chazzyjeff

Many thanks, I didn't realise that was an option. I'll check again on the PAs website and see if there's a form. It seems most appropriate because all other issues can likely be overcome (it's a very straightforward site including it's lack of potential for affecting neighbours) so it's a matter of properly testing the major issue which is a paperwork job.

Just wondering if anyone has done this and how foolhardy it may be as a strategy? I'll try to keep the situation brief. A planning consultant identified some land as suitable for development, specifically for an unsubsidised affordable dwelling for ownership where the intended occupier (me) provides the affordable housing themselves. The pre-app enquiry was negative. The advice given by the officer cherry picks/ takes out of context the national guidance to support the negative viewpoint. The biggest stumbling block which the officer highlighted has actually had specific guidance issued in 2010 to deal with it. This guidance specifies best practice etc and the officer essentially advises that the Authority would seek to ignore this advice/ use worst practice which would ensure the project would be unviable; this issue relates to the Mortgagee In Possession Clause which is intended to balance the needs/ security of lenders versus the need for ensuring affordability in perpetuity. It's complex but I now have a good grasp of it and am happy to explain if anyone is interested. The planning consultant has now taken a very negative view of his own initial appraisal but won't say exactly why. They do not seem to be willing to challenge the Authority at all with regards the cherry picking/ ignoring of guidance/ best practice and advice notes etc. Having learned a lot about the issues identified by the officer I personally can't see how the Authorities position would ultimately stand up to scrutiny and so, against the advice of the planning consultant, I'm considering putting in an "all matters reserved" outline application almost with the expectation that I'll have to appeal to the inspectorate. It seems like too good a potential opportunity to just give up when there seems to be something fishy or prejudiced going on. Everything on paper seems in order but the opinions of the officer in particular seem incredibly negative. Basically I want to test the principle of this development with the committee and potentially the inspector, hence the "all matters reserved" option as I don't want to shell out on detailed drawings etc. People say the planning system is corrupt and I really do feel that this may be the case here (the land/ my father definitely has some "bad planning history") and from the appeals I've read, inspectors reference their decisions meticulously against local and national guidance etc. Any thoughts much appreciated!

Under planning permission. It's in a national park so permitted development is more restricted

I'll try to keep this short and sweet! A fairly large dwelling has a granny annexe at the bottom of the garden, some 30 metres away. The annexe is not finished but work has been started and this "start of work" has been acknowledged in writing by the planning authority, therefore the PP is live indefinitely and the work can be completed at any time. What happens if the main dwelling is subdivided? This appears to constitute a change to the planning unit. Does the annexe remain as per it's original planning permission and become a planning unit with whichever half of the principal dwelling retains the original postal address and a land connection, or could the annexe end up being cast into planning purgatory whereby it wouldn't be allowed to be used/ completed as an annexe or a standalone dwelling and need entirely new PP? The principal dwelling/ overall plot is well suited to subdividing thanks to multiple access points, plenty of surrounding garden and a preexisting kitchen and bathroom at each end of the main house. A frosted window on the stairs and bathroom would completely solve any issues of the breakaway dwelling overlooking the annexe of the "original address". I've done a fair bit of searching but not coming up with anything which would indicate which way planning policy would dictate. Any advice much appreciated 🙂

This is reassuring. The logical part of my brain always assumed that any objection would have established planning principles applied to it, perhaps precedents etc then just dismissed if it was merely a case of "I don't like the way it looks when I'm going on a walk". The other part of me was concerned they would deal with it like the police sometimes do, assume the complainant is automatically in the right and try to stop someone doing a lawful activity.

Hi all, I recently had a planning consultant carry out an appraisal of some land which I have the option of purchasing. He identified two potential development avenues. The one I have been exploring first is a low cost self build home on some land with great access, views, location etc which is outside but immediately adjacent to the settlement boundary and in close proximity to other properties (but in a good location to not cause any significant detriment to said properties). I am eligible for low cost home ownership schemes. The SPG states that rural development exception sites (adjacent to settlement boundaries) can serve to provide affordable housing including self build low cost homes and that planners should be "innovative and flexible to maximise delivery of affordable housing". Recently a large number of housing association rentals were built on directly comparable land which was adjacent to the built form of the village but outside the settlement boundary, so it appears use of these exception sites is possible in practice in the village, at least for housing associations. We put in a pre app enquiry and the main objection was that lenders of private finance (mortgage companies) apparently always insist on a mortgagee in possession clause in the S106 which unacceptably jeopardises the house remaining affordable in perpetuity. If a borrower were to default, the mortgagee can sell at 100% market value therefore defeating the point of granting PP on an exception site (where open market dwellings would not be possible) in the first place. Due to inheritance, savings and trade qualifications, I believe I can build the house without a mortgage but the PA are concerned about whether future owners would be able to get a mortgage and what would happen if they defaulted. Personally I find the whole objection a little theoretical; I know that neighbouring PAs have been granting PP on comparable projects for decades seemingly without any major issues. Certainly the SPG hasn't identified this as a show stopping issue so it seems to be the opinion of the planners but not based on any guidance. Even if I were to find a lender who said "yes we would theoretically lend without or a mortgagee in possession clause (or a conditional one which means they first have to offer it discount for sale to eligible buyers for say 3 months) there's absolutely no guarantee that this would still be the case if/ when I were to sell. Is there a way to circumvent this objection with a lawyers argument? Do they actually have to follow their own SPG? How do people secure mortgages on S106 dwellings on exception sites or do all lenders insist on being able to immediately sell with full discharge of any restrictions on the property? Any ideas much appreciated Cheers!