Download original attachment
(Word document)
This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request
'Reply to Hayley Martin for update of my request'.
(Word document)
Email:
Our Ref: H/2009/0568
Your Ref:
Contact Officer: Richard Trow ( 01429 523537
24 March, 2010
Mr A H Flounders
48 RIDLINGTON WAY
HARTLEPOOL
TS24 9QA
Dear Sir
NOTIFICATION OF A PLANNING APPLICATION
PROPOSAL: |
Rear extension to form porch with toilet (Retrospective) (Amended application form received - Certificate B signed) |
LOCATION: |
46 RIDLINGTON WAY HARTLEPOOL |
The above application for planning permission was considered under the Council's scheme of delegation in conjunction with the Chairman of Planning Committee on 12/03/2010 at which time planning permission was APPROVED. The decision was issued on 15/03/2010 .
Your observations in respect of the proposed development were made known and taken into account in reaching the decision. The Local Planning Authority do not consider there to be any breach of planning control at your neighbours property. While I appreciate your concerns the Local Planning Authority can only act within the terms of planning law and Building Regulations. As outlined in previous correspondence the matters you refer to are essentially civil matters.
If you would like further information about why the application was approved you can visit our web site at http://eforms.hartlepool.gov.uk:7777/portal and look for the application using the reference number above. A copy of the officer's report and decision notice should be available. Alternatively you can contact the case officer (Richard Trow), who will try and clarify the position for you.
I would like to take this opportunity to discuss your Freedom of Information requests (FOI) sent on 14 and 23 February 2010. I understand Hayley Martin the Constitutional and Administrative Solicitor advised you that these requests for information are not considered to be FOI requests as such and that I would respond to them
Turning first to your email of 14th February I have replied with a simple yes or no as you request where this is appropriate.
1. In view of the recent High Court Rulings handed down in London this month by High Court judge Sir Thayne Forbes, regarding Buildings Erected without Planning Permission. I would like Hartlepool Council to CONFIRM or DENY that they are Immune from implementing those Legal Requirements in respect of any Complaints or Objections to Buildings or Extensions Erected without Planning Permission, when and if, they receive any such Complaints or Objections from members of the public.
A simple YES or NO will suffice.
No we are not immune
2. It is also my understanding, that this High Court Judge, Sir Thayne Forbes,also stated, that if no-one objected for a period of four (4) years, it was hoped to circumvent the Law and was therefore IMMUNE from Planning Enforcement Controls was also WRONG, this High Court Judge Sir Thayne Forbes, also ruled that because the property was built WITHOUT Planning Permission and Deliberately concealed to deceive the Planning Authorities and others, the four (4) year Immunity rule did NOT apply.and to achieve by Deception Lawful Status for a dwelling Built in Breach of Planning Control, he Ruled that they were NOT entitled to benefit from this Deception of the Local Planning Authority and the Building must come down. Is it Hartlepool Council's Policy to Support or Reject this High Court Ruling.
A Simple Yes or No will Suffice.
Yes, support
3. My Understanding of the above High Court decision, highlights, that some people, have in the past, and some even now,are attempting to sidestep the Correct Planning System for their own ends.by applying for a Certificate of Lawfulness or a Retrospective Planning Application, hoping to benefit from this deception of the Local Planning Authority and the Democratically Elected Councillors. Is it Hartlepool Council's Policy to Support or Reject this High Court Ruling.
A Simple Yes or No will Suffice.
Yes, support
4. Can I therefore be given a Clear and Honest answer on this very subject, which I first raised with your Planning Officer, supported with Photographic evidence, in September 2008, and which still remains unanswered, what is Hartlepool Council's Policy on the four year (4 ) rule. and will the Unelected Council Officers, be told to refrain from advising concerned neighbours, that it is a civil matter and they should seek independent Legal Advice.
The Local Planning Authorities advice on this matter is clear and has been provided in earlier correspondence.
5. In view of this recent High Court judgement, which I firmly believe reflects directly and supports my interpretation and justifies my Objections and Requests for Information since August 2008, will Hartlepool Council address my recent written Objection to a Retrospective Planning Application H/2009/0568. and could I also be supplied with all the names of the Democratically Elected Councillors, Unelected Council Officer, who may be involved in Opposing/Objecting and/or/Approving the Granting of Permission for this Retrospective Planning Application, who will be attending the forth coming Planning Committee Meeting.
The Local Planning Authority does not agree that the court judgment reflects and supports your interpretation. The following is an extract from advice provided by the Council's Legal Division which I have copied for clarification:-
“The Planning Officer for this matter informed me that the extensions to the Bennison's property were constructed over 4 years ago and therefore under section 172 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 they are immune to any enforcement action being undertaken by the Local Planning Authority (the “LPA”). The extensions are now classed as lawful structures. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that the current extension (which I understand is currently under review by the LPA) is an addition to an unauthorised building.
I believe the case Mr Flounders is referring to in his email dated 14th February 2010 is the case of Robert Fidler v (1) Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government (2) Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (2010). The case involved the deception of the LPA by the concealment of a dwelling behind straw bales in order to achieve by deception lawful status for a dwelling built in breach of planning control. From the information provided to me by the Planning Officer it does not appear that the Bennison's concealed or attempted to conceal the construction of any of the extensions to their property. Therefore, in my opinion the case of Robert Fidler v Secretary of State is not applicable.
Building Regulations are outside the remit of planning legislation.
Whether the extension to the Bennison's property has been erected on Mr Flounders land is a civil law matter as it relates to private property rights. Private property rights are outside the remit of the Local Planning Authority as they have no powers to intervene or make a binding decision on the parties.
Any person can apply for planning permission (even if they do not own the land in question) but a requirement of the planning application is that they notify the landowner”.
In response to your query about Certificate B in your email of 23 February.
Certificate A of the application form was originally signed when the planning application was submitted. This would indicate that the applicant was the owner (owner is a person with a freehold interest or leasehold interest with at least 7 years left to run) of any part of the land or building to which the application relates. Following a site visit by the case officer Richard Trow to the application site and your property on 3rd December 2009 the planning application form has been amended so that Certificate B has been signed. Certificate B is signed and notice served on anyone who, on the day 21 days before the date of this application, was the owner of any part of the land or building to which the application relates. The application form was requested to be amended as works to the constructed extension (now approved) included the re-roofing of part of your outhouse, not considered to be in the ownership of the applicant, as outlined in the Council letter to yourself dated 19 February 2010. The new Certificate B indicates that the relevant notice was served upon you by the owner of 46 Ridlington Way on 18 January 2010.
The application was determined under the Council's scheme of delegation in conjunction with the Chairman of Planning Committee.
I trust this clarifies the position and answers your further queries.
Yours sincerely
Development Control Manager
C:\oracorrs\pln\DELAPP.DOC
Regeneration & Neighbourhoods
Bryan Hanson House
Hanson Square
Hartlepool TS24 7BT
Tel: 01429 266522
Fax: 01429 523599
DX60669 Hartlepool-1
