BigBub

It would likely be much cheaper to use your local authority's pre-app service compared to the £1,000 appraisal

The civil service code applies to Civil Servants. Only those who work for central government are considered civil servants. Councillors fall within local government

Each LPA will normally set out their own Code of Practice or Guidance Protocol for Members on a specific committee.

From experience, most LPAs will ask for a 2 or 3 week EoT. Unless you have provided amended particulars that the case officer has advised are necessary to avoid refusal, it is rarely in the interest of the applicant. When you agree to an EoT the LPA do not have to record the application as being decided late, even if they miss the 8 weeks deadline. One main reason you might not want to agree is that you will lose out on the Planning Guarantee which entitles you to a refund of the application fee when a minor application takes longer than 16 weeks to be issued a decision. I've noticed more and more LPAs charging additional fees for applications which are not valid on submission, for example if a drawing was missing a scale bar they would request that it is amended and also that a £60 invalid fee is paid. If they can charge for their time to validate an application, I am thinking to start requesting a fee from the LPA to agree an EoT. I know they will almost always refuse but it would be more to make a point that it's not just their time that is valuable.

@Alan Ambrose The The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) defines what a valid application is under Article 34, Part 6 which also mentions that a valid application is taken to have been received when the application, and such of the documents, particulars or evidence referred to above as are required to be included in, or to accompany, the application have been lodged with the appropriate authority mentioned in article 11(1) and the fee required to be paid has been paid. When you submit an application via the planning portal, the council receives the application and all documents by email and the fee is transferred over to them. The LPA can not treat the application as invalid until you agree to their change of the description. Refer to the following which mentions that Checking the accuracy of the description of development should not delay validation of an application: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/making-an-application#Changes-to-the-description-of-development

If you submitted an application through the Planning Portal and all required particulars were provided along with the correct fee then the council has to deem the validation date as the date they receive the application, not a date 1 or 2 weeks later when they have processed and registered the application. If they are not doing this then they are manipulating the system

There is currently a concern amongst many LAs of applicants falsely claiming self-build status in order to avoid BNG. Most, but not all, LAs will require a s106 agreement to secure self-build against a planning application but if the applicant tries to change to a private market dwelling instead after than they can effectively circumvent BNG as it can only be required as a pre-commencement condition. Out of curiosity, which Council are you dealing with and have they added the requirement for a Unilateral Undertaking (UU) to their validation checklist or to a Development Plan Document? If I was in your position I would raise a validation dispute and try to argue that a UU should not be required.

You would be surprised at how more council's are putting policies in place to not discuss or allow any amendments to a live application. Lichfield DC have a no householder amendment policy: https://www.lichfielddc.gov.uk/planning-developers-business/planning-fees/6 Southwark Council will charge you a fee to amend a live application, unless you had previously used their pre-app advice service: https://www.southwark.gov.uk/planning-and-building-control/pre-application-advice-service?chapter=4

I would just contact the development management team and ask for copies of the supporting documents that were submitted alongside the discharge of condition application. I am aware of some councils adopting a policy to automatically remove information, other than the decision notice, from applications once 3 years have passed from the decision date. Probably as a measure to save space on their servers.

Would this not fall under Class C - Any other alteration to the roof of a dwellinghouse? Under this class there is no requirement to use similar materials and there is no restriction to being in a conservation area.

If you haven't started any works then you would want to choose Lawful Development: Proposed Use. One thing to note is that the height measurement of 3m will include the roof lantern that you have shown.

Looking at the plans, you are proposing to replace the existing L-shaped extension which goes out 5.8m with a smaller extension which extends out about 2.9m. Assuming your property has PD rights and that the proposed extension is no more than 3m high, you can apply for a Lawful Development Certificate (LDC). The plans you have should be acceptable for a LDC.

Just to answer the title of your post, the minor excavations you are proposing would not constitute development and so would not require planning permission.

You could remove the existing two-storey rear extension to build the 8m rear extension under Prior Approval. It wouldn't be assessed in relation to the 30% Green Belt limit.

I don't think there is a 5m rule. It is most likely that having it within 5m of the house would mean that the shed is 2m+ from the rear boundary which is what the planning officer wants.