erection of a building - definition

[Guy Paremain]

I would be grateful for an opinion on the following.

The owner of a Bungalow has used a "Householder" application to gain permission to "extend" his dwelling.

The roof is to be raised, an additional two habitable floors are to be constructed.

1) If the existing structure is in fact demolished and a "new building" emerges, would it be fair to say that the wrong type of planning permission has been used ?

2) Can a "replacement dwelling" be built using a "Householder application" ?

3) How much of the existing building must remain before the "reerection" constitutes a new building as opposed to an extension ?

Many Thanks

GuyP

 

[^woody^]

A "Householder" "application" "is" "still" a "full planning application"

 

[Guy Paremain]

Thanks for your comment.
I understood that a Householder application is for an "extension" or "works" to an existing dwelling.
Certainly our local council provides different forms for Householder and Full applications.
I would argue that to demolish and rebuild is not the same as to extend.
Therefore the use of a Householder application is the incorrect in this instance.

 

[noseall]

Auction.....?

 

[^woody^]

Never judge a "form" by it's "title".

 

[Guy Paremain]

The form used does make a difference.
The planning officer is able to determine all Householder applications irrespective of the number of material objections.
A Full application that attracts objections has to go before the planning development committee.

 

[denso13]

The planning officer is able to determine all Householder applications irrespective of the number of material objections.
A Full application that attracts objections has to go before the planning development committee.

So did you want an opinion or had you made your mind up before you asked?

 

[^woody^]

A Full application that attracts objections has to go before the planning development committee.

So "does" a "householder" "application".

 

[Guy Paremain]

Not so in our borough...all householder applications determined by the officer..they say

 

[cjard]

It depends on the wording of the permission itself. If the permission is for extension of an existing building, and doesn't acknowledge any demolition, the proposer could get into quite a mess by unlawfully demolishing the building upon which the extension consent is contingent. It's also the councils job to ensure the correct application process is used. If matey has applied for demolition and rebuild larger, using the application route intended for extensions, and the council have issued e permission then they have to recover from that error.

 

[^woody^]

It depends on the wording of the permission itself

No it depends on what the applicant is applying for!

The planner's can only decide an application based on what is actually applied for.

 

[^woody^]

Not so in our borough...all householder applications determined by the officer..they say

Nonsense. You can apply to change your roof to a minaret on a householder app, and I suspect it might not be decided under delegated powers.

 

[cjard]

The planner's can only decide an application based on what is actually applied for.

And when was it ever the case that the permission granted doesn't mention/refer to what was applied for?

 

[^woody^]

The planner's can only decide an application based on what is actually applied for.

And when was it ever the case that the permission granted doesn't mention/refer to what was applied for?

Its always the case.

The permission just confirms that what was applied for is permitted, and applies any conditions to be met in carrying out that work.

So it is not a case of "It depends on the wording of the permission itself", and specifically in the OP's case the permsision will say "You can do what you have applied to do" but it wont say "You can't knock down and rebuild the bungalow".

So it's a very important distinction.

Its very easy to get approval for work which involves other work which is necessary to carry out the approved work and enact the approval, but that other work is not necessarily mentioned in the application or approval, as it is implied.

So it all depends on what was applied for, not what was mentioned in the permission.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Auction.....?

If it is, he's discovered "quotation marks" and moved on to a new topic. He still has three threads on the old one, over at swarblaw:

http://swarblaw.co.uk/viewforum.php?f=6&sid=459a0c29dbd2f15fa8eccedec9b32928

Cheers
Richard