Re: default planning permission?

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (John K) wrote:

No. It's just that breaches are not pursued after four years. Not quite the same thing. Unless it's a listed building - in which case breaches are pursued for ever.

Oh a fair bit. If it doesn't have pp, this may still make it more difficult to sell and expect a careful eye to be passsed over it with respect to building regs, too.

You don't and with difficulty.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:27:56 +0100, 666 snipped-for-privacy@hack.powernet[dot]co[dot]uk (Simon Gardner) wrote:

Planning consent for building works is usually associated with building regulations approval and absence of the latter can be a problem if required. (I know of at least one planned house purchase by a relative that fell through over this.)
Where the planning consent was required for a change of use of land, eg agricultural land to caravan site, I think that you can sometimes apply for a certificatre of lawful use if the change of use took place over a certain number of years ago (perhaps 10 or 12 years ago but it could vary with planning authority), I can imagine this might apply to an extension, but that does not get over the building reguilations approval questions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John K wrote in message ...

Not true.

Ask the local authority building control department.
A general FAQ that would apply is here: http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/buildingcontrol/questionsanswered.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

But the OP is talking about _planning permission_, and not building control.
AIUI a development is never deemed to have building control approval by nature of elapsed time, but planning does.
cheers Richard
-- Richard Sampson
email me at richard at olifant d-ot co do-t uk
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Final twists:
The 10 year rule is for change of use or breach of planning condition.
You do not need planning permission for any development if you are certain that the planning authority would have given permission - there is no legal obligation for you to apply. You do not need to apply for retrospective permission either despite what local authorities will tell you.

Location? Hmmm - ususally needs to be attached to the current buildings. Permitted development rights are contained in Statutory Instruments that are issued from time to time. Parts 1 and 2 of Schedule 2 are most relevant. It is not default planning permission but statutorily defined boundaries on what constitutes allowable development. Often you obtain a certificate of permitted development from the council to ensure they agree and will not cause a fuss.
Relevant for this is Class A which allows the greater of 10% or 50m3 for a terraced house or greater of 15% or 70m3 otherwise subject to a cap of 115m3 increase in volume of the original dwelling (yes you do count the roof void too) without planning permission. Surprised if a conservatory is bigger than this. Conservation areas are different with more rules.
Also it would be a good test of the purchaser's solicitor to see if they picked up the developments being unauthorised on a sale. If they are good they will and it would be worth obtaining a confirmation from the authority they cannot take action or are not intending to or if qualifies as permitted development a certificate. 10-1 against the purchasers solicitor spotting it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I went along to the planning meeting for two new houses to be built near me (on what had previously been one plot). Planning permission was granted, but they were deemed to have used up all their allowed expansion without planning permission in the initial build. Aparently, this is normal in cases of tightly packed new housing nowadays. I presume this would be communicated to the eventual purchasers somehow, but I don't know how this is done.
--
Andrew Gabriel

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Surely development is controlled by Statute, and in particular the TCPA?
What is allowable without a formal application is clearly defined, and it also states when an application is required - ie an application is required for all situations where the proposal is otherwise not specifically granted.
I don't agree that one can just build on the basis that you are certain that the LA will allow it. That would lead to an anarchic situation and would negate the purpose of planning control.
Can you cite a reference or precedent for this?
dg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Building without planning consent is not an offence and a LA cannot take enforcement action in respect of such work unless they are of the opinion that PP would have been refused if it had been applied for. So, in theory anyway, you can just get on and build, but in such circumstances the LA is likely to be fairly creative in thinking of reasons why it would not have given PP
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
You may not commit a criminal offence but the work will be unauthorised, and any work that contravenes the TCPA will attract enforcement action.
The first step in this is for you to be given the opportunity to apply for retrospective permission. Now, if it is likely that retrospective permission will be granted and the unauthorised work is relatively minor, then it is a judgement call on the merits and public interest in the LA pursuing the matter.
However, the LA is responsible for safeguarding the interest of the public, and therefore has a duty to take any necessary action to uphold the context and spirit of the TCPA.
It certainly is not correct that one can simply build without proper prior permission on the basis of ones own assumption that the work would be acceptable. Nor is it correct that the LA can not take enforcement action - they are obligated and granted the power by Statute to take any necessary action.
dg
Dg

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Since the granting of planning permission is a subjective process (although claimed to be objective by planning authorities) how can anyone be certain that a planning authority would have given permission? I personally know of many perverse decisions that have been made in my locale.
If you are requested by the planning authority to seek retrospective permission, and decline to do so, then, surely, the planning authority will seek enforcement if it thinks the unauthorised development warrants such action, or the authority wants to punish an offender?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Buckshee wrote:

Which is why going ahead without pp is not a good idea

Under s.172 of the T&CPA 1990 the LA can issue an enforcement notice when there has been a breach of planning control and it deems it expedient to issue such a notice. A desire to punish someone is not a valid reason for issuing such a notice. One of the grounds for appealing against such a notice is the work that is the subject of the notice is work for which pp would have been granted, and if the Inspector upheld this he could, if he felt the LA had acted capriciously, award costs to the applicant.
So when dg says " Nor is it correct that the LA can not take enforcement action - they are obligated and granted the power by Statute to take any necessary action.", the necessary action is to consider whether an enforcement notice should be issued, and the answer to this question may well be no.
An interesting case of a council deciding not to enforce took place on my BCO patch. A sex shop chain took over a local shop and turned it into a sex shop (this was before licensing provisions applied) and painted the shopfront windows so that you couldn't see in. There was of course much local outrage and a demand that something be done. An embarrassed planning officer had to explain to the committee that, yes, painting over the windows was a material change of appearance and a breach of planning control, but the only recourse was to serve a notice demanding removal of all the paint so you could see into the shop as before. They decided not serve a notice!
--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
l

An interesting site on planning and building disputes if anyone is interested. I have no connection with it. Came across it while looking for something else.
http://www.tlio.org.uk/chapter7/news.htm Alan G
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Providing there has been NO alteration or addition to a property then it can be extended up to a maximum of 10% under permitted development rules which also require such development to basically be at the rear of the property
If you want to alter the road view of your property then you need PP
If the property has had an extention already then absolutely every furthur extention /alteration needs PP
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.