Search results

There is no point in granting permitted development rights contrary to a planning condition even if the planning application to which it is attached has not been implemented if this planning permission is still valid because it has not elapsed and can be implemented at any time. For the reason...

‘Nakajo’ says “However this in no way prohibits you from first building the shed and then building the house extension. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of Planning Officers does not enter into the equation” Here it is the intelligence of the applicant which enters into the equation and not...

‘Nakajo’ is wrong because the issue to which he refers the So-called ‘Conditions precedent’ concerns another kind of conditions which say that you have to do something instead of saying not to do something. It is very likely that a condition will say you cannot have both a house and a shed...

If you were right it would be very easy to overcome this condition which says that if you build a house you cannot build a shed by simply building first the shed and after the house what would not be difficult specially that a shed is easier to build than a house

This makes me think to an important issue. If this guy does not build his house we can think that he has permitted development rights to build the shed because the condition that he has no right to build the shed is relevant only if he has build the house. However what would happen if he does...

Your example is simple because no house has been built at all rendering the condition which says that no shed should be built irrelevant. Hence your example is not comparable to my case where windows were enlarged and added even though not necessary in the same size and numbers as in the...

There are two types of planning controls. Breach of planning conditions and unlawful developments. Section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 concerns unlawful developments i.e. developments without permitted development rights and not breach of a planning condition. Hence the issue is why developments made...

I am telling you my opinion to ask you if I am right or wrong

The Council in its report about the application for this lawful development certificate for unknown reason did not take into account in the relevant planning history of the site this previous planning application with this planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured...

It is much easier for the planning officer in charge of the processing of the application for a lawful development certificate to simply look into the relevant planning history if there is a planning condition which is contrary to lawful development certificate and if yes simply to refuse the...

Even if we consider that this planning permission was not implemented it remains that it could be irrelevant whether or not it was implemented in case section 3(4) of the GPDO applies even for planning permissions which have not been implemented. As I say in my previous post this piece of...

You say “• Planning permission obtained for specific work (window size "x" and one other window). Condition added to this specific work.” This is correct You say “• The specific work in the permission not carried out.” To reply to this I think that we have to take into account that there...

The planning permission was about enlargement and insertion of windows and it is what has happened no other kind of work has been done and the work has not been done in another site Moreover what evidence has the Council that this planning permission was not implemented before the lawful...

I would like first to get a reply to the issue that I raise and deal with the more complicated matters later

I have already seen a solicitor but with no results. Only barristers specialised in planning could maybe help me but they are too expensive for me at this stage so I rely on the knowledge, common sense and experience of the public. The issue that I raise could be only a technicality but it...

Yes it is a big problem because these windows with clear glasses cause loss of privacy due to overlooking. It is why I need to prove that the planning permission with a planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses have been implemented so that this neighbour is...

My neighbour has obtained a planning permission to enlarge existing windows which have obscured glasses and to insert an additional window at the rear of his property with a planning condition which says that the new windows should have also obscured glasses to protect against overlooking Then...

I am not a troll. I only use to do in depth anything that I do

It is well known that lease agreements are deed and that all deeds should be signed so it should matter. Moreover it would be good if your reply to my query

What evidence have you that a lease agreement which is a deed not need to be signed