planning enforcement

What’s that?

Hi lizzie, i think your confused with unauthorised development. There is no enforcement time limits related to compliance with planning conditions.

Do you mean that if the planning impose conditions with a planning grant, there is no time limit to implement them. What is the point of ever imposing them in the first place then.

@lizzie wrote:

whats the statutory length of time regarding enforcement of conditions of full planning permission ?

normally a Council will write to an applicant with regard to planning compliance with the conditions whenever a commencement notice is lodged ie whenever the applicant commences the work to which the grant applies. This is because the conditions should be complied with prior to any work starting. the standard application has a 5 year life.

@MichaelCal wrote:

Do you mean that if the planning impose conditions with a planning grant, there is no time limit to implement them. What is the point of ever imposing them in the first place then.

Nope other way around, conditions have to be complied with by the applicant straight away as wearnicehats says. But if you were not to comply with a condition, then there is nothing to stop a local authority coming after you at any point in the future.

For example if a condition limits opening hours of a business, it would be pointless if this could only be enforced for a period of say 5 years.

@wearnicehats wrote:

normally a Council will write to an applicant with regard to planning compliance with the conditions whenever a commencement notice is lodged ie whenever the applicant commences the work to which the grant applies. This is because the conditions should be complied with prior to any work starting. the standard application has a 5 year life.

this obviously applies to conditions that can actually be complied with prior to commencement. Any problems tend to surround anything that is supposed to be done afterwards eg reinstatement of existing landscaping / walls etc. The best thing to do is find out the planning reference of the scheme in question and go to / ring the Enforcement Officer in the relevant county council and have a chat about it

Can anyone shed light on this:

An advertising sign was granted permission in 98 with a condition that stipulated that it should be removed after expiration of 3 years.

I asked for a S154 notice to be issued as the sign was now breaching the planning condition (on the assumption that there was no time limit for planning conditions)

I received a letter today stating that as the sign was not removed, it had become ‘unauthorised’ in 2001 and that since the LA had taken no enforcement action before 2006 they were now statute barred from taking action.

I also referred to Section 157 Subsection 4(b) of the Planning and Development Act 2000 whereby “proceedings may be commenced at any time in respect of any condition concerning the use of land to which the permission is subject.”

The LA argue that since the PP was for the replacement of the sign, the pre-existing landuse was advertising. Surely a landuse is not indefinate??

The notion in the heads of the LA seems to be that once an advertising sign is erected, even if a time limit is given, once they fail to enforce over a five year period, then the advertiser has an defacto planning permission until the end of time.

Can anyone point me to the relevant section of the Act or is there any case law that a removal time-limit means that after that period the development becomes unauthorised, and that after five years becomes authorised again??
:confused:

All seems very Kafka-esque to me.

Sounds like you have a straight forward case against the LA for not following up on a time limit condition.

It could be argued that a letter should have gone out automatically when the three years was about to run out, notifying the owner that his sign had to come down.

Not much point in imposing time limits, via planning conditions, if the planning authority hasn’t put in place even that simple mechanism for following them up, . . . your honour!

a straight forward case

High court? Expensive. 🙁 Any one know if there is case law on this? i can’t see the logic in this supposed time limit, nor can find anything in the Act.

I suspect that the LA are following the 1963 Act and not the 2000 Act.

Presumably the LA are thinking that, if they took a case against him, he could just say “Well, I took the sign down after three years, and then the next day I erected it again as an illegal development. Therefore it is up for five years as an illegal development, and thus it is now beyond the reach of Enforcement”.

I am not an expert, but I think he could get way with it.

he could just say “Well, I took the sign down after three years, and then the next day I erected it again as an illegal development.

Isn’t the onus of proof on the defendant in the absence of evidence that this was done ? They would have to purjure themselves to claim this.

The LA are shockingly negligent in failing to follow up in any case.

Unless stated in the condition such as within 6 months of grant of permission or prior to commencement then there is no time limit, however if you do not carry out the conditions then you wont/shouldn’t be issued with a compliance cert as you have not complied with your planning.

Does a compliance cert limit permission in any way if a condition exists on the planning permission limiting the time for which a structure can be erected?

@forrestreid wrote:

Presumably the LA are thinking that, if they took a case against him, he could just say “Well, I took the sign down after three years, and then the next day I erected it again as an illegal development. Therefore it is up for five years as an illegal development, and thus it is now beyond the reach of Enforcement”.

I am not an expert, but I think he could get way with it.

Must commence enforcement within 7 years of the expiry of planning permission.

Must commence enforcement within 7 years of commencement of unauthorised development.

Enforcement means Enforcement Notice or stronger – Warning Letter does not count.