Section 73 - Raising roof height by increasing pitch?
Discussion
For anyone else in my situation in the future.
It seems in Wales us Celts have different boxes to the Saxons.
Attached are my options from the screen shot.
I was quite clear to the inspectorate helpdesk my situation yesterday on the telephone, we went through it a few times, first he said box 5, then backtracked and said box 2.
However in writing I have just had from the inspectorate the following:-
"My advice is that you should tick the box that indicates this is an appeal against the LPA’s decision to “Refuse planning permission for the proposed development”. The important point is to ensure that you enter the correct Local Planning Authority (LPA) reference for the most recent Section 73 application in the relevant field, and the corresponding date of the decision on that one.
You may also wish to include a narrative in your Grounds of Appeal to clarify that you are appealing against the most recent decision refusing to vary the roof redesign."
Which is box 1, the same as the English version! we Welsh don't have that particular version of box 2!
Equus you seem to get a kick out of being rude for the sake of it.
Clear as mud to even people involved in this every day.
With regards the extant matter, the reason the LA state a 106 is applicable is that a residential unit does not exist on the plot, given that I have now started on the original approval it is no longer extant, the clock has stopped on that application and I could continue right through completion based on that original design at my leisure.
Those same works however also apply to the later 73 approval so that is also no longer extant either.
As hinted by the inspector in his report at my last appeal, he suggested making a start on the existing approval so that it is no longer extant and then the LA cannot claim a legal residential unit is not associated with the plot.
It seems in Wales us Celts have different boxes to the Saxons.
Attached are my options from the screen shot.
I was quite clear to the inspectorate helpdesk my situation yesterday on the telephone, we went through it a few times, first he said box 5, then backtracked and said box 2.
However in writing I have just had from the inspectorate the following:-
"My advice is that you should tick the box that indicates this is an appeal against the LPA’s decision to “Refuse planning permission for the proposed development”. The important point is to ensure that you enter the correct Local Planning Authority (LPA) reference for the most recent Section 73 application in the relevant field, and the corresponding date of the decision on that one.
You may also wish to include a narrative in your Grounds of Appeal to clarify that you are appealing against the most recent decision refusing to vary the roof redesign."
Which is box 1, the same as the English version! we Welsh don't have that particular version of box 2!
Equus you seem to get a kick out of being rude for the sake of it.
Clear as mud to even people involved in this every day.
With regards the extant matter, the reason the LA state a 106 is applicable is that a residential unit does not exist on the plot, given that I have now started on the original approval it is no longer extant, the clock has stopped on that application and I could continue right through completion based on that original design at my leisure.
Those same works however also apply to the later 73 approval so that is also no longer extant either.
As hinted by the inspector in his report at my last appeal, he suggested making a start on the existing approval so that it is no longer extant and then the LA cannot claim a legal residential unit is not associated with the plot.
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 6th June 15:05
Having just reported the anomaly to the inspectorate, they confirmed even they did not know the actual correct box was missing in the Welsh version!
Now that is something you would have thought a planning professional locally would have actually picked up at some point prior and reported, so that it could be rectified! says something about asking questions yourself rather than relying on using an expert instead.
Now that is something you would have thought a planning professional locally would have actually picked up at some point prior and reported, so that it could be rectified! says something about asking questions yourself rather than relying on using an expert instead.
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 6th June 15:29
PAUL500 said:
"My advice is that you should tick the box that indicates this is an appeal against the LPA’s decision to “Refuse planning permission for the proposed development”. The important point is to ensure that you enter the correct Local Planning Authority (LPA) reference for the most recent Section 73 application in the relevant field, and the corresponding date of the decision on that one.
I would agree with them.As I (and others) have said, a Section 73 creates a new permission which stands alongside the original, so in the absence of a specific box just for the variation/removal of a Condition, what they have said makes sense.
And as they have said, the Section 73 will have its own reference number, which - backed up by what you say in the grounds of appeal - is what really counts anyway.
I am rude to people who waste my time unnecessarily. Had you included this screenshot originally, and asked a question that was brief and to the point, you wouldn't have got the answer you did.
PAUL500 said:
With regards the extant matter, the reason the LA state a 106 is applicable is that a residential unit does not exist on the plot, given that I have now started on the original approval it is no longer extant, the clock has stopped on that application and I could continue right through completion based on that original design at my leisure.
Those same works however also apply to the later 73 approval so that is also no longer extant either.
As hinted by the inspector in his report at my last appeal, he suggested making a start on the existing approval so that it is no longer extant and then the LA cannot claim a legal residential unit is not associated with the plot.
I don't think the word 'extant' means what you think it does.Those same works however also apply to the later 73 approval so that is also no longer extant either.
As hinted by the inspector in his report at my last appeal, he suggested making a start on the existing approval so that it is no longer extant and then the LA cannot claim a legal residential unit is not associated with the plot.
It simply means 'still in existence'. The original approval is still extant, as is the later (approved) Section 73.
If it wasn't still extant, you couldn't (lawfully) have commenced work on it.
I was referring to how the term was used in the previous appeal both by the LA and the inspector to indicate the approved works had yet to commence on the plot, therefore a residential unit did not yet exist, hence the LA could claim the new application was for 1 unit or more and the 106 applied as a result.
If a unit did legally exist, which is would once works had started and the clock stopped on the approved application deadline then a 106 could not be applied seemed to be what the inspector was hinting at, but who knows.
As usual with planning, its all iffs butts and maybes depending on who is interpreting what.
Why plain English cannot be used, so even the man on the street can understand is beyond me, which is why Joe Public detests the planning system.
Anyway, my appeal is now in and I will update the thread on the outcome in 12 weeks or so. I am not holding my breath, so will carry on regardless with the current approvals until I get to the roof sole plate and then install one or the other.
If a unit did legally exist, which is would once works had started and the clock stopped on the approved application deadline then a 106 could not be applied seemed to be what the inspector was hinting at, but who knows.
As usual with planning, its all iffs butts and maybes depending on who is interpreting what.
Why plain English cannot be used, so even the man on the street can understand is beyond me, which is why Joe Public detests the planning system.
Anyway, my appeal is now in and I will update the thread on the outcome in 12 weeks or so. I am not holding my breath, so will carry on regardless with the current approvals until I get to the roof sole plate and then install one or the other.
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 6th June 16:31
PAUL500 said:
I was referring to how the term was used in the previous appeal both by the LA and the inspector to indicate the approved works had yet to commence on the plot...Why plain English cannot be used, so even the man on the street can understand is beyond me
The only way they could have used the word in that context is if they had said that a dwelling (not a Planning Approval) was not yet extant... and it still isn't: commencing a Planning approval does not create a dwelling (in legal terms). Occupying the dwelling (ie. bringing it into use) does that.A planning approval is extant from the day the approval notice is issued. If commenced, it remains extant indefinitely. If not commenced, it ceases to be extant on the date the approval expires if not implemented.
The word is perfectly clear in its meaning to us Anglo Saxons. Perhaps you should have dealt with the applications in Welsh, if you struggle with English as your second language?
Update time, as we all hate threads which never have a conclusion.
Anyway I won my appeal
The inspector stated that the increase in roof pitch had no detrimental effect to the immediate vicinity (this point was clearly made up by the LA just to try to prop up/justify the second reason for refusal).
With regards the second reason (which was the real reason they refused my application), being that I would not stump up their section 106 ransom demand for £29k! the inspector stated they had no legitimate basis to make such a demand. It was not a totally new stand alone application as the LA claimed (just because it becomes one legally once granted), it was a modification via a section 73 of an existing approval.
So that was 8 weeks to the day the LA wasted my time with, and then another 15 weeks going through the appeal, plus potentially whatever £££ a planning advisor would have charged me to produce the appeal.
What will be the repercussions of this to the LA?, nothing, nadder, diddly squat! where as they should be prosecuted for demanding a vast sum of money with menaces, i.e no cash, no approval!)
Moral of the story, don't be pushed around by jobsworth civil servants with a little bit of power, stand up for yourself and you don't always need "experts" to fight your corner, as none could confirm to me that this should have been the outcome all along.
Onwards and upwards now, literally!
Anyway I won my appeal
The inspector stated that the increase in roof pitch had no detrimental effect to the immediate vicinity (this point was clearly made up by the LA just to try to prop up/justify the second reason for refusal).
With regards the second reason (which was the real reason they refused my application), being that I would not stump up their section 106 ransom demand for £29k! the inspector stated they had no legitimate basis to make such a demand. It was not a totally new stand alone application as the LA claimed (just because it becomes one legally once granted), it was a modification via a section 73 of an existing approval.
So that was 8 weeks to the day the LA wasted my time with, and then another 15 weeks going through the appeal, plus potentially whatever £££ a planning advisor would have charged me to produce the appeal.
What will be the repercussions of this to the LA?, nothing, nadder, diddly squat! where as they should be prosecuted for demanding a vast sum of money with menaces, i.e no cash, no approval!)
Moral of the story, don't be pushed around by jobsworth civil servants with a little bit of power, stand up for yourself and you don't always need "experts" to fight your corner, as none could confirm to me that this should have been the outcome all along.
Onwards and upwards now, literally!
Edited by PAUL500 on Friday 23 November 23:53
PAUL500 said:
...you don't always need "experts" to fight your corner, as none could confirm to me that this should have been the outcome all along.
In fairness, that's because the outcome was not guaranteed, so they would have had to have been idiots to do so - especially when you seem to want the information from 'experts' for nothing.This is a discussion forum about all forms of building/construction matters, we the long term members of pistonheads ask questions related to such, no one is obliged to answer.
The process works on give and take, wherever I am able to help a fellow member I do so, and would not expect to receive a payment for my willingly given information.
Threads like this seem to crop up on various search engines, so it should now be of help to anyone in a similar circumstance to me even if they do not use pistonheads.
