Impossible problem with neighbors planning

[freddiemercurystwin]

Notch, there are several different actions that can be considered to have implemented a commencement on site having and defining that as 'LA's consider a minimum of 2 trades on site as being acceptable criteria for work having been started' is a bit meaningless. I know what they are, so does woods as do others on here but that OP is now going to just forget it and see what happens so there's no need to impart that knowledge to the thread now. It's been written about many other times on the forum after all.

 

[LukeB123]

The fact of the matter is either the planning is in breach (Which means absolutely FA apparently and is at the mercy of plannings discretion) or it never began in the first place and has expired (which is the more serious of the two). I have written a letter of concern in regards to this just like they told me too but they sent me a 1 sentence email back saying there is no problem currently as the documents say work began before planning expired. They currently have no evidence at all that work has begun and even though I have alerted them that it most likely hasn’t, knowbody cares.

A breach of planning is not an immediate offense. It is up to the discretion of the Local Planning Authority whether or not they enforce. The guy had approval for a holiday let 4 years ago, for arguments sake lets forget if he has or he hasn't started. What has changed drastically in the area or in planning policy for this development to now be inappropriate in the area? I would point out these changes out to the Local Authority. If you can't then it is likely that the guy would get permission again regardless? Another reason for the Local Authority to not enforce.

This place is nice. I like it here.

And I assume you checked the adjoining properties and any recent planning applications that may or may not have had approved before you brought the property?

Number 2. If said work did commence (I can literally see it hasn’t) on the date the neighbor said then the planning is in breach of 2 conditions which are agreeing materials and boundaries before work commences. This NEVER happened. Everything on the web just goes dead and the last letter was planning trying to chase them up on it and a further £90 they still owed.

Few more details on this could be pertinent - the specific wording of the conditions could mean the permission is invalid. Also I am not sure about this extra fee - An application isn't really valid without the full and proper planning fee.

In any regard, even if the application is exempt, expired or void, the LPA still have to demonstrate substantial harm if they wish to pursue further action, whether something has permission or not. It sounds like they don't consider it to be - and especially as it gained permission a few years ago, it's then difficult to argue that decision you made then is harmful enough to now warrant formal action.

 

[Ijustdontknowanymore]

Okay some good info here. I am going to send a letter to head honcho like you say, and just ask why this development has been allowed to be ignored, fees not paid, conditions not met and work able to start.

I will also ask why no evidence of work starting was ever obtained and why this has been ignored for the last 4 years continuing now even after I have flagged it up.

There’s literally case workers notes from 2014 asking each other what’s going on and knowbody has a clue what he is even building. I mean there’s pages and pages, it took me a day to get my head around the history of the application. Those staff are no longer there and it seems knowbody can actually understand my problem.

Oh, does anyone know how long the environmental survey is valid for? It seems as if when you get a thumbs up it’s valid for ever more? I would have thought it had some condition or something about the project taking too long because hey, nature changes right? 7 years on I assume there could be newts and bats nesting?

I thank those who have been helpful and will keep you updated on this ever so riveting tale.

Thanks again.

 

[^woody^]

https://imgflip.com/memegenerator

 

[Ijustdontknowanymore]

Living the dream woody. You are living the god damn dream.

 

[pilsbury]

The post started off so well then swiftly came back to sense. Thank god the washed up building surveyor spent his Friday afternoon in the pub to rectify.

 

[Nakajo]

You're knowbody til sumbody no's ya.

 

[Notch7]

Notch, there are several different actions that can be considered to have implemented a commencement on site having and defining that as 'LA's consider a minimum of 2 trades on site as being acceptable criteria for work having been started' is a bit meaningless. I know what they are, so does woods as do others on here but that OP is now going to just forget it and see what happens so there's no need to impart that knowledge to the thread now. It's been written about many other times on the forum after all.

Yes, I wasnt trying to state actual policy, just something an architect told me - so just anecdotal. Nobody else was giving the OP any info, so I thought I would impart my vast knowledge on the subject!

 

[John D v2.0]

I think the OP took a wrong turning at the junction between mumsnet and diynot. Woody is about our most sympathetic and most loved member

Anyway for the benefit of the actual problem I wouldn't go objecting on procedural grounds, as they can just reapply anyway, it'll cost them a few hundred poinds and a couple of months, but that's all. Planning will only enforce if there's in interest in doing so. So if something would get planning anyway if it was submitted, they won't enforce. So focus on working out whether it's contrary to current policy, if the answer is no then it explains the council's reluctance to care. If it's yes then explain to the council why.
The 3 year limit is just to stop people getting planning permission for one thing, waiting 10 year, someone gets PP for something else conflicting, then they go ahead and build on extension under PD, and both the ones they have indefinite PP for. Unless they changed something in the mean time, it's probably not an issue.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Must admit I do have some sympathy for the OP on this one! But as others have said if it would just get re-passed it would be a phyrric victory.

The problem is the funding has been cut so much the system is not working properly and resources can only be allocated to the worst problems. The only weapon the council seem to have now is not signing off plans as being completed. But if you don't plan to sell that doesn't seem to be a problem. The same goes for building control, which many people just ignore as they are not planning to sell. It only ever seems to catch up with you at the legal stage.

OP if you suspect a breach on the wildlife front then there is a number to call on the planning conditions, it is a valid point that a badger may have taken up residence say.

 

[John D v2.0]

The only weapon the council seem to have now is not signing off plans as being completed.

True and also enforcement action on significant breaches, in fact sign off doesn't exist for planning permission, it's only building regs that get signed off. It's only if someone reports things it would get checked.

 

[geraldthehamster]

I think the planning department accepted the statement that work had started, and that's now part of the official record. It's not just the owner saying it; it's now the council saying it. There's no way they will change that based on a claim that the statement was false.

Not quite the same, but this illustrates how a council's ability to act can be restricted by its own bureaucracy. Somewhere near me, a home owner obtained PP to develop an outbuilding into an annexe. Someone reported them because they thought it was being rented out as a separate dwelling. An enforcement officer came out, and was persuaded that it was being used as an annexe.

Just over four years later, householder puts in an application for an LDC for a separate dwelling, with supporting evidence that it has been used as such for four years. Council had left itself with no option other than to approve it.