Can Planning Authority revoke 'sign off' where applicant undertakes 'further development' specifically excluded from the permit

[Rogeranerley]

The developing company building on a plot I sold has driven a 'coach & horses' through the permit in turning an indoor terrace into living space, thereby removing this as an essential feature due to limited outdoor space; has also constructed an elevated decking platform as compensation as well as building a 'service room' for boiler and other services under the elevated parking area. Due to neighbours' concerns, permitted development rights have been removed from the permission.

The attitude of the development company is that inspection offices are only interested in BR compliance and will not bother to study the terms of the permit,

In such a situation, can the Planning Authority revoke such non compliance after 'Sign Off'

 

[mikeey84]

If something is not built in line with the drawings submitted to the planning dept, they can very much take action after the fact. See Tom Moore's daughter falling foul of that in the press a few months ago.

 

[Rogeranerley]

Many thanks, mikeey84; seems logical to me...should have thought of that example. Thanks again

 

[^woody^]

Can you clarify what you mean by "permit" and "sign off" and the "inspection offices" (officers?), as none of those apply to planning permission.

 

[Rogeranerley]

I've presumed, from my experience with an integral garage/shower room/ bedroom I had built, that an inspection is carried out by a planning officer to check if it's compliant with all the conditions set out in the approval as well as checking for complacency on building regs. That this inspection results in the issuing of an approval certificate. If this is so, my request is whether any failures discovered after the certification can result in revocation of the 'sign off . As mentioned, in my case the development company have substantially strayed, not least in ignoring the presumed permitted development entitlement being excluded from the start.

The company seems to be taking the view that a check on BR is all planning officers bother to check.

 

[George_engineer]

Building Regulations and Planning Permission are totally separate.

 

[jono_h]

I doubt the Planning Oficers even check the BR sign off. In all likelihood the only way they ever know if something has been built differently to the application is if a disgruntled neighbour makes a complaint.

The officer signing off the Building Regs is only interested is whether it has been built to meet the regs, not whether it meets the planning permission.

 

[Rogeranerley]

Many thanks jono-h

That's clear....it's for me to specify to Planning the aspects I consider are either stated as banned or not compliant with the issued permission.

Time to contact the Planning Manager I know by name and past contact. He happen to approve the OUT permission.

 

[StephenOak]

the only way they ever know if something has been built differently to the application is if a disgruntled neighbour makes a complaint

That seems to be the case. Someone in the local residents association often checks developments in the area to see that they match the approved plans and when he tells the planning officers it is the first they have heard of it.

 

[Rogeranerley]

Thanks StephenOak for your confirmation. I spoke with the LAP next to my county to retain my 'Harry Cloak'. It informs me it awaits such concerned representative before expending an investigation on noncompliant development. I've also come to understand the 4 year rule which appears to be on the side of the noncompliant party should that anniversary be reached So, it seems representation to LAP is still possible within that time frame to cause investigation into non compliance and legal action.

Any other thoughts/views would be welcome before I press the nucleal button!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Respectfully, what actually is the problem, have you/the existing neighbours lost privacy or similar? Understandably, developers generally try to achieve the maximum selling price/profit and sometimes what planners think or are required to ensure is necessary/required does not always equate to what the end user really wants.