and that is not the LPA's fault) is that the accused (me in this case) don't have any legal aid. I think we all can agree that it would not be fair if you didn't get legal aid when you was accused of say theft or any other criminal charge. My view is that when a government body is accusing anyone of anything (there is more than planning law) we should be entitled to legal aid. It's after all you are actually the one that is paying (partially at least) them to accuse you.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)