Urgent Help Required: Excessive Demolition & PP

Our PP:
We have a semi-detached bungalow in a Greenbelt Settlement, but not in a Conservation Area. We were granted PP for a wrap around extension along the side and rear, as well as a new relocated porch at the front. The PP Decision Notice stated "Demolition of existing garage and conservatory. Erection of single storey extension to side/rear elevation and porch to front elevation".

Our drawings, which were submitted as part of our application clearly show that the existing external walls, which would become the internal walls once the bungalow is extended, are to be demolished and a new floor plan will be created. Furthermore, the drawings also show a completely new roof plan which is to be supported by these walls.

Works Undertaken To Date:
We have so far demolished all the walls except the front wall and obviously our party wall. We have removed the entire roof except around 1m from the party wall. We have also dug up all the old floors in preparation to form one new insulated concrete floor. We have also removed the windows and front door from the front wall. Effectively, bar the party wall, all that currently remains of the old house is the front wall and a couple timber joists from the old roof.

We have now poured the footings, installed all the new drainage, and built all the new walls upto DPC. Everything is as per the drawings we submitted for PP.

Our Urgent Issue:
Today we received an email from the planning officer stating that they have received a complaint that the work we are undertaking is not in line with the PP we were granted. The reason is that "the property has been substantially demolished, for which we do not have planning permission, and we would need to apply for planning permission to rebuild the property". The officer also advises us to stop work immediately and that our case has already been passed onto the enforcement officer.

Are We Really In Trouble?:
I spoke with the officer this afternoon and confirmed that we are building in line with the drawings. By comparing the existing and proposed drawings, it is clear which walls are to remain. The officer hinted at the fact that we should have built the wrap-around extension first, and then demolished the existing external walls once they have become internal walls. The fact that this would have been difficult (and expensive) to achieve is of no concern to them and only concerns Building Control.

I'm gobsmacked! The officer requested a photo of the site. I need to reply, but am not sure where I stand in all of this. Am I truly in the wrong for following the drawings to the 't' and have fallen foul of the fact that the Decision Notice doesn't state "demolish the existing rear and side walls and demolish the roof"? Surely it's mad that they are telling me what order I should build in!?[/b]

Plans:
Existing:

Proposed:

Block Plan:

Existing Elevation:

Proposed Elevation:

Decision Notice:

Been there. 6 months of hassle and time and bullshit later the dickhead enforcement officer sends me a one line email saying; "had another look and it's ok."

My advice is get the walls built ASAP. It always looks better when the walls are back up. Then have a massive open house party. Advertise it on facebook. All weekend with loud music would be good. Give they nosey bastard neighbours something to complain about.

Aye just plod on, planners are really quite dopey sometimes.

Agreed. There's a few things in your favour -

Firstly, it doesn't say anything in the proposal about when the demolition should of taken place - just double check the conditions put on the approval. They should of stipulated it in there, otherwise they don't have any real control over it.

It doesn't sound like an officer has been out either. Especially if they are asking you for a photo. It sounds like someone has complained that you are doing a lot of demolition works, given the officer an earful maybe, so they have (or are about to) pass it on to enforcement.

Enforcement won't find it expedient to enforce anyway...

Think about it, what are they going to tell you to do..

Put back the walls for now, so you can knock them down again in a few weeks time?
Apply for planning permission for EXACTLY what you have just applied for? and maybe change the wording to "Demolition of existing garage, conservatory and internal walls"

It's fairly petty.

Don't worry too much about "Being in trouble" - worse comes to worse - and it shouldn't really come to this - but you can have a "Free go" and resubmit your planning application for free (as long as it gained approval a year or less ago) - put the tiny changes in there, and get an approval for it - I would never think it would come to this though, but if they are being pedantic, it's an option!

Thank you for all your positive replies. However, having had an enforcement officer turn up to take photos today, the planner responded to our email with the conclusion that is their "professional opinion that a full planning application is required for the rebuild of the property. With this application [they] would also require the Local Validation Checklist, Biodiversity Checklist, Renewable Energy details and the relevant CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) forms as well as the appropriate application forms, drawings and fee.".

Those additional fees and taxes will well and truly kill the budget of the project in a heartbeat.

It is glaringly obvious where the complaint has arisen - we had a visit from the Parish Councillor a couple of hours before an email from Planning/Enforcement, said person returned to glare from their car today.

Now, if we were to continue with the build based on the existing PP and complete it. Will we be in the clear, as effectively the old house footprint is back with the new extension? Is there any reason why we would struggle to re-mortgage the house or even sell it (taking into account solicitor searches with the LA)?

Can an enforcement officer truly stop us from building? I assume it would be a civil case as opposed to a criminal one, but what would the consequences be if we ignored their notice?

We spoke with the planning officer today. They refuse to budge on their 'opinion'. Their solicitor provided a definition in that “substantial demolition is a question of fact and degree rather than law. The near-total demolition and rebuilding of a building clearly amounts to substantial demolition; the removal and replacement of a few bricks clearly will not". They advised that they do not have a planning policy which outlines at what point a project becomes a re-build, neither could they give us an answer for how they assumed an existing wall on an existing plan disappears on the proposed plan. Furthermore, when pushed on the fact that we had to demolish the existing porch to make way for the new porch, yet they did not state that we can demolish the existing porch in the Decision Notice, they had no answer.

Would making it clear that we will be halting the build for years to come and leave the building site in it's current state (i.e. no one wants to see on that on the road scene) be a worthwhile argument against a 'rebuild' application?

