Development with PP and PD at the same time

[-AndyH-]

Not sure if someone can help with this as I'm looking for case law/PI decisions, anyhow...

A development with PP has breached planning conditions. The LPA have confirmed this, but they are unwilling to do anything about a number of the breaches as the developer is claiming that the changes are lawful under PD. This was one continuous build (the breaches have been there from the outset).

This seems completely wrong to me. Is anyone aware of any case law or Planning Inspectorate decisions on this?

Thanks

 

[garyo]

If the build would have been legal had the developer made the pd changes separately 3 months after finishing, then you can see their point given that schools don't have enough money to buy pencils.

Are the additions actually pd though?

 

[-AndyH-]

I believe most of them would be PD. The rear extension is questionable though without knowing the exact measurements.

I read somewhere that the Council's could get extra funding to take enforcement action - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-fund-to-help-councils-crack-down-on-unauthorised-development

What was approved was ridiculous in the first place - what has been build is even more ridiculous:

 

[Notch7]

Attractive

 

[wessex101]

That looks familiar. There was a guy on here with a design not unlike that. He kept banging on about Planning Permission and Permitted Development.

Never mind the aesthetics, feel the floor area.

As for enforcement, that is entirely at the discretion of the Planning Authority. If they seem reluctant you could try stirring up your local Councillor, that sometimes helps.

 

[blup]

Surely a condition overrides PD?

Blup

 

[-AndyH-]

Attractive

The bizarre thing is that the planning officer even said: The design looks horrible. It doesn't fit in with the area but we won't get far refusing permission on grounds of design.

That looks familiar. There was a guy on here with a design not unlike that. He kept banging on about Planning Permission and Permitted Development.

Interesting. I'll dig through the forum and see what I can find.

Never mind the aesthetics, feel the floor area.

One of the original objections was overdevelopment. However, I don't think the applicant was honest about what he put on the application for floor area.

I've picked up that both applications (one was withdrawn) were submitted before the applicant owned the property (both contained Certificate A Declarations of Ownership).

As for enforcement, that is entirely at the discretion of the Planning Authority. If they seem reluctant you could try stirring up your local Councillor, that sometimes helps.

I think this is the tricky one with the reluctance of the our Council to take enforcement action. Our local Councillor is already involved, but he warned from the outset that the Council has a weak enforcement history.

Surely a condition overrides PD?

It does - Nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted

It's more the approach and the policy of the Council that yes, he's not followed the conditions but as most of the changes would have been allowed under PD, we won't do anything.

 

[wessex101]

Over the years I have developed quite a strong dislike of Planners. They seem to turn a blind eye to the harmful large ugly developments and illegal works that they should be stopping and spend all their time harassing poor law abiding homeowners who apply for the most innocuous little projects.

If you have suffered a direct loss/harm due to the Council's decisions you can go to the Local Government Ombudsman but I do not think you can just make a general complaint about failure to follow statutory procedures.

 

[-AndyH-]

Over the years I have developed quite a strong dislike of Planners. They seem to turn a blind eye to the harmful large ugly developments and illegal works that they should be stopping and spend all their time harassing poor law abiding homeowners who apply for the most innocuous little projects.

Before

After

This is the resident's view (it's less than 30m to their properties and I believe 18m high)

If you have suffered a direct loss/harm due to the Council's decisions you can go to the Local Government Ombudsman but I do not think you can just make a general complaint about failure to follow statutory procedures.

I've looked at the LGO. Unfortunately, they don't have any powers to force LPAs to take action which is why I'm looking at all possible means (including legal).

 

[blup]

Is the development in breach of pre commencement conditions?

https://www.cherwell.gov.uk/info/115/planning/27/discharging-of-planning-conditions/2

 

[-AndyH-]

Is the development in breach of pre commencement conditions?

https://www.cherwell.gov.uk/info/115/planning/27/discharging-of-planning-conditions/2

The only pre-commencement condition was on materials, which was discharged.

The problem is as @wessex101 said, enforcement is a discretionary process. It would appear to me that the Council are looking for ways to avoid taking enforcement action.

 

[blup]

I've picked up that both applications (one was withdrawn) were submitted before the applicant owned the property (both contained Certificate A Declarations of Ownership).

An invalid application and therefore an invalid permission?

https://www.braintree.gov.uk/info/2...g_permission/198/planning_application_forms/3

 

[-AndyH-]

An invalid application and therefore an invalid permission?

The only chance to challenge the permission would be a judicial review and given the length of time that has passed since permission was granted, it is unlikely to succeed.

 

[^woody^]

There is a concept in planning that permission should be granted if the development would conform to PD where as it may otherwise not conform to local planning policies. Likewise, no enforcement should be taken against work that breaches permission but would be acceptable under PD criteria. This comes from past appeal decisions from way back.

The planner's powers to take enforcement action is not a duty to do so. But they must make logical reasoning in their decision process, as that could be challenged (but it wont alter the decision)

 

[-AndyH-]

There is a concept in planning that permission should be granted if the development would conform to PD where as it may otherwise not conform to local planning policies. Likewise, no enforcement should be taken against work that breaches permission but would be acceptable under PD criteria. This comes from past appeal decisions from way back.

I think the latter is what they are looking at. The problem is that the plot is now overdeveloped as the property takes up around 60%. The rear corner of one side of the property is only 3m from the border and the other corner is only 1.2m from the side fence.

They should have removed PD rights as a condition because the size of this property has always been a problem. The owner has just decided to do what he wanted all along - build big and deep (his first application was withdrawn because of this).