Does a planning application consider permitted development?

[KateK]

I want to build a loft conversion most of which is permitted development but a part of which requires planning permission.

I've got a lawful development certificate for the PD part.

Rather than go to the trouble and expense of building it in two stages, I put in a planning application before starting construction thinking this would just be for the non PD part.

The council acknowledge that part of the work is covered by an LDC but are considering the whole thing under planning and have said they're likely to refuse. My architect says that this is because, until the PD part is built, it's just theoretical.

Do I really have to build most of it and then apply for planning separately for the last bit/second stage? Would they consider it differently under those circumstances? Is it likely to result in a different outcome?

I've had conversations with the planning officer but it's really hard getting a straight answer out of him. Half the time he insists that local planning guidelines should be interpreted as unchallengeable rules but more than once he's told me that I could appeal and I don't know whether this is a coded way of saying that he thinks I'd win on appeal or if it's just a statement of fact.

 

[johnny2007]

Planning dpt usually don't get involved with PD, however, if you give them the chance, they love to be obstructive.
For some reasons their response is no by default if anything is slightly different than standard.
What I found in my days is that Planning and building control hate each other, so... armed with this, contact BC and tell them about this matter.
If they're like some of the councils I came across, they would be starting a war on your behalf, just because planning overstepped the threshold.
Of course some councils are a lot more professionals than others.

 

[DevilDamo]

Your architect is 100% correct. Especially when it comes to roof alterations, the LPA would not allow you to combine PD with formal Planning meaning you’d have to build out the PD works first and then submit a formal Planning application for the non-PD works. That formal application would then show the PD works as existing and so the LPA would only determine the new works.

 

[DevilDamo]

What I found in my days is that Planning and building control hate each other, so... armed with this, contact BC and tell them about this matter.

What bizarre and incorrect advice. Why would Building Control get involved in Planning matters?

 

[johnny2007]

What bizarre and incorrect advice. Why would Building Control get involved in Planning matters?

Because, as mentioned, BC and planning don't go along.
So if a project has been approved for permitted development, planning shouldn't get involved anymore.
At that point is BC job to check the project.
That's why on many occasions I deliberately made the 2 dpt fight each other.
Truth is that BC is a technical dpt with some sort of responsibility (although limited) for safety, while planning is run by pen pushers with a chip on the shoulder.
Give a monkey a little authority and it will become king of bananaland.

 

[DevilDamo]

Within the majority of LA’s, both departments come under the Planning umbrella so are actually quite well connected. I can only assume the information you’re providing is that of your LA and/or ones you’ve worked for. I’m not sure why’d you think, let alone want them to turn against one another either. Strange.

 

[johnny2007]

Read my post, all of it.
It's self explanatory.

 

[Nakajo]

"What I found in my days is that Planning and building control hate each other, so... armed with this, contact BC and tell them about this matter." I doubt that my LA's Building Control department know where the Planning Department is.

 

[KateK]

Your architect is 100% correct. Especially when it comes to roof alterations, the LPA would not allow you to combine PD with formal Planning meaning you’d have to build out the PD works first and then submit a formal Planning application for the non-PD works. That formal application would then show the PD works as existing and so the LPA would only determine the new works.

Thanks for all the replies.

If I let the LPA formally refuse at this stage and take it to appeal, does the Planning Inspector use the same criteria as above or would s/he take into account that part of it could go ahead under PD anyway and just rule on the non-PD bit?

If I go ahead and build, or start to build, the PD part, how far does it have to get before it's considered "existing"? Is it just a matter of starting work or does it have to have final BCO sign-off?

 

[DevilDamo]

Because homeowners can carry out PD works without formal Planning and therefore without adhering to formal Planning policies, LPA’s as well as Appeal Inspectors are strict on what can be done and is deemed to be PD. They would not allow something to be approved via the formal route just because there is a partial PD backup plan.

All that being said, I have been involved in a couple of projects (both within the Green Belt) where we have secured PD works via a CoL application. Once approved, we then went back to Planning formally to see if they would accept a trade off as well as removing certain PD rights. This was accepted by the LPA and I did require the assistance from a Planning Consultant. This route is on a case by case basis and you should look to see professional advice and guidance from a PC if you are considering this option.

In terms of what you’d have to do before re-applying formally, you would have to substantially complete the PD works which would mean Building Control sign off.

 

[^woody^]

If I let the LPA formally refuse at this stage and take it to appeal, does the Planning Inspector use the same criteria as above or would s/he take into account that part of it could go ahead under PD anyway and just rule on the non-PD bit?

That's risky and could limit what you could do/apply for in the future.

The planning inspector will apply the same criteria as the planner, and check that procedurally, the planners followed their own policy and national policy. The planning inspector is not reassessing the application, just the policy, procedure and outcome.

You need to "substantially" complete the PD parts and then add the parts that are being built under formal permission.

 

[KateK]

Thank you, both of you, for the replies.

That's risky and could limit what you could do/apply for in the future.

In the sense that once something's been rejected you can't re-apply for the same or very similar thing?

At the moment I've put in a planning application and the planner has said he's likely to reject it so architect has sent in alternatives (which haven't found favour either). What's the procedure for withdrawal/resubmission/free go etc? Does something have to be formally rejected before the free go kicks in or are we already at the free go stage? Are there time limits on any of this or can things roll on as long as we're in discussion with the planner?

The planning inspector will apply the same criteria as the planner, and check that procedurally, the planners followed their own policy and national policy. The planning inspector is not reassessing the application, just the policy, procedure and outcome.

I was told by someone in the planning department that you *have to* follow the guidelines. But they're guidelines, not rules, aren't they? There must surely be some wiggle room and negotiation. That's the point of a planning process, isn't it? Or am I being hopelessly naive?

 

[^woody^]

12 month time limit for re-applying under the free go procedure - from date of registration for withdrawn applications, or from date of decision for refused applications.

Whilst you have to follow the guides, some are prescriptive (eg must have one off-road car space for each bedroom) and some are subjective (eg extension should not be overbearing). It is with the subjective guidance there there is scope to demonstrate compliance from the applicant's point of view .... or demonstrate non-compliance from the planning officer's point of view.

In addition there is scope for the planning inspectorate to determine that policy guide may not apply in a particular case, or that the guide has been met in a particular circumstance.

 

[Leofric]

Why don't you consult your architect and follow their advice and let them deal with it ?! The architect can withdraw the application ,if that is what you want to do and they are acting as your agent, by writing to the planning department. I wouldn't deliberately let something be refused like you suggest.

 

[KateK]

Thanks for the info, woody.

Why don't you consult your architect and follow their advice and let them deal with it ?!

It's because of my architects "advice" or lack thereof that I'm here.

If the architect had told me the PD part needed to be substantially built or permission would be refused, it would never have been submitted.

DOHa and woody have provided more useful and sensible information in 72 hours than the architect and the planning dept in 12 months.