Hi Ragsta,
When you're proposing an extension, then the types of advice and confirmations you might receive from your local authority planning department will normally fall into the following three categories:
1) A letter from a planning officer with caveated advice - e.g. "if your extension complies with the legislation it would be PD", or "it appears that your extension would be PD", or "in my opinion ...", or "this advice does not represent the formal opinion of the local authority", etc. Even though this type of letter might be helpful in terms of pointing you in the right direction, it has no real legal weight. If a mistake has been made and your extension is not PD, then the local authority would still be able to take enforcement action against you, and if you complained then the local authority would be able to point out the caveats in the letter.
2) A letter from a planning officer with definite advice - e.g. "your extension would be PD and would not require PP from the local authority" (i.e. with no caveats anywhere on the letter). In my opinion, this type of letter normally indicates sloppy practice on behalf of the planning officer, because it gives the homeowner a false sense of security. If a mistake has been made and your extension is not PD, then the local authority would STILL be able to take enforcement action against you, regardless of the fact that one of their officers has previously stated that the extension would be PD. The difference with situation "1)" above is that in situation "2)" you might have decent grounds to get some form of compensation from the local authority (e.g. via the Ombudsman, etc).
3) A formal decision notice from the local authority - e.g. a "lawful development certificate" that you obtain after submitting a formal application with an application form, fee, OS map, and plans. This has very significant legal weight, and in practice is the only way you can be certain in advance of starting works that the extension would be PD.
The downside with the last option is that it obviously costs money (£86 application fee plus the cost of the plans), and takes time (standard deadline is 8-weeks). My personal view is that for any extension works that are going to cost several thousands pounds or more, it's almost always worth obtaining an LDC first, although I know that many other people will disagree with this advice.
Thanks,
Steve
When you're proposing an extension, then the types of advice and confirmations you might receive from your local authority planning department will normally fall into the following three categories:
1) A letter from a planning officer with caveated advice - e.g. "if your extension complies with the legislation it would be PD", or "it appears that your extension would be PD", or "in my opinion ...", or "this advice does not represent the formal opinion of the local authority", etc. Even though this type of letter might be helpful in terms of pointing you in the right direction, it has no real legal weight. If a mistake has been made and your extension is not PD, then the local authority would still be able to take enforcement action against you, and if you complained then the local authority would be able to point out the caveats in the letter.
2) A letter from a planning officer with definite advice - e.g. "your extension would be PD and would not require PP from the local authority" (i.e. with no caveats anywhere on the letter). In my opinion, this type of letter normally indicates sloppy practice on behalf of the planning officer, because it gives the homeowner a false sense of security. If a mistake has been made and your extension is not PD, then the local authority would STILL be able to take enforcement action against you, regardless of the fact that one of their officers has previously stated that the extension would be PD. The difference with situation "1)" above is that in situation "2)" you might have decent grounds to get some form of compensation from the local authority (e.g. via the Ombudsman, etc).
3) A formal decision notice from the local authority - e.g. a "lawful development certificate" that you obtain after submitting a formal application with an application form, fee, OS map, and plans. This has very significant legal weight, and in practice is the only way you can be certain in advance of starting works that the extension would be PD.
The downside with the last option is that it obviously costs money (£86 application fee plus the cost of the plans), and takes time (standard deadline is 8-weeks). My personal view is that for any extension works that are going to cost several thousands pounds or more, it's almost always worth obtaining an LDC first, although I know that many other people will disagree with this advice.
Thanks,
Steve
