Can you raise the ridge line within 150mm threshold in PD or does it need planning permission?

[^woody^]

I've replied to them to say if they can get a certificate of lawfulness then I'll pay

The council are unlikely to issue a LDC for this as its not PD, nor has the time limit for enforcement passed (when it will become lawful by default), so as it stands it's not lawful and no LDC can be issued.

It will need a planning application.

 

[Theston.E.Fox]

The council are unlikely to issue a LDC for this as its not PD, nor has the time limit for enforcement passed (when it will become lawful by default), so as it stands it's not lawful and no LDC can be issued.

It will need a planning application.

They said they deem it to be de minimis, but I'm pretty sure it's up to the local planning authority to determine what is de minimis. Plus if it was deemed de minimis then this should be reasonable to be granted an LDC. But I'm pretty sure from a layman's perspective that this work isn't going to get an LDC. Not sure what they're going to do next...

 

[^woody^]

Yeah, and then the whole street and beyond will be raising their rooflines.

 

[Theston.E.Fox]

Yeah, and then the whole street and beyond will be raising their rooflines.

That's why there are regulations that need to be adhered to

 

[Theston.E.Fox]

Yeah, and then the whole street and beyond will be raising their rooflines.

That's why there are regulations that need to be adhered to

 

[tony1851]

Whether or not it is de minimis is not up to the council or your builder/architect to decide because a height limit is a height limit and the line has to be drawn, hence the reason the council must refuse a LDC; an application for one would be a waste of time and money.

The question of de minimis is only raised by a planning inspector adjudicating an appeal (if, for example, the council refused a Planning Application) or - ultimately - by a court.

There are guidelines issued by central government to councils on enforcement policy. One part states: "enforcement may not be appropriate for a minor or technical breach where no harm has ocurred". Maybe your situation falls within this - the only way you would know is to go through the Planning- and appeal process - ughhh...

While not wishing to downplay the situation you personally are in, I can feel a little sympathy for your designer (though I accept he caused the problem in the first place). While he is answerable to the builder, and the builder is answerable to you, he is ultimately faced with the gamble of either paying to apply for planning permission and hoping it will be approved; or avoiding that gamble by paying to have the work altered.
If the worst came to the worst and your builder had to pay to alter it, are you sure they would be financially able? They could just walk away and the onus would then be on you to take action for recovery - you could end up throwing good money after bad.

 

[Theston.E.Fox]

While not wishing to downplay the situation you personally are in, I can feel a little sympathy for your designer (though I accept he caused the problem in the first place). While he is answerable to the builder, and the builder is answerable to you, he is ultimately faced with the gamble of either paying to apply for planning permission and hoping it will be approved; or avoiding that gamble by paying to have the work altered.
If the worst came to the worst and your builder had to pay to alter it, are you sure they would be financially able? They could just walk away and the onus would then be on you to take action for recovery - you could end up throwing good money after bad.

.

Both the loft conversion company and architect have insurance so I assume they are financially covered. I also agree that this work will not get an LDC and I think they knew that so misled me into hoping they would just get away with it.

But the onus is on me as the home owner and if I go to sell the house within 4 years then I could be in a world of hurt. I was misled into this situation by the company and I expect them to rectify it.

In all reality, it would probably be granted planning permission so I don't know why they don't just swallow the small cost and get on with it. It's taken them a week to admit that it actually isn't permitted planning after arguing blindly it is.

Feels like they're cutting off their nose to spite their face.