Section 73 - Raising roof height by increasing pitch?
Discussion
It seems to me that you are looking at the situation from a fundamentally different perspective to the local planning authority.
You have a planning consent. You have successfully agreed a minor material amendment to that consent under s73 which creates a new consent.
You have now had a refusal for a further s73 application, which I suspect is based on the position that an increase in ridge height is not a minor amendment. This is not unreasonable as height and massing are key planning considerations.
So you are now at the limits of what is possible under s73. You could appeal and you may be successful, but that is where you are.
If you want to pursue a permission which goes beyond a minor amendment of the existing one, then it will be treated as a new application and you will end up having to agree a s106 if it is justified and in line with planning policy.
Your choices are very clear:
1. Appeal the s73 decision
2. Build out the current consent
3. Apply for a new permission, which will create a s106 obligation
You seem to be trying to beat the system and it's very unlikely that you will
You have a planning consent. You have successfully agreed a minor material amendment to that consent under s73 which creates a new consent.
You have now had a refusal for a further s73 application, which I suspect is based on the position that an increase in ridge height is not a minor amendment. This is not unreasonable as height and massing are key planning considerations.
So you are now at the limits of what is possible under s73. You could appeal and you may be successful, but that is where you are.
If you want to pursue a permission which goes beyond a minor amendment of the existing one, then it will be treated as a new application and you will end up having to agree a s106 if it is justified and in line with planning policy.
Your choices are very clear:
1. Appeal the s73 decision
2. Build out the current consent
3. Apply for a new permission, which will create a s106 obligation
You seem to be trying to beat the system and it's very unlikely that you will
Yes I can see where you are coming from, and I probably have pushed the boundaries of a 73 but when those boundaries are not clear then its hard to know where they actually cross over. My frustration is that the refusals are based on financial gain by the LA rather than genuine planning concerns.
Had I agreed to pay the sums they are after, the other matter raised I am quite sure would have melted away quietly, the only form of contact from the LA during the 8 weeks was a demand to agree to pay them money, not a concern over the ridge increase or massing. Had they done so I would have offered to go back to hips and that would have diminished their case, so they kept quiet until the refusal.
I do have another option to add to your list, which is appeal, lose, take on board the inspectors comments and re apply using hips instead of ridges, using my one free next application and wait another 8 weeks and a day!
I guess yet another option to speed things up is to apply once again under a 73 keeping the hips and just raising the ridge, I have done all the hard work anyway, just tweak the drawings and pay another £200 and if I time the 8 weeks to end a few weeks after the appeal is finished and the inspector hints about removing the massing then they wont be able to then refuse and that speeds it up a bit
There should be no need to play these games though, common sense is to sit around the table and thrash out something everyone is happy with, but the planners wont do that.
In the meantime I am now submitting the tech drawings for the approved design into building control and make a start on the build once they are sorted, by the time I get to the roof I will then know whats going up there.
Had I agreed to pay the sums they are after, the other matter raised I am quite sure would have melted away quietly, the only form of contact from the LA during the 8 weeks was a demand to agree to pay them money, not a concern over the ridge increase or massing. Had they done so I would have offered to go back to hips and that would have diminished their case, so they kept quiet until the refusal.
I do have another option to add to your list, which is appeal, lose, take on board the inspectors comments and re apply using hips instead of ridges, using my one free next application and wait another 8 weeks and a day!
I guess yet another option to speed things up is to apply once again under a 73 keeping the hips and just raising the ridge, I have done all the hard work anyway, just tweak the drawings and pay another £200 and if I time the 8 weeks to end a few weeks after the appeal is finished and the inspector hints about removing the massing then they wont be able to then refuse and that speeds it up a bit
There should be no need to play these games though, common sense is to sit around the table and thrash out something everyone is happy with, but the planners wont do that.
In the meantime I am now submitting the tech drawings for the approved design into building control and make a start on the build once they are sorted, by the time I get to the roof I will then know whats going up there.
