Section 73 - Raising roof height by increasing pitch?
Discussion
Apologies Equus etc, I appreciate this is how you earn your income, but if you want to jump in that's great.
Bit of background here :-
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Anyway after I lost my appeal, and as advised on that thread I put in a section 73 to amend the external look of the already approved plans, more to suit my tastes such as larger windows, different design and colour, cedar style cladding and render rather than brick, those sort of things.
The risk was the LA would try to say its also a new house, so class it as a new application and claim the 106 process still stands.
The footprint, shape, location etc remained the same, apart from a balcony, and to my amazement they approved my application.
The one thing though I held back on was changing the roof shape, as I was worried that may tip the balance.
I have now submitted another section 73 which purely raises the pitch from 30 degrees to 42 degrees (which raises the ridge by a metre) and convert two side and one front hip into open gables instead.
Everything though is still the same as the original again, i.e footrprint, layout, habitable space etc (I just want to future proof the build by having the option of attic rooms later on if required)
My latest application was based on the changes to the plans of the original plus now the roof change, all to the original application approval number plus the revised approval number.
This was 2 weeks ago, the LA accepted the application, but low and behold this time they are now stating they view it as a new dwelling under a new application and want a £40k 106 yet again.
Are they simply trying it on this time, or has raising the roof height taken it all out of the realms of a 73?
Should I have just applied to make changes to the new revised approval and not referenced the original approval maybe?
Anyone come up against such when an LA has refused a 73 as it goes beyond the remit of such?
Guessing my only option may be to refute their claims, state there are sufficient case studies of larger changes approved under 73s and then take it to appeal if they refuse my 73 application? yet more time delays if I have to do that.
Thanks in advance for all input :-)
Bit of background here :-
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Anyway after I lost my appeal, and as advised on that thread I put in a section 73 to amend the external look of the already approved plans, more to suit my tastes such as larger windows, different design and colour, cedar style cladding and render rather than brick, those sort of things.
The risk was the LA would try to say its also a new house, so class it as a new application and claim the 106 process still stands.
The footprint, shape, location etc remained the same, apart from a balcony, and to my amazement they approved my application.
The one thing though I held back on was changing the roof shape, as I was worried that may tip the balance.
I have now submitted another section 73 which purely raises the pitch from 30 degrees to 42 degrees (which raises the ridge by a metre) and convert two side and one front hip into open gables instead.
Everything though is still the same as the original again, i.e footrprint, layout, habitable space etc (I just want to future proof the build by having the option of attic rooms later on if required)
My latest application was based on the changes to the plans of the original plus now the roof change, all to the original application approval number plus the revised approval number.
This was 2 weeks ago, the LA accepted the application, but low and behold this time they are now stating they view it as a new dwelling under a new application and want a £40k 106 yet again.
Are they simply trying it on this time, or has raising the roof height taken it all out of the realms of a 73?
Should I have just applied to make changes to the new revised approval and not referenced the original approval maybe?
Anyone come up against such when an LA has refused a 73 as it goes beyond the remit of such?
Guessing my only option may be to refute their claims, state there are sufficient case studies of larger changes approved under 73s and then take it to appeal if they refuse my 73 application? yet more time delays if I have to do that.
Thanks in advance for all input :-)
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 23 May 18:46
Yes, this latest 73 application is purely just raising the pitch and swapping out the hips for open gables, which was then done to the revised approved drawings granted a few weeks ago under the last 73.
I did not even put in a staircase to the attic space or any windows, velux etc, the plan was to use room in roof trusses, treat it just as storage space but maybe sometime in the future to convert it to habitable space, and as they have removed my PD rights I would have had to do such under a new application anyway.
In my latest application I did reference both the original approval number and the revised approval number, I am wondering if they are going to claim this roof change plus the previous approved 73 changes, in combination now take it past a 73 of the original approval, I guess I will have to wait and see.
They have already accepted this application as a 73 and cashed the cheque last week, so I thought they may be on a sticky wicket now saying it needs to be a full new application plus all that that entails.
No, there are no links at all to any 106 in either the original or the revised approvals, the 106 related to my completely separate new application which was refused, as I would not agree to a 106 on that particular application.
I am aware of a similar example under the same planning officer where a roof change was refused under a 73 and won under appeal about 2 years ago, so it does sound then like I just need to refute their claim, stand my ground that it is covered by a 73, reference that appeal and cross my fingers they do not want the hassle of going to appeal yet again, but this time with just the claim its not covered by a 73 and no other reason.
I stumped up the extra money and accepted the extra time by going 73 instead of non material minor amendment based on your previous advice I could actually appeal a 73 refusal unlike a non material, so thanks for that titbit as well.
I did not even put in a staircase to the attic space or any windows, velux etc, the plan was to use room in roof trusses, treat it just as storage space but maybe sometime in the future to convert it to habitable space, and as they have removed my PD rights I would have had to do such under a new application anyway.
In my latest application I did reference both the original approval number and the revised approval number, I am wondering if they are going to claim this roof change plus the previous approved 73 changes, in combination now take it past a 73 of the original approval, I guess I will have to wait and see.
They have already accepted this application as a 73 and cashed the cheque last week, so I thought they may be on a sticky wicket now saying it needs to be a full new application plus all that that entails.
No, there are no links at all to any 106 in either the original or the revised approvals, the 106 related to my completely separate new application which was refused, as I would not agree to a 106 on that particular application.
I am aware of a similar example under the same planning officer where a roof change was refused under a 73 and won under appeal about 2 years ago, so it does sound then like I just need to refute their claim, stand my ground that it is covered by a 73, reference that appeal and cross my fingers they do not want the hassle of going to appeal yet again, but this time with just the claim its not covered by a 73 and no other reason.
I stumped up the extra money and accepted the extra time by going 73 instead of non material minor amendment based on your previous advice I could actually appeal a 73 refusal unlike a non material, so thanks for that titbit as well.
Edited by PAUL500 on Friday 13th April 19:50
That's good news.
I can crack on with the build regardless, and by the time I get to roof level I would know the outcome of an appeal if I need to go that way.
Appreciate your feedback thanks.
LA planners really do not help the negative impression they have in the industry by playing these games.
Do they really think I would pay a £40k ransom just to raise my roof up a bit on a house I can build anyway.
I can crack on with the build regardless, and by the time I get to roof level I would know the outcome of an appeal if I need to go that way.
Appreciate your feedback thanks.
LA planners really do not help the negative impression they have in the industry by playing these games.
Do they really think I would pay a £40k ransom just to raise my roof up a bit on a house I can build anyway.
Edited by PAUL500 on Friday 13th April 21:26
Well 8 weeks and a day later and I have just received the refusal for my 73 application!
Based on the same two reasons they refused my last totally independent application for a completely separate very modern design.
This refusal is for a 73 application for an already approved typical Barratt etc L shaped detached house, the only difference being a change from a 32 degree pitch roof to a 42 degree one, which raises the ridge by about a metre and swapping out the two pitched end gables to open gables, and the same for the one at the front, the house below the fascias is identical still, as is the roof covering. The reason I did this is I want to future proof the house and install room in roof trusses. I included no dorma, velux etc or made it habitable space in this application.
A few weeks after submitting the application the LA contacted me to say they regard the roof change as now meaning its a completely new house and as such a new application, not a 73 and therefore falls under the remit of the recently introduced section 106 rules for such for which they require a £40k ransom, I again refuted this and stated its the same already approved house with just a revised roof, I never heard back from them after that until now.
Their two stated reasons are that by means of its scale and massing it forms and incongruous form of development! ( its the same bloody house with a slightly different roof style, which is surrounded by bland 1960s boxes all with such roofs!
The other is that as I would not enter into a 106 is does not meet the needs of the LAs current rules regarding new housing being required to pay 106 contributions.
The first part I can take my chances with the appeal inspector, its clearly made up just to back up the second reason, 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 suspect we are in new ground here?
The LA have already approved one 73 on this application, that being a redesign to the windows and surface finishes of the walls, for which they did not demand a 106, its the increase in roof volume they are now claiming makes it a brand new dwelling????
The existing approval is no longer extant as I have already met and had two planning conditions signed off and have removed approx 100 tons of soil to take the plot down to reduced levels for the foundations to be dug, I have also formed a new access to the plot.
By the time the inspector gets to site the founds will be in place as I can crack on with the approved design right up to sole plate of whichever roof anyway.
I would have reverted back to hips as long as I could keep the 42 degree pitch, as its the height I need but they never raised massing as an issue until the refusal. Can I offer this as an option in my appeal to the inspector?
