Free Traffic Legal Advice

Short version

Is there any easy way to get a written declaration of "you can do that under PDR" from my planning authority other than by submitting a full formal planning application.

TLDR;

To the right of my (freehold) property is a gravelled path leading past my garden. This is on my lsnd.

It has eventual exits to my neighbours back gate, a seperate part of the estate and a parking area, these latter two were screwed shut by somebody years ago. (These exits and the path leading to them are not my land).

The estate is about 17 years old. There is a mix of leasehold apartments and freehold properties and a management company managing common areas.

At the right side of the path is a 1.8m wall and it is not in great condition. A 6m section requires replacement.

I would like to replace this with a fence (few hundred quid not £5k).

From a planning perspective it would be permissable under PDR, unless restricted.

There is an outline application for the entire scheme (190 properties) and some applications related to reserved matters. None of these appear (not yet completed all the documents) to relate to boundary structures in any way or mandate rebuild in the same style.

The authority produce some mapinfo data for Article 4 directions, but on android I haven't been able to find out a method of viewing it to see if I am in an affected area.

Is there any reasonable way I can ascertain whether I have PDR for it other than by submitting a formal planning application.

The management Co have indicated they are amenable subject to a written declaration of some form of "it's ok" from the council, and my neighbour (no problem). What I am uncertain is whether they have any right to that.

From the transfer document, agreements and declarations.

"All boundary walls and fences in respect of which an inward "T" ......... be used repaired and maintained as such ........"

The wall in question is not T marked on the plan accompanying the transfer document as filed as LR. My 3 garden fences are and the extension of the right hand as boundary where the wall is seems to imply my responsibility, potentially allowing the management to insist it was rebuilt as brick.

Within my covenants "not to"

"Add to or alter any building on the Property in any way so as to affect substantially the external appearance thereof" (I believe not in this context).

The wall is on the thick red line edging my property. Does the lack of T marks, given their presence on my fences imply it is not my wall anyway ?

The marking on the passageway itself states

"land transferred to the plot indicated but maintained by all users". It is not clear to me whether this ends at the wall (and the wall is on my land) or it ends the far side of the wall.

Were the management co not in place my inclination would be to assume I had PDR and just go ahead and fence, I am unsure how to get the planning authority to state it is permissable without submitting a formal planning application.

Any suggestion as to how I might proceed.

Damn... I work in healthcare. So all my enhanced DBS will show with a criminal conviction?

My partners indiscretions never showed on her enhanced DBS. She was in a sensitive healthcare role.

I rather imagine a reasonable number of your colleagues may have speeding convictions beyond the fixed penalty regime for example.

I'm also not sure if I'm getting done for s144a and s144c. It's not very clear.

Given the words it seems fairly clear it is s144a. Maybe I missed some words.

My suggestion remains unchanged.

The displays have a failsafe (who knows how good it might be).

National highways ought to have a log, you could try asking them for both the limits set, the gantry numbers they were set on and details of any reported failures. (With timings).

You could perhaps also ask how they handle a situation where the gantry they are attempting to display on has failed, is it moved to the next gantry or the previous.

It's most likely a change from 60 to 50 was not noticed.

I could also have a word with HMRC as she's obviously fiddling the tax.

Of course she might be but it's certainly not obvious she is.

"Office repairs" is not an entirely unreasonable description for what could in fact be a corporate asset and office equipment.

I agree it is an unfair term.

The issue becomes a practical one. Are you aware of:-

- Any hire company accept the argument and either refunding or not charging.
- A credit provider acception a section 75 claim.
- An FoS decision in favour.
- A successful claim for reimbursement from the hire company via court.

The practical problem being the hire company will just take it from the credit card if they don't transfer liability (usually on the fallacious basis of "we were doing you a favour to stop it escalating"). Then they have the money and one of the remedies above will be required.

An alternative strategy might be to cancel the card to attempt to prevent collection (noting that some banking groups attempt to give themselves the right to just debit any ingroup new card).

At least this way a victim can simply wait until a claim issued and defend it.

It's a most unsatisfactory state of affairs.

To an MOT is fine, gov.uk say to a garage for repair is,  many say to a place of repair is. But  none seems to fit.

If you were doing one of the above check the insurance you purchase. Many policies require an MoT anyway. Some only require roadworthy.

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/