Planning permission granted, but with 'informatives' that have been complet - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Tough t%%%y If you want it enforceable should be a condition not an informative.

I would agree with Andrew you do not have a leg to stand on and I see them used inappropriately all the time. However some informatives are to bring to the applicant’s attention the need to comply with other regulations and if this is the issue the other bodies may be able to control this

I agree that informatives are in no way enforcible in their own right. Informatives are just that... informatives. It's not really any different to putting helpful information on a cover letter for the decision. As you're highway enforcement, I'm guessing the informatives related to getting a license before carring out works on a highway or something? if that's the case your Highways legislation should enable you to enforce the issue without going through planning mechanisms. If you tried to require sight lines through an informative, or tried to control the surface material for a new driveway (i.e. not gravel), the authority used the wrong mechanism. It should have been a condition on the planning condition (if it was justifiable to require). It may be that the District planning officer didn't think it was really an issue necessary to condition - and for political reasons put the issue on the decision as an informative to delay your outrage... Out of interest - what where you trying to control?

Basically, the property owner applied for planning permission to install a vehicular acces - this was rejected by the planning authority - on the basis of highway safety (visibility splays, access onto main A Road and that access available to rear of property etc following consultation with highway authority). The property owner then applied to remove a fence panel and part of a wall to the front garden. (location of previously proposed vehicle crossing). This was given approval, with informatives that front garden should not be used to park vehicles on. It seemed obvious to me that by removing the fence and wall - the area would be used to then accomodate a vehicle on property! Under highways legislation, (Highways Act 1980) we can serve notice to advise that habitual driving over kerb and footway must cease, failure to comply may result in preventative measures being put in place. However, this could have been prevented.

Why was planning consent required for removing the wall or fence unless there was a restricted planning condition on the dwelling, conservation area, listed building this would not require permission. It is outside the remit of planning to remove the right of a property owner to park his vehicle in the front garden so as previously stated the informative is useless. If access is being gained to the public highway as in this case where someone is driving over the kerb, but all they have done to create the access is remove a wall or fence arguably they have not created an access which requires planning permission and the matter lies entirely with the highway section of the Council.

I'm with Martin on this one ... why on earth was a planning application required in the first instance? Removing a bit of fence/wall is not the "formation" of an access, i.e an engineering operation and thus there does not appear to have been any development involved. The fact that it is onto a Classified or Trunk Road is therefore irrelevant.