Electoral Roll and Registration of address on a boat?

[magpie patrick]

4 hours ago, Tacet said:

Tsk Tsk.  Planning consent relates to the display of advertisements.  Planning permission relates to s55 development.

 

Is it still the case that no offence is committed simply by the absence of planning permission (or breach of condition)?  It is the failure to comply with an enforcement notice that is the offence?  https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200187/your_responsibilities/37/planning_permission/5 suggests so.

One thing the planning system doesn't do is pedantry - try arguing you need permission rather than consent when the nasty letters arrive and you'll be on the bank with your luggage faster than you can say planning enforcement. I've had more than one client try it on with that sort of trick and it always ends in tears.

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

On 06/03/2020 at 11:17, TheBiscuits said:

I'd be a little bit cautious here.  No one thinks the boat isn't or wasn't allowed to be moored there for ten years.

 

That doesn't make it a valid legal residence though, it just means the OP has got away with squatting in his own boat for years.

 

It means that the boat owner would be immune from prosecution under any planning powers.

On 06/03/2020 at 11:30, Alan de Enfield said:

 

If you are using it as your primary residence for more than 28 days per year (on the same mooring spot) then it becomes residential and requires PP

 

More difficult may be the situation where a vessel is used for residential purposes, as a person’s sole or main residence, but does cruise regularly between stays amounting to more than 28 days at its mooring base. Whether there has been a material change of use in the location of the mooring will be a matter of fact and degree having regard to the planning unit and the nature or character of the previous and existing use.

Planning permission not required subject to the individual not living on their vessel at the same mooring location for more than 28 days in any calendar year.

 

Living on board, moored in the same spot for more than 28 days per annum REQUIRES the land to have residential PP

Can you provide the link to this.  The information here is highly questionable.

On 06/03/2020 at 11:31, Jen-in-Wellies said:

To get round the mooring without planning permission thing  you could register in any constituency where.you have a connection, as per the electoral commission link above. If there are several possibilities, then pick to suit your political leanings as the votymcvoteface site suggests.

Incorrect. Being on the electoral role in another location has nothing legally to do with your planning obligations.

Edited March 10, 2020 by doratheexplorer

[doratheexplorer]

On 08/03/2020 at 20:58, Rickent said:

Are you saying if you spend 3 nights a month for 12 months on a CRT leisure mooring then it is residential and needs planning permision?

36 days and nights out of 365, doesn't sound right.

No the law doesn't say this.  What it says is that up to 28 days a year is not a material change of use and the boat can be occupied under Permitted Development.  Beyond this, the Permitted Development defence goes away and a planner or lawyer would look at the facts surrounding the specific case.  Planners like to use a term 'Fact and Degree' when weighing up these cases.  I can promise you that you will never find a case where a planning department has taken action against anyone for staying in a boat, caravan, static or anything else for 3 nights a month.  To suggest otherwise is just scaremongering.

8 hours ago, magpie patrick said:

One thing the planning system doesn't do is pedantry - try arguing you need permission rather than consent when the nasty letters arrive and you'll be on the bank with your luggage faster than you can say planning enforcement. I've had more than one client try it on with that sort of trick and it always ends in tears.

 

 

I don't think he/she was saying that.

 

It's also worth considering that planning enforcement is a discretionary (not statutory) power and with austerity cuts, there are now LAs which do virtually no enforcement work any more.

[TheBiscuits]

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

It means that the boat owner would be immune from prosecution under any planning powers.

 

That's not quite the same as being allowed to keep living on the boat there though.  Wouldn't it be the landowner who got the aggro anyway? Surely the planning permission (or not) relates to the land, not the boat.

[doratheexplorer]

6 minutes ago, TheBiscuits said:

 

That's not quite the same as being allowed to keep living on the boat there though.  Wouldn't it be the landowner who got the aggro anyway? Surely the planning permission (or not) relates to the land, not the boat.

You're right about it being the landowner who would be at risk of prosecution, but as I've said, they would be immune to prosecution, so it's moot.  Beware of splitting hairs here.  The issue in a case like this is not whether they require planning permission, it's whether the council tax bods would come chasing.  The risk of that directly relates to GDPR rules and I admit I'm not 100% sure whether sharing the information in this case would be allowed or not.  I suspect not.

[magpie patrick]

16 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

It's also worth considering that planning enforcement is a discretionary (not statutory) power and with austerity cuts, there are now LAs which do virtually no enforcement work any more.

I am a chartered town planning consultant running my own consultancy, I specialise in waterways nationally and most of that isn't planning as defined by the act, however locally I do provide general planning services especially to private individuals as that's a market sector the bigger players often ignore.

 

The single biggest reason people come to me is they are in trouble with enforcement and believing what they read or hear on forums like this (and down the pub, which is remarkably similar) is why they get into trouble, notwithstanding that some, but by no means all, were unaware of the laws they were breaking. If enforcement get a complaint they HAVE to investigate, they MAY conclude no breach has occurred but if they determine a breach of planning regulations occurs they will nearly always pursue it. They always give the opportunity for a retrospective application but that may be turned down, at which point we are back to enforcement.   

