Forum Topic

Phil,Not quite sure what you're getting at here (unless this directly stems from part of the Chronicle article I'm yet to see) - I'm very uneasy with the raising of the question of transgressors might have been misled into thinking that they were immune from action by the Council.Certainly during my tensure the only time a transgressor might receive confirmation that their 'breach of planning control' wasn't actually a breach due to immunity would be if they had submitted evidence to prove, on the balance of probability, that the development or change of use had been occurring for too long.  Much as I don't like to say it during all my years enforcement experience there were countless time someone who was being investigated for an alleged breach of planning control would essentially fabricate some story rather than admit their error.  Entirely understandable I don't deny, I mean when someone has just spent a fortune on an extension or such like & someone from the Council comes round & not only says that it is unauthorised but also that is is not considered in acccordance with Council planning policies and needs to be demolished people can get pretty 'desperate'.As for the idea of am 'amnesty' on the terms you mentioned, the fundamental problem you have with that is that such am amnesty would be in clear contradiction to national planning legislation - the Council would put itself in extremely dangerous waters in terms of the Local Government Ombudsman, I strongly suspect if this debate started in the Council Chamber the Borough Solicitor would very firmly emphasise the 'illegality' of such an amnesty.

Adam Beamish ● 6282d