Does anyone understand LDCs and how councils evaluate them!

[jimmybond007]

This is a long shot but if someone can project the outcome, I'd be delighted to read it!

In 2018, a school got planning permission to put a glass roof over their outdoor pool. That was it - nothing else permitted. After lockdown to generate more income they rented it out to a swim club as the pool was now not weather dependant. This swim club uses the pool evenings, Saturday and Sunday. The noise form the instructors and children is so loud it can be heard inside local neighbours homes.

Several neighbours complained using the official council enforcement page and the school have now been asked to submit an LDC.

So the million dollar question. Will they succeed?

Thanks for any insight!

 

[Notch7]

Im sure Im not reading this correct, but I thought planning permission was a document that proves lawful development.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I'm guessing the school are implying they are able to use the 4 year rule? That is, 4 years has passed since they began renting the pool out? I'm none too sure of the use classes of a pool for use by a school and the use class required in order to rent it out and if they are different (I suppose they are). If that is the case it wil be up to the school to prove they were renting it out at least 4 years ago (there will be accounts I assume) Or I could be way off.

 

[blup]

Well its 4 years for development and 10 years for use, the council planners can be bothered to assess that and instead have asked for a formal application for ldc which covers proposed as well as existing development. Seems pretty obvious that its not a proposed use if its underway, so they should have asked for a planning application, or decided it was an ancillary use and doesn't need pp.

Blup

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I thought (but could easily be wrong) change of use was 4 years, incidentally its proposed that the 4 year rules are to be eliminated with everything coming under the 10 year rule.

 

[jimmybond007]

Really helpful feedback and thoughts. Apparently they can go for 'immunity' (the 4/10 year rule) or proposed under permitted development rules which is the 'usual' permitted development rules that apply - can you change use to allow third parties under permitted development.

As for immunity as it's a business it should be the 10 year rule. 4 years is for a dwelling. There is no way they could prove third party use for 10 years as the roof only went on in 2019 after planning in 2018. Pretty sure it would be them that would have to prove that not us to prove that they were not.

 

[jimmybond007]

Im sure Im not reading this correct, but I thought planning permission was a document that proves lawful development.

Their planning permission was for the roof only. In fact the decision even stated it did not cover third party use and that that was a separate issue.

I will add to that - the decision also referred to the original decision to build the pool in 1973 which we managed to get hold of. The permission here has no restrictions on hours of use but then it didn't have a roof then. Either way the enforcement officer will have access to both decisions of course.

 

[jimmybond007]

I think I may have researched the correct answer. Found this description on the planning portal.

"Generally, planning permission is not needed when the existing and the proposed uses fall within the same Use Class. For example, an office could be changed to a nursery, as both are within Use Class E, without the need for planning permission. However, if building work is associated with the proposed change of use, planning permission may be required for that work"

A school is class F1 and a community swimming pool is Class F2. Therefore they are changing class from F1 to F2 and therefore need planning...

 

[wessex101]

I think I may have researched the correct answer. Found this description on the planning portal.

"Generally, planning permission is not needed when the existing and the proposed uses fall within the same Use Class. For example, an office could be changed to a nursery, as both are within Use Class E, without the need for planning permission. However, if building work is associated with the proposed change of use, planning permission may be required for that work"

A school is class F1 and a community swimming pool is Class F2. Therefore they are changing class from F1 to F2 and therefore need planning...

Not really, the use of the site is a school, the swimming pool is just ancillary to the school, it probably will not be taken as a separate use class. Lots of schools have after school clubs and community use in evenings and weekends but the use of the site remains as a school and the additional use does not normally require planning permission.

 

[jimmybond007]

So I'm down a rabbit hole here You are probably right...A school is F1a and a community swimming pool is F2d. If the council class the swimming pool as a separate class then we would be fine as I have found that F1 to F2 is not allowed under permitted development. However I agree - I think the school will present the case that the whole site is F1 (and the council will likely agree) and that adding after school clubs is therefore not changing class and so will be allowed.

We will then go down the nuisance route!

 

[blup]

If the public use is so dominant then it ceases to be ancillary, this is often measured by things like nuisance from additional parking, or highway safety. Worth a shot.

Blup

 

[jimmybond007]

If the public use is so dominant then it ceases to be ancillary, this is often measured by things like nuisance from additional parking, or highway safety. Worth a shot.

Blup

Thanks. Yes, the EHO has been around and says the noise is unacceptable. However he is waiting for the outcome of the LDC application which of course would render nuisance irrelevant if the LDC is refused.

 

[wessex101]

I assume you have contacted the school and swimming club to ask them to keep the noise down? I would guess it is raised voices causing the noise nuisance as swimming itself is not a particularly noisy activity.

 

[jimmybond007]

I assume you have contacted the school and swimming club to ask them to keep the noise down? I would guess it is raised voices causing the noise nuisance as swimming itself is not a particularly noisy activity.

Hi - yes it all started with that but it made no difference hence the council are now involved. It does look like the LDC will be approved if my research is correct but nuisance is powerful enough.

 

[martygturner]

err I may have forgotten my law lectures but what are you all on about...was there a restriction in the original planning permission for the pool to specify opening hours, its use as a commercial operation etc etc? if not this is just a calm the morons party piece.

See all the endless twaddle actions...the pub next door got planning permission for a kitchen extension...now they have more clients and i don't like it ..well tough.... The restaurant got planning permission for tables outside...now people sit outside and eat a meal...I don't like it well tough.

Unless there was a restriction placed on the original permission eg planning or license as to the volume, hours or days of use then any business or public body or individual can carry on with its business regardless. If you vary the activity of the business..eg a pub that now wants to serve food then the there needs to be a variation of use.

In your case swimming before roof , swimming after roof...end of.