Can a Dvlmpnvt Mngr LPA overrule Plnng Inspectors Decision
Discussion
Background
Mini Supermarket being built next to local pub. Planning granted upon appeal with 10 specific conditions some of which relate to items having to be completed before the store can open
The store and the pub share the car park, used to be the pub traffic only before mini store approval.(although used as pedestrian shortcut) Traffic volumes were not an issue as based on projected volumes the car park was said to be used by both parties and met local authority requirements to meet expected volumes that mini store owner expected to use the site. Figures for volumes and justification prepared and published in a 70page report for the application and not considered to be a problem at either initial application or appea
The Planning Inspector on appeal made subject to following condition
Notwithstanding Condition *,the development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until car parking spaces and pedestrian route through the car park have been marked out in accordance with details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter' the car parking spaces and pedestrian routes through the car park shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.
The car park was marked out but only in front of the store area, the pub area was left unmarked (although pub not in use) This was brought to the attention of the local planning authority who
advised (13hrs. before store was due to open next morning) that as a result of assurances from the mini stores Project manager it allowed the store to open.
Is this within the power of someone from the local authority. Can detail reasons if it makes any difference.
Before got to this stage various "discusions" about site ownership and who has use of car park. At Appeal hearing mini store owner produced a site plan with all car park marked in blue and annotated as "Land within applicants control"
Is the agreement to allow the store to open legal?
Mini Supermarket being built next to local pub. Planning granted upon appeal with 10 specific conditions some of which relate to items having to be completed before the store can open
The store and the pub share the car park, used to be the pub traffic only before mini store approval.(although used as pedestrian shortcut) Traffic volumes were not an issue as based on projected volumes the car park was said to be used by both parties and met local authority requirements to meet expected volumes that mini store owner expected to use the site. Figures for volumes and justification prepared and published in a 70page report for the application and not considered to be a problem at either initial application or appea
The Planning Inspector on appeal made subject to following condition
Notwithstanding Condition *,the development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until car parking spaces and pedestrian route through the car park have been marked out in accordance with details which shall have previously been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter' the car parking spaces and pedestrian routes through the car park shall be retained in accordance with the approved details.
The car park was marked out but only in front of the store area, the pub area was left unmarked (although pub not in use) This was brought to the attention of the local planning authority who
advised (13hrs. before store was due to open next morning) that as a result of assurances from the mini stores Project manager it allowed the store to open.
Is this within the power of someone from the local authority. Can detail reasons if it makes any difference.
Before got to this stage various "discusions" about site ownership and who has use of car park. At Appeal hearing mini store owner produced a site plan with all car park marked in blue and annotated as "Land within applicants control"
Is the agreement to allow the store to open legal?
What plan was submitted to discharge the condition? Ultimately, the condition only requires a plan to be submitted and approved by the LPA. So if they've submitted a plan to discharge that condition, and it doesn't show that area marked up, and the LPA have signed it off, then it doesn't matter and they aren't in breach as they meet the requirements of the condition.
It won't have "overruled" the Inspectors decision.
If they've submitted a plan to discharge the condition that does show that area marked out, that's been approved by the LPA, and they haven't then marked it out, then they're in breach of the condition. And then enforcement would come down to the LPA. And if they've given the nod to go ahead anyway, then it's highly debateable that they'd then choose to take enforcement action given that they gave the nod.
It won't have "overruled" the Inspectors decision.
If they've submitted a plan to discharge the condition that does show that area marked out, that's been approved by the LPA, and they haven't then marked it out, then they're in breach of the condition. And then enforcement would come down to the LPA. And if they've given the nod to go ahead anyway, then it's highly debateable that they'd then choose to take enforcement action given that they gave the nod.
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 16th December 10:58
Edited by Swervin_Mervin on Wednesday 16th December 18:05
Thanks for info Swervin.
Lots of excuses from Planning manager regarding submission of plans and says received on day before and will not be approved before store is due to open. Advised mini store representative that store should not be open until approved(worded slightly different to this). Store representative said pub not open because of tier 3 so no pedestrians in car park and white lining for pedestrian walkways and parking spaces would be done asap once approved. Planning manager says not expedient to pursue formal enforcement at this stage in view of the temporary breach and said store could be opened The store rep was also responsible for store construction-numerous breaches (notified to LPA)of construction conditions - no action by enforcement for any of these.
So store opened with only half the car park marked out presumed this had been discharged as layout was same as that submitted to discharge another condition. This was for store delivery plan for commercial vehicles. This shows vehicle entering by one entrance, and exiting by another entrance. i.e entered into store car park and exited by pub car park- so commercial vehicles did not have to reverse on site.
The store delivery plan was submitted and discharged in 1 day based on when put into public domain(although store not due to open for another 3 months) BUT now shows vehicle only using store car park by achieved by reversing on site and not using pub car park although all car parking space/walkways etc marked out on plan inc pub part
So the drawing met requirements outlined in Appeal for parking etc but despite pub being closed and with all equipment on site pub car park markings not done. Have asked for copy of drawings submitted for car park marking approval -non received yet.
Would appear that appellant does not have access to all the car park as claimed at the appeal so car park markings and store delivery plan now showing use of store car park only.
Pub is little used ( even in non pandemic times) but could be easily developed but could be constrained if it does not have exclusive use of its own car park. Pub car park entrance has been coned off since store opening but easy for cars to get past and some stores delivery vehicles moved cones to gain entrance and/or exit
Lots of excuses from Planning manager regarding submission of plans and says received on day before and will not be approved before store is due to open. Advised mini store representative that store should not be open until approved(worded slightly different to this). Store representative said pub not open because of tier 3 so no pedestrians in car park and white lining for pedestrian walkways and parking spaces would be done asap once approved. Planning manager says not expedient to pursue formal enforcement at this stage in view of the temporary breach and said store could be opened The store rep was also responsible for store construction-numerous breaches (notified to LPA)of construction conditions - no action by enforcement for any of these.
So store opened with only half the car park marked out presumed this had been discharged as layout was same as that submitted to discharge another condition. This was for store delivery plan for commercial vehicles. This shows vehicle entering by one entrance, and exiting by another entrance. i.e entered into store car park and exited by pub car park- so commercial vehicles did not have to reverse on site.
The store delivery plan was submitted and discharged in 1 day based on when put into public domain(although store not due to open for another 3 months) BUT now shows vehicle only using store car park by achieved by reversing on site and not using pub car park although all car parking space/walkways etc marked out on plan inc pub part
So the drawing met requirements outlined in Appeal for parking etc but despite pub being closed and with all equipment on site pub car park markings not done. Have asked for copy of drawings submitted for car park marking approval -non received yet.
Would appear that appellant does not have access to all the car park as claimed at the appeal so car park markings and store delivery plan now showing use of store car park only.
Pub is little used ( even in non pandemic times) but could be easily developed but could be constrained if it does not have exclusive use of its own car park. Pub car park entrance has been coned off since store opening but easy for cars to get past and some stores delivery vehicles moved cones to gain entrance and/or exit
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff