Removal of conditions restricting permitted development

[alcores]

My architect recently submitted an application for a Certificate Of Lawful Development for a replacement garage.

The Council refused, quoting a wholesale removal of permitted development rights back in 1993.

I have done some research and see that subsequent to 1993, Circular 11/95 came into force, and this appears to outlaw the use of general conditions to restrict permitted development.

I am going to approach the Council to see if I can get the PD rights reinstated, but wondered if anyone else on here can offer me their experience of getting something like this lifted.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I cannot offer any guidance on getting such restrictions lifted per se however your architect should have contacted the council prior to submitting the application to check you still retained Permitted Development rights. They would have been able to tell him this over the phone. (In fact if you had been my client I would have made that phone call before I even submitted a quote to you).

Consequently a Full Planning Application should have been submitted for something that would ordinarily have been allowed under Permitted Development, the difference being that no fee would have been payable at least this is how the last application I did like this was handled by them. There is still no saying whether the application would have been granted or not.

Really though your architect should have assessed all of this before he submitted anything.

 

[DevilDamo]

the difference being that no fee would have been payable

Apart from in this case, a fee of £75 would have been paid.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

the difference being that no fee would have been payable

Apart from in this case, a fee of £75 would have been paid.

Not for the last application I did of this type DD, it was not an app for a CLD.

 

[^woody^]

You have no chance of getting your PD rights back.

Article 4 directives have been and still are a valid way of controlling development, so I'm not sure what you are eluding to with that circular

 

[DevilDamo]

the difference being that no fee would have been payable

Apart from in this case, a fee of £75 would have been paid.

Not for the last application I did of this type DD, it was not an app for a CLD.

Yes sir, hence why I said in "this" case as in the OP's situation where a CLD was submitted so a fee would have also been paid.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

the difference being that no fee would have been payable

Apart from in this case, a fee of £75 would have been paid.

Not for the last application I did of this type DD, it was not an app for a CLD.

Yes sir, hence why I said in "this" case as in the OP's situation where a CLD was submitted so a fee would have also been paid.

The point is the OP did not need to pay it as it should never have even been submitted, the CLD application's rejection was inevitable.

 

[alcores]

Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission.

My current architect (and the one before) wasn't aware of this either.