Abusive changes of use to circumvent planning law

[Auction]

Houses contrary to flats have permitted development rights.

Hence an owner could amalgamate his block of flats into a single dwelling house to be granted permitted development rights. And once the developments allowed by the permitted development rights will be completed this owner can simply make a planning permission application to have his house splits again into flats. By doing this he would have succeeded in circumventing the law.

I would like to know if in this circumstance planning permission to have his house again split into flats will be refused to this owner or it could be granted to him but with a planning condition which says that he has to restore the site to its prior condition.

I would like to know also if there a delay between two changes of use to avoid the law being circumvented in this way

I suppose that to circumvent the law in this way is not allowed and I would like to know which planning law deal with this issue. I heard about section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 but I do not know if it has something to do with this issue

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Oh crap! Not again!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

 

[Auction]

This thread is slightly different that the precedent.

We further ourselves trying to reply unanswered and complicated questions

 

[LukeB123]

How would Person X be circumventing the law, when everything person X does, at the time he does it, is either PD, or approved with planning permission?

And to answer the question: "I would like to know if in this circumstance planning permission to have his house again split into flats will be refused to this owner or it could be granted to him but with a planning condition which says that he has to restore the site to its prior condition. "

Yes, it could be refused, or yes it could be granted. Also yes it could have conditions imposed on its approval.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Delay" in change of use. But I would guess not. A particular Unit / Building etc has a use (Use A) if it goes to another use (Use B) it is Use A up until it is Use B surely?



NB. Everything I post is purely a guess, and in no way necessarily factually correct

 

[AronSearle]

You are either breaking the law, or you are not, this is the foundation of our legal system.

I've never personally heard of an instance where a judge would rule "you broke the spirit of the law", building control officers might try it, but I'd happily bet someone else's money it would never stand.

Whether it would be worth the legal hassle and fee's is another question.

/not an expert.

 

[geraldthehamster]

I think it's time to post pictures!



Cheers
Richard

 

[Auction]

If planning permission to change again the use of the building is refused or granted with a planning condition which says that the site should be restored to its prior condition the issue is to know on which law this refusal or this planning condition could be based

Apparently this owner has maybe taken advantage of a loophole in the law. However I am convinced that there should be a piece of legislation to prevent this. Otherwise this will undermine the efficiency of planning law. I think to section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 which purpose is to limit development rights. However I am not sure and it is necessary to understand well which is the meaning and purpose of this piece of legislation.

This issue remain to be clarified

By “delay” I mean a period of time between two changes of use to prevent an owner from doing several consecutive changes of use only to circumvent planning law

 

[geraldthehamster]

Nope, sorry, I'm not biting unless you post pictures of this building, your own house and your dog.

Cheers
Richard

 

[AronSearle]

However I am convinced that there should be a piece of legislation to prevent this.

Whether that law should exist, is irrelevant to whether it does exist.

This issue remain to be clarified

Why?

Based on your information it is pretty clear = it is not forbidden so it is allowed.

I think you know this, but are trying to fish for another answer.

 

[tony1851]

I've never personally heard of an instance where a judge would rule "you broke the spirit of the law",

There is one instance I know of; many years ago, Lord Justice Scarman said of a litigant: 'he kept to the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law'.

Personally, I think that's disgraceful coming from a senior judge. Statute law is nothing if not written.

 

[big-all]

I've never personally heard of an instance where a judge would rule "you broke the spirit of the law",

There is one instance I know of; many years ago, Lord Justice Scarman said of a litigant: 'he kept to the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law'.

Personally, I think that's disgraceful coming from a senior judge. Statute law is nothing if not written.

spirit off the law everyone should pay there just taxes
letter off the law allows big companies to find loopholes depriving us off tax recipes

 

[LukeB123]

By “delay” I mean a period of time between two changes of use to prevent an owner from doing several consecutive changes of use only to circumvent planning law
---------------------------------------------------------

I don't see how there can be a period of time between changes of use?

As I said before, Building X is Class A. If you turn it to Class B, it's Class A untill you turn it to Class B.

The waters may become muddied - depending on the situation / change of use, as to when the change will have taken place (and therefore what PD rights it may benefit from at the time of works being done)

I'm not sure how there can be a delay between changes though... - What use would it adopt "Inbetween"?

Additionally how can a time period effect something that is permitted development? (if it is permitted development)

 

[geraldthehamster]

Just in case anyone still taking this seriously isn't aware, all 45 of Auction's posts have been on this one issue. The first was on 2nd October 2013.

Cheers
Richard

 

[tony1851]

I've never personally heard of an instance where a judge would rule "you broke the spirit of the law",

There is one instance I know of; many years ago, Lord Justice Scarman said of a litigant: 'he kept to the letter of the law, but not the spirit of the law'.

Personally, I think that's disgraceful coming from a senior judge. Statute law is nothing if not written.

spirit off the law everyone should pay there just taxes
letter off the law allows big companies to find loopholes depriving us off tax recipes

But the Parliametary draftsmen should word their statutes correctly according to how the Government wants the legislation to be. Once you start putting peoples' different interpretations on words, you're on a slippery slope. The big companies are simply keeping to the letter of the law, and no-one can criticise them for that.