Based on the same two reasons they refused my last totally independent application for a completely separate very modern design.
This refusal is for a 73 application for an already approved typical Barratt etc L shaped detached house, the only difference being a change from a 32 degree pitch roof to a 42 degree one, which raises the ridge by about a metre and swapping out the two pitched end gables to open gables, and the same for the one at the front, the house below the fascias is identical still, as is the roof covering. The reason I did this is I want to future proof the house and install room in roof trusses. I included no dorma, velux etc or made it habitable space in this application.
A few weeks after submitting the application the LA contacted me to say they regard the roof change as now meaning its a completely new house and as such a new application, not a 73 and therefore falls under the remit of the recently introduced section 106 rules for such for which they require a £40k ransom, I again refuted this and stated its the same already approved house with just a revised roof, I never heard back from them after that until now.
Their two stated reasons are that by means of its scale and massing it forms and incongruous form of development! ( its the same bloody house with a slightly different roof style, which is surrounded by bland 1960s boxes all with such roofs!
The other is that as I would not enter into a 106 is does not meet the needs of the LAs current rules regarding new housing being required to pay 106 contributions.
The first part I can take my chances with the appeal inspector, its clearly made up just to back up the second reason, 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 suspect we are in new ground here?
The LA have already approved one 73 on this application, that being a redesign to the windows and surface finishes of the walls, for which they did not demand a 106, its the increase in roof volume they are now claiming makes it a brand new dwelling????
The existing approval is no longer extant as I have already met and had two planning conditions signed off and have removed approx 100 tons of soil to take the plot down to reduced levels for the foundations to be dug, I have also formed a new access to the plot.
By the time the inspector gets to site the founds will be in place as I can crack on with the approved design right up to sole plate of whichever roof anyway.
I would have reverted back to hips as long as I could keep the 42 degree pitch, as its the height I need but they never raised massing as an issue until the refusal. Can I offer this as an option in my appeal to the inspector?
Edited by PAUL500 on Wednesday 23 May 18:48
The LA recently changed the rules from 40 plus units requiring a 106, down to one unit or more. So yes they can now demand it, and yes at appeal the inspector did state they are entitled to, but the sum can be negotiated. For units of 10 or less they can just take the cash, it does not have to be earmarked for a particular project.
However I bought the plot with planning for a house already on it, which was granted prior to the rules being changed. So there is no surplus cash in the budget to pay a 106, I paid market price inc the planning. The seller was lucky they got the planning when they did, as they would now have had to stump up for the 106 and not been able to sell for any more than market price anyway.
My first attempt was a completely new design, on a fresh application, that is when the 106 demand was first made. I refused, they rejected, I lost at appeal.
So I took the advice from here and submitted a section 73 to modify the existing approvals external features and materials, and that was granted, with no demand for a 106. That was a few months back
I then submitted another just to raise the roof on that latest approval, that is when they made the 106 demand yet again, I refused, they rejected.
I knew I could appeal a 73 refusal, again based on the good advice from here.
My question is can they now retrospectively apply a 106 to a permission granted prior to the rules on such being changed? They clearly seem to think so, I can find no previous cases of such either way. Surely they set the precedent for "no they cannot" when they made no such demand last time on a 73 just this year?
I will appeal as its just daft to fit a roof I don't want, but it is still most cost effective to do so, finish the house then apply to raise it, rather than pay £40k just for the pleasure here and now.
Its quite clear that had I agreed to pay the latest ransom then suddenly the other reason for refusal would have just vanished! they made no mention of bulking throughout the 8 week period, only a demand for money. Had they said it was too bulky then I would have amended the application back to hips and just altered the pitch.
The other daft thing is they recently amended the rules once gain so that self builders are exempt for paying up front as long as they live in the house for 3 years after completion, so the latest application would have fallen under that rule, but I do not want to tie myself in a 3 year clause just to raise the roof a tad, as if I need to sell in that period then you have to stump up the cash anyway.
I am not against the LA having a chunk of the increased value from land with no planning to land with such, they have to pay for their housing stock somehow now the gov have pulled away all the grants, but in my case common sense shows there in no increase in value, I just want to future proof my roof.
The current permission has all PD rights removed anyway so I cannot add velux, dorma etc without applying to the LA in the future, so they still have a control.
I have a feeling I am in the usual grey area and need to just put my case forward and see what the appeal officer thinks. He did say last time if I had made a start on the existing permission, then no extra unit was being added so the 106 demand would not then be valid.
I guess if I lose this appeal I can resubmit yet again for free, with hips rather than open gables, its all the wasted time that is frustrating, no common sense being applied by the LA. I will put that option into the appeal anyway, as last time the inspector did also hint as to what could be acceptable in a resubmission.
However I bought the plot with planning for a house already on it, which was granted prior to the rules being changed. So there is no surplus cash in the budget to pay a 106, I paid market price inc the planning. The seller was lucky they got the planning when they did, as they would now have had to stump up for the 106 and not been able to sell for any more than market price anyway.
My first attempt was a completely new design, on a fresh application, that is when the 106 demand was first made. I refused, they rejected, I lost at appeal.
So I took the advice from here and submitted a section 73 to modify the existing approvals external features and materials, and that was granted, with no demand for a 106. That was a few months back
I then submitted another just to raise the roof on that latest approval, that is when they made the 106 demand yet again, I refused, they rejected.
I knew I could appeal a 73 refusal, again based on the good advice from here.
My question is can they now retrospectively apply a 106 to a permission granted prior to the rules on such being changed? They clearly seem to think so, I can find no previous cases of such either way. Surely they set the precedent for "no they cannot" when they made no such demand last time on a 73 just this year?
I will appeal as its just daft to fit a roof I don't want, but it is still most cost effective to do so, finish the house then apply to raise it, rather than pay £40k just for the pleasure here and now.
Its quite clear that had I agreed to pay the latest ransom then suddenly the other reason for refusal would have just vanished! they made no mention of bulking throughout the 8 week period, only a demand for money. Had they said it was too bulky then I would have amended the application back to hips and just altered the pitch.
The other daft thing is they recently amended the rules once gain so that self builders are exempt for paying up front as long as they live in the house for 3 years after completion, so the latest application would have fallen under that rule, but I do not want to tie myself in a 3 year clause just to raise the roof a tad, as if I need to sell in that period then you have to stump up the cash anyway.
I am not against the LA having a chunk of the increased value from land with no planning to land with such, they have to pay for their housing stock somehow now the gov have pulled away all the grants, but in my case common sense shows there in no increase in value, I just want to future proof my roof.
The current permission has all PD rights removed anyway so I cannot add velux, dorma etc without applying to the LA in the future, so they still have a control.
I have a feeling I am in the usual grey area and need to just put my case forward and see what the appeal officer thinks. He did say last time if I had made a start on the existing permission, then no extra unit was being added so the 106 demand would not then be valid.
I guess if I lose this appeal I can resubmit yet again for free, with hips rather than open gables, its all the wasted time that is frustrating, no common sense being applied by the LA. I will put that option into the appeal anyway, as last time the inspector did also hint as to what could be acceptable in a resubmission.
Edited by PAUL500 on Thursday 24th May 15:03
Its upto each LA whether they go CIL or 106 in their development plan. Most go CIL now I believe but VOG stuck with 106 as they can potentially squeeze more out of developers than under a structured framework. Under a CIL they could only have received about £15k instead of the £40k they want.
They did however relent in Feb of this year and introduced a self build exemption in line with those of the CIL policy. I do not want a potential big debt such as that hanging over the project until 3 years after completion though. £15k I could live with.
I can build the current house anyway without that risk, just frustrating that I cannot put a more practical roof on it at this stage.
They did however relent in Feb of this year and introduced a self build exemption in line with those of the CIL policy. I do not want a potential big debt such as that hanging over the project until 3 years after completion though. £15k I could live with.
I can build the current house anyway without that risk, just frustrating that I cannot put a more practical roof on it at this stage.
I own no other properties as a result of my divorce, so yep it is very much a very tight budget led self build!, which if my circumstances were to change again could mean I would have to sell it either during construction or soon after, so I simply cannot risk having even more money taken off me that has already happened!
This thread is more a sounding off for me, I will dust myself down and carry on regardless, I always do.
Having gone through the greyness of the family court system then planning seems to be very much the same. No one can give black and white answers, as interpretation of the rules change from LA to LA it seems.
This thread is more a sounding off for me, I will dust myself down and carry on regardless, I always do.
Having gone through the greyness of the family court system then planning seems to be very much the same. No one can give black and white answers, as interpretation of the rules change from LA to LA it seems.
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
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
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
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
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff