Planning condition

[qball101]

My neighbour and I were recently granted permission on a joint application for a single story rear extension on both our semi detached properties. One of the conditions was that the build should happen as a single building operation (i.e. both extensions should be built simultaneously) so as to avoid a situation where one extension gets built and the other doesn't.

We are now ready to start our side of the build but our neighbour's plans are to proceed at a much slower rate as funds become available. I spoke to the planning officer and he said that if our neighbour had at least started their build (e.g. the party wall and foundations on his side) the council would be unlikely to take any action. To assess compliance anyway, they would need a complaint from a resident, something that is very unlikely to happen.

There may be scope to have the condition revised, but I guess if we go down that route we've sort of shown our hand if it gets refused and we build at different rates anyway (i.e. more reason for the planning officer to think we're being bloody minded and throw the book at us).

My real question is, if my neighbour never gets round to building his side of the extension, will there come a point when my side of the structure becomes a legitimate extension anyway or could the council rightfully come round and ask me to knock it down 20 years from now? I know conveyancing solicitors are all over this sort of thing, and I would hate to end up with an unsaleable house.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I think its 10 the year rule that will apply for a breach of planning conditions. After which you can claim immunity from prosecution. It will always be an illegal development though.

Your neighbour only needs to get the foundations in within 3 years to avoid that though. Why not try to get him to have the founds done when you do yours, that'd save a bit.

 

[qball101]

Okay. The planning condition was as a single building operation which the planning officer said would require all the external works to be completed for it to be compliant with this.

Might go down the route of trying to get the condition revised to something a little bit more neighbour friendly. I think otherwise we're going to have to abandon the joint application and submit our own application. Having a house I can't sell if I need / want to is not really an option.

Seems a bit harsh but I suppose rules is rules.

 

[jeds]

There are rules to imposing planning conditions and it can get very complicated. I'm suprised the planners imposed this one because I don't see how it could be enforced. The planning guidance circular specifically prevents conditions that impose time limits for completion - i.e. they can say you must start within a certain time but they can't say you must complete by a certain date or time. Since you have no condition that determines phasing the start of works there is nothing stopping you from starting and completing one side and then the other side at a later date - which might be 10, 20, 50 years later. So they have conditioned themselves into a bit of a corner. You've started and completed one phase - and there's nothing they can do about it. And there's also nothing they can do about forcing you to begin or complete the other phase. So what they gonna do?

It's not that straightforward of course. Your problem would be that the planning reegister would say that you had developed but not satisfied conditions - which wouldn't be ideal. If they enforced I'm sure an inspector would set the condition aside. It's a risk but I'd bet money on it. It's a daft condition and inspectors like nothing more than setting aside daft conditions. But if they didn't enforce you wouldn't be able to go to an inspector and it would just sit there on the record. A threat of judicial review and claim for costs is often enough to make a planning department see sense - especially when it was their daft condition that started it all. But that would be giving them the benefit of the doubt that they have any sense?

 

[^woody^]

It seems that the condition was necessary to prevent one half of the extension being built and then contravening a local planning policy (eg 45 degree rule or suchlike), and so it was necessary to ensure that both were built as one.

As such it would not be an unreasonable condition

Potentially, there could be a situation were one extension is built then the other neighbour sells up and the new owners don't want an extension .... then there is an extension which has explicit approval and yet contravenes the planners own policy

 

[qball101]

The condition has been put in place because we got an extra 500mm to make 4m depth. Local planning policy is 3.5m on Semis but 4m on detached (2 semis being detached).

The extra 500mm is thought to cause a possible adverse effect on the neighbouring property (hence standard policy being for 3.5m). Of course in reality, the difference between 3.5m and 4m is negligible and there is much more of an adverse effect from the party wall which will be built right down the middle of the boundary.

With this in mind it seems like a daft condition which is why the planning officer said (off the record) it will never be enforced. Just seems a shame we can't get to that place at some sort of official level.