Edited by PAUL500 on Friday 25th May 09:33
saaby93 said:
Can you set your sights slightly lower
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/44223271
'Tradition' my arse!http://www.bbc.co.uk/cymrufyw/44223271
What they haven't told you is that it's probably backed up by a Planning Application with a raft of documentation that makes War and Peace look like a pamplet, justifying the building under the Welsh 'One Planet' exceptions policy (a sort of Paragraph 55 for Swampy and his hippy/travelller mates).
Exellent post by Elysium:
Elysium said:
You have a planning consent. You have successfully agreed a minor material amendment to that consent under s73 which creates a new consent.
You have now had a refusal for a further s73 application, which I suspect is based on the position that an increase in ridge height is not a minor amendment. This is not unreasonable as height and massing are key planning considerations.
So you are now at the limits of what is possible under s73. You could appeal and you may be successful, but that is where you are.
Agreed.You have now had a refusal for a further s73 application, which I suspect is based on the position that an increase in ridge height is not a minor amendment. This is not unreasonable as height and massing are key planning considerations.
So you are now at the limits of what is possible under s73. You could appeal and you may be successful, but that is where you are.
There are limits to what is acceptable under a Section 73. Whether or not you agree with them is another matter, but the LPA has drawn a line in the sand where they believe it lies. If you don't agree with that line, it's up to you to persuade the Appeals Inspectorate.
Elysium said:
If you want to pursue a permission which goes beyond a minor amendment of the existing one, then it will be treated as a new application and you will end up having to agree a s106 if it is justified and in line with planning policy.
Your choices are very clear:
1. Appeal the s73 decision
2. Build out the current consent
3. Apply for a new permission, which will create a s106 obligation
You seem to be trying to beat the system and it's very unlikely that you will
Agreed, but I'd add the observations that IF you can beat the element of the refusal that relates to scale and massing, then there is a fair chance that the Appeals Inspector will agree that the S106 demand is unreasonable, as a previous S73 was granted without it. Your choices are very clear:
1. Appeal the s73 decision
2. Build out the current consent
3. Apply for a new permission, which will create a s106 obligation
You seem to be trying to beat the system and it's very unlikely that you will
And there is, of course, a fourth option of self-build, which if I understand correctly you are ruling out because of the financial risk that you might have to prematurely sell the property. You can't have your cake and eat it, unfortunately, so if you want the benefits of Self Build, you have to suck it up on the risks as well.
PAUL500 said:
Yes I can see where you are coming from, and I probably have pushed the boundaries of a 73 but when those boundaries are not clear then its hard to know where they actually cross over. My frustration is that the refusals are based on financial gain by the LA rather than genuine planning concerns.
I understand why you might feel this way, but it is still only your perception. This thinking is adding emotion to the situation which is not going to help you get the result you want. PAUL500 said:
Had I agreed to pay the sums they are after, the other matter raised I am quite sure would have melted away quietly, the only form of contact from the LA during the 8 weeks was a demand to agree to pay them money, not a concern over the ridge increase or massing. Had they done so I would have offered to go back to hips and that would have diminished their case, so they kept quiet until the refusal.
I do have another option to add to your list, which is appeal, lose, take on board the inspectors comments and re apply using hips instead of ridges, using my one free next application and wait another 8 weeks and a day!
I guess yet another option to speed things up is to apply once again under a 73 keeping the hips and just raising the ridge, I have done all the hard work anyway, just tweak the drawings and pay another £200 and if I time the 8 weeks to end a few weeks after the appeal is finished and the inspector hints about removing the massing then they wont be able to then refuse and that speeds it up a bit
Frankly, if you have a better option which deals with the massing point, then the best way to get what you want is via a new s73 application. There is no point in appealing if you have a compromise solution that you are happy with. I do have another option to add to your list, which is appeal, lose, take on board the inspectors comments and re apply using hips instead of ridges, using my one free next application and wait another 8 weeks and a day!
I guess yet another option to speed things up is to apply once again under a 73 keeping the hips and just raising the ridge, I have done all the hard work anyway, just tweak the drawings and pay another £200 and if I time the 8 weeks to end a few weeks after the appeal is finished and the inspector hints about removing the massing then they wont be able to then refuse and that speeds it up a bit
PAUL500 said:
There should be no need to play these games though, common sense is to sit around the table and thrash out something everyone is happy with, but the planners wont do that.
In the meantime I am now submitting the tech drawings for the approved design into building control and make a start on the build once they are sorted, by the time I get to the roof I will then know whats going up there.
Planning departments are generally understaffed and ill equipped to deal with this sort of consultative approach. From your perspective, they are playing games, but I am sure they do not see it that way. In the past, officers were often willing to spare some time to offer advise to applicants, but it's now common to have to pay them for an informal meeting. In the meantime I am now submitting the tech drawings for the approved design into building control and make a start on the build once they are sorted, by the time I get to the roof I will then know whats going up there.
Although you can succeed against a hostile planning authority, in my experience it is always best to get them onside and co-operate assertively.
I have been having a delve around to see if I can find any real definition of a minor material amendment whilst building my appeal case, and came across this document:-
http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/P...
It seems to hinge of the definition of "substantial change" as to whether it crosses from a 73 to a full new application.
Now bearing in mind the LA did not reject the 73 application, which is what they should have done if they believed the application was "substantial", and thus warranted a totally new full application (which would then legitimately trigger a 106 under their new rules), so my view is they cannot retrospectively apply new planning policy such as the recent 106 addition, to an existing approval as a reason for refusal of a 73? so that leaves just the claim of bulking as a sole legitimate reason to refuse?
Anyway
It seems the cross over point from non material to minor material is clearly defined to be an increase of 6% or more of the volume of the original permission. I need to establish what takes that figure from 6% to beyond what is deemed "substantial" I guess if the LA can still apply new rules to old permissions.
There is no substantial change to the residential unit, in fact there is no change, its still the 4 bed detached house with the exact same footprint in exactly the same location on site.
Gross volume wise it does increase by about 10% with open gables (instead of hips) plus a ridge increase of 1m
I would not call 10% substantial? and if I went back to hips and just raised the ridge a metre its probably even going to fall under the non material volume threshold.
So if 0 to 6% increase makes it non material, 6% to "x" makes it minor material, so maybe I can argue a doubling to say 12% as a min for "x" to keep it within a minor amendment? and thus not substantial either.
Is it not something like less than 20% volume increase for PD rights to apply also, so I could use that as a similar comparison for planning definitions, as to when an LA can become involved when something becomes substantial?
I am trying to keep emotion out of it and make the appeal factual, so yey or nay as to the above from anyone interested? :-)
My perspective is they should have simply rejected the application at the start, stating it was substantially different form the existing approval if they wanted to force a 106 on me, by not doing so they can only fall back on one reason for refusal and that is the bulking, which is then simply luck of the draw as to what the inspector considers to be excess bulk over and above the current approval and whether my application goes beyond that?
http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/P...
It seems to hinge of the definition of "substantial change" as to whether it crosses from a 73 to a full new application.
Now bearing in mind the LA did not reject the 73 application, which is what they should have done if they believed the application was "substantial", and thus warranted a totally new full application (which would then legitimately trigger a 106 under their new rules), so my view is they cannot retrospectively apply new planning policy such as the recent 106 addition, to an existing approval as a reason for refusal of a 73? so that leaves just the claim of bulking as a sole legitimate reason to refuse?
Anyway
It seems the cross over point from non material to minor material is clearly defined to be an increase of 6% or more of the volume of the original permission. I need to establish what takes that figure from 6% to beyond what is deemed "substantial" I guess if the LA can still apply new rules to old permissions.
There is no substantial change to the residential unit, in fact there is no change, its still the 4 bed detached house with the exact same footprint in exactly the same location on site.
Gross volume wise it does increase by about 10% with open gables (instead of hips) plus a ridge increase of 1m
I would not call 10% substantial? and if I went back to hips and just raised the ridge a metre its probably even going to fall under the non material volume threshold.
So if 0 to 6% increase makes it non material, 6% to "x" makes it minor material, so maybe I can argue a doubling to say 12% as a min for "x" to keep it within a minor amendment? and thus not substantial either.
Is it not something like less than 20% volume increase for PD rights to apply also, so I could use that as a similar comparison for planning definitions, as to when an LA can become involved when something becomes substantial?
I am trying to keep emotion out of it and make the appeal factual, so yey or nay as to the above from anyone interested? :-)
My perspective is they should have simply rejected the application at the start, stating it was substantially different form the existing approval if they wanted to force a 106 on me, by not doing so they can only fall back on one reason for refusal and that is the bulking, which is then simply luck of the draw as to what the inspector considers to be excess bulk over and above the current approval and whether my application goes beyond that?
Edited by PAUL500 on Saturday 26th May 00:19
To be honest its ridge height I need in the roofspace for the future, not volume, (that would just be a bonus) had they during the 8 weeks come back to me and said it was too bulky I would have relented as long as I could have kept the gradient increase from 32 degrees to 42 degrees but they choose not to do so in the hope I would stump up the ransom.
it will cost me nothing to appeal other than a 12 week time delay regardless now, and £200 to put in a new 73 about 6 weeks into that time frame with hips instead of open gables so the 8 weeks for that falls after the inspector has made his decision and if I lose the appeal he may hint that hips would be acceptable. which would then quash bulking as a reason for refusal on the new 73. Or I can wait until after the appeal for my free go and submit the hips version after that time.
All fun and games, but I can get on with building the house itself in the meantime, once building control have had their input.
it will cost me nothing to appeal other than a 12 week time delay regardless now, and £200 to put in a new 73 about 6 weeks into that time frame with hips instead of open gables so the 8 weeks for that falls after the inspector has made his decision and if I lose the appeal he may hint that hips would be acceptable. which would then quash bulking as a reason for refusal on the new 73. Or I can wait until after the appeal for my free go and submit the hips version after that time.
All fun and games, but I can get on with building the house itself in the meantime, once building control have had their input.
Edited by PAUL500 on Saturday 26th May 00:35
PAUL500 said:
I have been having a delve around to see if I can find any real definition of a minor material amendment whilst building my appeal case, and came across this document:-
http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/P...
It seems to hinge of the definition of "substantial change" as to whether it crosses from a 73 to a full new application.
You're grasping at straws that aren't there.http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/P...
It seems to hinge of the definition of "substantial change" as to whether it crosses from a 73 to a full new application.
There is no clear definition of a minor amendment in Planning law, it's as simple as that.
It's determined on a case-by-case basis, and Planning Law (generally; not just with respect to minor amendments) accepts and acknowledges that it is necessary and proper for Planning Officers to exercise some degree of subjectivity.
If you don't agree with them, then you can appeal, but the Appeals Inspectorate will also recognise (if they interpret the law correctly, which they usually do) that there is a degree of subjectivity involved and they shouldn't second-guess a Planning Officer unless they feel that there has been a significantly poor judgement.
Even the suggested definition in the link you give (that scale and nature should not be substantially different) doesn't help. All substantial means is 'of substance', and among its synonyms are 'significantly', 'appreciably' and 'materially'. It's a very vague term in itself.
It is certainly not possible to argue that a change in ridge height (and thereby scale and massing) is not material in Planning law, and if it's enough to be appreciable to the naked eye, then it can be argued to be substantial.
At the one extreme, I've changed entire groups of of houses and the road pattern that serves them under minor amendments on a large housing scheme. At the other, I've had to apply for full PP for a change of materials. It depends on context.
PAUL500 said:
Now bearing in mind the LA did not reject the 73 application, which is what they should have done if they believed the application was "substantial"
No they shouldn't.That's like saying that an LPA should reject at the outset any Planning Application that they don't think should be passed. The whole point of any Planning application process is to assess the information submitted and to arrive at a formed judgement upon it. If that could be done by the validation officer at a glance of the documentation when it is first submitted, the process would be a whole lot quicker and cheaper!
If the application was grossly and blatantly not a material amendment, then it would be good practice for them to advise you of this before taking your money and validating it., but with any application, provided the documentation is in order and validation requirements are met, they are legally obliged to accept and determine it.
Equus is spot on.
The planning authority 'validated' your application because they were happy that you had supplied the minimum documentation required, filled in the forms correctly and paid the required fees. That has no bearing on their subsequent decision to refuse it.
The boundaries of s73 are necessarily subjective. It is used for 'minor material amendments'. We know your changes are 'material', but it seems the planning authority do not accept that they are 'minor'.
I have successfully used s73 to change ridge heights and make small increases to building area, so what you have attempted is not impossible. However, the outcome relies on the judgement of the planning officer to a fairly large extent.
They will be considering if the changes proposed result in a significantly different outcome to the original permission. They clearly think it does and that is what you need to overcome if you want to continue to try to vary the approval you already have.
Planning authorities are cautious when refusing applications as appeals can be expensive for local councils. As you already have 2 implementable consents (the original and the approved s73) it does not appear that this is a political issue. There is simply something about your latest proposal that they do not like.
The planning authority 'validated' your application because they were happy that you had supplied the minimum documentation required, filled in the forms correctly and paid the required fees. That has no bearing on their subsequent decision to refuse it.
The boundaries of s73 are necessarily subjective. It is used for 'minor material amendments'. We know your changes are 'material', but it seems the planning authority do not accept that they are 'minor'.
I have successfully used s73 to change ridge heights and make small increases to building area, so what you have attempted is not impossible. However, the outcome relies on the judgement of the planning officer to a fairly large extent.
They will be considering if the changes proposed result in a significantly different outcome to the original permission. They clearly think it does and that is what you need to overcome if you want to continue to try to vary the approval you already have.
Planning authorities are cautious when refusing applications as appeals can be expensive for local councils. As you already have 2 implementable consents (the original and the approved s73) it does not appear that this is a political issue. There is simply something about your latest proposal that they do not like.
Appeal formulated, and I am in the process of submitting it via the planning inspectorate portal.
However when I got to the section regarding the type of appeal, its not obvious which option I should tick for a section 73 refusal, (see attached screenshot).
I spoke to the helpline, initially they said tick box 5 for a section 73 refusal appeal, then changed their minds and said box 2! he then also went on to say the appeal inspector could refuse the entire application under appeal, regardless of the prior approval by the LA and not just the refusal of the latest 73 application if the wrong box is ticked !!!!!!
The process so far has been:-
Initial approval in 2015.
Refusal of a brand new application in 2017 for a completely different style of dwelling, and lost under appeal.
Approval of a section 73 making external design changes to the original approval, no volume increase. early 2018
Refusal of a latest 73 for alterations to the roof of the approved dwelling (2018 version) which was an increase in pitch from 32 degrees to 42 degrees and use of 3 open gables (one fronting the road) instead of 3 approved hips of the L shaped house. 12 % external volume increase of the entire house as a result. Two reasons given for refusal, first was massing, and the second was that I would not agree to a 106 for affordable housing ( no such 106 provision was in either the original approval or the last 73 approval)
All I need now is for my previous approved section 73 to be revoked, or the entire planning altogether. The roof increase is a nice to have, rather than essential.
So folks in the know, yet again I ask your advice, which box to tick just for this latest 73 refusal which will not affect any of the prior approvals
Thanks in advance :-)
oh just to add, 2 planning conditions of the original approval have been met and now discharged in writing by the LA, the dedicated access to the site has been established, and over 120 cubic metres of soil have been removed to take the site down to reduced ground level and the foundation trenches have started to be dug, so the original application (and the approved 73 version as it had the same 2 conditions) could be regarded as no longer extant, and the clock has stopped?
By the time the inspector gets here the foundations and ground floor slab should be finished.
However when I got to the section regarding the type of appeal, its not obvious which option I should tick for a section 73 refusal, (see attached screenshot).
I spoke to the helpline, initially they said tick box 5 for a section 73 refusal appeal, then changed their minds and said box 2! he then also went on to say the appeal inspector could refuse the entire application under appeal, regardless of the prior approval by the LA and not just the refusal of the latest 73 application if the wrong box is ticked !!!!!!
The process so far has been:-
Initial approval in 2015.
Refusal of a brand new application in 2017 for a completely different style of dwelling, and lost under appeal.
Approval of a section 73 making external design changes to the original approval, no volume increase. early 2018
Refusal of a latest 73 for alterations to the roof of the approved dwelling (2018 version) which was an increase in pitch from 32 degrees to 42 degrees and use of 3 open gables (one fronting the road) instead of 3 approved hips of the L shaped house. 12 % external volume increase of the entire house as a result. Two reasons given for refusal, first was massing, and the second was that I would not agree to a 106 for affordable housing ( no such 106 provision was in either the original approval or the last 73 approval)
All I need now is for my previous approved section 73 to be revoked, or the entire planning altogether. The roof increase is a nice to have, rather than essential.
So folks in the know, yet again I ask your advice, which box to tick just for this latest 73 refusal which will not affect any of the prior approvals
Thanks in advance :-)
oh just to add, 2 planning conditions of the original approval have been met and now discharged in writing by the LA, the dedicated access to the site has been established, and over 120 cubic metres of soil have been removed to take the site down to reduced ground level and the foundation trenches have started to be dug, so the original application (and the approved 73 version as it had the same 2 conditions) could be regarded as no longer extant, and the clock has stopped?
By the time the inspector gets here the foundations and ground floor slab should be finished.
Edited by PAUL500 on Tuesday 5th June 12:46
Problem is that just like lawyers there are good and bad ones, who tell you what you want to hear, take your money, produce a document regardles and then, post decision, do a 100% about turn and blame the decision maker.
So far I have found on here that just like you, those that are in the know and have nothing to gain or lose, simply say it how it is, which I prefer, even though it may not be what I want to hear.
However no one has said thus far that appealing a 73 could result in the loss of all the actual prior planning approvals!
When even the decision makers don't really know which box is to be ticked but warn you of the consequences of selecting the wrong one then it is worrying.
So far I have found on here that just like you, those that are in the know and have nothing to gain or lose, simply say it how it is, which I prefer, even though it may not be what I want to hear.
However no one has said thus far that appealing a 73 could result in the loss of all the actual prior planning approvals!
When even the decision makers don't really know which box is to be ticked but warn you of the consequences of selecting the wrong one then it is worrying.
Mr Pointy said:
Given that this is obviously an important project for you & that you've f
ked up several times already, why haven't you paid someone for professional advice?
Posters give their time & knowledge for free on here, but surely you must realise you're now just taking the piss?
How have I fked up several times already, why haven't you paid someone for professional advice?Posters give their time & knowledge for free on here, but surely you must realise you're now just taking the piss?
ked up? I won a recent section 73 application on my own and about to build a house that suits my needs, the rest is just a bonus now. I have simply been testing boundaries which are not at all clear.Had I used a planning consultant instead how would they have changed how the local authority handle the other applications, they would have lost under the same reasons anyways had they submitted my application on my behalf.
Not taking the piss, simply asking relevant questions, and no one has to answer if they feel that way. I also put a lot on input into threads on PH, its not a one way street like many posters.
Ask anyone who has had to endure the planning system what they think of it, its a minefield of greyness that can be manipulated by those with a little bit of power, and not even the professionals can often give a black of white answer up front.
I am lucky enough to have been involved in the construction game to cover quite a bit of my needs, had I not then a professional would have been the only option.
This is a car forum, and would be a pretty boring one if the standard answer when someone was having a problem with their car etc was to simply say "pay a mechanic" as they worked through the potential solutions and laid out the events to the readers as they happen.
I have read lots of threads over the years where the questioning and answering has helped me a hell of a lot in my own situation at the time, and I hope this thread does the same for others in my predicament in the future.
Edited by PAUL500 on Tuesday 5th June 13:16
At the start of this thread I did say I was asking others, not just you Equus, but you chose to reply anyway.
Its hardly taking the piss to asked a simple question like "does anyone know which of 5 boxes should be ticked" when its not at all clear even to the inspectorate. not like I am going through the process point by point looking for input on here.
Sorry you feel that way, as I have always indicated my appreciation of your input thus far.
I am not wasting anyones time, even you said to go the 73 route so that I could appeal a refusal, why settle with second best, when what I really want is still a possibility.
Edit
For anyone else interested, and seeing as I have ruffled a few feathers by asking a simple question, I have now emailed the inspectorate for a definitive answer in writing as to which box to tick in this situation, instead of relying on a telephone call, and will confirm back their answer on here once received, as well as update the thread post appeal decision.
Its hardly taking the piss to asked a simple question like "does anyone know which of 5 boxes should be ticked" when its not at all clear even to the inspectorate. not like I am going through the process point by point looking for input on here.
Sorry you feel that way, as I have always indicated my appreciation of your input thus far.
I am not wasting anyones time, even you said to go the 73 route so that I could appeal a refusal, why settle with second best, when what I really want is still a possibility.
Edit
For anyone else interested, and seeing as I have ruffled a few feathers by asking a simple question, I have now emailed the inspectorate for a definitive answer in writing as to which box to tick in this situation, instead of relying on a telephone call, and will confirm back their answer on here once received, as well as update the thread post appeal decision.
Edited by PAUL500 on Tuesday 5th June 14:00
OK. I've just logged on to the Appeals Portal for something else, so I thought I'd take a look for you.
You didn't attach a screenshot before, but I assume this is the screen you're referring to:
I'm not sure what you're blethering about. I can only imagine that you got a confusing answer from the helpdesk because you asked a confusing question (or, more likely, you asked a simple question in the same sort of rambling, complicated and incoherent way that you're putting questions to us).
The reason for the appeal is that the LPA has ................................
Why the dithering fk would you dream of ticking any box other than 2?
I could imagine why the Helpdesk might have initially considered option 6 (not 5) appropriate, if you gave them the full,. rambling diatribe that you've given us, and why they changed to option 2 once they'd managed to pick the bones out of what you're actually asking them.
I'm not sure why you think your previous approvals are no longer extant. As Elysium has already explained, a Section 73 creates a new consent which sits alongside the 'parent' consent.The parent consent is not extinguished or superseded: it remains intact and unamended.
You didn't attach a screenshot before, but I assume this is the screen you're referring to:
I'm not sure what you're blethering about. I can only imagine that you got a confusing answer from the helpdesk because you asked a confusing question (or, more likely, you asked a simple question in the same sort of rambling, complicated and incoherent way that you're putting questions to us).
PAUL500 said:
...its not obvious which option I should tick for a section 73 refusal, (see attached screenshot).
- A Section 73 is an application to vary or remove a condition, yes?
- You have had your Section 73 application refused, yes?
- You wish to appeal against that refusal, do you not?
The reason for the appeal is that the LPA has ................................
Why the dithering f
k would you dream of ticking any box other than 2?I could imagine why the Helpdesk might have initially considered option 6 (not 5) appropriate, if you gave them the full,. rambling diatribe that you've given us, and why they changed to option 2 once they'd managed to pick the bones out of what you're actually asking them.
I'm not sure why you think your previous approvals are no longer extant. As Elysium has already explained, a Section 73 creates a new consent which sits alongside the 'parent' consent.The parent consent is not extinguished or superseded: it remains intact and unamended.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff