PD rights removed , PD works proposed and fees

[DevilDamo]

You learn something every day. Well I did, as did my colleagues.

I submitted a Householder application for a garage conversion to a property within a large housing estate near to the office. The reason why it required a Householder application is PD rights have been removed from the whole estate. The application consisted of the normal application form, drawings and cheque. Today I received an email from the Planning Officer telling me that a fee is not required and requested bank details for it to be refunded. The application however is required and would be registered in the normal way, which left me a little

So I asked the Planning Officer why a fee was not required and the reason being is that if the Council have removed PD rights from a property, but the client would like to carry out PD proposals, then an application would be required, but no fee... as it was the Council who removed the rights.

This is the first time I have received an email like this and so the first time we have been offered a refund. I can't even begin to imagine the number of applications along with fees, which have been submitted due to the withdrawal of PD rights. A case for refunds maybe?

Was anybody else aware of this?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes have submitted numerous apps for when PD rights were removed yet the works were PD, have never had the embarrassment of trying to pay for the privilege though!

Heck it even tells you there's no fee if you submit via the PP!

 

[DevilDamo]

I must have been selecting the incorrect option then as like I said... I and colleagues have always paid a fee

No wonder where that extra money came from for them to re-pave the High Street

 

[cjard]

Indeed, I'd submit a request for refunds with interest, and the council has been disingenuous if they've been pocketing the money silently up to now

If the applications were chargeable it would be asserted that removing PD rights is a surreptitious and self-serving way for a council to raise revenue - they're not allowed to exercise such powers to milk the populace

Given the idea that one of the benefits of PD is to ease the burden on councils' administration procedures, councils should be wary of withdrawing them because it serves only to increase the amount of administration they have to perform for which they receive no money.

I've long considered that a suitable passive protest against the seemingly matter-of-course removal of PD rights that councils to engage in, would be to just apply regularly for random "would-have-been-PD" building projects that will never get built. The only cost to the applicant is time filling out the application, the cost to the council is time and money

I'm even given to understand that you dont have to own a property to make an application on it, so a collection of individuals with sufficient spare time could cause a serious nuisance by repeatedly applying for planning for all sorts of stuff all across the district.

It would be nice to see britain building more and seeing local government taking a supporting stance, acknowledging that people don't have any money these days, instead of treating it like an easy to raid cashcow with **** like CILs and S106As

 

[big-all]

I must have been selecting the incorrect option then as like I said... I and colleagues have always paid a fee

No wonder where that extra money came from for them to re-pave the High Street

"DOH"

 

[DevilDamo]

 

[jeds]

In certain circumstances a local authority is liable to pay compensation if they refuse planning permission which only had to be made due to PD rights being removed by an article 4 direction. They don't publicise that too widely either.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In certain circumstances a local authority is liable to pay compensation if they refuse planning permission which only had to be made due to PD rights being removed by an article 4 direction. They don't publicise that too widely either.

Can you elaborate on that jeds? That sounds like you're saying such an application is bound to be approved?

 

[rjm2k]

In certain circumstances a local authority is liable to pay compensation if they refuse planning permission which only had to be made due to PD rights being removed by an article 4 direction. They don't publicise that too widely either.

Interesting do you have any refs for that? Is it only for article 4 or where pd is removed as part of planning approval like for a large estate ?

 

[jeds]

In certain circumstances a local authority is liable to pay compensation if they refuse planning permission which only had to be made due to PD rights being removed by an article 4 direction. They don't publicise that too widely either.

Can you elaborate on that jeds? That sounds like you're saying such an application is bound to be approved?

It depends on the article 4 direction but essentially that's true. They would have to have a very good reason for refusal. I haven't got any direct references to hand but if you google article 4 compensation something's bound to come up.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In certain circumstances a local authority is liable to pay compensation if they refuse planning permission which only had to be made due to PD rights being removed by an article 4 direction. They don't publicise that too widely either.

Can you elaborate on that jeds? That sounds like you're saying such an application is bound to be approved?

It depends on the article 4 direction but essentially that's true. They would have to have a very good reason for refusal. I haven't got any direct references to hand but if you google article 4 compensation something's bound to come up.

Does your thinking also apply to where PD rights have been removed as a condition of an original approval? Or only Article 4 Directions?

 

[jeds]

Don't think it would apply in that case. As far as I know it only applies to development orders.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Doesn't that defeat the object of Article 4's then?