The process works on give and take, wherever I am able to help a fellow member I do so, and would not expect to receive a payment for my willingly given information.
Threads like this seem to crop up on various search engines, so it should now be of help to anyone in a similar circumstance to me even if they do not use pistonheads.
PAUL500 said:
The process works on give and take...
But you must appreciate that for you as a QS there would be a difference between someone asking (say) 'can anyone suggest a rough price per m2 for construction of a semi in the east midlands' and 'here are my plans; I demand that you provide me with a full bill of quantities, along with all your working out and a list of suitable suppliers'?Ordinarily, I wouldn't be so churlish as to observe that a brief skim of your posting history suggests an awful lot of take, and not a lot of give, on this part of the forum... but since you choose to snipe (inaccurately) at the very people without whose advice you admit (in your 2nd post on this thread) that you wouldn't procedurally have been in a position to appeal in the first place, I'll make an exception.
PAUL500 said:
With regards the second reason (which was the real reason they refused my application), being that I would not stump up their section 106 ransom demand for £29k! the inspector stated they had no legitimate basis to make such a demand. It was not a totally new stand alone application as the LA claimed (just because it becomes one legally once granted), it was a modification via a section 73 of an existing approval.
That was not the reason why they refused the application. You already had two implementable approvals - the original and the first s73. You say that you have commenced work under both, which would mean that they are valid in perpetuity.
On that basis, even if this was the LPA's motivation, there is nothing to ransom.
The LPA's 'reasons' would have been clearly stated on the refusal. The inspector has disagreed with them and that is why your appeal has been upheld.
I am pleased you have got what you wanted, but all this 'stuff' you have written about the LPA wasting your time or holding you to ransom is just noise. The situation was actually very straightforward.
Had the LA not introduced its new 106 money grab on one unit or more they would have just waived my section 73 through to approval, that is clear, so yes it was a ransom demand.
The inspectors report is also very clear, the LA never had a leg to stand on for either reasons for refusal of the 73, so again yes the LA wasted my time, theirs and the inspectors.
Equus you assume by "experts" I was referencing you, when in fact I consulted more than just this forum, and right at the start of the thread I did state you had no obligation to comment, but you chose to anyway.
I also stated in my update, you do not always have to rely on experts, rather than never rely on them, did I bruise you ego?
Best you do not jump onto any other of my threads, I am told in your previous guise as Sam68 you gained quite a negative reputation on here, which is why you re invented yourself with your new poncy title, but it seems old habits die hard.
The inspectors report is also very clear, the LA never had a leg to stand on for either reasons for refusal of the 73, so again yes the LA wasted my time, theirs and the inspectors.
Equus you assume by "experts" I was referencing you, when in fact I consulted more than just this forum, and right at the start of the thread I did state you had no obligation to comment, but you chose to anyway.
I also stated in my update, you do not always have to rely on experts, rather than never rely on them, did I bruise you ego?
Best you do not jump onto any other of my threads, I am told in your previous guise as Sam68 you gained quite a negative reputation on here, which is why you re invented yourself with your new poncy title, but it seems old habits die hard.
PAUL500 said:
...did I bruise you ego?
Not at all. In fact, I think that 'massaged' is the word you're looking for: it's been amusing to see how long it's taken you to blunder into the answer to a very simple question - which you have now done only because the Planning Inspector assessed it correctly. on 23rd May PAUL500 said:
The other (reason for refusal of the S73) is that as I would not enter into a 106 is (sic) does not meet the needs of the LAs current rules regarding new housing being required to pay 106 contributions.
... and its that second one I need the wisdom of the planning guys please.
The approved application was in 2015 prior to the LA adopting the requirement for 106 contributions for single dwellings, as a result can an LA now retrospectively apply such to an existing approval under a 73?
I deliberately didn't explicitly answer this at the time, because I was getting tired of you taking the piss (hence the TL:DR response), but the answer to this question is really very straightforward, and the Appeals Inspector's decision is to do with a very simple point of law, not your 'genius' for arguing your case. The answer, for anyone reading this thread in the future:... and its that second one I need the wisdom of the planning guys please.
The approved application was in 2015 prior to the LA adopting the requirement for 106 contributions for single dwellings, as a result can an LA now retrospectively apply such to an existing approval under a 73?
Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act said:
On such an application the local planning authority shall consider only the question of the conditions subject to which planning permission should be granted...
(my bold)It's that easy... and if you'd paid a competent Planning Consultant to manage your original S73 application, they would have pointed this out to the LPA and probably precluded this reason for refusal back in May.
Still, I'm sure you've found the last six months' wait a stimulating and educational contribution to your project.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 25th November 17:06
PAUL500 said:
Had the LA not introduced its new 106 money grab on one unit or more they would have just waived my section 73 through to approval, that is clear, so yes it was a ransom demand.
They approved your previous s73 application AFTER they introduced the 'ransom'Did you forget that?
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff