Permitted Development - Do I Need To Ask?

[^woody^]

Problem is that the law on permitted development - as laid down in the GPDO - is often open to interpretation, and the Technical Guidance issued by Communities and Local Government often doesn't help either. I think there have been at least two High Court cases where the Guidance has been found to give incorrect interpretations of the law.

In which case even the planners get/got it wrong, so an LDC would have made no difference.

Yes things can be challenged at court if the guidance appears to be contrary to the law, but that's completely different, and won't be decided by an LDC application.

 

[^woody^]

I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with everything Woody just said. The force is strong in this one.

"What is necessary is never unwise"

Spock, 2350

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The answer is to stop telling people that they need a LDC when they don't.

On surveys I check planning permissions and check whether any work would be PD or not, and I tell the client and their Solicitor that fact too - even on the most basic surveys. And when I can, I will tell the seller too, and that removes their worry and smooths the sale.

And when doing plans I will tell what is and is not PD and non of this "well, maybe, might be" nonsense.

Those are the answers. And they are quite simple.

Blah blah blah, trouble is there are plenty of stupid people, there always will be, yet for some reason you can't seem to grasp that bit. Bleating on that stupid people dont get it does not always cut the mustard. And apparently there are no grey areas as to how the rules are interpreted.

 

[JP_]

Good point. I will probably sell one day, if I buy .... so yeah. It's also a bit of a grey area, because the property has been extended, but no public records on how much by. Kitchen extension done in 1976, but not clear if they added kitchen + another 3m on the back of an old property, or just opened the house up by removing an internal wall. So, 8m from where? I sent a £50 enquiry to the council to see if I can find out. Probably will end up taking the planning-permission-to-do-what-I-already-have-permission for route!

 

[^woody^]

And apparently there are no grey areas as to how the rules are interpreted.

Thats right there are no grey areas.

What grey areas have you come across and what have you done about them to colour them in? Not some one else's grey areas but your own. ie once you come across a grey are and you deal with it then its not longer grey is it.

And you asked for the answers And I gave them to you. I can't help it if you don't like them.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I think you really are pig ignorant to the wider world woods, the forum is littered with posters, architects, planners and solicitors alike who do not understand the rules, because you happen to think they're all stupid and the cases you may be personally involved with are clear cut does not change the fact that these people are stupid.

 

[^woody^]

the forum is littered with posters, architects, planners and solicitors alike who do not understand the rules

Really?

I see the posts from the DIYers, but not the littering from the others you mention.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes many posters talk about the interpretation of the rules from their planners, archs and solicitors.

 

[Ian H]

I'm one of these stupid people.

I've paid £86 for an LDC for a PD dormer and have to wait 42 days for it, that makes it a year I've had to wait for a loft concersion. I blame the archatectural technician for being a **** and giving me bad advice and also Freddymercurystwin for telling me to do it properly

If I could go back in time, I'd convert the loft without permission or drawings.

 

[^woody^]

For the sake of clarity, in the context of this thread, the stupid people are the professionals who advise their clients to apply for an LDC, when they should be advising otherwise, being professionals and all that.

 

[napoleondynamite]

Life would be simpler if the professionals involved took the time to understand the PD regs and guidance, and then put their neck on the line and gave out firm advice to their clients.

The regs and guidance are however quite complicated in some cases, and in my experience, many professionals cannot be bothered / don't have the time to gain the level of understanding required to give out firm advice.

Some probably do give out that advice, but the client still wants a LDC for peace of mind or to have some formal paperwork to hand over when they sell. Probably a good idea, as many of the professionals I deal with apply for LDCs, for things which are not PD, with alarming regularity.

I would think that most solicitors, whilst they will be familiar with the concept of PD, do not have the detailed expertise required to ascertain whether many developments are actually PD.

Some things are simpler (e.g. a rooflight or replacement windows on a single dwelling), other things are much more complicated- e.g. I have just seen another thread where a council has granted prior approval or said it is not required, but the extension is not PD and in fact needs planning permission. So if that client followed up their prior approval application with a LDC application, that should be refused. If they have built that extension, it is an unauthorised development.

It's that sort of complicated scenario, which is a product of the complexity / poor wording of the regs and guidance, which it takes quite a lot of research and experience to get one's head around.

If the regs were simpler, the professionals and clients involved would be much more likely to proceed without a LDC. The more complicated the regs are, the more likely those involved will be to resort to an LDC.


Personally I would advocate simpler regs, even if that meant a few less thing were PD as a result..

 

[Ian H]

If you got an LDC for a dormer, would have have to build it as per the drawing or could you change it?

But like this:

Sorry to hijack your thread, it's interesting conversation.

 

[Nakajo]

I feel like you haven't really been following the conversation

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Assuming that's a rear elevation? Your LDC is irrelevant with respect to what you can and cannot do, so you can deviate from the proposals on your LDC any way you like provided its PD, which is woodys point. But when on occasion a solicitor pipes up during a sale and throws a spanner in the works, sometimes no amount of bleating on that it didn't need PP at the time will be effective and an indemnity or worst case retrospective LDC will be required. For clarity I do not ever encourage clients to apply for LDC's though do feel obliged to highlight this potential scenario if it comes up, think I've maybe applied for one maybe two LDC's for PD works over the years.

 

[RichA]

You have to still comply with the PD rules. So, it would need to be <40m3. And, being pedantic, it appears there is (marginal) increase to the original ridge height, which would not be PD.