Or, could we quickly whack up new stud walls and roof and say that the old house is back?

I'm sorry that there are SO many questions there. If it wasn't for the huge financial implications, we would just re-submit for PP.

EViS said:

It is glaringly obvious where the complaint has arisen - we had a visit from the Parish Councillor a couple of hours before an email from Planning/Enforcement, said person returned to glare from their car today.

Click to expand...

Parish Councils worry me, to be honest. In theory they're elected, but as there are seldom as many candidates as there are posts, it's usually a shoe-in for local busybodies with nothing better to do. They don't have any real powers so all they can do is nose about, report developments that usually turn out to be permitted development, and object to every planning application. That's what it's like round here anyway.

Cheers
Richard

Spell out your position. Keep it simple. Tell them you are building in accordance with your planning approval which clearly shows that the walls would be removed. As there were no conditions in the approval specifying the sequence of works, it is irrelevant if they are removed before, during or after the associated extension. Invite them to issue an enforcement notice so that you may proceed to appeal where you will also be able to apply for recovery of costs.

I have uploaded most of the drawings which formed our PP as well as the only 3 conditions within the Decision Notice. If you guys wouldn't mind taking a look to confirm your advice, that would be great .

Is jeds suggestion of basically telling them where to stick their opinion the most prudent option? Is it worth keeping quiet for the time being until we hear back from them?

Go forth with beds advice.

Your LPA is correct in their opinion that total demolition and re-build requires pp.

However, if you are reinstating exactly what was there in appearance, materials and size etc, and the demolition was to facilitate easier construction, then the LPA is not in such a strong position as at first appears.

They have to follow guidelines before taking enforcement action. One such is that it is not expedient to threaten enforcement action just to make a person submit an application.

Your re-build seems entirely reasonable if it is one of a pair of semis and it is difficult to see how the council could refuse such an application if you made one.

On that basis, you would be best ignoring the threat and carry on re-building. There is no point in spending money on a new application (and all the reports that go with it) merely to regularize a situation which would almost certainly receive planning permission.

As regards selling the house; once the 4-year limit has passed, it is immune from any enforcement action.

The primary reason for not wishing to submit a new application is the CIL tax implication which is no small number!

From what you have said tony, would you say that despite the demolition, we do still have PP for the finished build?

I don't think the CIL applies to self-build houses, as long as the development has not started.

In your case, the ideal way forward from a Planning perspective would be to re-build (including the extension) as quickly as possible. That would get you back to where the LPA believe you should be if implementing the scheme shown on the drawings. Doing that would make it hard for the council to justify enforcement action, particularly if the house is one of a semi. IMO it would still technically not have planning permission, but after 4 years it would become immune and lawful.

But from the CIL perspective, you would almost certainly not get the exemption because you have made a technical start.

Difficult situation - it may mean that to get the house up again (plus the extension) that you have to bite the bullet and pay up.

Evis, do you mind if I ask, what did you put on your application form to the council?
The vast majority of the time, you / the agent will often put "extension" or something akin to that, and then the LPA will re-write the proposal to something that is more suitable. In your application form, did you write the exact proposal, or did they change it? Did you mention anywhere in your applicaiton form, or anywhere drafted on the plans that the other walls would be demolished? IF you did you might have a bit of room for manoeuvre. I'd get a hold of the application for and the officers report.

If so, you could try resubmitting the application with the proposal:

"Demolition of existing garage, conservatory and existing side/rear wall. Erection of side /rear extension and new front porch" (So this would be a free resubmission original poster - as long as it was less than a year ago)

Send everything in again as a resubmission, but put an arguement together with the submission that says something along the lines of:

"Following a recent issue with the LPA, there seems to have arisen an issue with the level of demolition. For clarification purposes only, we are resubmitting the previously approved application with an annotation of what is to be demolished, in the interests of clarity.

This was alreadyclearly shown on the previous application (Drawing Numbers: XXXX and XXXX), and already approved by the LPA. As the LPA has failed to outline these points in the description it gave to the works (and maybe in their officer report too??) we respectfully resubmit the application in order to remedy against any enforcement action, for which, in effect, is against the removal of two walls, which we again feel is not expedient to enforce."

You can add some more weight to it, again by referring back to the plans, and the clear removal from existing to proposed, and also by stating that the LPA, in this case (because they won't want to set a precedent) has made an oversite by granting permission in the first place without asking for the (Quote what they said to you) "Relevant CIL Forms, Renewable energy details" etc etc.

Does anyone on here think that could be a reasonable route to go down? Do you think they would register the application? Difficult as tony stated for his reasons above - I'm just trying to think of another spin on things that may help

LukeB123 said:

Does anyone on here think that could be a reasonable route to go down? Do you think they would register the application? Difficult as tony stated for his reasons above - I'm just trying to think of another spin on things that may help

Click to expand...

I'm rarely motivated to think that adding further fuel to a fire in this way is a good idea. My own personal take on it is that the OP should crack on with making the house look like the approved plan and do nothing with the LPA, appealing anything necessary. Martin Goodall's blog has some interesting articles (using an Alice in wonderland analogy) related to the trouble extensive demolition can cause for conversions but the info is probably not directly relevant as this is not a change of use app. That said, it gives an interesting idea as to how long these arguments can go on for and how embroiled legally one can become. .

cjard said:

it gives an interesting idea as to how long these arguments can go on for and how embroiled legally one can become. .

Click to expand...

Exactly: some council officials enjoy the power trip of putting people in almost impossible situations.