But wouldn't it have had to be permitted development in the first place for the council to be able to give a certificate?
Possible Planning Permission problem
- Thread starter Greenie9657
- Start date
But wouldn't it have had to be permitted development in the first place for the council to be able to give a certificate?
Sponsored Links
Is there anything stopping her from saying it was built more than 4 years ago?
They have had the house for 5.
They have had the house for 5.
The extension is permitted development under the new rules.
But otherwise a LDC is used when existing development is in breach of planning regulations, instead of a planning permission application.
As far as I was aware, you cannot apply for an LDC for a development that would have only been permissible under the NCS, only for the standard PD rules.
Sponsored Links
It can't be, unless a prior notification has been sent to the council and the council has then notified the neighbours and no neighbour has objected within the 21-day period. Only then would it be permitted development.
No. Memories can fade and time flies.But if proof is required, then it becomes difficult.
Conveyance solicitors can be a bit less than thorough, and in these situations if the information sounds correct then they tend to accept it. If there is documentary evidence then all the better.
But blatant lying is another matter - fraud if it is intended to receive the buyers and they lose or pay more money for the house, or it is a criminal offence if false information is given to the planners.
But saying to a solicitor that the extension was built more than four years ago and potentially time barred for action is no good at sales time. To a solicitor, this still means that the extension has no permission, and that it is unknown if it meets the four or ten year threshold, and are there other implications and therefore risk to the buyer.
So all things considered, this is why it's best to go forward on the basis that that person who first told your sister that no permission was required, led her to believe that this was permitted development under the new rules. Not remembering exact dates and times and the confusion between the rules for the new and old rules for permitted development are plausible excuses.
If the development would be permitted development, whether the notification process was followed or not, then it would be deemed lawful on any appeal. The council would be bound to grant a LDC.
No, and she might get away with it. But if the buyer/solicitor then asked her to get a certificate from the council, she would have to prove that it was built more than 4 years ago.
So in effect, you are saying that the rearward limit for domestic extensions to be classed as permitted development is not 3m/4m but 6m/8m?
LDC's are used for development, including that done under permitted development (old rules) so I can't see why it can't be used for the new rules. Is there anything in the legislation specifically preventing this?
But it would never have been permitted development in the first place because the procedure for the new rules was not followed - ie they did not notify the council.
Well we can't use that one. I've just found out it has been declared on the forms as she didn't feel there was any reason to lie. Rightly so I guess.
The development did conform to the PD requirements, and so if an application was made at the time then it would have been determined as PD. It all turns on the actual development, not whether a bit of paper was filled in. That's how the planning inspectorate would assess it, and that's what a council would be aware of.
Beg to differ here.
If it was 3m or under, it would have been p.d. under the GPDO.
As it is between 3m and 6m, OP had the choice of either applying for planning permission in the normal way, or using the prior notification scheme, in the hope that no neighbour raised an objection.
In the latter case, it would only have a chance of being p.d. if the correct procedure had been followed, ie a notification made.
No notification has been made, so at present it is unlawful as it extends out beyond 3m. The LPA cannot give a LDC for something that was not p.d.
I agree it would have been p.d. had the correct procedure been followed, and no objection received, but not otherwise, and the scheme is not retrospective unfortunately.
It still does not matter if the extension would have been PD, or if it would have required a planning application under the notification rules. If that extension would have satisfied the requirements to be PD, or if it would have satisfied the planning policy at the time so that it would have been approved if permission was sought, then a LDC would be granted. The administration procedures are irrelevant when considering if a development is lawful or not.
It would have to be some seriously monstrous extension, blighting the homes of several neighbours for a LDC to be refused - irrespective of whether the homeowner followed the application rules or not. And even then, it could go to the inspectorate on appeal for their decision. As it is, it's an extension on the back of the house.
It would have to be some seriously monstrous extension, blighting the homes of several neighbours for a LDC to be refused - irrespective of whether the homeowner followed the application rules or not. And even then, it could go to the inspectorate on appeal for their decision. As it is, it's an extension on the back of the house.
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