 

Enforcement often seems to be better resourced (relatively) than the department processing the applications. 

 

 

[doratheexplorer]

7 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

I am a chartered town planning consultant running my own consultancy, I specialise in waterways nationally and most of that isn't planning as defined by the act, however locally I do provide general planning services especially to private individuals as that's a market sector the bigger players often ignore.

I choose to preserve a level of anonymity on this forum, but I'm well aware who you are Patrick https://mossnayloryoung.com/

 

The single biggest reason people come to me is they are in trouble with enforcement and believing what they read or hear on forums like this (and down the pub, which is remarkably similar) is why they get into trouble, notwithstanding that some, but by no means all, were unaware of the laws they were breaking. If enforcement get a complaint they HAVE to investigate, they MAY conclude no breach has occurred but if they determine a breach of planning regulations occurs they will nearly always pursue it. They always give the opportunity for a retrospective application but that may be turned down, at which point we are back to enforcement.   

Investigate is a fairly loose term.  Investigate can simply be; consider the complaint and decide if it's expedient for the Council to take any action. The breach may be de minimis or there may be other mitigating factors.  They are under no obligation to do more.  It is most definitely not true that council nearly always pursue breaches.  In fact, that's not even close to being true.  Your work only sees the instances where the council have chosen to take action.  Also they don't always suggest a retrospective - again not true.

Enforcement often seems to be better resourced (relatively) than the department processing the applications. 

I'm not surprised it seems this way if your work is responding to enforcement action, but if you were on the inside of LPA departments, you may well see things differently.  LPAs are under huge pressure currently to meet decision targets with dwindling resources and staffing.  Those targets are of paramount importance to avoid being put into special measures.  Enforcement work is a distant priority in comparison.  Where things can be different is in marginal areas where councillors see political gain in appeasing their constituents so they enjoy the publicity of successful enforcement outcomes.  Then they see no problem in squeezing the DC officers further by pushing for enforcement work.

 

 

7 minutes ago, magpie patrick said:

 

Some info which may interest some https://www.gov.uk/guidance/ensuring-effective-enforcement

[David Mack]

1 hour ago, TheBiscuits said:

Wouldn't it be the landowner who got the aggro anyway? Surely the planning permission (or not) relates to the land, not the boat.

The landowner may be allowing the boat to moor against his land (or just access across his land to the mooring if CRT own a narrow strip if the bank) but the land actually occupied by the boat is owned by CRT (assuming we are talking about a CRT canal here). That would suggest that CRT may be the party against which action could be taken. 

[1st ade]

On 10/03/2020 at 10:19, magpie patrick said:

The single biggest reason people come to me is they are in trouble with enforcement and believing what they read or hear on forums like this (and down the pub, which is remarkably similar) is why they get into trouble, notwithstanding that some, but by no means all, were unaware of the laws they were breaking. If enforcement get a complaint they HAVE to investigate, they MAY conclude no breach has occurred but if they determine a breach of planning regulations occurs they will nearly always pursue it. They always give the opportunity for a retrospective application but that may be turned down, at which point we are back to enforcement. 

I have little connection with Canals (except for enjoying holiday on them) but as ex Chair of our Parish Council Planning Committee I'd agree with this. Given people who add a whole extra story to a mid-terraced house then (when the neighbours grass them up) go "we didn't know we needed permission" I can imagine that there are many who don't know that living on a boat tied to someone else's land is tantamount to building a granny flat for planning purposes.

 

And that same person wonders why enforcement (@Dora you're right, retrospective is the first option) goes over their retrospective planning application with a fine tooth comb whereas the normal planning route may have given a "yea, looks alright, go for it". In planning terms it is not better to seek forgiveness than ask permission!

[David Mack]

But how often do those extra storeys on mid-terraced houses actually get removed?

[1st ade]

4 minutes ago, David Mack said:

But how often do those extra storeys on mid-terraced houses actually get removed?

It's a long process but we have one locally: -

• (part) built without permission
• Told to stop work and apply for retrospective PP
• PP refused
• Appeal
• Appeal rejected
• Appeal (again)
• PP refused by Appeal Board (which is somewhere down in Bristol; not part of local Planning Authority)
• Enforcement around with a "Now FFS take it down" attitude
• It's still there but I doubt it will be much longer - because if it is then every local who wants a 50% increase in floor area done "on the cheap" will follow the leader.

[magpie patrick]

On 10/03/2020 at 11:09, David Mack said:

The landowner may be allowing the boat to moor against his land (or just access across his land to the mooring if CRT own a narrow strip if the bank) but the land actually occupied by the boat is owned by CRT (assuming we are talking about a CRT canal here). That would suggest that CRT may be the party against which action could be taken. 

In reality, the LA are likely to pursue the owner of the field or garden - if the owner is savvy they may refer them to CRT as the owner, they may not.

 

The bigger risk for the occupier of the boat is that the landowner, whoever they are, can't be bothered with the process and asks them to move on