phykell

I suspect many of us have been told the planning officers are overworked and the departments are understaffed, people are on holiday or extended sick leave - it seems likes it's an epidemic since the the pandemic (!) as they blithely miss validation, decision and determination dates. I'm not saying that the individuals are not doing their job but something's very wrong and it's unlikely to change in the short term in terms of funding, extra staff, better allocation of resources, etc. However, the one thing that seems to get lost is the fact that we are not "asking" the council to consider a planning application as just another member of the public, we are customers, paying them a substantial amount of money to do so and we should be treated as such. There should be a much clearer route for handling complaints and a published service level agreement. Based on my own experience, I wouldn't wait any longer than I have to. I'd escalate as you suggest, by copying in your case officer's manager and the LPA's general inbox email address with a clear plan of further actions as you suggest and make sure you document every call, email or action taken.

The case law that they cited is very well known when an applicant has met all the PD requirements but (in my anecdotal experience) the LPA has a particular interest in stopping the development. The two cases they mentioned were: Emin case [Emin v SSE & Mid Sussex DC [1989] JPL 909] - held that regard should be had not only to the use to which the Class E building would be put, but also to the nature and scale of that use in the context of whether it was a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Their basis for citing this was that, "There is no statutory definition of 'incidental' in the GPDO." Wallington case [Wallington v SSE & Montgomeryshire DC [1990] JPL 112; [1991] JPL 942 (CoA)] established that it is necessary to consider whether the relevant purpose is incidental to the particular dwellinghouse in question rather than any dwellinghouse. They did mention a further case, for an aircraft hangar built under PD - it was an odd case to cite as the applicant was successful! Apparently, it's OK to build an aircraft hangar on your property if you say it's a hobby but my outbuilding for a garage and pool, was still rejected!

The summary was that the LPA's argument was poorly founded as the main issue, that of it being solely for incidental use, was a straightforward case to make as far as they were concerned. It was clear that none of the anticipated activities supported by the outbuilding could be reasonably viewed as being anything other than incidental, e.g. a garage, swimming pool, plant room, shower/WC/changing area. I agree that the reduction in space, and the existing pool, shouldn't have anything to do with PD but, in this instance, the LPA cited case law to backup their claim that, although all of the formal PD requirements were met, the overall scale of the outbuilding was unreasonable or, to put it another way, wasn't proven to be "reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse". It was therefore necessary to prove that the overall size of the outbuilding was based on reasonable requirements which is why the existing pool was mentioned, i.e. here's the original pool, and its size is the basis for the new pool (in terms of length at least). We went into additional detail regarding the size of the plant room, and how it was based on a suggested size from a pool installation specialist. We also discussed the amount of walkway room around the pool, again referencing pool specialists, and the need for an area to house the pool cover (under the walkway) and the skimmers and associated pipework. The aim of all this was to show the LPA that the outbuilding's size wasn't in any way arbitrary, and was, in fact, based on good practice and industry recommendations. Regarding the garage, I provided a detailed plan showing all of our current vehicles, drawn to scale on the plan, to demonstrate genuine and complete utilisation of the available space. In the end, although I'd written my own Statement of Case, I decided, on reflection, to have the planning consultant handle the appeal process for me. The appeal was validated successfully and is now lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, just before the six-month deadline, luckily.

I think I spoke too soon (often happens) - the line manager immediately emailed me back with the missing form. It might not have been included on the portal listing in the first place but they're resolving that now. OK, onto my appeal, which is now being handled by a professional planning consultancy - wish me luck 😎

The latest update to my particular saga is that I'm a couple of weeks away from the appeal deadline and it seems that I need the original application form. Unfortunately, it's mysteriously "disappeared" from the LPA's planning portal. All the other documents, including plans, etc. are all there, just the one I need, the one that's automatically generated (I believe) on submitting the application. Tried to contact the LPA and the case officer is out of the office - asked to escalate to the line manager but I doubt I'll hear back.

It seems to be taking the PI a long time to process appeals. I hope mine isn't going to take as long or, that the LPA will eventually engage with me during the appeal process - this is something which the PI guidance suggests. However, it is at least reassuring to see that someone else is experiencing similar treatment so perhaps it isn't just me!

That's really helpful - did you already know of it? I looked at the statement of case and it's very clearly written but also very "concise". Many such documents are far more substantial versions, and this is the issue - where's the guidance on what should and shouldn't be expected from one of these documents? The whole point of PD was to reduce the load on council planning staff but all it's done is create another micro-industry and shifted the load, with much more overhead, onto the planning inspectorate, introducing further costs and delay to the Appellants. [edit] Also noted that the case referenced case hasn't been decided yet - I wonder if it will be approved and how long it's going to take.

Unfortunately, you're right - and the LPA's refusal was despite me highlighting that the pool is an existing feature and, with a required "walking/access" area around it, its area is a substantial amount of the total requested space. In fact, I'll actually be reducing the area of the existing pool by around 20% to fit it into the outbuilding as it's currently within 2m of the neighbour's boundary. And yes, it's hardly an Olympic size pool

Thanks - I've started looking at other LPAs as mine doesn't really have a lot of similar, successful appeals - bodes well !!! The use of the planning consultant was only after trying to write my own and finding that there wasn't really a useful template or example out there in the ether. I'm reasonably adept at writing in-depth, technical, legal and business process documents so I thought I could make a good stab at something as limited in scope as this: it's only an outbuilding and the council have agreed 95% of the various points of interest with just the subjective one about the development failing to show that it's genuinely subordinate and reasonably required. I have my initial meeting with the planning consultant next week so I'm also hoping a best stab at a statement will help explain my perspective.

Perhaps "dominance" might be an issue but two buildings means a more expensive development and less energy efficiency plus I want to have a PV array extending across the entire roof which will satisfy much of the pool's requirements together with the main dwelling. It's only the area (206 sqm) which is almost as large as the main dwelling but the latter is two storeys and is very distinctive with white lime-washed render on 1/2 of it sandstone for 1/4 and old farmhouse replica brick for a side extension (looks nicer than it sounds). The outbuilding is going to look like a garage with a large glazed area and won't even be visible from any public land/road.

That's an interesting question - it's a little smaller than the main dwelling house in terms of area, so that sounds huge with no other context. But of course, the outbuilding is single-storey and its total area will be less than the combined area of the original two-bay garage and the original pool including the decking around it. To be fair to the LPA, this wasn't highlighted in the original application for the LDC.

I originally submitted one (just for a 50% larger garage) but as I'm in a conservation area, the LPA raised all sorts of objections including materials used, rejecting the 50% extra size, and many other items besides. The lawful development certificate for PD is *much* easier and I think I'll win an appeal.

Well, I'm not a professional so this is very much a layman's view with reference to the refusal documentation, but it can be summarised as their contention being that the development is not "incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse" (Class E). Whilst there's no obvious limit on the size of an outbuilding in terms of area (other than being less than 50% curtilage) there's no statutory definition of “incidental” in the GPDO. In my case, the LPA claims that they must refer to case law to provide guidance, quoting a couple of legal cases to make their argument, one of which was a private individual's requirement for a hangar for his plane (his appeal was approved)! In a nutshell, I submitted plans for an outbuilding consisting of a three-bay garage and an indoor swimming pool, together with supporting shower, changing and plant room. The outbuilding was to replace an existing two-bay (dilapidated) garage and subsume a disused outdoor swimming pool. If you read the excerpt from the delegated report below, they say that both sections of the outbuilding (garage and pool room) aren't unreasonable but taken together, they are (somehow) and that's enough to claim that it isn't "genuinely subordinate and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse". From the decision notice: “The proposed outbuilding fails to demonstrate that as a matter of fact and degree, due to its size and intended uses that it would be genuinely subordinate and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. As such it does not constitute 'Permitted Development' under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the Town and Country (General Permitted Development) Order 1025 (as amended)”. From the delegated report: “…when broken down, none of the proposed uses of the building appear obviously unreasonable (even though in scale all are more than generous), the activities indicated in the application, in the main fall into categories that, individually, may be acceptable as incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house, however taken together they occupy an unreasonable amount of space. It has not been demonstrated that the outbuilding is genuinely subordinate and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.”

Hi, I was recently refused a lawful development certificate for an outbuilding and have been trying, with little success, to engage the LPA before resorting to the appeal process. On the assumption that the LPA will continue to delay, I've begun the process of writing a Statement of Case and I've realised quite quickly that the Planning Inspectorate web site doesn't really provide much, if any, practical, constructive guidance on the structure and content of this very crucial document. I understand every case is different so that may be one reason but it makes me wonder if there are any case studies around which include Statements of Case examples. After all, reference to, and the reuse of existing high-quality, proven examples, would surely result in a reduced workload for the Planning Inspectorate which benefits everyone. Can anyone suggest such a resource? Incidentally, I've also approached a professional planning specialist to handle the appeal for me. Thanks

Thanks all - my original idea to use white reflective plastic flags worked up to a point but I realised that the levels varied quite a lot plus the flags were difficult to use with a laser measure even with no wind/breeze. I ended up paying for a topographical survey which worked out really well - I could now see all of the potential drainage issues and the surveyor seemed to go to great lengths to include absolutely everything in terms of outbuildings, hedges, fences, etc. even going out onto the road to measure the extent of the hedges and the utility points, phone/power poles and so on. So, good value for money and a really comprehensive and useful end product - had it printed A1 size which is ideal for planning the garden as well as everything else.