LDC refused due to removed PD rights

[Claes]

We are trying to extend our house by building a loft extension but are experiencing some difficulties. I'm hoping that you guys might have some advise. Sorry if this is a bit long.

Some background first. We live in a detached Victorian house built in the 1890s. Up until 2003 it was classified as a commercial building and served as an office for an adjacent set of workshops (used as laundry, car mechanics etc). I'm not sure what status it had when it was built. In 2003 the whole plot of land was redeveloped. Our house was refurbished and reclassified as residential. The other buildings were demolished and 7 new family houses were built.

Last year we applied for planning permission for a loft extension by means of increasing the height of the house by 1.3m. This was refused due to 'out of character with the surrounding buildings'. Application details here: http://maps.kingston.gov.uk/isis_main/planning/Planning_DETAIL.aspx?strCASENO=1212838&strHeader=Y

When that application got refused we got a verbal assurance that a PD build would be fine (you can probably guess where this is going...). After a lot of thinking and discussions with our builders and architect we decided to go down the PD route using dormers.

New plans were drawn up and we submitted an application for a lawful development certificate. A few days ago that came back with a refusal which came as a surprise to everyone involved. Apparently when the planning permission for the 2003 redevelopment was granted they added a condition that removed PD rights for the whole area, us included. The exact text they refer to is as follows: "Notwithstanding the provisions of Part 1 of Schedule 2 of the Town & Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order, 1995 (or any Order revoking or re-enacting this Order) no extensions (including porches or dormer windows) to the dwelling houses or buildings shall be erected within the curtilage."

This removal of PD rights doesn't show up on the Local Land Charges search. You have to read the planning decision from 2003 to find it, hence it was missed by everyone (and it wasn't flagged when we bought the house either so I'm guessing our solicitor missed it as well). And obviously the earlier verbal assurance from the council wasn't worth anything.

For anyone interested our application is here: http://maps.kingston.gov.uk/isis_main/planning/Planning_DETAIL.aspx?strCASENO=1312913&strHeader=Y and the case they're referring to is here: http://maps.kingston.gov.uk/isis_main/planning/Planning_DETAIL.aspx?strCASENO=0203004&strHeader=Y

My question now is, where do we go from here?

1. Try to appeal the decision? Not sure what grounds we have to stand on to do that. The clause they refer to seems pretty solid.

2. Submit the same plans for a normal planning permission? I've learned from this forum that there would be no fee for this. Are we allowed to do this? I get a feeling they would just refer to the same clause again and basically say 'no extensions, period!'

3. Try to get our PD rights reinstated? Our builder/architect are looking into this but from what I gather this is quite difficult.

4. Demolish the whole house and build a new one? This obviously takes the cost in to a whole different ballpark and requires a planning application which they could potentially refuse.

5. Give up, sell and move on? Not exactly something you sort quick and easy. This would be a long term plan in that case.

I would really appreciate any advise and/or ideas you might have.
Thanks

/claes

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

No drama, your architect or designer should have noticed this when he read through the old approval.

Anyway just submit a no fee planning application and see what happens, no reason per se that it will be refused.

Anything said verbally by any planning officer is unofficial.

 

[cjard]

Planners don't remove PD rights to specifically prevent all development of a particular nature and give themselves a reason to say no, they do it so that they can control development within what might be regarded as an area of interest or architectural feature. Removal of PD rights was not supposed to be a step taken lightly either because they can't charge for a planning application to carry out what others can do for free - they're making more work for themselves and bringing in less revenue

Submit an application and see what the result is. Submit two, ten, a hundred applications - it depends only on the time you have available and your appetite of making a nuisance of yourself until they permit you something

How many of your PD rights did they remove (the given wording doesnt seem to catch every schedule)? Does the house have a cellar? I'm thinking, if you need extra height, and you have a cellar, do you have the option of moving the floors and window cills downwards ?

 

[Architexeter]

we got a verbal assurance that a PD build would be fine
/claes

That still hopefully stands true essentially I read this as "if you submit something within normal PD it will be fine". The problem lies in that someone should have checked that you had an Article 4 direction removing your PD when permission was given in 2003.

This does not mean the answer is automatically no, it just means that you need to apply as the LA want to keep tabs on what is going on as they feel that implementing some PD development may constitute overdevelopment.

The certificate application would always be refused because you have no PD. Planning permission is required but no fee is payable for the application.

Hopefully it will get permission and you will just be £86 worse off from submitting the previous pointless LDC application.

So in answer to your options
1. No point, it was the correct decision - it was the wrong application.
2. Yes
3. I cant see the justification for withholding them has now disappeared.
4. Perhaps plan B
5. Not without trying option 2 first.

Hope that helps.

 

[Claes]

Thank you everyone for your advise.

Maybe the architect or someone should have discovered that PD rights had been removed, I don't know. Mistakes happen though, so not much point mulling over that. We're very happy with everyone involved in the project so far.

@cjard: I don't know what specific rights were removed. That's the only clause they're referring to so possibly it could mean all of them or just those surrounding extensions. We don't have a cellar unfortunately. We do have to lower the ceiling on the upper floor though, to get the headroom needed but thankfully we don't have to move the windows or anything else.

@Architexeter: It if was an Article 4 direction shouldn't it have shown up in the Local Land Charges register? The search I have from 2009 says there are no directions removing PD rights (3.9j). Maybe I'm not reading in the right place.

Anyway, I will follow your advise and get the plans resubmitted as a normal planning application. Hopefully it will have a positive outcome. One of our neighbours got approval for their side extension so they can't be dead set against extensions at least. I looked into the neighbour's case files yesterday and funnily enough they also started with an LDC application, then withdrew it and resubmitted a PP application. Guess someone discovered the PD removal . Too bad I didn't see it earlier.

Again, thanks to all of you.

/claes

 

[rjm2k]

@Architexeter: It if was an Article 4 direction shouldn't it have shown up in the Local Land Charges register? The search I have from 2009 says there are no directions removing PD rights (3.9j). Maybe I'm not reading in the right place.

I don't think what you have is an Article 4 direction, yours is removal of PD as part of another planning application. The Planning Application and approval should have shown against the property and your conveyancer may or may not have spotted it, many seem to not actually know what it means.

 

[TheKeymeister]

Just thought I'd add in that my house also had it's PD rights removed, there's nothing special about it or the area, it's a 70s semi in suburban Coventry. My conveyancer obviously didn't spot it either, and the local planning department were less than helpful when I asked for further information about what PD rights I have and haven't got (got asked to pay some ridiculous fee for them to go and find the info) - on the strength of that I put in a FOI request and found out that way. Turned out the wording removing all the useful rights was already online on the original planning application for the house from about 1970, so why they tried to make me pay a fee I don't know.

 

[rjm2k]

so why they tried to make me pay a fee I don't know.

Money grabbing or incompetent