For Newbies, as much as anybody ...

[emmanualgoldstein]

Dear Planning Office,

I am writing in the hope that you will understand my understanding of this matter and at least provide me with some onerous reply which might serve to justify your actions on this matter.

As I see it you are going at great lengths to have me paint my own house a colour of your own choosing, inspite of the fact that there is nothing in the Development Plan pursuant to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 which would suggest the colour I have it presently painted is unlawful. Furthermore, as there are other buildings in the same local of the same quality as my own painted in the same colour that mine is painted, it would suggest that my painted house is indeed lawful according to the Structural Plan which you yourselves have drawn up.

Section 172 of that act states that you may issue an enforcement notice where it appears that (a) there has been a breach of planning control AND that it is expedient to issue the notice "having regard to the provisions of the development plan and to any other material conditions". Is it not true that there are no provisions in the development plan that would restrict my building from being the colour that it is now painted? If there were, would not those listed buildings belonging to my neighbours and being painted similarly have fallen fowl of the regulations also?

Is it not true then that the only way you can defend your actions against me are to claim that there is some material condition which is prevalent. Since those listed buildings which are closeby are painted magnolia, as mines is, would it not be fair to say, that if there were any material conditions, which were at one time applicable to the extent that you had a right to make enforcement on the basis of, your failure to make any enforcement against my neighbours in this regard has served to allow your rights in this sepcific matter to prescribe. That is to say, if the colour that these buildings are painted were of any concern to you, you would have previously acted at the time my neighbours painted theirs.

As it stands I see your actions to be beaurocratic underhanded and legalised bullying, but if the matter of the colour of my building is of such importance to you, I will conditionally accept to paint it whatever colour you choose. I make this conditional offer not out of any beleif that I think you are morally justified in what you do, but in the realisation that you abuse the law against those least able to afford a legal defence against your unjust actions.

I will paint the building in whatever colour you choose, provided that you yourselves pay for the cost of the painting and compensate me for the loss I have suffered in going to the effort of painting my building in the colour that I chose. I find it hard to beleive that the colour my building is painted can be so important to you now, when it has been of no importance to you in the past in regard to either me or my neighbours, and if it means that much to you then please accept this conditional offer and desist from your unjustness toward me.

[kliff]

Ok you knew this was coming, what colour do they want it and what colour have you done it?

[emmanualgoldstein]

I bet they want it beige. I think its currently painted magnolia. Get your colur chart out cos there isnt a hell of a difference to my eyes - I think magnolia is like a lighter shade of beige.

[kliff]

I'm colour blind so whether it's magnolia, beige or ivory it's bloody cream!

[emerald city]

To Kliff & EMG
HI guys: ~First, it was lemon cream BEFORE ! - It is NOW a pale blue, like many other listed buildings in the same county.

Thanks for the letter EMG. They have already an enforcement order in place, which I am protesting about in our usual way as freemen.
They are now "considering" to take me to court. Also they keep advising me to seek "legal advice" which I completely ignore, as that will only earn a solicitor a great deal of money that I can't afford, but as I see it I will be entering into some sort of admission by doing that. But I shall send a letter re: Victoria style.
I would like also to use your suggested letter EMG, but not sure about where I stand as there is the enforcement order to consider when I draft this. Re: the paragraph relating to that.
Just to say also that I have sent loads of pictures to them of the other painted listed buildings, including one next to Wells Cathedral, in a different town, (cos they said once that it was NOT allowed cos it was next to a Grade I church !!) Wells Cathedral is Grade God, so there.
This is a girly issue, freedom of choice and artistic expression. Not so macho as parking fines etc. BUT HEY JUST AS IMPORTANT.

[kliff]

Do they cite a list colours that you can use or is it at the whim of some jumped-up "official"?

What I'm thinking IF they give you a choice does the list include light/pale Blue, if so the the case doesn't stand anyway

If on the other hand the choice is left to the "official" then by what means does he/she arrive at the choice and if he/she can arbitrarily choose any colour (even from a list) then you must also have a choice surely? QED!

Good job this thread isn't deviating from the title

[emmanualgoldstein]

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 $$$ they get from planning applications, which is a bit circular when you think that this would make the reason to have planning applications that of having planning applications, as opposed to ensuring people arent standing on anyones toes. As for the little hitler, he probably doesnt realise his own attitude is just servitude for the sake of the people getting the $$$.

[Veronica]

If they take you to court, put the Magistrates on their Oaths ... and sack them.

Let us know any Court date. We may be able to 'send up a party' ... like Cwmbran ... i.e. get a "Lay Adviser" to do it for you.

When they suggest you "Get Legal advice" ... write back telling them "I don't need legal advice ... YOU need LAWFUL advice. Which part of the Common Law gives you any Rights in this matter? Answer: NONE. You need LAWFUL advice".

[Farmer]

(You could go down to the Courthouse any time and (TRY TO) explain that this is what will happen (TO SOMEONE WHO THINKS THEY ARE 'IN AUTHORITY' ... e.g. a Clerk to the Justices))

We need to find a way to get control of their liability insurance to be able to force them to comply just like Sam Kennedy and his circle have managed to do in the US; Assuming of course they are bonded.

[emerald city]

To Veronica:

Thank you for the offer that you get a "Cwmbran party" of laymen together. May I ask that at a later date, should I end up in Court.??
Veronica, I am sorry to have taken over this post, its the most response I've had in ages. But although I am a newby, and an old laldy fighting for my rights (I could give you 6 years!) I think it only fair, that it should go under a separate heading now. What about The Colour Blue, or something. If you wish to post it now under general I have no objection. Just let me know.
I feel I am among friends now. Thank you.

P.S. I'm sure that not how Cwmbran is spelt. with apologies to everyone Welsh. No excuse as I used to live in N.Wales.