default planning permission?
|
default planning permission?
John K wrote in message ...
I heard that an extension/conservatory has default planning permission after a certain period of time, even though originally constructed without planning permission and outside permitted development. Is this true? Not true. What impact does such entensions/conservatories have when the house is up for sale? How do you prove that they have default planning permissions? Ask the local authority building control department. A general FAQ that would apply is he http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/buildingco...nsanswered.htm |
default planning permission?
"Sensible" wrote in message
... John K wrote in message ... I heard that an extension/conservatory has default planning permission after a certain period of time, even though originally constructed without planning permission and outside permitted development. Is this true? Not true. What impact does such entensions/conservatories have when the house is up for sale? How do you prove that they have default planning permissions? Ask the local authority building control department. A general FAQ that would apply is he http://www.bathnes.gov.uk/buildingco...nsanswered.htm 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 |
default planning permission?
"dg" wrote in message om... Not quite correct. The development will always remain as unauthorised development, however the local authority will not be able to take any enforcement action against it after a period of four years after its "substantial" completion. Or in some cases ten years for some types of breach 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. Default planning permission (aka Permitted Development rights) give clear guidance on sizing and location for permitted developments, so it would be easy to determine what work was covered by it. 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. |
default planning permission?
In article ,
"a0000000000" writes: 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. 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 |
default planning permission?
"a0000000000" wrote in message ...
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. 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 |
default planning permission?
In article , Dg
wrote: 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. 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 http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm |
default planning permission?
"a0000000000" wrote in message ...
"dg" wrote in message om... 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. 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? |
default planning permission?
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 Tony Bryer wrote in message ... In article , Dg wrote: 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. 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 |
default planning permission?
In article ,
Buckshee wrote: 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. Which is why going ahead without pp is not a good idea 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? 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 |
default planning permission?
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 10:05:17 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote: l In article , Buckshee wrote: 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. Which is why going ahead without pp is not a good idea 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? 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! 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 |
default planning permission?
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 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 |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 DIYbanter