how far can a planning officer bully you?

[calvert]

I have applied for planning permission to convert a disused milking parlour into three bedrooms for b&b. Its single story and about 14 metres long.

Having had to withdraw the application once because the inept architect used the "demolition" word, the planner (woman) is now insisting on a structural report as to the soundness of the existing building. The back long wall is solid cotswold stone and the rest is concrete block which I propose to retain, building a dry inner leaf.

I have submitted a one line report from my private company BCO which says the buiding is suitable for conversion. Have others come across such zealous attitude and does she have the remit or the right to insist on all this info. She has already said that she will be inspecting with a council BCO.

Advice please before you read about me in the news...arrested for murder!

 

[Shytalkz]

It's not uncommon for an SE's report to be required to accompany a planning application. This came about because of many instances of demolition of perfectly serviceable buildings - being the easy option - and effectively ending up with a new building, which they no likee in some locations. Seems fair enough to me - but then, I get jobs out of their stance .

Find a sympathetic local SE (shouldn't be hard) to write you a report saying that it's all do-able and that'll keep the zealot happy.

 

[^woody^]

I can't see the relevence of any report as to the structure, when you are applying for a conversion.

The technical aspects are largely irrelevent to the planning permission. You are effectively asking if a proposal is acceptable on planning policy issues, and not the viability or buildability of the proposal.

The report requested will have no bearing on whether the proposal conforms to planing policy, and therefore I would decline the request as an unecessary expense.

Your application and the permission will be based on the submitted plans and details. If you are adding or removing walls, then as long as that is stated in the plans then the permission is given (or refused) on that basis.

Whether a part of the building is structurally sound or not is not the planners concern. If you are stating that a particular element is being retained or removed, then that is all the planner should base the decision on

 

[Shytalkz]

Not strictly true, Woodster: if a planning application is being made on the basis of a conversion and the planners want confirmation that it is possible without either wholesale or large areas of dems, then they will want a report to confirm that it can be done without large areas of dems and rebuild.

There is no point in obtaining dpp for something that can't actually be achieved - and the buildability/convertability is just as much a part of the appro as is the look of the scheme. If you get dpp for a scheme which says that areas of dems are limited, then you go and knock it down and rebuild exactly as is (looks-wise and even reusing the materials), then that's still a breach of the appro and they'll be after you, possibly even rescinding the appro. Then you're in the cart...

They hold all the aces and if they make it a condition of the application that they want a report, there's not much that you can do about it, other than go to appeal when it's binned.

 

[calvert]

Thanks. I had thought exactly as Woody. But if the little oloe boy from Norfolk has seen it before then it is some cold comfort that I am not just the victim of some hormonal lady. Her first comment incidentally was: "I sugest you flatten it. Thats all you can do with some buildings". Hows that for conservation etc..?

 

[Shytalkz]

Well, you could take the view that she's actually being pragmatic (pragmatic planner, surely an oxymoron ). There's very little that can't be reused without dems - whether it's financially viable or even sensible is another matter entirely, though!

They ask for these reports all the time here, particularly with barns. Even the BCOs ask for them, where it hasn't been a condition of the planning. Woody wouldn't have known of anything like that as there's nothing worth salvaging in the wilds of Dudley and its environs .

You should be able to get an SE's report for about £300 or so, so it's not exactly bank-breaking. Ball-ache, yes, I would agree. But, if it keeps her onside and you get your pp, then it's worth it.

 

[calvert]

cheers.

 

[^woody^]

Its still irrelevent to the decision process in this instance.

I often get requests for this and that specialist report and don't bother unless there is a real need for one - ie it has relevence.

The planner can not base a decision on irrelvent information - and I can't see the relevance of a structural report in this instance. OK, if your application is for demolition based on an unstable and uneconomic retention of the building (which the council would otherwise want to retain) then yes, fine. But a structural report has little relevance to a conversion.

If they rejected the application based on this, then the application would suceed on appeal

In any case, why isn't your agent/plan drawer dealing with this?

 

[calvert]

If I told you why the agent isn't dealing with this EFECTIVELY the moderator would have to remove the post because of some of the adjectives used!

He is bumbling around but he is dancing to her tune. I tried complaining to the head of planning and he just said that he would support her decision. Unless it gets rejected and goes to appeal it seems there is nothing you can do.

It seems to me that even at appeal you would lose because because its us against them and why should I have to spend all the extra money that was for building materials not to mention the time, fighting them? Grrr.