Planning dept farce and next steps
Discussion
We need a Lawful Dev Certificate because what we want to do will likely be refused without it. We have no permitted development as it was removed in the original planning decision 30 years ago (barn conversion), however the previous owner built a large garden room 20 years ago which is what the LDC is for. We want to rebuild this but with some changes inc about 20% bigger, without the LDC we were told they’d assume it’s all new and probably refuse, with the LDC they have to take into account the existing structure.
We submitted the LDC application nearly 2 years ago and it’s still not been issued even though the case officer recommended approval over 4 weeks ago. I’ve now found out that they’re prioritising cases made since some timescale guarantee came in but my application predates this so I don’t qualify. The case worked informally says his manager has absolutely no interest in closing it out in preference to the ones with the guarantee.
So.. do I wait before submitting what we want until the LDC is formal or go for it and reference the LDC application which isn’t yet granted? The further twist is that the relatively modest nature of the changes would qualify for permitted dev if the LDC does not exclude it.
It feels like a misstep could bring a lot of issues (especially as I have a near neighbour who would love to poke planning into action), but I also don’t want to get a planning application rejected on timing nor wait forever. The borough councillor is as useful as a wet fish.
We submitted the LDC application nearly 2 years ago and it’s still not been issued even though the case officer recommended approval over 4 weeks ago. I’ve now found out that they’re prioritising cases made since some timescale guarantee came in but my application predates this so I don’t qualify. The case worked informally says his manager has absolutely no interest in closing it out in preference to the ones with the guarantee.
So.. do I wait before submitting what we want until the LDC is formal or go for it and reference the LDC application which isn’t yet granted? The further twist is that the relatively modest nature of the changes would qualify for permitted dev if the LDC does not exclude it.
It feels like a misstep could bring a lot of issues (especially as I have a near neighbour who would love to poke planning into action), but I also don’t want to get a planning application rejected on timing nor wait forever. The borough councillor is as useful as a wet fish.
Contact your MP , you local councellor and all members of the planning committee.
Had something similar but different and this did get action.
Also add in Rachel Reeves.
I have. Current battle with planning appeal and wrote to the head of it cc Starmer. They don't want to p
s off their political masters at the moment.
Had something similar but different and this did get action.
Also add in Rachel Reeves.
I have. Current battle with planning appeal and wrote to the head of it cc Starmer. They don't want to p
s off their political masters at the moment. What evidence do you have that it’s been there for 20 years? I would assume a fair amount. The current structure is immune from enforcement action, do you have anything in writing stating that? Do as Jeremy states. Bring the pressure.
The issue from a planning perspective is that by removing it and erecting a new structure 20% bigger, you are creating a new structure, despite the obvious that there is currently something there already. What is the difference in design and materials between the existing and the new proposal? Is it a Conservation Area? Can the new building be justified as an improvement, less impactful, etc compared to the existing structure?
Pragmatic planners would take all this into account, but the unfortunate result of targets and cuts is that you get situations like this, which seem to work to act as buffers or holding applications, needlessly in my view as all this is taking up resources, when a planner could just be making a decision on one planning application, yay or nay. This would reduce the uncertainty for the OP and reduces backlogs for the Council and perhaps generate some local business.
The issue from a planning perspective is that by removing it and erecting a new structure 20% bigger, you are creating a new structure, despite the obvious that there is currently something there already. What is the difference in design and materials between the existing and the new proposal? Is it a Conservation Area? Can the new building be justified as an improvement, less impactful, etc compared to the existing structure?
Pragmatic planners would take all this into account, but the unfortunate result of targets and cuts is that you get situations like this, which seem to work to act as buffers or holding applications, needlessly in my view as all this is taking up resources, when a planner could just be making a decision on one planning application, yay or nay. This would reduce the uncertainty for the OP and reduces backlogs for the Council and perhaps generate some local business.
Agree with you. I suspect the theory is that please agree this as our fallback is the current building. Given it is there I am not sure how persuasive that argument will be.
Planning is a total disaster. I am 15 months into an appeal. They have now appointed an inspector as I became an irritant. Mr Starmer has not replied !
Planning is a total disaster. I am 15 months into an appeal. They have now appointed an inspector as I became an irritant. Mr Starmer has not replied !
Planning has become more of a total disaster as the rules to simplify it have made it nothing of the sort, a lot of additional regulatory burden has been added, plus the resources to deal with applications have been cut 40-60%. That means instead of providing letters clarifying the back up position, which is what used to happen, it has meant most LPA’s use Certificate of Lawfulness applications as a means of trying to generate income, adding to the application burden and paradoxically often costing more to deal with than they bring in.
The Inspectorate isn’t immune from this, but they don’t help a lot of the time either.
The Inspectorate isn’t immune from this, but they don’t help a lot of the time either.
roscopervis said:
What evidence do you have that it’s been there for 20 years? I would assume a fair amount. The current structure is immune from enforcement action, do you have anything in writing stating that? Do as Jeremy states. Bring the pressure.
The issue from a planning perspective is that by removing it and erecting a new structure 20% bigger, you are creating a new structure, despite the obvious that there is currently something there already. What is the difference in design and materials between the existing and the new proposal? Is it a Conservation Area? Can the new building be justified as an improvement, less impactful, etc compared to the existing structure?
Pragmatic planners would take all this into account, but the unfortunate result of targets and cuts is that you get situations like this, which seem to work to act as buffers or holding applications, needlessly in my view as all this is taking up resources, when a planner could just be making a decision on one planning application, yay or nay. This would reduce the uncertainty for the OP and reduces backlogs for the Council and perhaps generate some local business.
Evidence is strong, the sales details are still online on Rightmove from 17 years ago, and Google earth pictures go back to 2000, we only need to prove 4 years. The only disputed question was the change of use of a small parcel of agricultural land to garden, we had to show continual use as garden for 10 years which again can be seen from Google earth and the sales particulars as having a decked area, path, shed @nd a flowerbed. That’s all been accepted by the case officer in his recommendation to approve, just not formally.The issue from a planning perspective is that by removing it and erecting a new structure 20% bigger, you are creating a new structure, despite the obvious that there is currently something there already. What is the difference in design and materials between the existing and the new proposal? Is it a Conservation Area? Can the new building be justified as an improvement, less impactful, etc compared to the existing structure?
Pragmatic planners would take all this into account, but the unfortunate result of targets and cuts is that you get situations like this, which seem to work to act as buffers or holding applications, needlessly in my view as all this is taking up resources, when a planner could just be making a decision on one planning application, yay or nay. This would reduce the uncertainty for the OP and reduces backlogs for the Council and perhaps generate some local business.
The new structure will therefore be an remodelling and extension of a recognised building into garden once the LDC is issued. Until then it’s an unapproved building on agricultural land.
The borough councillors are all new and inept, they stood for election not really thinking they’d get in and somehow did. They’re now rabbits in headlights. MP is new too, a fresh faced Labour MP who is still finding their way around parliament. I guess it’s worth a try but I’m not sure “PH affluent, rural living, company director” will find their way to the top of their pile when other areas of the constituency have food banks and asylum hotels, especially at the moment.
Gone fishing said:
jules_s said:
In my area an LDC is determined by a single councillor
Interesting, I thought councillors only got involved if they called things in, otherwise planning made the decision. I do know someone I can ask to get the name if that’s the case.I only usually get involved in major capital schemes but recently got involved in an LDC as part of a wider development.
jules_s said:
Gone fishing said:
jules_s said:
In my area an LDC is determined by a single councillor
Interesting, I thought councillors only got involved if they called things in, otherwise planning made the decision. I do know someone I can ask to get the name if that’s the case.I only usually get involved in major capital schemes but recently got involved in an LDC as part of a wider development.
skeeterm5 said:
One option could be to withdraw the original application and submit a new one so that it falls within the time guarantee.
I thought about that but I’d have to pay again and it’s not cheap. I could also go to appeal which takes it out their hands, but as I have a planning application to potentially go in after the LDC I’d rather not p them offChrisgr31 said:
Could you make a Freedom of Information request for the number of certificates over a certain age and then question why not done? Might make it less personal?
It’s a thought, I might even be able to search the portal myself if the filters allow.There’s a little bit of me that thinks their maybe a case of the planning department being unhappy with the building existing and whilst it was 20 years ago and a previous owner, they’re just sitting on their hands to drag it out, or the less contentious version which is it’s been like it for 20 years.. what’s the hurry. I have asked for a pre-planning consultation to discuss what we want to do but they’ve refused saying they’re not doing them for single dwellings, only multi property new build.
Gone fishing said:
I thought about that but I’d have to pay again and it’s not cheap. I could also go to appeal which takes it out their hands, but as I have a planning application to potentially go in after the LDC I’d rather not p them off
Don't !Lawful development appeals are currently 57 weeks ON AVERAGE I am well over that hence kicking off.
The 57 weeks is post the start letter which takes months.
Gone fishing said:
Evidence is strong, the sales details are still online on Rightmove from 17 years ago, and Google earth pictures go back to 2000, we only need to prove 4 years. The only disputed question was the change of use of a small parcel of agricultural land to garden, we had to show continual use as garden for 10 years which again can be seen from Google earth and the sales particulars as having a decked area, path, shed @nd a flowerbed. That’s all been accepted by the case officer in his recommendation to approve, just not formally.
The new structure will therefore be an remodelling and extension of a recognised building into garden once the LDC is issued. Until then it’s an unapproved building on agricultural land.
The borough councillors are all new and inept, they stood for election not really thinking they’d get in and somehow did. They’re now rabbits in headlights. MP is new too, a fresh faced Labour MP who is still finding their way around parliament. I guess it’s worth a try but I’m not sure “PH affluent, rural living, company director” will find their way to the top of their pile when other areas of the constituency have food banks and asylum hotels, especially at the moment.
Considering the blatant disregard for planning rules to date, I’m surprised you are now bothering with an application at all.The new structure will therefore be an remodelling and extension of a recognised building into garden once the LDC is issued. Until then it’s an unapproved building on agricultural land.
The borough councillors are all new and inept, they stood for election not really thinking they’d get in and somehow did. They’re now rabbits in headlights. MP is new too, a fresh faced Labour MP who is still finding their way around parliament. I guess it’s worth a try but I’m not sure “PH affluent, rural living, company director” will find their way to the top of their pile when other areas of the constituency have food banks and asylum hotels, especially at the moment.
barryrs said:
Considering the blatant disregard for planning rules to date, I’m surprised you are now bothering with an application at all.
I bought the property with the building already built and the seller took out an indemnity insurance. I’ve not breached planning and would rather not hence this stupid situation I’m currently in. So if you’re having a dig then you’re an armchair warrior who can’t read, if you’re suggesting the council are so inept and never take action so just get on and build what you want, that has been suggested by my neighbour, and you’re both welcome to a beer.
From what you've said, the request for the CLEUD makes more sense now.
It would appear that you are using the building and land currently as a garden area, but based on the historic documents, the defined domestic curtilage does not include this building, nor would it include the new building proposed. For that reason, if you were to put a new building up (which it would be when the old one is removed), it would be on land deemed to be in the open countryside and not in your garden, which is contrary to lots of planning policy and make it difficult to approve, even if they wanted to.
The matter of the residential curtilage is very important in planning terms and allows lots of rights and favourable considerations, even if PD rights have been removed. This is why they are asking for the CLEUD it seems, to establish that the land is not countryside, but your residential curtilage. I don't know what they might not like about it, but that is the logic behind the request.
It would appear that you are using the building and land currently as a garden area, but based on the historic documents, the defined domestic curtilage does not include this building, nor would it include the new building proposed. For that reason, if you were to put a new building up (which it would be when the old one is removed), it would be on land deemed to be in the open countryside and not in your garden, which is contrary to lots of planning policy and make it difficult to approve, even if they wanted to.
The matter of the residential curtilage is very important in planning terms and allows lots of rights and favourable considerations, even if PD rights have been removed. This is why they are asking for the CLEUD it seems, to establish that the land is not countryside, but your residential curtilage. I don't know what they might not like about it, but that is the logic behind the request.
roscopervis said:
From what you've said, the request for the CLEUD makes more sense now.
It would appear that you are using the building and land currently as a garden area, but based on the historic documents, the defined domestic curtilage does not include this building, nor would it include the new building proposed. For that reason, if you were to put a new building up (which it would be when the old one is removed), it would be on land deemed to be in the open countryside and not in your garden, which is contrary to lots of planning policy and make it difficult to approve, even if they wanted to.
The matter of the residential curtilage is very important in planning terms and allows lots of rights and favourable considerations, even if PD rights have been removed. This is why they are asking for the CLEUD it seems, to establish that the land is not countryside, but your residential curtilage. I don't know what they might not like about it, but that is the logic behind the request.
Yes, the initial advice we took was to get the LDC/CLEUD before doing anything further because of what it offersIt would appear that you are using the building and land currently as a garden area, but based on the historic documents, the defined domestic curtilage does not include this building, nor would it include the new building proposed. For that reason, if you were to put a new building up (which it would be when the old one is removed), it would be on land deemed to be in the open countryside and not in your garden, which is contrary to lots of planning policy and make it difficult to approve, even if they wanted to.
The matter of the residential curtilage is very important in planning terms and allows lots of rights and favourable considerations, even if PD rights have been removed. This is why they are asking for the CLEUD it seems, to establish that the land is not countryside, but your residential curtilage. I don't know what they might not like about it, but that is the logic behind the request.
The buildings are relatively easy to establish, they’re either there or they’re not. The land was more an issue and we agree to scale back the amount of land we wished to claim as garden. Land next to a house doesn’t make it garden even if it’s lawn, mowed as a lawn and enclosed with a tidy beech hedge, we had to demonstrate more convincingly that a proportion was garden and in continual use which we did.
As I’ve said the planning case worker is now happy, paperwork updated to what we both agree, I’d be happy if what’s now documented is approved, they just seem incapable of issuing the final paperwork, even the case worked is embarrassed by his boss’s incompetence, but none of that actually helps me.
Edited by Gone fishing on Wednesday 7th August 15:40
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff