single storey extension to block of flats

[Equus]

twibs said:

ok... relevant anywhere ? or blind alley

That would be one for you to discuss with a solicitor.

Common sense suggests that the terms of a lease can be held only to apply to the lessee, not to the lessor, but it's not my field of expertise: I can only tell you that it is not considered 'material' in Planning terms, therefore is not something that the Planning Authority is allowed to take into account when reaching its decision.

[DonkeyApple]

Equus said:

DonkeyApple said:

Do you have any local public transport? Can you create a sensible argument that the new properties ought to be marketed to people without cars...

This is not within the LPA's gift: it would be seen as neither reasonable nor enforceable to impose such a requirement as a Planning Condition (and any Condition has to be both, by law)..

If the location is considered sufficiently sustainable to support it, you might pursue an argument that the apartments could be permitted without parking spaces, but you cannot then limit their occupation to non-car owners.

The spaces and their attendant hard surfacing will almost certainly need to be permeable (or otherwise 'sustainably' drained) in any event, and this can be controlled by Condition, so any envrionmental argument against their implementation is likely to be weak.

Thanks. I didn't mean to actually limit residents to those without cars. Poorly worded by me. I just meant they'd have no parking and have to fend for themselves on the mean streets.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

Things in your lease can't stop planning. If they can stop the planning being actioned.

If you have a defined right to use the communal gardens the landlord can't remove that right unilaterally.

Re parking the Richmond persued a policy ( now abandoned ) that a block of say 10 flats could only have 8 spaces. Did not matter if you had cast space. No plmpee parking allowed. Don't know if it was abandoned as it was daft or illegal.

[Equus]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Things in your lease can't stop planning. If they can stop the planning being actioned.

Did you mean to say that things in your lease can stop planning, if they can stop the Planning being actioned?

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

If you have a defined right to use the communal gardens the landlord can't remove that right unilaterally.

The operative word there is likely to be 'defined': it would need to be supported by a plan (or wording) identifying the areas that are considered communal. If the lease was drawn up by someone half-competent, it should allow the lessor to vary these areas, where necessary. But again, that's a separate issue to Planning, and one which the OP should refer to his Solicitor.

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Re parking the Richmond persued a policy ( now abandoned ) that a block of say 10 flats could only have 8 spaces. Did not matter if you had cast space. No plmpee parking allowed. Don't know if it was abandoned as it was daft or illegal.

NPPF Paragraph 112:



A policy pursued by Richmond is not applicable to an application submitted in Sheffield, of course.

[twibs]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

Things in your lease can't stop planning. If they can stop the planning being actioned.

If you have a defined right to use the communal gardens the landlord can't remove that right unilaterally.

To clarify, planning can be approved but things in the lease can stop it being actioned ?? need to know more on this. Thanks.

[Equus]

twibs said:

To clarify, planning can be approved but things in the lease can stop it being actioned ?? need to know more on this. Thanks.

Simply: Planning permission does not give you carte blanche to implement development if you lack other necessary rights.

I could submit a Planning application to demolish Buckingham Palace and replace it with a hostel for asylum seekers and, provided I serve notice on the King, the LPA would be obliged to assess the application on its material planning merits. It would doubtless be refused on heritage grounds, but that's beside the point: my lack of ownership of the land would not be a valid consideration. But if they did grant me Planning Permission, I still couldn't just rock up and demolish Buck House, because I don't own it.

It may be that there are other obstacles that prevent your landlord implementing the work, even if he is granted Planning Permission, but these are not material to the decision making process, so don't confuse yourself over them at this stage... there's no point in raising them as part of a Planning objection.

There is case law around things we call 'Grampian Conditions', which prevents the imposition of a negatively worded Planning Condition where there is no reasonable possibility of the Condition being met within the life of the consent*, but again, don't confuse yourself with this stuff: it is unlikely to be a permission-killer in your case.





* Eg: If a Condition were imposed to say that the parking spaces had to be implemented before any of the new flats were occupied, the Condition would be deemed unlawful if you were able to prove that there is no reasonable prospect of the parking spaces being delivered, but this would typically only apply if the parking spaces were on land owned by a third party. You don't want to get into this sort of smart-arse argument on a Planning objection unless you are very sure of your ground - the Developer's Planning Consultant will tie you in knots.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I was ( still am ) on my phone so apologies for the typo.

There is another thread running where the op wants to spilt a plot but ( may or may not ) have the required access right.

This is the same. Planning is judged on planning merits but if actioning that planning requires the freeholder to remove things on the site that you and other leaseholders have rights to then he can only proceed with your agreement which means likely giving you cash !

However ... the planning would likely say something like the flats can't be occupied until the parking is in place.

So he can build it but they can't be occupied. Now in the real world he can rent them out but won't be able to sell them (the lawyer will pick up that the condition is not discharged ( you hope ).

Now renting is in breach as there is no parking but for that to matter ( A) someone must report it to planning enforcement. (B) enforcement must visit (c) they must consider it in the public interest to persue if ( making Tennants homeless will that be in the public interest I don't know.

So they serve an enforcement notice. They put in an application to drop the parking condition. It fails. They appeal. A year later they get a yes or no. So the process can go on for years before if is an issue and in my view ( what do I know !) they would not sling out Tennants for the sake of a few parking spaces - other opinions are welcome !

At the end of the day is the landlord law abiding or not ?

[twibs]

darent answer that last question....

Thanks all for the advice, it really is appreciated by all residents.
In the process of looking at previous rejections ,of which there aren't many. Along with specific guidelines around car parking, waste collection and general appearance

[twibs]

just to bump this back up... lots of objections have gone in based on and quoting nppf. All we get back from planning is ...its permitted development, they seem to think anything can and will be built.

Is there particular policy/advice I can point them to that says look here you muppet, you need to consider x y z in a prior application. ??