Permitted development & lawful development certificates.

[cjard]

I work and have worked in a commercial sales environment for over 15 years so I'm pretty commercially savvy thanks.

Yet you're ignoring the professional advice of someone youre paying several hundred pounds to, you're being pushed around by agenda-driven planning officers' off-the-record verbal advice that they'd never put in writing without a disclaimer, you're taking advice from a building control officer on a planning issue which is something akin to asking your mechanic to recommend dental procedures and you seem to think that councils are free to pick and choose how they adhere to the law..

Curious. Commercially savvy would be to implement your extension within PD and pay the council zero, instead of choosing the most expensive option?

 

[Cabbyfan]

Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. While my architect says its a bit unfair there is no black and white rule for PD on hip to gables and each local authority takes their own stand on planning needed yes or no. My local authority sets its policy that hip to gables need planning.

My architect has shown them a lot of info in support of no planning, he has discussed with BC as he is very on the level and knows all the local angles on such things. Critically my architect has spoken to 2 planning officers who both say planning application must go in. Ok it's costing me £172 which is peanuts in the overall scheme of things and I am taking the option of getting it passed should be a formality then I can get on. The opinion of 3 council officials all say the same so the crunch point is I need planning.

Being uncommercialy savvy would be wasting time and fees on a battle that I will lose. The sensible option is to pay a small fee,done and dusted.

 

[tony1851]

Perhaps I didn't explain it properly. While my architect says its a bit unfair there is no black and white rule for PD on hip to gables and each local authority takes their own stand on planning needed yes or no. My local authority sets its policy that hip to gables need planning.

With respect, that is complete nonsense.
Neither your architect nor your planning authority seem to understand the permitted development rules.
No local authority has the right to 'set its policy' on matters of permitted development.
Except on Article 1(5) land, hip-to-gables are permitted development,whether you live in Cornwall or Carlisle.

 

[Cabbyfan]

Perhaps policy was a bad choice of word, what I can say is my local authority are insisting on planning and they won't do a hip to gable as PD. it is them against me and my architect and I these cases they win most of the time.

I don't agree trust me but it is what it is here and there is no quick easy way around it. The lack of clarity in the legislation is what is causing this at the end of the day.

 

[tony1851]

The lack of clarity in the legislation is what is causing this at the end of the day.

By common consent, a few of the permitted development rules are badly written.

However, the rules are framed in such a way that they list restrictions on what you can do. If what you want to do is not prohibited by the rules, then it is permitted and there is no quibble about it. There is certainly no prohibition on hip-to-gable conversions. If you compromise your building on the basis of incorrect statements by officials, then more fool you.

It is surprising that your architect hasn't got the gumption to tell your planning officers that they are wrong - plain and simple.

 

[jeds]

Perhaps policy was a bad choice of word, what I can say is my local authority are insisting on planning and they won't do a hip to gable as PD. it is them against me and my architect and I these cases they win most of the time.

I don't agree trust me but it is what it is here and there is no quick easy way around it. The lack of clarity in the legislation is what is causing this at the end of the day.

Your local authority are talking out their ar$es. They can't just over-ride national policy with a local pet idea.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You can lead a horse to water ......

Must have money to burn.

 

[Cabbyfan]

I had another google last night and found a planning application very similar to my intended works. They approved LDC. Sent the link to my architect so will see what comes back.

Still think I'm flogging a dead horse mind, will let you know how it pans out.

My head is more straying to which rads to order Stelrad or Quinn.... Quinn is winning at the moment, better btu and they look nicer.

 

[tony1851]

I had another google last night and found a planning application very similar to my intended works. They approved LDC.

You seem to be getting confused; a planning application is not the same as an application for a LDC.

BTW, we suspect how it will 'pan out'. You will end up paying your LPA £172 and they will have chalked up another mug to pay towards their pension fund.

 

[Cabbyfan]

I sm not confused.

As discussed I hsve been told by planning via my architect planning application will be required. I could submit an enquiry at £82 and still be told I need planning at £172. Which is very likely.

I think it's PD, my architect thinks it should be PD, planning say no it's not.

Googling I found an example of permission given under PD for a proposal be very similar to mine which I emailed to my architect to pass to planning as proof it's PD and not full application. This would mean I can do it via a LDC.

 

[SimonH2]

As I understand it from reading section B of :
http://planningjungle.com/wp-conten...ers-Technical-Guidance-April-2014-version.pdf
Class B
This provides permitted development rights for the enlargement of a house consisting of an addition or alteration to its roof.
Couldn't be clearer, you can do it unless one of the limits/conditions apply. So do any of the limits/conditions apply ?

B.1
(a) Part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, exceed the height of the highest part of the existing roof

(b) any part of the dwellinghouse would, as a result of the works, extend beyond the plane of any existing roof slope which forms the principal elevation of the dwellinghouse and fronts a highway

(c) the cubic content of the resulting roof space would exceed the cubic content of the original roof space by more than ...

(d) it would consist of or include -
(i) the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform, or
(ii) the installation, alteration or replacement of a chimney, flue or soil and vent pipe

(e) the dwellinghouse is on article 1(5) land

B.2 Development is permitted by Class B subject to the following conditions -
(a) the materials used in any exterior work shall be of a similar appearance to those used in the construction of the exterior of the existing dwellinghouse

(b) the enlargement shall be constructed so that –
(i) other than in the case of a hip-to-gable enlargement or ...

(c) any window inserted on a wall or roof slope forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse shall be ...

And that is it<period>.
I can't help thinking that the planners want to interpret B.1(b) so that a hip-gable would fail - by interpreting "plane of the existing roof" as stopping at the edge of that roof. That would be a perverse interpretation that would never hold up.
So assuming you don't intend going higher than the existing roof, or over the volume limits (50m^3), don't intend building a balcony or veranda, don't intend putting a new soil stack or chimney up, aren't in a national park, are going to use similar materials, and don't intend having clear/opening windows - then there is no other clause to say it's not PD.

PD doesn't need any permission, not even an LDC. That's the point - you are permitted by law to do it and can just get on with it. An LDC may be useful if you intend going right up to the line rules wise and want to get any ambiguity sorted out first, but otherwise you don't need to pay the planners a penny. Of course, that latter point is probably one of the reasons they'd rather apply for permission to do what the law explicitly says you can do.

 

[tony1851]

A well-reasoned post, Simon, but I think you may as well bang your head against a wall for the good it will do; OP doesn't seem to have the confidence to argue it with the planners.

 

[Cabbyfan]

Couldn't agree more, same for my architect but until we pursue the council for confirmation it's PD then it's up in the air.

My architect has sent links to the very same document Simon has in his last post go the planner yet they won't budge until I either make an enquiry with cost or submit planning at little more cost.

Rock and hard place unfortunately.

 

[tony1851]

If you feeel caught between a rock and a hard place, it is of your own choosing.

Have a read of this, at number 6;

http://planningjungle.com/wp-conten...-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf

Better still, show it to your shiftless architect, who should be far more clued-up and determined on your behalf.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Aye and it was penned by a planner too! I'd sack the architect, I'd want to employ someone who wants to get the bit between his teeth.