Combining PD and planning permission

[^woody^]

Of course there is

 

[banana12]

Thanks everyone for your thoughts on this so far. I feel like it is an important question and I am sure I won't be the only one trying to navigate PD and PP rights at the same time.

A few relevant things i've found online this evening:

build the PD scheme first and get that substantially completed before erecting the connecting planning extension scheme.

(http://www.permitteddevelopment.org...not-build-two-types-of-extensions-at-once.php)

The General Permitted Development Order Part - 1 General Q & A DCP Section 4.34

A local authority has advised my clients that roof alterations to form rear and side dormer windows are permitted development. They also have permission for a single-storey rear extension and a front dormer window. What are the implications of constructing both sets of works concurrently?

A similar scenario was considered in R ex parte Watts v SOS [2002]. Mr Watts had permission for an extension but also wanted to build a roof extension at the same time under permitted development rights. The planning authority maintained that although the roof extension was in itself permitted development, when taken with the authorised extension it exceeded the tolerances under the General Permitted Development Order (GPDO) 1995 and thus required express permission. In reviewing an inspector's decision to uphold an enforcement notice, the courts held that the timing of such building works is important. Where development is carried out in accordance with the Order, its support is required until the works are substantially complete. If, before that happens, the dwelling is otherwise enlarged, improved or altered so that the total volume of all the works exceeds the relevant allowance, the potentially permitted development would no longer be protected. So your clients’ dormers would be permitted development if built before the extension, but not if they are constructed afterwards.

(www.planningresource.co.uk)

So the answer as most have said above appears to be PD build first (must be substantially complete) then PP build after.

Of course, as woody said my PD rights were considered (and not removed) when they granted our PP, and our PD no prior approval notice actually specifies our PP application as "pending". The council rejected our ground floor plans under PP initially, but actually advised us to re-apply through NCS. So i have no doubts that they know exactly what I am doing. Hopefully as long as i execute this carefully I do not expect to run into any issues, so long as my PD build in isolation is actually PD.

 

[geraldthehamster]

I think the thing to do is to come back and tell us the outcome, then we'll know

I'm not sure that adding extensions to extensions would be the same as the roof volume case cited. The law was recently changed in response to a court case, to clarify that extensions can't simply be added without regard to what has been added before.

 

[lt8480]

Its very confusing without drawings but...

I think if you do the PD first then the PP work, then your PP works would not comply with your approval.

Your PP approval will cite the works must comply with drawings which will include as existing. Once you have done PD works the existing is then not correct, and therefore you cannot claim to be complying with the works. Furthermore/also at no point would your development have complied with the proposed drawings either so it is hard to say you have complied with either the existing or proposed drawings should this be challenged.

Whilst you are correct the PP does not strip PD rights, this is only in that it doesnt say so in writing because it does not need to! In practice it almost always stops PD extensions that would be connected to an existing extension, and especially those existing extensions that are gained under PP because of how the TCPO (GPD) 2015 Order is worded - basically the combined/connected extension would have to meet the PD rules (and if that's the case then there is no reason why the existing extension would have sought PP rather than just being done under PD.

This is perhaps where the thought doing the PD works first comes from, but as above I don't think the PP is then usable anymore, and instead a new PP should be sought.

The above is also explained/shown in the PD technical guidance:

any total enlargement (being the enlarged part together with any existing enlargement of the original dwellinghouse to which it will be joined) exceeds or would exceed the limits set out in sub-paragraphs (e) to (j); Where the proposed extension is to be joined to an existing extension to the original house, whether that was built following a planning application or under permitted development rights, the total enlargement (being the proposed extension together with the previous extension) must meet the limits set out in (e) to (j) above.

The example the guidance shows is adding a first floor extension on top of an existing 4m single storey extension, which makes the whole extension not compliant and therefore the first floor cannot be done under PD as geraldthehamster said.

It is worth noting and being cautious as the example cited is from 2002 (and uses the 20 year old GPDO from 1995) and also involves distinct/separate works, whilst the two GPDOs are similar they shouldn't be seen to be interchangeable, and in fact the GPDO from 1995 also had many amendments to and I'm not clear what form it was in 2002. The website http://www.permitteddevelopment.org/ does not make clear what the advice is based on and is ran by a Technologist who may have knowledge in this field but usually their expertise would not be complicated Planning Law.

My thought would be without a recent case law example based on the current GPDO would to be cautious in carrying out extensive and expensive works.

Another thing to note if you put in an application showing PD works that are not yet started (but say with a a label referring to a gained LDC) the LA will request drawings without the PD/LDC works shown. You could still show them and refer to the LDC but you are effectively asking for consent to all the works in one go.