Does a planning application consider permitted development?

KateK said:

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.

Click to expand...

Presume the architect wouldn't have submitted it either if he had known the planner would refuse
it !
So are you going to withdraw the application ?

KateK said:

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).

Click to expand...

Do you know what the planner does not like about the proposals
submitted ?
'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?' - If the whole scheme was going to be the same as submitted now ,the outcome would be the same, if the planners don't want to approve it now they wouldn't want to approve it in the future whichever way you go about submitting the application.

The loft on the current LDC has a higher roof height but doesn't cover the entire roof. The extra bit would take it slightly over the PD allowance. I didn't think this would be contentious to achieve under planning. But the council are adamant about seeing the original roof -- although virtually ever other house in the area has got the rear roof completely converted with no trace of the original because they sneak in under PD. So the council just started quoting the guidelines and saying they're rules.

Now I'm thinking I'm going to redesign the loft (bigger floorplan, lower roof height) so it comes just under 50m3, and get a new LDC for it. If I can't convert the current paid planning application into an LDC application, then I guess I could "substantially" build it and, if I can be bothered and it's within twelve months, use the free go to appeal to raise the roof slightly. I think their insistence on seeing the original roof will be less effective at appeal if the roof has already gone.

That aside, there are two other reasons this has dragged on for a year.

The first problem was a new porch linking the new side extension to the house. The porch and the extension were both PD but apparently building them at the same time meant the side-extension extends forward of the existing house and would therefore require PP. So the porch had to come off.

And then there was an endless debate about whether the access to the patio door at the back constituted a step or a platform. I wanted steps. The architect's design was bigger than I imagined but I thought I'd just scale it back. Unfortunately, once the council saw it, they wouldn't let it go and, in the end, their legal department was dragged in provide a ludicrous definition of a platform. I just wanted the nonsense to stop but it wasted the summer.

From my experience, LPA's detest loft conversions to traditional 2-storey dwellings because they increase overlooking and reduce privacy to neighbouring properties. This is one of the main reasons I would always explore the options under PD first as those 'issues' would not be taken into account. LPA's can also raise concern to how rear dormers (flat roof box dormers in particular) sit within a rear roof slope. As they are normally built to maximise the internal floor area, the dormer walls are built on the outermost walls below. In some situations, this added bulk can be seen from the street scene which I have had on another project. The LPA at first refused the application but following a re-submission, they were willing to negotiate. It resulted in us taking the dormer cheeks away from the sides by 500mm and set in from the rear by 500mm. The reason the LPA were strict on that was because the property had an Article 4 Direction that removed PD rights in relation to roof alterations. This is also another reason I would always explore the PD options first. So if the roof alterations can be reduced so they come under the 50cu.m volume allowance, then definitely proceed with that.

The LPA would not be able to change the application from a HH to an LDC because they are two completely separate things. LPA's will not let people upgrade or downgrade any type of application. As it sounds like the LPA are going to refuse the application, can you not look to withdraw it and then submit a LDC application soon after? It sounds like the same drawings could be used, albeit some minor tweaks required to bring it under the volume allowance?

Your suggestion about substantially building it and then dealing with the increased height later is entirely up to you. It can sometimes help LPA's to assess applications based on something that has been or is partially built as it's more in context. But this doesn't mean it will be plain sailing. Worst case you go to appeal and the Planning Inspectorate agrees with the LPA and dismisses the appeal resulting you having to remove it or un-do those works.

This is all getting too much for me, good luck with it anyway ,I hope you finish up with what you want.