Laurawh

It’s all ready to go 👍🏼

Hi @Temp that’s correct but our planning agent asked what they would do if we withdrew and applied again in a couple of weeks when we were complete and they said they’d still address the original dwelling and replacement size. So that’s why we went ahead with a s78. The IPA asked for evidence we are “substantially complete” which we’ve proven with images and also a document showing our move in date which is 10th May.

Hi all we bought a bungalow in the national park in 2017. It had planning permission to turn into a dormer bungalow and we provided evidence that it needed to be demolished. The NP made us reduce the size significantly and now we are almost complete we want to put in for an extension. It has been rejected by the LPA and is now at appeal but because the LPA are referring to the original dwelling and we applied for householder development the IPA have requested we either withdraw our application or transfer it out to a S78 full appeal. since this is a problem we will probably always face (NP referring to original dwelling) we decided to transfer to a s78. the LPA have refused on the grounds of p135 of the national planning framework ”Local planning authorities should seek to ensure that the quality of approved development is not materially diminished between permission and completion, as a result of changes being made to the permitted scheme (for example through changes to approved details such as the materials used).” and their local plan that you cannot develop in open countryside. However, by their own definition open countryside is sporadic settlement and a small village is 35+ houses. As a village of 40+ addresses we think we fit under a small village. The issue is the area is divided between national park and another local authority (literally a road between the two sides) and because that one side which is national park only has 12 houses they’re calling it open countryside. We think the village needs to be viewed in its entirety and we have argued that in our appeal. when we applied our replacement build they tried to get us to agree to a local occupancy condition but we refused and managed to get them to agree to a principle residency. They also removed our permitted development rights. Our planning agent told us that just because they were removed didn’t mean we wouldn’t get planning but rather that they want to exercise more control over what we do. for background there are other houses within the national park who have extended and who have been allowed to use materials such as render. They are ultra modern buildings. I think the national park recognised their error with these builds and so they’re trying to exercise more control over us. Does anyone have any experience of a similar situation? I’ve been told by another planning expert that the LPA should not be referring to a replacement dwelling in their counter argument as that application was accepted and so they should be arguing against householder development instead. Has anyone tried to extend a replacement dwelling? Did the LPA refer to the replacement dwelling or the size of the original house when you did this? keen to know peoples thoughts on our situation and what you think the outcome will be. thanks Laura

Hi all, did anyone have any success in these scenarios? We are in exactly the same situation but we have put our plans in and the LPA are referring to the previous house throughout their response. It went to appeal and we are still awaiting an outcome. Just putting together another statement as requested by the IPA. James do you have the scenario your LPA accepted to hand? How did you find it? I’ll trail through our LPA tonight. Our property is in the national park so is also very tricky! thanks laura