Planning Conditions Advice Needed
Discussion
Macedemiapig01 said:
Copy of OP's post removed by Collectingbrass as the OP has removed theirs
Who sent the letter, the Local Council Town & Country Planning Officers or a neighbour? The answer will dictate what kind of problem you have... I would take independent advice (from a specialist T&CP lawyer, not your house purchase solicitor* and it would be worth getting this moved to the Homes & Gardens sub forum) before you approach the council in either event and definitely if the letter was not from the Council.
Your last paragraph reads as though there are breaches of the planning conditions which could be enforceable and if you don't have an indemnity through the house purchase process you'll be stuck with the bill. Cutting the hedge won't hurt the wallet but changing the finish will. The driveway (presumably they mean a crossing over the footpath or verge) is highly likely to be a "must do" on road safety grounds and will probably be enforceable by the local highway authority if they find out about it.
*Please bear in mind I am neither of these
Edited by Collectingbrass on Tuesday 31st October 12:53
Edited by Collectingbrass on Wednesday 1st November 11:45
As above, it really depends on who sent you the letter ?
If the hedge height was specified by the Highways Agency for safety reasons for visibility of vehicles entering/leaving the property then they are unlikely to accept any change....and arguably if you apply now for retrospective approval the current rules (which may be more stringent) would be required.
Some applications have the external finish left generic. Others require actual samples to be made available and inspected on site prior to construction commencing.
Usually a read throught the original planning documents should tell you the answers as who and why the conditions were imposed. Some councils have scanned in a lot of old stuff so it is now available online.
If the hedge height was specified by the Highways Agency for safety reasons for visibility of vehicles entering/leaving the property then they are unlikely to accept any change....and arguably if you apply now for retrospective approval the current rules (which may be more stringent) would be required.
Some applications have the external finish left generic. Others require actual samples to be made available and inspected on site prior to construction commencing.
Usually a read throught the original planning documents should tell you the answers as who and why the conditions were imposed. Some councils have scanned in a lot of old stuff so it is now available online.
Equus said:
Mark V GTD said:
...it could be that they now feel it’s not something they want permanently out in public at this time...
In which case it's a pity that they were quoted in full on the third post...Collectingbrass said:
Like you though if I was a betting man I know where I'd put my money on why they had removed it.
To be honest, I didn't see any reason for the OP to have removed their post... but there are some strange folk on the internet!I hadn't contributed to the thread, as your response pretty much covered it: without knowing precise details of both the planning conditions and LPA communications relating to them (to address any enfocement issues), and wording of declarations made by the vendor (to establish potential culpability) it was impossible to advise further, and ultimately the OP needs a Planning Consultant and/or a legal specialist to deal with it, not a motoring forum.
I don't mind giving a certain amount of specialist advice to long-standing members, but when someone has clearly joined just to seek advice on a problem entirely unrelated to the core interest of this 'community', there are limits.
Mark V GTD said:
Only the OP knows that. The most common reason is a failure of the responses to accord with the OP’s expectations or it could be that they now feel it’s not something they want permanently out in public at this time and have absorbed the advice and deleted the OP.
I was going to say at least somebody has quoted it so it is still there to see, but even that has gone now.GasEngineer said:
I was going to say at least somebody has quoted it so it is still there to see, but even that has gone now.
The basic gist of it was that the OP has bought a property that had had an extension (with Planning Permission). It has come to light that there were Planning conditions associated with the approval that had not been correctly discharged, and the OP wanted to know who to blame: his Solicitor for not picking the issue up, the LPA, or the vendor for making a false declaration that all necessary approvals were in place.Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff