I was referring to them getting you to agree to a "draft statute" which you told me about a while back. maybe Im getting some details mixed up, I was sure it was magnolia and beige for instance

. What Im saying is that they may have issued and enforcement notice but they have to do so lawfully in accordance with the statutes on which their office has been created. They are telling you that you have to obey the law, in reverse, it is highly questionable whether they are. You could sit and argue that a statute is not a law all day to these people and they will not go away. Dont acknowledge that a statute is a law, but base your argument on the fact that they are using statutes to make their claim against you ... and ON THOSE STATUTES, it looks reasonably clear that they have at best a hard case to prove that what they are doing IS lawful, in accordance with those statutes that they must by their actions toward you, be subject to. Section 172 of the act states he circumstances by which an enforcement notice may be served. Presuming they have followed all the requirements for writing, such as dating it correctly and specifying reasonable times for their orders to be carried out, it still remains outstanding as to whether it is lawful for them to send an enforcement notice because: the development plan (sometimes referred to as the structural plan for the region) makes no specific remarks about the colour a house must be. The "material conditions" is all they have left to go on in claiming their actions to be in accordance with the statutes.
Any rights they have based upon "material conditions", if such "material conditions" exist elsewhere and have not been enforced will be rights which have been extinguished by their lack of action in the past. This is in accordance with the statute of limitations for england. In scotland this statute of limitations is the prescriptions and limitations act 1973, there will be something similar in england. I dont know the name of the english statute in this case but I am well aware that in england, the rights to ownership of an entire house can extinguish after 12 years. The rights for them to enforce against "pale blue" houses could have been exercised for all the listed buildings around you which are pale blue, but they did not excerecise this right, and so long as your neighbours have enjoyed freedom from enforcement for a long enough period (it may only be as long as four years), they have won the right for everyone to enjoy the right to having pale blue listed buldings.
If you can show them how ridiculous their own actions are, they will perhaps have a look at their own regulations and see that they really dont have any grounds on which to carry out enforcement. Perhaps it would be better to "appeal" to their sense of right and wrong, while showing them the very statutes that will help them get round their beaurocratic mentality. Like I said before, just because they have issued an enforcement notice, does not make it legal, let alone lawful. More likely someone is walking around in the planning office who thinks he owns all the houses in his area and has taken offence at the idea that a mere peasant has decided to paint their house without asking his permission. This is exactly the kind of stuff thats causing us all hastle - jumped up little hitlers fznasrvizrvebng!
You can also, if you decide to play their game, though I admire that you dont

, send in an application asking if you actually need planning permission. This one works much better in scotland though because the process is alot less formal and is much more freemanesque. We just ask "is it lawful to paint my house pale blue" and they have to issue us with a certificate or explain their reasoning for determinning why it is unlawful - with reference to the said structural/development plan. Ive also noticed that local plans take precedence over development plans so this could be a useful area of research - is there anything in the local plan to suggest you cant your house.
I think the likelihood is that they see the "material condition" to be the $$$ they get from planning applications, which is a bit circular when you think that this would make the reason to have planning applications that of having planning applications, as opposed to ensuring people arent standing on anyones toes. As for the little hitler, he probably doesnt realise his own attitude is just servitude for the sake of the people getting the $$$.