Partial Implimentation of an Approval allowed?

Joined
3 Aug 2005
Messages
645
Reaction score
27
Location
Surrey Hills
Country
United Kingdom
Summary: my property is in the Green Belt.
- Planning permission was obtained for a two storey side extension and separate rear dormer window. PD Rights were removed.
- A Certificate of Lawfulness (proposed) was obtained for a 3-metre two storey rear extension.
- A subsequent planning application for 4-metre two storey rear extension (deeper than possible under PD, but agreeing not to construct the approved two storey side extension) was refused.
- The LPA concluded that there was no fall-back position; as, once the PD rear extension had been constructed, it would be impossible to construct the dormer window that had been approved. Hence, that permission could not be implemented in full and thus the two storey side extension granted permission could not be constructed.
- The LPA therefore considered that this could not be included in the fallback & rejected the application.

We had assumed that the two storey side extension and dormer window granted permission were separate and distinct elements.

So,
(i) where there are more than one element to an approval should these be viewed as separate elements; and is it permissible to build only one element?
(ii) if they should be viewed as one, is it permissible to only construct part of the approved works in a planning permission?
(iii) are there any guidelines, judgements, etc that support this?

i.e. if one has approval for a rear extension and a porch is it valid to only build one or other, or is it a requirement to build both under that approval.

I am gearing up towards an appeal and would greatly appreciate any assistance.
 
Sponsored Links
A permission covers everything granted within the permission as one. You only need to enact a permission by making a significant start (such as laying foundations), and then it does not matter if you complete part, all or none of it. Thats settled law.

But that wont help with any other application as the planners will take into account any current live permission.
 
Thanks. The LPA has excluded both the side extension & rear dormer as part of the fallback on the basis that the rear dormer can't be built. Which looks incorrect if there is no requirement to complete the works and build out the rear dormer. Do you know any link/reference to the law that confirms it is legal to only complete part of a permission?
 
Where the implementation of a planning permission curtails PD rights, the standard approach is to build the PD stuff *before* implementing the planning permission.
 
Sponsored Links
Where the implementation of a planning permission curtails PD rights, the standard approach is to build the PD stuff *before* implementing the planning permission.
That is the plan. Having build the 2-storey rear extension, the part of the roof that the rear dormer would have occupied has extended rearwards by 3m, so that the dormer would be sitting in the midddle of the loft !!

Hence I want to be able to show that it is legitimate to build the 3m rear extension (PD), then the side extension but without the rear dormer.

See Elevation: Large is Existing+ 3m 2-storey rear; Small is Existing+ rear dormer
 

Attachments

  • NorthElevation.JPG
    NorthElevation.JPG
    119 KB · Views: 313
TBH, I dont understand whats going on.

What is the relevance of the dormer? What has been built? What was the point in trying to use a "fall back" for an application for a completely different extension?

If you have implemented the first permission, then PD rights have now been removed, so there is no fallback in any case
 
Apologies if I have not made this clear (I am certainly not trying to be opaque). Nothing has yet been implemented. This is/was the timeline...

a) apply for planning for a 2-storey side extension, and a *rear dormer* [approved Jan17]
b) apply for CoL for a 2-storey 3m PD rear extension [granted May17]
c) apply for planning for a 2-storey 4m rear extension, using (a) and (b) as fallback position [rejected Jun17]

If (c) fails, then:
build 2-storey 3m PD rear extension (B)
build 2-storey side extension (A)

(C) was rejected because they did not consider (A) feasible to build because it included a separate rear dormer (included in the app to establish that dormers were ok).

Given that (C) is my preference over (D+E) I wish to appeal. I am trying to show that it was incorrect to reject the side extension as fallback purely on the basis of not building the dormer.

[I have added a roofplan showing just the side extension (A), and then with both side extension (A - BLUE) & rear extension (B - GREEN)]
 

Attachments

  • RoofPlan.JPG
    RoofPlan.JPG
    116.4 KB · Views: 297
This is the closest I found to a strongly implied confirmation that it is not a requirement to complete all elements.

Circular 11/95: Use of conditions in planning permission (para 61/62)
Completion of elements of a development 62. Conditions may be needed, however, to secure that a particular element in a scheme is provided by a particular stage or before the scheme is brought into use, or to secure the provision of an element of a kind a developer might otherwise be inclined to defer or omit. Thus it may be desirable to require that a new access to the site should be constructed before any other development is carried out; or, where an office scheme includes a car park, that the car park is completed before the offices are occupied; or, where the scheme includes both offices and housing, that the offices should not be occupied before the houses are complete. The approach adopted must, of course, be reasonable. Taking the last example, it could well be unacceptable to require that the houses should be completed before the offices are begun: this would be likely to be an unjustifiable interference with the way the development is carried out. Or, to take another example, it could well be unacceptable to demand that all the requirements of a landscape condition should be complied with before a building is occupied; this could involve the building lying empty for many months, since such a condition will often provide for a considerable maintenance period so that trees may become established (on landscape design, see paragraphs 48-50 above).
 
that it is not a requirement to complete all elements.

I don't recall if it is in the TCPA or decided in past precedent, but its settled law from many many years ago that there is no requirement to complete works granted in a permission. Your reference above relates to use of conditions, which is a seperate issue.

It seems to me that what the planners have said, is that you can't use the other permission as a fall back, because you wont be able to implement it in full if you do the other work - effectively it is not a suitable comparision a fall back - ie similar alternative.

So your argument that you do not need to implement all of a permission is not relevent, when then council need to asess the full permission as the fall back. Whether the council are right or wrong in that thinking, is another matter.

Really, use of a fall back is more appropriate for appeals, but planners would (should be) mindful of this in their asessment.

I suspect that you need to concentrate on the actual reasons for refusal, and then bring in any fall back argument to support your appeal. But there are more things at play than mentioned in this thread, so it needs to be assessed more fully on the merits of any appeal.
 
It seems to me that what the planners have said, is that you can't use the other permission as a fall back, because you wont be able to implement it in full if you do the other work - effectively it is not a suitable comparision a fall back - ie similar alternative.

So your argument that you do not need to implement all of a permission is not relevent, when then council need to asess the full permission as the fall back. Whether the council are right or wrong in that thinking, is another matter.
Thanks Woody. The council rejected my NMA to remove the Dormer, so my appeal is going to rely on this. I now expect to need an opinion from legal council to bolster my appeal. But having given it some more thought as given that "a fall back position only has to be more than a merely theoretical prospect" my (laymans) view is that:
- if it is legal to build it; then
- it is more than a theoretical prospect; so
- it should be considered as a fallback

I don't recall if it is in the TCPA or decided in past precedent, but its settled law from many many years ago that there is no requirement to complete works granted in a permission.
Any further info on this would be really helpful. i.e. statute, precedent, appeals

Many thanks.
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top