Planning lawful development certificate
- Thread starter Sye Hu
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Yes necessarily.
The development either complies with the criteria of PD or it does not. There is no distinction as what part may be PD or not, if one part is not PD then the whole is not PD. There is no subjective opinion involved.
It comes down to the facts, and its difficult to comment without all the details.
That seems like an application for a garage and gym/playroom. These are ancillary uses to a domestic home and so there is no reason to refuse such an application as long as the size and siting etc conform to the councils planning policy, or if building under permitted development, the building complies with the PD rules.
If you look at the appeal decisions on the Planning Jungle site, there are curtilage buildings of many different floor areas.
Some large ones are approved, while smaller ones are dismissed, often for identical uses, such as hobby rooms, games rooms etc. Much of this seems to come down to the Inspector's personal opinion.
Sponsored Links
Hi Tony u are right i have seen that.But if he was to appeal against the council refusal to issue a lawful cert he will have to quote a case where the inspectorate approved a build. The question is taking that its built under PD if he does nothing can the council take any action against him. i personally dont think so as the build is not complete so at this stage it can not be determined what it is going to be used for , enforcement cannot take any action as there is nothing to enforce, and i sure they cannot not do anything... what do you think?
Are these appeals based on permitted development?
Some are appeals against refusal of LDCs, but the majority seem to be appeals against enforcement notices.
Most seem to be within the dimensional constraints (height/<50% curtilage area etc) but it's the use to which they are put which is the determining factor and there seems little consistency on how Inspectors decide this. 'Incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse' implies that the building must house some function which could not reasonably be met in the dwelling; storing vehicles, garden tools, aviary, swimming pool changing room etc could fit the bill. But 'games room', 'hobbies room with kitchenette', cinema room etc seem a grey area. Actual floor area doesn't seem to have much of a bearing either; some very large buildings in large gardens have been approved, while much smaller buildings refused. It seems arbitrary in many instances.
Hi the outbuilding I'm refering to is PD.. Tony if I'm correct if he was to build a outbuilding under PD and classed its use for storing his classic cars but then started to use it as accommodation only then enforcement can take action? But if it's not complete as its been put on hold surely enforcement cannot take any action ? If they can what will it be for? Most of the appeals are because people have already constructed their outbuildings and have appealed when enforcement have caught them using there outbuilding without approval. Surely f you have a outbuilding which is a shell and is complying with PD cannot be enforced ?
No. If it is PD then all he needs to do is require to council to state why they believe it does not meet the part(s) of the document which spells out what is PD. A colleague at work has first hand experience of planners being "creative" in their interpretations - ie they will tell you you need planning permission for things that you actually can do under PD.
In his case, we was looking at a hip to gable conversion and rear dormer - both PD. The planners initially told him he needed planning permission as a hip-gable conversion to house a dormer isn't PD ! Their argument ? The plane of the exiting roof stops at the ridge of the hip, so the section of new roof (in the plane of the existing roof) would be (as far as the planner was concerned) outside the plane of the existing roof. of course, this was all verbal so nothing he could prove they'd said.
In the end he decided to apply for an LDC, which they granted - they aren't stupid enough to put down their "creative" interpretation in writing and get themselves into trouble.
As stated, if something is PD then it's PD and you can build it. You don't need an LDC. Planners don't like it because it means they are missing out of justification for their existence. Just because they take issue, doesn't mean they have any grounds to actually do anything. From reading some of the stories on here, it does sound like they sometimes manage to persuade someone they need to apply for planning permission - which then gets rejected.
IMO, where an LDC may be useful is if the planners get up to tricks like the above, or you are planning to go right up to the limits. it does mean you can do any "discussions" before you start building, and if necessary alter the plans rather than the building after it's gone up.
But if something has gone up, and you're sure it's PD, and the planners start getting shirty .... write and ask them to explicitly state which part of the documents it doesn't meet. Don't play their game, just put them on the spot so they have to "put up or shut up".
Hi Simon ur fight but from my experience all planning officers has different opinion. On this outbuilding it made under PD the height is under 2.5 metre and it cover less than 50% cartilage in fact it's just a fraction. I told him enforcement cannot do anything as there nothing they can in force. He submitted a application for a lawful cert which planning refused as they felt it was to big to be used harmoniously with the house.although the floor space was accounted for. If he does nothing they cannot take any action that was my words to him. What do you think was I right in saying that. I seen many appeals to outbuildings to the inspectorate some were approved some were not.. if he does not appeal he has no one to answer to.? Am I right ?
AIUI it's down to the council planning department as to what they do next. Anecdotally, if they "don't like it" then they may harass your friend hoping that he won't know his rights and will back down. I think, if I were in his shoes then if I got anything else from them then I'd write back (don't call, write) and require them to state in writing why they do not believe it is PD.
Once that happens they have only two options really - either back down, or put their "creative interpretation" in writing. If they do the latter then you've got the evidence to complain - though not sure who to (DCLG ?)
Once that happens they have only two options really - either back down, or put their "creative interpretation" in writing. If they do the latter then you've got the evidence to complain - though not sure who to (DCLG ?)
Hi Simon I thought the same...there is a internal complaints procedeure who the first port of call, but when WHEN they refuse you have the ombudsman..your right it good to get a second opinion which I can let him know just to wait till the council sends something in writing. Our council has some nasty officers within it just resently two enforcement officer were made to leave as they were awarding contracts to builders they knew .. Is was kept quite as it would have been shame for the council if the public found out.
There is, and I don't think it's been mentioned, the issue of whether PD rights have been removed. AFAICT it seems to be standard procedure for planners to include some legalese in all planning approvals which mean nothing to most people* but mean PD rights have been removed. If this is the case then there is no PD and you need permission for even a garden shed - but the upside is that the council cannot charge you a penny for any application that would have otherwise been PD.
In situations like that, and if the planners are "difficult", I wouldn't for a moment consider it worthwhile "clogging up the planning system" until they give permission for what you want
But to know if PD rights have been removed, you need to find out if there was such a clause in the original planning permission for the property.
Of course, if the planners believe that PD rights have been removed, then they should be saying so in the very first instance when complaining about something that the owner seems to believe is PD.
* I believe a common wording is along the lines of “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no....[specified development]........shall be [carried out].”
In situations like that, and if the planners are "difficult", I wouldn't for a moment consider it worthwhile "clogging up the planning system" until they give permission for what you want
But to know if PD rights have been removed, you need to find out if there was such a clause in the original planning permission for the property.
Of course, if the planners believe that PD rights have been removed, then they should be saying so in the very first instance when complaining about something that the owner seems to believe is PD.
* I believe a common wording is along the lines of “Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no....[specified development]........shall be [carried out].”
Nonsense
You can't take complaints relating to planning decisions to the ombudsman. Only in some very extreme and specific circumstances will they accept complaints relating to planning matters.
How can enforcement officers award contracts to builders?
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
Similar threads
