On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 19:27:56 +0100, rnet[dot]co[dot]uk
(Simon Gardner) wrote:

In article ,
(John K) wrote:

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?

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.

If so, how long is this period?

What impact does such entensions/conservatories have when the house is
up for sale?

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.

How do you prove that they have default planning
permissions?

You don't and with difficulty.

Will it be any different after the proposed seller's pack
come into action?



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.

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

"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

"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.

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

"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

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

"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?

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

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

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

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