BigBub

Some LPAs are becoming very inflexible with applications and have placed limits on when they would allow amendments to live applications that would result in reconsultations. I've seen this more commonly with LPAs in the South East.

Have you applied for a Lawful Development Certificate (Existing) to formalise that the garage is now lawful and exempt from any enforcement action? I would recommend to do this first before you make any substantial changes. Most people don't realise that you can't make use of permitted development rights if you have built anything unlawfully (Article 3(5) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015). From the aerial photo you have provided, it looks like you have a rear extension. If it wasn't built with permission or in accordance with PD rights then this would also lead to a loss of PD rights. Section 55(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) sets out what amounts to building operations and the changes you are proposing would fall under this. Section 55(2) sets out which operations do not involve development. It is likely that the works you are looking to do would materially affect the external appearance of the building and would therefore be considered development which you would either need permission for or be able to do so under Permitted Development rights, without needing planning permission.

There is a bit more nuance to temporary buildings under Part 4 Class A than just being erected for a limited amount of time. Case law has held that the size, the means of construction and the length of time taken to construct a building are considered to be relevant factors and that a substantial building of permanent construction could not be considered to be required temporarily. Additionally, you may be required to establish that the building is reasonably required, not merely considered desirable and/or convenient. @Leigh0403 hasn't really said how large this building is and how it compares in size to the overall site and house to be built.

If all conditions of Prior Approval are met then go for that. Lower application fee and you only need to provide a location and block plan for the applicaiton along with a description so no drawings required. As long as none of your adjoining neighbours object then the council should pass the application as no prior approval required. But if you anticipate that neighbours will object then providing drawings would be ideal so the council can assess the impact on neighbours when granting or refusing prior approval.

Just put it a prior approval application for a larger home extension. They only have a 42 day deadline so not a massive delay in applying.

What is the description of the approved application? If it isn't too precise (e.g. erection of a single dwelling), then you could technically apply for a variation of condition to change the approved plans instead of doing a completely new applicaiton. Also, if the permission did not limit permitted development rights then you could just build a garage under PD after completion.

Hello, Hope someone might have some helpful advice. We are trying to discharge a condition for a construction method statement. The condition lists the details that need to be included in the statement. The wording of the condition is as follows: No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a construction method statement has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The approved statement shall be adhered to throughout the construction period. It shall provide for: i) The parking of vehicles of site operatives and visitors ii) The loading and unloading of plant and materials iii) The storage of plant and materials used in constructing the development iv) The erection and maintenance of security hoarding v) Wheel washing facilities vi) Measures to control the emission of dust and dirt during construction vii) A scheme for recycling/disposing of waste resulting from demolition and construction works viii) Details of working hours ix) Routing of delivery vehicles to/from site Highways have come back referring to the condition as a CTMP and requesting a drawing is submitted to show the designated parking, HGV turning, material store and wheel washing position referred to in the statement. Its a relitavely small site of 0.13ha with half of the site occupied by trees and shrubs that are to remain so a bit tricky to designate fixed areas within the site throughout the development. Would we be able to refuse to provide the drawing given that it isn't required by the condition or is it likely we would have the application refused? The site only has 6 months left to implement planning so appealing a refusal isn't an option. Thanks in advance

Refer to earlier thread where this has been asked before.

Each council will have its own published Enforcement Policy and most take the view that proportionate action in relation to a proven breach of planning would only be taken where there is demonstrable harm caused and where it is expedient to do so. Whilst it is unlikely the council would even be made aware of a discrepancy less than 100mm, its also unlikely they would take any action over it as it would be considered de minimus. At most, you may be asked to submit a variation of condition to amend the approved plans, and at worst the changes could be considered material differences which negate commencement of the development and could lead to planning permission being lost.

I have encountered LPAs that outright refuse to accept electronic applications unless they come via the Planning Portal, although they are legally required to register the applications sent directly via email. Many councils have set administration/validation fees in addition to the planning application fee to deter submissions other than via the Planning Portal. The LPAs know this is likely unlawful but how many developers are going to argue over £50 and cause unnecessary delays to their application, possibly having to appeal for non-determination? There has also been a recent appeal where the appellant hadn't fully paid an added administration fee with their application and the inspector did not consider the council's fee necessary for validation and determination of the application.

Have a look at your council's Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and see if it says anything around notice for committee or reasonable adjustments that could allow committee to be postponed.

Sorry, you're right on this. Would likely fall under self-build exemption

Something to think about is any new requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) which weren't required back in 2020 but would now apply to any new proposal you might submit.

You may be able to get permission for the proposed extension but the council would be very unlikely to agree to the extension going right up to the boundary line. The guidelines typically expect 1-2m separation to avoid the terracing effect. It may therefore not be worth doing based on the amount of space you would gain.

At a minimum, your prior approval application would have required a block plan to be included showing the proposed extension. Block plans are top-down views and usually show the largest outline of your proposal which should have been the roof with the overhang. The tech guidance carries limited weight compared to the regs. The regs use the wording "the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse..." so I think it is fair for this to include large overhangs. You can no longer rely on the prior approval and therefore must make a retrospective householder planning application. No merit in requesting a different planning officer.