Planning permission suspended after partial demolition (Ed.)

[Miik999]

I have a friend that was altering her house internally and also had planning permission for two extensions. To carry out the structural alterations and position the large steels , a certain amount of demolition had to be carried out. She employed a builder and a structural engineer for the project. Work commenced and going well. The woman took a two week vacation abroad and when she returned the builder had knocked down most of the house. As expected, it was a massive shock for the lady. When questioned, the builder said he had spoken with the structural engineer about the difficulty he was having , trying to get the steels into position and was advised to remove any of the existing masonry that was necessary to achieve his goals. It turned out that he removed most of the house.
The planning authority have now suspended the planning permission.
Any suggestions that might help this lady.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Once you demolish something, it no longer exists, therefore anything built in it's place requires planning permission. What does the 'suspension' say exactly? Upload a copy with names/address etc redacted or copy and paste the content.

 

[Miik999]

Could it not be rebuilt exactly as it was ?

 

[Miik999]

I personally have not yet seen the suspension letter. Will get it.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Well it's usually more complicated in reality and so will what's gone on here but the that's the gist of how planning works with respect to demolishing stuff.

 

[^woody^]

Presumably you mean a stop notice for the unauthorised demolition, not suspension of the planning permission.

Your friend is in a contractual dispute with the builder and engineer, along with the obligations imposed by any stop notice.

If the parts of the house demolished are to be rebuilt, everything is fine (unless it's listed) and just tell the planners that.

 

[Notch7]

The planning authority have now suspended the planning permission

How did they find out?

If the parts of the house demolished are to be rebuilt, everything is fine

I had always thought if you left one wall standing, then planning permission was for alterations

But once all the walls are removed, it became just a piece of land and a planning application for a new build house was then needed, with all the planning considerations that come with that.

That all be an urban myth an absolute cobblers though, You know far more than I do.

If a build I guess might mean CIL and different building regs spec, but also zero VAT

 

[^woody^]

How did they find out?


I had always thought if you left one wall standing, then planning permission was for alterations

But once all the walls are removed, it became just a piece of land and a planning application for a new build house was then needed, with all the planning considerations that come with that.

That all be an urban myth an absolute cobblers though, You know far more than I do.

If a build I guess might mean CIL and different building regs spec, but also zero VAT

From the OPs description of "most of the house" being knocked down, that would be contrary to planning regulations for demolition, as planners may assume that someone is trying a fast one in applying for an extension then knocking the house down and building the extension with a new house attached.

Regarding leaving a wall standing, and repairs (not alterations) that is a myth. There can't be several repairs over time that end up leaving a completely new and different house.

 

[Miik999]

Woody.
We are meeting with the planners soon and proposing to rebuild the house exactly as it was. I really can`t see a problem with that but they probably will no doubt. They are really after money here.
I think the neighbours reported it to the planners.
It`s not listed.
And yes, the planners do think it may be done on purpose. But in this case it genuinely wasn`t

 

[^woody^]

Either way, it's a potential breach, and may well require a retrospective application so that the council can control what and how it is reinstated. Some people are not honest in their intentions and the planners need to deal with that.

 

[Miik999]

I think she would be happy to let the council monitor the rebuild. They are trying to get £47k out of her for CIL

 

[^woody^]

I think she would be happy to let the council monitor the rebuild. They are trying to get £47k out of her for CIL

Then your friend needs to be careful in what she agrees to or what the planners try to dictate in terms of what development is actually going on that invokes planning regulations.

An "accidental" demolition, in part should not attract full redevelopment process and CIL. But its down to interpreting what has actually gone on.

I tried and failed to visualise how anyone could knock down almost all of a house just to install some steel work, and I suspect planners would have similar difficulty.

But if the end result is £47k plus other costs, then your friend needs to be instructing a solicitor and putting the builder's and engineer's insurers on notice of a claim.