Town and Country Planning Act 1990

[smellysocks]

I will start to look up the planning defintition of enclosure. I have looked up the legal definition and the Oxford English definition and they both the following:

Inclosure\In*clo"sure\(?; 135), n. [See Inclose, Enclosure.]
[Written also enclosure.]
[1913 Webster]
1. The act of inclosing; the state of being inclosed, shut up, or encompassed; the separation of land from common ground by a fence. [1913 Webster]
2. That which is inclosed or placed within something; a thing contained; a space inclosed or fenced up. [1913 Webster]
Within the inclosure there was a great store of houses. --Hakluyt. [1913 Webster]
3. That which incloses; a barrier or fence. [1913 Webster]
Breaking our inclosures every morn. --W. Browne. [1913 Webster]
Enclosure \En*clo"sure\(?; 135), n. Inclosure. See Inclosure. [1913 Webster]
Note: The words enclose and enclosure are written indiscriminately enclose or inclose and enclosure or inclosure. [1913 Webster]
Definitions
08 November 2011
16:19
Planning Page 6
inclosure. [1913 Webster]
enclosure
noun
1: artifact consisting of a space that has been enclosed for some purpose
2: the act of enclosing something inside something else [syn: enclosing, envelopment, inclosure]
3: a naturally enclosed space [syn: natural enclosure]
4: something (usually a supporting document) that is enclosed in an envelope with a covering letter [syn: inclosure]
Pasted from <http://definitions.dictionary.net/enclosure>
Planning

[helena]

yea, to me, what you've got there doesna look like an "enclosure" persay but, planning law may say differently, I don't know. I've only seen the one photo from the front facade and not sure of the extent. Anyways, like I say, drawing further uncertainty on the wording and classification in the notice could be advantageous as it brings more questions as to what is required of yourself to "comply".

[smellysocks]

So, what you saying are the following points:

1. I should look at the enforcement and say that there are no clearly defined expectations from the council as what I need to do in relation to the enforcement notice.
2. They are expecting me to go beyond the point were Planning Permission is reqyuired and are therefore going beyond their powers.
I have attached a couple of more photos:

IMG_0166.jpg

DSC02778.JPG

[helena]

oh! just found another problem, potentially a big problem with the Notice! could be borderlining the aha moment I've been patiently waiting for! lol

Your notice says:
3. THE MATTERS WHICH APPEAR TO CONSTITUTE A BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL

Without planning permission the erection of a means of enclosure over 2 meters in height as measured from ground level in the location shaded blue on the attached plan.

If they wish to call it an enclosure which is granted planning permission by default under the General Permitted Development Order, the fact that it is over 2 meters is actually a breach of condition of the planning permission under the GPO not development without the benefit of planning permission!! Now we are delving into the realms of ambiguity and more strength in your Miller-Mead argument.

See here. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/171A
Now look at your notice under part 1! It says s.171A (1)(a) when it should say s.171A (1)(b) !

173 Contents and effect of Notice

(1)An enforcement notice shall state—
(a)the matters which appear to the local planning authority to constitute the breach of planning control; and
(b)the paragraph of section 171A(1) within which, in the opinion of the authority, the breach falls.

you'll be pleased to know i have found some cases where notices were found to be nullities because of the same reason!
Will look at this more and get back to you.

[helena]

I've looked into this further, the above, and am not happy with it either. Think the council would argue that as it over 2 meters they would call it an "exception or limitation" to the permitted development class rather than condition. I also think that if the judge did see the above your way he would say that the error would have been capable of correction without injustice so.... think you're still stuck with argument about the steps they are requiring and whether it is an enclosure or not etc. ie. as in, not a strong argument. Hopefully, you've found some other arguments to throw in. Good luck tomorrow! At the end of the day, if in the rare chance the judge were to decide in your favour on the nullity it would not stop the council from serving another clearer more precise notice straight away! So, it going to be a hassle either way. If they do stick you with a fine, I doubt it will be much! Let us know what happens and if I happen to come across anything else tonite I will post or pm.

There's always....

a living willow screen!

[helena]

dammit, the more I read, the more I'm swithering on the above breach of condition issue. Just got out one of my planning books. Although it relates to Scotland, the legislation is basically the same and it is saying,

"a breach of planning control occurs when development is carried out without first obtaining the required permission OR contrary to any condition or LIMITATION subject to which planning permission has been granted. There is no statutory definition of "limitation" The Scottish office guidance refers to the limitations which are imposed by the provisions for permitted development rights in the PDO."

And here.... http://planninglawblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/permitted-development-for-outbuildings.html he refers to them as limitations too!

ffs. Promise I'll make my mind up by tonite. LOL if you pm me your email. I will send .pdf by midnite if we got something here.

[helena]

hope you got .pdf via email earlier this evening, should sum up the nullity argument. Let me know that you got it. Cheers and goodluck the morn.

[leavemealone]

Good Vibes be with you on the morrow,just remember it's fun playing their games,just be youself and enjoy the show.xxx

[Geronimo]

Any update?