Category: Law

Law, Uncategorized

Dorset Council and Planning Enforcement

bruceandholly
Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Speed is of the essence when it comes to the enforcement of planning regulations.  Unauthorised building work can become immune from planning enforcement in as little as four years.  For an authorised change of use, it is 10 years.  Although the law was changed on 25 April, 2024 to extend the enforcement of time limits from four years to 10 years in relation to unauthorised building work, that change does not apply retrospectively.  It means that unauthorized building work completed before that date will continue to be subject to the four year rule before it becomes immune from enforcement.  Nor are planning irregularities always a victimless crime.  Imagine if you were disturbed day and night by the revving of car engines because your next door neighbour had turned their domestic garage into a motor repair shop.  Wouldn’t you want your council to take action?

Nor are local authorities obliged to act against planning irregularities in every case.  Only when they consider it ‘expedient’ to do so.  But this does not absolve councils from the responsibility to investigate complaints of planning breaches, where they are reported, in order to make that crucial decision.  The council which refuses to do this and allows a planning irregularity to become ‘established’ by default, opens itself up to the possibility of ombudsman complaints.  Nor is it any excuse for the local authority to say that it does not have the resources to investigate planning irregularities.  Does it have the resources to pay out the compensation claims which will inevitably follow if it fails to act against planning irregularities where there is a need to do so?

Once a planning irregularity has been reported, it needs to be investigated.  Only then, can a decision be made as to whether it is ‘expedient’ to take enforcement action.  But that is only the beginning of a statutory process.

Information has to be gathered.  A decision made whether it is expedient take planning enforcement action or to ignore the irregularity because it is considered harmless.  Once it is decided that enforcement action has to be taken, a legal decision has to be taken as to the appropriate course of action to be taken against that planning-breach.  There are several choices.  Including a planning contravention notice; breach of condition notice; or the traditional enforcement notice, against which there is an appeal to the Secretary of state, which could, although rarely, lead to the cost of a public inquiry.  Once any statutory appeals against the enforcement process has been exhausted, the local authority have to follow up with prosecution if the breach continues.

It is also important that councils are seen to be robust when it comes to regulatory enforcement.  Otherwise it sends the wrong message.  That planning irregularities can be ignored.  It is why Dorset Council’s backlog of 900 cases is so problematic.  Many of those pending cases are already on their way to becoming immune from planning enforcement, as well as those cases which have already become immune.  If the council does not have the resources in-house to deal with it, and maybe it should consider outsourcing that function.

housing, Law

No plans to abolish Right-to-buy

bruceandholly

Noticeably absent from recent government announcements is any proposal to abolish statutory right-to-buy. To the contrary, Angela Rayner has signaled her commitment to keep the policy, Even if some of the crazy discounts are to be scaled back. Currently, around 40% of ex-right-to-buy properties are owned by private landlords, Meaning that councils have to rent back on their own estates just to meet their statutory housing obligations. And all paid from housing benefit. That’s you and me. No wonder first-time buyers and private renters are priced out of the market. But not everyone who has exercised their right-to-buy is a winner.

It is the high-rise leaseholders who have come off worst. They are the ones facing five figure service charge bills when their local council decides to replace windows. When everyone else living in a block gets it for nothing. But something has to give if you want to rebuild social housing stock and solve Britain’s housing crisis.

Law, politics

Starmergate

bruceandholly
Photo by Amar Saleem on Pexels.com

Starmer’s mistake was not that someone else paid for his wife’s clothes but that he did not follow protocol in declaring it. But wouldn’t you think that he would have known that?

Contrary to what many people think, there is no law which says that someone in public office cannot accept hospitality, in circumstances when it might be considered insulting to refuse. But there has to be transparency.

All public sector organisations have a hospitality book in which you can write in hospitality which is offered to you and you are minded to accept. It might be a pair of cuff-links. It might be an invitation to a ‘black-tie’ dinner. Take a few moments to look your organisation’s hospitality book to see what other people have written into it. You may be surprised,

crime, culture, Law, Uncategorized

1920’s Prohibition Revisited

bruceandholly
Photo by ROMAN ODINTSOV on Pexels.com

Haven’t we learned anything from 1920s prohibition? When stupid politicians voted to ban alcohol consumption across the United States, and in so doing, created the model for organised crime, which still exists today, and lives on In the drug cartels of South America. So shouldn’t we be de-criminalising instead of criminalising otherwise lawful social activity? But here we go again, with Starmer’s plan to ban tobacco smoking in pub gardens and parks, where it does not affect anyone except the smoker.

Sunak started all of this nonsense with his talk about raising the smoking age every year, so that generations going forward will never be able to legally smoke. He did it to take away attention from the housing and cost of living crisis which his government had created.So are we going to see police officers frisking down young people, just in case they are hiding cigarettes? That’s going to be great for community relations! Now Starmer has picked up the reins.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a smoker. But I don’t like to see anyone being put out of work just because someone wants to make a political point. Nor do I wish to see the creation of a new criminal underground. Haven’t we got enough criminals already? Or police chasing round after kids and pub- smokers, when they should be catching burglars and shoplifters. If Starmer wants to ban something, he should ban online gambling.That causes much more psychological damage and addiction. As well as family breakups.But no one seems bothered about that. In fact, I’d guess that if you’ve got the wit and the know-how, anyone could start up a gambling platform from their own back bedroom.You wouldn’t need to employ anyone. And you wouldn’t need to rent any premises.You just pay for the software and the marketing.Then sit back and watch the cash roll in. It almost seems too easy.