a law that prevents unauthorised use of land

1874

Section 3(2)(b)(iii) of the Planning & Development Act 2000.


I came across this Act recently here on boards, I have routinely heard/been told that people can keep what amount to scrap vehicles on private property, Id perfectly understand that someone might keep a vehicle that would have some value and so long as it does not draw attention it will likely not be noticed, having said that,

Having come across this Act and section (mentioned) it seems very much not to be allowed at all, for someone to use land for the deposit (suggests just leaving them there) of vehicles, my opinion extends to something that amounts to an eyesore as Ive an interest in classic (even relatively new cars that may become classics) but without somewhere to store them and finances its not viable, despite my interest, I still can see a point when something has no value.

There is no reason (other than an individuals personal gain and even then that is debatable) to keep a scrap vehicle to break it down gradually.


Is this Act used or has it been used to compel someone to clear scrap vehicles from a garden of a suburban property.
I think if they had the vehicle on a paved portion of the garden they might be able to claim they can park what they want on that, but as it is parked on what would have been a lawn, I think not.







3.—(1) In this Act, “development” means, except where the context otherwise requires, the carrying out of any works on, in, over or under land or the making of any material change in the use of any structures or other land.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and without prejudice to the generality of that subsection—

(a) where any structure or other land or any tree or other object on land becomes used for the exhibition of advertisements, or

(b) where land becomes used for any of the following purposes—

(i) the placing or keeping of any vans, tents or other objects, whether or not moveable and whether or not collapsible, for the purpose of caravanning or camping or habitation or the sale of goods,

(ii) the storage of caravans or tents, or

(iii) the deposit of vehicles whether or not usable for the purpose for which they were constructed or last used, old metal, mining or industrial waste, builders' waste, rubbish or debris,

the use of the land shall be taken as having materially changed.

1874

lot of views, anyone have experience or an opinion on it or heard it being used for this reason?

nuac

Yes, this amendment to the 2000 Act has been used many times to control unauthorised development on land.
The most useful section is s.160 of the Act which permits the Planning Authority or a private individual to apply for a court order to stop the unauthorised development and to restores the land to its previous condition.
A private citizen would have to give an undertaking as to damages which is usual in injunction applications. A planning authority does not have to give any such undertaking.

nuac

Mod
Title amended for greater clarity

1874

nuac wrote: »

Yes, this amendment to the 2000 Act has been used many times to control unauthorised development on land.
The most useful section is s.160 of the Act which permits the Planning Authority or a private individual to apply for a court order to stop the unauthorised development and to restores the land to its previous condition.
A private citizen would have to give an undertaking as to damages which is usual in injunction applications. A planning authority does not have to give any such undertaking.

Can I ask you what you mean by "give an undertaking as to damages" is this a statement as to how someone is affected? as Im not even certain myself what value of damages I might experience, I consider that the item in question, an eyesore of a scrap vehicle will cost me in terms of a value I might achieve for the sale of my home,I consider that damage, but I dont know if thats taken into consideration. There are a number of issues with the person in question who is not the owner, and ultimately I feel I am being left with no option (forced) but to move. It has been stated to me that it could be difficult to evict them for a few reasons, which I am fairly stunned to hear from the mouth of the organisation that deals with reports of tenant/landlord3rd party problems (in my case Im the third party).

I'm not sure what constitutes a question that I can ask here (or not),
It appears the Act (Section 3(2)(b)(iii) of the Planning & Development Act 2000) could be used to prevent someone (a tenant) who is keeping a scrap vehicle on the garden of a suburban property, they do nothing with it, its a complete eyesore, a number of people have questioned its need, although they seem to either be resigned to its presence or think nothing can be done, Im trying to determine if something can be done before I approach a solicitor, at the same time I dont want to have to expend a lot of money dealing with something especially on my own when it should not be a problem and I think people might be reluctant to share in the costs.

TheBoyConor

You are getting massively carried away here. This legislation is really intended to regulate large scale or commercial deposition of vehicles on land, that is to say, it is there to regulate scrap yards and require anyone looking to set up a scrap or dismantling yard to get planning permission.

While technically it may appear to apply, it really isn't intended to stop a homeowner from keeping a non running vehicle on their property without getting planning permission.
No-one will be brought up or prosecuted for it if they have a scrap or classic car in the garden garden.


The only instance I can think of where a homeowner might be brought up and prosecuted under this act is if they are taking the piss and are hoarding a large number of cars on their property and it is causing some level of nuisance to locals and is generating complaints to the planning authorities.

And even at that it is probably more likely they will be brought up under waste enforcement or environmental legislation than planning as in that case the cars are just person possesions rather than being bought in en masse for a commercial purpose. Even so, for one banjaxed car on a property, it is most highly unlikely that the council would bring a prosecution. the only way they might is, for example, if it was out onto the footpath and genuinely causing a hazard to the public.
If it is a car rusting away in a ditch or in a back garden somewhere, I can guarantee you, no planning authority in the country will take that case to the level of enforcement/prosecution. I guarantee you that.

And they are even less likely to take a case on the basis of some nosy neighbour giving out because they can see the car when peering into the property.

And a private individual cannot take a case for planning enforecment anyway. It is only the planning authority who can do that, ie the council. And as I said, they are tremendously unlikely to pursue a case such as you are suggesting here. I know they won't because I have experience in this area.

Sure at the way you are interpreting it nearly every farm and half of rural homeowners could be up in court because of the old ford escort rusting away in a the nettles somewhere at the back of the yard.

I can think of one eccentric individual in my locality who's house is slowly disappearing beneath the ivy and over the years he has accumulated all his worn out cars around the curtilage of his house, all in various states of decay. No-one bothers him over it and he bothers no-one. A nice man to talk to but I'd say the poor chap is probably is a few shillings short of a pound.

