Ramp Entrance to new houses

[roadbowler]

Yes I have heard the likes as I've been targeted too!!!
My house was built just after yours and I got one too. Seemingly there's a door in my garage that's not on their plan(but it's on mine and stamped in their office 24.06.08) and that's classed as breach of planning. I am not maintaining the tarmac driveway yet I've only been in the house 10 months. They want me to cut the field strainer to 0.9m in height so it doesn't block my visability yet I've been coming out of the same driveway for 29 years and never had a problem. There will be major problem when the cattle step over the fence because its too low. My planning also stated that I required a drop kerb at the road but the building contractors were told at the time "not to bother with it" with result stones and surface water is coming into the driveway and that is also a problem now. Likewise I have to apply for planning permission for landscaping yet mine is natural to my environment, the same grass which is growing at the other side of the fence. I don't want hedges, plants etc so why should I have to have them? Got 28 days to get plan in or enforcement notice going to be served on me! Makes you wonder was it worth building, if I had time back would have stayed where I was!!!

Ok, here is my opinion (not advice!) on the matter. Your straining post has been there for 29 years? Lol well, permitted development allows fences, gates and walls within 20 meters of a road if they are 1 meter in height or less. (To nitpick, their requirement of it being cut down to 0.9 meters exceeds what would be necessary anyway, the legislation actually says it is not to exceed 1 meter! - Town and country planning general permitted development order 1992, schedule 1, part 2, class 7(2)(a)) If it has been there for 29 years, even if it is over a meter, it is lawful development and they cannot take enforcement action in respect of it. The prescribed period of limitation for building (building means "any erection or structure") or "other" operations is 4 years, therefore, your straining post is immune from enforcement provided this wasn't a condition too?! . (town and country planning scotland act 1997 s. 124 (1)):-p

Right, they have imposed the drop kerb before occupancy as an actual condition on the permission. Slightly different than what I thought you meant earlier. See what you can sort out with it.

A word about the threats, lets rationalise them, sure, they could serve an enforcement notice because they are alleging you are breaching the conditions of the permission. However, take note that government guidance and the councils own guidance (see Highland Enforcement Charter) says it is unreasonable to take enforcement action for a trivial breach of planning control and/or to simply to regularise development.

No, they will not serve a notice in 28 days as this is not a delegated decision. They would be required by legitimate expectation to notify you that they were taking the issue to the planning committee and would have to actually seek approval from the full planning committee which meets once a monthish. As the Committee would be acting as a quasi-judicial body, (quasi-judicial because this decision is going to determine whether or not you can be prosecuted as a criminal legally speaking!) you have a right to appear to contest the action and be given a fair chance to state your case and give evidence to the Committee by virtue of Article 6 of the HRA 1998. So, bit more to it than they like to make out!

Enforcement is a threat that planning authorities use a lot to bully people, i say bully because most of these threats have no real planning purpose basis yet, it usually gets them what they are after too, usually fee collection IMO. The reality of the situation is that highland hardly ever serve these notices as it really isna just a matter of serving a notice like they like to make out, there are lots of legal considerations and implications to evaluate, like first and foremost they are required under the legislation to have sound reasons of "expediency" of taking such action (is it harming public amenity or the environment unacceptably? because a breach of planning control itself is NOT an offence and it is NOT enough on its own to legitimately serve such a notice; there must be expediency. TCPSA 1997 s.127 (1)(a) and (b)) before they should even be thinking about doing it and when they do serve them and people challenge them the council seem to have a bad habit of losing appeals to these notices.

In your case, they may and probably will make further threats of prosecution and huge fines, well, pertaining to prosecution, here is some trivia to consider. The procurator fiscal would laugh in their faces if they attempted to prosecute for a straining post, garage door, a drop kerb and refusal to plant a hedge! This is understandable as it clearly would not be in the interests of the public nevermind a huge waste of public money. Most people aren't aware that in planning prosecution cases, less than 50 percent of cases submitted to the Procurator Fiscal are even taken up and of those just under 80 percent are successfully prosecuted. They will only prosecute in most cases if you are making money off the back of breaches and the fine would reflect this or if it was apparent you were causing serious harm to the environment or public amenity. Sure, they can fine people up to £20,000 when you are prosecuted successfully. But, nobody yet has ever been fined that amount! Most fines are less than £1000 and rarely exceed a few hundred. Last year, new legislation gave planning authorities the power to serve Fixed Penalty Notices of £2000 for failure to comply with an enforcement notice. The interesting part is there is no requirement to pay it! Payment of this fine only buys you out of the chance of prosecution. Well, see statistics above again. Bottom line is, the planning authorities remit is to exercise their duties and powers under the planning legislation to protect the enviroment and public amenity. I don't see how any of their complaints against you qualify the threats they are making over it.

As for this landscaping. I've heard a lot of people complaining of the same thing and have looked into it a bit. My opinion based on the facts is this. S. 159 of the 1997 act imposes a "duty" on planning authorities to ensure, "wherever it is appropriate", that in granting of planning permission for any development, adequate provision is made, by the impostion of conditions, for the preservation and planting of trees. Conditions can also require you to maintain these trees as well. They can only require you to plant the trees beforehand if the consent is for a change of use. This is for trees, not shrubs or other plants. There is a distinction and case law to the effect. This could be where the landscaping thing comes in or see bottom of paragragh. It shouldn't really be applied as a blanket either. All the same, if they impose conditions and people do not challenge the conditions, the conditions stand. That being said, the conditions in the permission should always be supported by reasons. Bog standard, vague reasons really are not good enough. Each condition should be explained by reasons relating to the special circumstances of your "planning unit". So, note, the legislation itself says that the condition must be placed on the permission for the development they granted to you. Nothing about requiring you to make a new application as far as I have seen. Or, look to see if there is a condition about approval for "reserved matters" as well, landscaping could have been required here as well.

Frankly, I think its mischievous nevermind onerous with a high probabability of being completely erroneous to be asking you to submit an additional application and fee (how much? btw) for landscaping your garden ground after the fact. If its not in the original conditions on the permission I believe you are in a good position to decline. The permission is to be construed using the four corner rule. If it isna within the four corners of the permission document and you have implemented that permission you can now take advantage of your permitted development rights and development exceptions contained in the legislation. One of which is, within the "curtilage" of your dwelling you can use any buildings and use that land how you wish provided it is "incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling". (This is found at section 26 (2)(a) in the town and country planning scotland act 1997) Ask them where in the legislation it requires you to apply for permission for your garden or the land of the curtilage in your dwelling. When I say ask them, I mean make sure you are speaking with an RTPI certified Planner, not one of their so-called support officers who are clueless with regards to planning legislation. Highland have lots of these and they try to pass themselves off as planners and they are not. Naughty is this, as they are agents of the principal and when they attempt to exercise authority and do not understand the legislation that gives them that authority, they lose any authority they thought they had and arguably, so may the principal. Even with a certified planner you are still only getting their "interpretation", ask another at a different office if you are unsatisfied and look at the legislation and make your own mind up.

The garage door. Again, the permission is to be construed using the four corner rule. If you have a stamped and approved plan with the garage door on it with your permission, that will be good enough for any rational person.

(anything between "" denotes a minefield!)

Sandyr1- I concur, wholeheartedly. People need to start putting their foot down.

[burstbucker]

I thought this thread was about access ramps?