11/00713/F - Borough Council of King's Lynn & West Norfolk

conclusion direct action is considered to be the most expedient form of
enforcement action open to the Council.
11.0 COST IMPLICATIONS
11.1 An assessment has been made of the costs of removing the mobile home
from the land. It is estimated a sum of £38,200 plus VAT will be required.
11.2 It is noteworthy that the value of the Land has increased since the last report
to Members regarding this site. The site will have more of a value as a gypsy
site, and therefore whilst the value of the Land is unknown at present the risk
in terms of recovery of costs should be less.
11.3 Given the nature of the work, a specialist contractor would be needed to carry
out the work. However, Members should also note the risk involved with
instructing the contractor and then cancelling within 7 days, which is quoted
as 25% of the estimated costs, and within 24 hours, which is quoted as 50%
of the estimated costs. The potential costs of any abortive costs are therefore
£9,550 plus VAT and £19,100 plus VAT.
12.0 HUMAN RIGHTS
234
12.1 Article 1 of the First Protocol of the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) gives protection of Property in that every person has the right to
peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions (including land). No person
should be deprived of his/her possessions except in the public interest.
12.2 Members must be satisfied that there is a statutory provision which allows the
Council to take direct action, that the direct action is necessary to achieve a
legitimate aim, and that the proposed action and its terms are proportionate to
the detrimental consequences of failing to take no action.
12.3 Members must then consider whether it is necessary and proportionate to
require the use of the direct action powers is a legitimate aim. Protection of
the environment and amenity are permitted by the ECHR as a lawful
interference with a person’s right to do as they wish with their own land, and is
a legitimate aim for a Local Planning Authority to pursue.
12.4 Article 8 of the Human Rights Act provides for everyone to have the right to
respect their family life, home and correspondence. This is subject to the
proviso that there shall be no interference by the public authority with the
exercise of this right except when pursuing a legitimate aim in law as is
necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, public
safety or the economic well being of the country, for the prevention of disorder
or crime, for the protection of health and moral reasons, or the protection of
the rights and freedom of others. Article 8 applies even though the
enforcement notice has not been complied with. The right to a home is not
absolute, but is subject to interference, which is in accordance with the law,
and is necessary for one of the stated purposes. The Inspector dealt with the
issue of Article 8 rights in paragraph 10 of her report, which is attached to this
report for Members information.