28 replies to this topic

[mel]

Do I have the right to refuse entry to Council Officials on to our Agricultural land, as I thought we could, but now have been told that it would be an offense if I did so.

[shepie]

They can come in when they like if they think there has been a planning breach , they can also take photos etc I believe

[j and H]

i thought they could only come on to present an enforcement, without being invited on… even they have to respect the trespass law, 

they would surly need a court order...

as for photo's , anyone can take pictures from a public road, but unless you give permission, or unless they have a court order, they should not be able to walk on your land and take pictures

 

if they had an accident whilst on your land uninvited….who would be liable… you may have electric fences, a loose billy goat with long horns, guard dog roaming free,  etc etc 

 

unless you have a public footpath going through your land..then i believe they can take pictures from the public footpath

 

i would tell them to make an appointment Mel, as you would like your property to be safe for them to access, 

[boiow]

Refuse them entry no matter what they say unless they have a court order.  If in doubt phone the police and ask them to attend

   They are supposed to make an appointment to see you before they come onsite.

[shepie]

News to me but it won't help you , if you are doing nothing wrong then what's the problem

[Groundhog]

As shepie says there is no problem if you are not doing anything wrong,its better if you can have a rapor with the LPA just dont get walked over,an appointment is common curtosy  so if you feel you would like to know exactly when they are coming request it.They are technicaly sposed to enquire with Defra regarding disease precautions etc.Dont go off the handle with them when they turn up because it is inevatable just make them aware you are familiar with planning law and permitted devepement.Treat it as a debate.Dont start fights.

Wheres my spell checker gone

[mel]

It is all very well to say let them on .. if you aren't doing anything wrong! 

We have had "constant" visits from the Council and even when they see you are doing nothing wrong it is our 3 years experience with our council that they will turn everything around so it is wrong, they lie.

[Groundhog]

you need to be better educated and versed with the correct information than the individual you are dealing with then !

[j and H]

i don't think any of us are telling mel to be confrontational , and i agree, it would be better to have a good relationship with them, but that can be hard, when they are making their own rules,

i also agree with GH when he says you need to be better educated and versed than they are, 

personally, i think i would ask them to send any questions in writing, at least then, you would have time to research any answer, and you also have a copy of what they said. 

so if any lies are told, you have the evidence to prove otherwise …..

 

i don't think asking for them to make an appointment is out of order, we would all have to do that, if we wanted to see them , there has got to be some sort of respect from both sides

[boiow]

This all boils down to respect and the following of procedure. 

   If the council just turn up uninvited and it has happened more than once, then they need to be made aware of their transgression. Because they have created a precedent with you ,as their was no protest the first time it happened.

  You can put a sign on the gate saying that an appointment is required and you can insist on just using 'snail mail'

At the end of the day the Lpa are not there to help you, they are there to get something from you.  So a line in the sand needs to be drawn.

[jasonp]

im by no means a proffesional on this matter, but, yes they can come and inspect when they please, but, they must be investigating a breach, so ask them what they are investigating, IE change of use of land use, from agricultural to mixed or residential, or errection of building. and should clearly state the act section and para which they are investigating under. ttown and country section ..art...

 

a caravan by definition is not a building, and not residential if used as incidentl tto the use of land or if used whislt building., they wont state these as they would be in breach of their powers and then subject to common arrest whislt awaiting police removal.

 

its something like and arrest by the police, i arrest you under section ... for what ever,

 

as for injuries by dogs and other animals, the animal act is a good read, but basicly if an animal is kept as a guard animal and injures on your property, unluck intruder, on someone elses land unluck you. if its not kept for guarding but is say a bull and injures unluck them.

 

we told them we find this matter a very emotive subject and sick of their lies and decite and jokingly offered them a punch on the nose, tto which he replied he wouldnt be turning up. coward.

[elegantstorm]

Annex 6: rights of entry to land for enforcement purposes

 

The statutory provisions

 

6.1 Sections 196A, 196B and 196C of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as amended ("the 1990 Act"), enable LPAs and Justices of the Peace to authorise named officers to enter land specifically for enforcement purposes. This right is limited to what is regarded as essential, in the particular circumstances, for effective enforcement of planning control. The provisions of sections 324 and 325 of the 1990 Act are no longer available for enforcement purposes.

 

6.2 Section 196A(1) specifies the purposes for which entry to land may be authorised. They are

 

(a) to ascertain whether there is, or has been, any breach of planning control on the land, or on any other land;

 

( to determine whether any of the LPA's enforcement powers should be exercised in relation to the land, or any other land;

 

© to determine how any such power should be exercised; and

 

(d) to ascertain whether there has been compliance with any requirement arising from earlier enforcement action in relation to the land, or any other land.

 

The inclusion of the words "...or any other land" means that, if necessary, neighbouring land can be entered, whether or not it is in the same ownership, or is occupied by the person whose land is being investigated.

 

6.3 The provisions of section 196A state that there must be "... reasonable grounds for entering [the land] for the purpose in question". This is interpreted to mean that entering the land is the logical means of obtaining the information required by the LPA.

 

Entering the land

 

6.4 Section 196C(1) provides that, on entering any land in pursuance of the right of entry, an authorised person:

 

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of authorisation and state the purpose of entry before entering the land;

 

( may be accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary.

 

Leaving the land

 

6.5 Section 196C(1)© provides that, on leaving the land, the authorised person shall, if the owner or occupier is not then present, leave it as effectively secured against trespassers as it was found.

Wilful obstruction of the right of entry

 

6.6 Section 196C(2) provides that any person who wilfully obstructs an authorised person acting in the exercise of a right of entry shall be guilty of an offence. The maximum summary penalty for this offence is at "level 3" on the standard scale of penalties, currently £1,000.

 

Damage to land or chattels in exercising right of entry

 

6.7 Section 196C(3) provides that if any damage is caused to land (which includes a building) or chattels (for example, machinery, equipment or livestock), compensation may be recovered by any person suffering the damage from the authority who gave the written authority for the entry. A dispute about the amount of any compensation is to be referred to, and determined by, the Lands Tribunal, in accordance with the provisions of section 118 of the 1990 Act, as applied by section 196C(4) of the 1990 Act.

 

6.8 As public authorities, LPAs are expected to take every reasonable precaution to ensure that no damage is caused to land or chattels as a result of exercising the right of entry. As their investigations for enforcement purposes will normally be confined to a visual inspection, any consequential damage should be most exceptional.

 

Entry to agricultural land

 

6.9 LPAs are reminded that, in the interests of animal and plant health, special precautions are essential when the right of entry to agricultural land is exercised. The additional precautions which must be taken before, and when, entering agricultural land are stated in the Appendix to this Annex.

 

Disclosure of information obtained on entering land

 

6.10 Section 196C(5) provides that any person who enters any land, in exercise of a right of entry, and discloses to any person any information obtained while on the land, about any manufacturing process or trade secret, shall be guilty of an offence. The maximum summary penalty for this offence is currently £5,000. On conviction of this offence, on indictment in the Crown Court, the penalty is a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years or an unlimited fine, or both.

 

6.11 It is not an offence under section 196C(5) if the disclosure of information is made by an authorised person in the course of performing his or her duty in connection with the purpose for which he or she were authorised to enter the land.

 

Right of entry to a dwellinghouse

 

6.12 Entry to a building used as a dwellinghouse cannot be demanded as of right unless 24 hours' notice of the intended entry has been given to the occupier. In the case of an industrial or commercial building, (such as a factory or shop), where there is also residential accommodation (such as a caretaker's flat), the requirement to give 24 hours' advance notice applies only to the residential part of the building. However, this advance notice requirement does not apply to the outbuildings or garden land in the curtilage of a dwellinghouse, unless access to them can only be gained by going through the dwellinghouse.

 

Entry authorised by warrant issued by a Justice of the Peace

 

6.13 Section 1968(1) provides that, when there are reasonable grounds for entering land for enforcement purposes, if entry is refused, or refusal is reasonably apprehended, or the case is one of urgency, entry by warrant issued by a justice of the Peace, is possible. Admission to the land shall be regarded as refused if no reply is received to a request for admission within a reasonable period (section 196B(2)). There are three restrictions on the use of a warrant:-

 

• it only authorises entry on one occasion;
• the entry must be within one month from the date of issue of the warrant;
• and the entry must be at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

 

Entry to listed buildings

 

6.14 Sections 88, 88A and 88B of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) effectively provide entry rights for listed building enforcement purposes which are equivalent to planning enforcement powers.

 

Right of entry for officers of English Heritage to buildings in London

 

6.15 Section 196C( provides that the right of entry for enforcement purposes applies to persons authorised by the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission for England ("English Heritage") so far as buildings situated in the Greater London area are concerned.

 

Entry to land in relation to tree preservation enforcement purposes

 

6.16 Sections 214B, 214C and 214D of the 1990 Act contain broadly similar rights of entry in respect of protected trees, replacing the former provisions of sections 324 and 325.

 

6.17 Section 214B(1) specifies the following three purposes for which entry on to land may be authorised by the LPA without a warrant:

 

(a) surveying the land in connection with making or confirming a tree preservation order;

 

( ascertaining whether an offence under section 210 or 211 has been committed; or

 

© determining whether a tree replacement notice under section 207 should be served on the owner of the land,

 

if there are reasonable grounds for entering for that purpose. Entry must take place at a reasonable hour. Twenty-four hours' notice of the intended entry for these purposes does not have to be given to the occupier. But such notice is required if, in the course of exercising these powers, it is intended to enter a dwellinghouse.

 

6.18 The LPA's entry on to land without a warrant for other purposes related to protected trees, and their power to authorise others to enter in connection with the exercise of their functions (such as determining an application for consent under a tree preservation order, or executing works following non-compliance with a tree replacement notice) is within the general right provided under section 214B(3) of the Act. Twenty-four hours' notice for these purposes must always be given in relation to any occupied land.

 

6.19 Where entry is required under section 214B(1) (see paragraph 6.17 above) and the case is one of urgency or admission has been refused (or refusal is reasonably expected), entry may be authorised by warrant issued by a magistrate under section 214C(1). A warrant authorises entry on one occasion only within one month from the date of its issue. Furthermore, entry must take place at a reasonable hour, unless the case is one of urgency.

 

6.20 Supplementary provisions under section 214D include an offence for the wilful obstruction of anyone exercising right of entry, and a power to take tree and soil samples.

Appendix to Annex 6: entry to agricultural land

 

Animal health

 

1. When there is an outbreak of serious disease in animals (such as foot-and-mouth disease or anthrax), notices giving warning of the outbreak will be placed strategically by Diseases of Animals Inspectors on the edge of the farmland. This would warn any unexpected or casual visitors (such as a local authority Enforcement Officer) of the dangers and should effectively prevent them entering the land and thus being responsible for spreading the disease. However, there are other instances (such as during a TB/brucellosis outbreak) where there is no requirement to place notices warning of the dangers, but entry to the land could nevertheless cause the spread of disease. LPA officers should therefore contact the MAFF or WOAD Divisional Veterinary Officer at the local Animal Health Offices to check that there are no animal health movement restriction orders in force (or other animal health problems) on the farm they intend to visit.

 

Plant health

 

2. Similarly, where there is serious plant disease (eg rhizomania of sugar beet), access to land may be strictly controlled under the Plant Health (Great Britain) Order 1987. With soil-borne diseases, there is a distinct risk that infested soil could be spread on footwear to an unaffected part of the farm or even to another location. LPA officers should not rely on a sign being present on such land and should instead make enquiries with the local MAFF or WOAD Divisional Office, so that a check can be made with the local Plant Health and Seeds Inspectorate that there is no plant health restriction in force on the land to be visited.

[boiow]

Entering the land

 

6.4 Section 196C(1) provides that, on entering any land in pursuance of the right of entry, an authorised person:

 

(a) shall, if so required, produce evidence of authorisation and state the purpose of entry before entering the land;

 

( may be accompanied by such other persons as may be necessary.

  

 

 

   this section clearly says that they need to identify themselves before entering your land.  It does not mention a specified amount of time, But i am sure that you can insist on 7 days as a minimum.  If they want to come on immediately then you have the right to insist on a court order if you doubt the validity of their assertions.

   So  the key seems to be.  Do not deny them entry but insist that they have authorisation from a court before they do. This gives you at least 7 days to seek help, prepare yourself legally.  etc.

[Tom Bombadil]

It seems to me that they would need a reason in the first place to even come on to your land.

 

Looking up the word 'ascertain' in the legal dictionary it has a few meanings.  So I would be inclined to first find out what they mean by certain words.

 

Also.  If this was the case, then has to be someone that made the original 'objection' or accusation' of your rights and freedoms, and in this country at least, we have the freedom to ask who is making the original aplication for a search and by whom is the original aplication by a planning officer taking the acusation from?

 

This is so that if the officer attends with a warrent (signed in ink by uthorised LPAs and Justices of the Peace) has been granted permision from the LPAs and Justices of the Peace under their own insurance or bond.  So if they have found jack sh.. then you can sue for compensation from the bonded person.

 

Even the headlined title ''Annex 6: rights of entry to land for enforcement purposes'' indicates to me that to enforce something not proved or clarified is an oxymoron here, as for them to just think that there is something wrong (and it will be on the warrent) means that the warrent was falsly issued in the first place.  Hence the bond.

 

One could pick this stuff appart all day.  The 'person', 'Planning'?  Whos planing?  your oun or theirs, Enforcement is the processing of set sceduals via dispatching to execution!!  so in these contects, something has ALREADY had to have been proccesed for them to enforce anything in the first place!!  So the first few lines already say to you the reader that they have no rights of entry full stop.  I go on...''what is regarded as essential, in the particular circumstances''  What IS essential?  In what circumstances?

 

See, one could have fun with lots of letter writing if one was going that route, or one could simply not worry, know that there is some bonded person out there that you can take to queens bench if they keep hounding you.

 

I miight find a happy medium.

Edited by Tom Bombadil, 27 April 2014 - 10:51.

[Tom Bombadil]

Hi Worzel.

 

You wrote; ''Do not deny them entry but insist that they have authorisation from a court before they do.''

 

It should be written as; ''Do not deny them entry but insist that they have authorisation from LPAs and Justices of the Peace to authorise named officers to enter land specifically for enforcement purposes before they do.

 

Peace to you.

[Tom Bombadil]

Just to let you all know, I am not an expert in all this, but I once came accross a recording of a few of the cattle owners after the foot and mouth scare, and  in a nutshell, it was discovered that it was mostly 'balony' that you (the cattle owner) had to comply with the regulations.

 

Remember hearing of all those individuals that lost their pet Daisy?  They didnt have to destroy their cow at all.  Some just recived a call one night, a bloke on the other end 'reminding' them of their 'obligations' and telling them to get rid of the cow.  It was one big scam.  I wont go into this here.

 

But it made me at the time try and follow the rules if I could, but if I dont have to obay, then if they insist that I do, I simply use their rules against them.

 

The bond thing and insurance has got me out of a few silly ones in the past.  If someone wants entry to my home now (renting actualy) then I would ask them of their insurance details.  This includes coppers.  (coppers are a different issue as they are bonded at the station level).  They never can give them to me so they go away.  Letters arrive adressed to the owner or occupier and I am neither.

 

My point is that it is cool to know your freedoms.  It can be a bit of a learning curve but it is fun and worth every late night and argument with the missus...maybe not the arguments

[boiow]

In the case of the council wanting to access your land ' for enforcement purposes' can also mean gathering information with a view to enforcement.  All enforcement is discretionary.  Which to me, seems a bit unfair.

[topper]

put signs up -- removal of implied rights of access---  theres a lot on google and youtube about this as its a way of stopping bailiffs if you own the land you can remove the rights of access then if the council come around and ignore the signs they are in breach of trespass and you have all the rights on your side should you need to remove them ie for there own safety or not adearing to h&s etc etc look it up on google theres lots of case law to back it up 

[elegantstorm]

At one of our hearings the inspector was critical of the LPA for not visiting the site prior to issuing a notice.  They had tried to gain access but had been stopped by the locked gates and never contacted us to arrange an appointment.  It seemed from discussions at the hearing between the LPA and the Inspector that the powers the LPA have include getting a locksmith to let them in, utilising the dog warden/police concerning the loose dogs.  However they never exercised these powers/rights.  The inspector wasn't inpressed that they issues a notice based on the claims of a neighbour even though they had been inside the unit years earlier and knew otherwise.

We've always had it in writing to the LPA that we're fully prepared to work with them finding a way forward and they are welcome to visit just that it is advisable to book an appointment as we do not stand waiting at the gates in case unexpected visitors turn up.  They've never worked with us nor, until recently arranged a visit but apparently have turned up and not gained access on multiple occasions.