1874

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Thanks for the reply regardless if it was intended to help me or hold up my enquiry as on limited substance, It seems to me to point to me being some kind of cranky neighbour. I already had a good idea it was stretching the possibilities, that said, this is one issue of a number of other problems related to works they carried out, themselves alongside anti social behaviour problems, none of which had to have occurred, so I am clutching at any straw to try improve the situation. As for the person you compare my neighbour to (who you know nothing about) I am sure there are many a character that gathers cars and does nothing with them, Im sure many are harmless friendly people, if what they were doing was out of sight, overgrown and not visible then maybe let them at it, you dont make it sound like the people or person you are referring to are engaged in other anti social behaviour, noise, threats, damaging another persons property by their works or persistently making a nuisance of themselves in a way thats not necessary, so thats likely why the people you mention have not drawn the ire of an immediate neighbour. My biggest mistake in dealing with this was making allowances and trying to maintain neighbourly relations despite other stuff that was going on, On the last instance I asked civilly to correct a problem (at that time making it difficult for my wife to get out of our driveway, especially when I was not present) and I was outright refused, thats when I decided the only way to deal with these people was with the kind of attitude I had been shown. I should have tackled it ALL head on from the outset, but I was held back and prevented from doing so, as when I started not being concerned about the response and responding in kind, thats when these people seemed to back down, IMO its only to protect themselves.
They are a stupidly selfish bunch, I got some work done recently, and after years of noise from them, I had decided to get someone in to do some work for me rather than do it myself, the guy was here one day, working all day long and made quite a bit of noise, unlike them I had all the work wrapped up in less than 2 days, while the chap was here they started drilling while he was drilling as if to suggest the noise was a problem, now it could have been coincidental, but having lived beside them, I know what they are like, so I dont believe for a second it was a coincidence..

nuac

TheBoyConor wrote: »

You are getting massively carried away here. This legislation is really intended to regulate large scale or commercial deposition of vehicles on land, that is to say, it is there to regulate scrap yards and require anyone looking to set up a scrap or dismantling yard to get planning permission.

While technically it may appear to apply, it really isn't intended to stop a homeowner from keeping a non running vehicle on their property without getting planning permission.
No-one will be brought up or prosecuted for it if they have a scrap or classic car in the garden garden.


The only instance I can think of where a homeowner might be brought up and prosecuted under this act is if they are taking the piss and are hoarding a large number of cars on their property and it is causing some level of nuisance to locals and is generating complaints to the planning authorities.

And even at that it is probably more likely they will be brought up under waste enforcement or environmental legislation than planning as in that case the cars are just person possesions rather than being bought in en masse for a commercial purpose. Even so, for one banjaxed car on a property, it is most highly unlikely that the council would bring a prosecution. the only way they might is, for example, if it was out onto the footpath and genuinely causing a hazard to the public.
If it is a car rusting away in a ditch or in a back garden somewhere, I can guarantee you, no planning authority in the country will take that case to the level of enforcement/prosecution. I guarantee you that.

And they are even less likely to take a case on the basis of some nosy neighbour giving out because they can see the car when peering into the property.

And a private individual cannot take a case for planning enforecment anyway. It is only the planning authority who can do that, ie the council. And as I said, they are tremendously unlikely to pursue a case such as you are suggesting here. I know they won't because I have experience in this area.

Sure at the way you are interpreting it nearly every farm and half of rural homeowners could be up in court because of the old ford escort rusting away in a the nettles somewhere at the back of the yard.

I can think of one eccentric individual in my locality who's house is slowly disappearing beneath the ivy and over the years he has accumulated all his worn out cars around the curtilage of his house, all in various states of decay. No-one bothers him over it and he bothers no-one. A nice man to talk to but I'd say the poor chap is probably is a few shillings short of a pound.

I agree that normally only a local authority can issue proceedings for planning breaches.
However Applications under Section 160 of the PDA 2000 as amended ( i.e. injunctions to stop or remove unauthorised development or use) can be sought by anyone interested.
The main difference between a planning authority and a personal applicant is that the latter may be asked to give na undertaking as to damages, E.g. the personal applicant has to undertake to the court that if in further proceedings it is found that the S 160 should not have been granted tne applicant may be ordered to compensate the developer.

TheBoyConor

That may be the case, but it would be an exceedingly rare occurance. And unheard of for a private housholder.
A case based around a single car kept on a property is most unlikely to considered development and no solicitor would recommend taking a case.
As I said, that part of the legislation is intended for regulating scrap yards and commercial car dismantlers, not one off rusty cars in someone's back garden.

1874

TheBoyConor wrote: »

That may be the case, but it would be an exceedingly rare occurance. And unheard of for a private housholder.
A case based around a single car kept on a property is most unlikely to considered development and no solicitor would recommend taking a case.
As I said, that part of the legislation is intended for regulating scrap yards and commercial car dismantlers, not one off rusty cars in someone's back garden.

front garden,
anyway, it looks like this route is not an option

TheBoyConor

Doesn't matter front garden back garden or under the bed. You get my drift.

No, I would say it is not and you'll be most unlikely to get anywhere with it.

I'd be more inclined think that you'd have more luck with the environment/waste enforcement section of the council. But even then, for a single car in a garden I doubt you'd get anywhere either. Owner will just say "yeah, it is a restoration car I will do sometime" or "i keep it for parts" etc.
They'd really only tackle it if it was multiple cars coming and going and it seemed that cars were being scrapped or dismantled on some sort of commercial basis.

tbh, i'd say you're on a wild goose chase with it.