harry_angel

This is, indeed, the nub of it. There just aren't enough penalties, deterrents and other nasty sh*t waiting round the corner for poorly operated, poorly managed, poorly administered LPAs. Central government needs to come down much harder on them, there needs to be all manner of penalties both financial and in terms of powers being taken away, than presently. I think even the most cavalier of us (me being one) recognise the need for planning dpts, planning laws, a process, a system etc but what we've actually got is a farce, with these miniature, £30k a year, graduated-two-summers-ago Hitlers wielding their power with absolutely impunity and no regard for homeowners, homeowners' vast personal investments in the regeneration of buildings and areas, and only through-gritted-teeth regard for what the Planning Inspectorate ACTUALLY TELLS THEM TO F*CKING DO. How many signatures are needed to get something discussed in the commons? It's actually good/bad for my blood pressure and circulation to type-rant about these absolute weapons-grade numpties.

@NLC consider yourself fortunate you didn't pay the application fee AND over £1000 of planning consultant fees! All for the magnificent privilege of what was mine in the first place, and should never have been removed originally...like I said before: A DISGRACE. Best advice would be to run a Google search on removal of PD rights + a council's name ie "removal of permitted development rights class west oxfordshire council". Run those variants repeatedly until you find some cases where people have applied to get them back, and succeeded, and simply lift sentences from their statements and stitch together some arguments.

Doesn't surprise me. They're advertising for emergency planning officers near me at £130 a day. Pay peanuts....etc.

@NLC speaking freely the removal of PD rights (in the way you describe, or the way that it happened to us) is in the vague arena of unlawfulness / illegality. Why should a homeowner have such permitted development rights removed, and then have to pay to have them reinstated? They should never have been removed in the first place. It's an outrage, but gives you a window into the wider mentality of LPAs and the little people who work for them which, basically, is: block, block, block, obstruct and block. It's wrong and the inspectorate really need to be far tougher on them: they're essentially preying for the most part on "civilian" homeowners who don't have a scooby doo that they're entitled to their PD rights. Anyway, rant over. We used a great consultant who specialises in this and had a field day with his report. The LPA didn't even spitefully force us to go to appeal: they just gave the PD rights back, tail between legs, and skulked off in to the shadows. If you don't want to spend the cash you could cobble together a supporting statement using your own research and people's advice on this board, and then if they refuse it simply appeal and the inspectorate won't fall for the LPA's dirty tricks or take any notice of the amateurism of your statement: they'll likely just give the rights straight back. That way you also contribute to the LPA's list of failed appeals (to my knowledge, if they get enough of these, they get put on the govt naughty step) that particularly year. Double whammy. Good luck.

Cheers @Temp, yes we went through that Section 55 yesterday. So this case is closed for anyone interested: residential use class or no residential use class, internal changes which do not "materially affect" the external appearance of the building or outbuilding do not count as 'development' and you do not need permission from your LPA to action them.

@IanR sorry, I should have been crystal clear. building's current use class is as a "home gym and office". Previously it was part office and part barn/store/garage. So, yes, the question is - does adding a mezzanine to a building that does not have a residential use class count as development?

Hi @Temp and @IanR - I've just got off the phone with a less than useless planning consultant and this may be the rub. Does the clause @Temp refers to above apply to DWELLINGS or to DWELLINGS and OUTBUILDINGS?

@IanR Thanks. This has been a great learning process. My main takeaway, as above, has been: neuter them. Don't defend their arguments with arguments of your own, which they can then poke holes in and force you to go to appeal, on a whim. Whenever possible, cut off their entire supply at the source.

Thanks @IanR, so essentially you agree that a floorplan displaying the new mezzanine should not be included in this next app? And that only the ground floor should be displayed? The light wells is a great idea. In all honesty re the dormers the better play is likely to be to wait several years and lilypad from granny annexe to dwelling, and then (as dwelling was constructed post 1948) add 2 storey's on top of the exiting under PD. We're not that obsessed with having them and are a bit regretful we included them in the first place.

@IanR they are poor at engaging, have suspended their pre-app service and the officer told me to my face: "I simply cannot engage". The blunt truth is they hate the dormers. Easy, if slightly costly solution: remove the dormers, neutering that problem. Then we move on to the mezzanine/floor area issue: heated conversation between me and my other half about that just now, as follows: my position is that they have already proved beyond doubt they will use ANYTHING against us, so we must not even show the new mezzanine on the plans. It does not have fixed stairs, it does not currently have anything habitable in it, it is bare and barren (as of right now). my other half's position is that we should still show it, and cross our fingers that by removing the dormers we offer enough of a gesture to the LPA that they'll see the mezz as ok.* Having re-read your thoughts @IanR I do not concur with this 2nd road. If the mezz had its staircase in and was properly built out, and had evidence of a habitable area I'd agree this first route would be tricky, but as it is, it doesn't. They know that, we know that. There is no fixed staircase: you can only reach the mezz via a moveable ladder right now. It's empty. Fundamentally I just can't see them going back on their whole "177% increase" argument....they've put it in black and white. They're not going to have a change of heart and say: "it's ok, we won't count the mezz seeing as you've removed the dormers". You can't defend a problem like this, you can only neuter it at source by batting the ball back to them, removing all trace of the mezz, and saying: "you PROVE this theoretical, unlisted mezz is being used for habitation....at some point in the future". What do you guys think? Road A or Road B?

@IanR thanks Ian, another great response. Yes, I wondered about this when I first read the officer's report and again, slyly and succinctly, he has deliberately connected the dormers with the mezzanine: "the dormer windows would serve a mezzanine". So you've essentially presented two routes: prove the existence and robustness of the previous mezzanine* resubmit with the mezzanine labelled "storage space", remove the staircase (which fortunately has not been installed on site) from the drawings, too, and then add the staircase as said internal change after PP has been approved The former feels tough indeed. I mean, the whole of the rest of the previous building wouldn't pass any regs, but equally nor would the previous mezzanine. Which leaves the latter. I guess the difference here is in "defending" an issue VS neutering and cutting it off at source completely. Which this 2nd route seems to achieve....(they can't object, pre-crime stylee, to something that hasn't been done yet, after all). When you say "I suspect that the Council may challenge any exterior detail that was included for the Mezzanine, beyond what was in the original outbuilding", do you really mean ANY? ie. if we remove the dormers, that deals with that, but the materials have changed from the previous permission (albeit in the most recent refusal report said new materials were deemed acceptable)...I mean....will they try and tie any and all micro changes to this mezzanine floor do you think? We don't have long to decide on our tactical play so all assistance very much appreciated.

@Temp this is great. But you're not really a Temp, are you? You're more like a Jedi! And that is an awesome example, straight from the horse's mouth. Why am I paying planning consultants? I should pay you guys. Yes, the original building was even tall enough for the mezzanine. I think the weak technicality they're (unspoken-ly) wriggling out on is that because we have not yet finished the build, or used/executed its purpose definitively (it is listed as a home gym and office), we cannot make an internal change to the previously approved plans..........because we haven't yet executed the approved use. Or, in simpler terms, we haven't used the gym/office for 6 months or so...recorded a load of evidence of it being used as such...and then added the mezzanine as a totally lawful internal change. I think (not certain) that this lurks behind their ropey frontline argument, although they haven't come out and said it. What do you think?

@Temp yes they batted away the new mezzanine level in the "balancing exercise" at the end. To my mind the officer's wording was deliberately minimalist and evasive, he said: "there is no provision under permitted development for a two storey outbuilding" ......after, earlier in the report, "invoking" the total building floor area as a reason for refusal. Well, how can you invoke the total floor area as a reason for refusal on the one hand, and then REJECT the PD fallback reality that a building with a far LARGER total floor area could be erected, on the other? Selective arguments, much?! It's one or the other you numpty!

@ProDave basically because at present the structure is unsecured (enforcement officer appeared c. 80% through the build). And I don't want this hovering for 6 months, I want to crack on and finish it. That said, the next step if they refuse this one is a guaranteed appeal. @joe90 out of interest when you appealed did all your neighbours get fly-ered and could they comment on said appeal?

@ProDave essentially yes. I suppose the critical error was made by the original architect who said: "don't worry about including either the original mezzanine or a new mezzanine...just build the structure and then put the mezzanine in immediately as an 'internal change'....also don't worry, we can always use the PD fallback position". Yeah, cheers buddy. The original PP approved was 6m in height so I'm not entirely sure what the LPA thought at the time..."wow these people are really in to their vaulted ceilings...in outbuildings..." The whole thing's batsh*t but there you go, one of the refusal reasons was: "177% increase in floor area". I have to combat that in the next app.

Here is the beauty: load bearing, with an accompanying 1st storey window and 1st storey (presumed) hay hatches... How could anyone ignore its delights? PS. LPA also calmly ignored the PD fallback position in terms of floor area, where I could whack up some absolutely vast outbuilding in this one's place, and crack their little " floor percentage increase" thermometer in the process....even typing this is bad for my blood pressure

@ProDave yes we did include that previously and he ignored it, but will put it more prominently this time, with more photos. @Ian great idea, thanks. Would this be better from a doctor or lawyer or tradesperson or someone official?

I find myself potentially in the insane scenario of having to prove the existence of a mezzanine level in an outbuilding. In brief, this is critical to the LPA I'm dealing with approving the new 1st storey in the outbuilding which replaced it. Now, not trusting the LPA in question as far as I could launch them in to the sea (we can but dream...), I am trying to work out how to definitively prove the existence of this now demolished mezzanine. Bear in mind: last time I submitted actual photographic evidence of it, and the officer just calmly ignored it and refused my app due to its 150%+ floor increase... So my question is: when is a mezzanine not a mezzanine? Does it need a permanent ladder or access? Must said access be fixed rather than a free-standing ladder? Must it be load-bearing, demonstrably? Does the fact that the previous building had a 1st storey gable window help? Does it help that said barn had first storey side "hatches", presumably where hay was once ejected? It would send me over the edge with rage if the existence of said mezzanine were once again thrown out, on a micro technicality.

Cheers all. Looks like another case of positive but ultimately evasive language where it would be challenging indeed for a civilian to definitively prove either that a) LPA's must engage at all and b) that this one in question had not, fundamentally, engaged properly. You're just left thinking: this is 2021. And a system this old (1948?) is still This Bad. Is it like this in other countries?

I followed this case with great interest. Some misc takeaways: there's taking the p*ss. Then beyond that there's sticking two fingers up to council officers in person. Then beyond sticking two fingers up to council officers in person there's what these guys did....I hate and I mean, hate LPAs, but Bolton offered them a square deal about halfway through the circa decade long process: knock down and rebuild 2, and we'll let you keep the other 3. They even stuck two fingers up to that....astonishing. then, it hits the national press, at which point a la hay bales man the case morphs from an irritant to the LPA to An Actual Point of National Pride/Humiliation where they are prepared to spend whatever it takes not to look like rollover mugs to the rest of the country. A giant legal war chest is found from somewhere, and it's game over, man, game over. that being said, the volume of time and money these guys chewed up of the LPA was substantial. This was, ultimately, a nobody wins case. How much did Bolton LPA blow over the case's 10 year cycle chasing this lot? £300k? £400k? £500k? More? That's not a win in anyone's book. So ultimately I'm not against completing works unilaterally and without permission at all, but you have to remain some way within the vague boundaries of lawfulness, you have to play ball and engage with LPAs IF you get busted and finally, and most importantly, you have to complete the works without being busted.... That is fundamentally key because then the power dynamic shifts where the ball is pinged back in to their court and they know they're going to have to chase you....

...and, further, is this a legal issue? Do LPAs, in reality, have to engage with you? Or at least offer a legit way to engage with them? I mean, how many unanswered emails and calls do you have to accumulate before the LPA is, officially and indisputably, not offering a way to engage?!

We're in a familiar situation to many of you, I'm sure, particularly at the moment. Our planning officer who refused our latest app told me to my face "I'm handling 90 applications currently, I simply cannot engage" (aka offer any feedback or dialogue or advice), and I cannot get him on the phone or to respond to any query emails. The council trumpet the Paid Pre-App service as THE definitive, official way of getting feedback on an app, particularly ones that have been refused. (drumroll), but this has been posted on the council's website........ Our pre-application service is currently suspended. We are only accepting new pre-applications for major development for 10 or more dwellings. If you have recently submitted a pre-application request our timescales are extending beyond the advertised response times. Any new pre-applications submitted will be returned and refunded until we are able to maintain advertised service levels once more. We apologise for any inconvenience caused and are working hard to clear existing pre-applications. So, to conclude: Path A to feedback: blocked, officer will not engage Path B to feedback: blocked, pre-app service suspended I saw on another site a quote from the Planning Portal which I now maddeningly cannot locate which essentially said: "by law LPAs must engage constructively with applicants". So with both roads to "constructive dialogue" blocked, what do I do?

Awesome responses, thanks guys. To neuter the planners and numpty neighbours I might have to go down the grass parking grids on top route... So all in, labour and digger hire, what sort of vague total budget do you think needs to be assembled here?

@Big Jimbo Stormdry seems to be great but properly punchy... https://www.permagard.co.uk/facade-cream-water-repellent This is a fair bit cheaper...

On Stormdry, this is pretty convincing: