DevilDamo

Well that is (or was) down to your Architect to query as that is not how applications are validated.

Correct.

Whether they are “dumb” is a matter of judgement. And btw, use the “quote” function.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove? That reads you submitted the application on 30th January but it was invalid. It then took about 3 weeks for the correct or additional information to be submitted and the LPA then deemed the application as valid.

That wasn’t what you originally asked. The answer to your next question is dependant on their workload. If the application is deemed to be valid at the time of submission, then it will be backdated.

The application leaves the PP system and is transferred to the LPA once the fee has been paid/dealt with.

Approval only comes via a Full Plans application, which in my opinion is a little overkill for a garage conversion. And the thickness of insulation is dependant on the P/A figure.

No they will not or should not, especially since the implementation of the BSA.

Is that adjacent to the structure…

> > > I'm not convinced that the CDM regs will stop Grenfell-style shenanigans though. This isn’t anything to do with the CDM regulations.

If you deviate from the approved drawings, you would require re-approval. What do the elevation drawings state/look like?

In a nutshell, yes. Or they may be able to issue a “decline to determine” outcome. Either way, it would mean you having to go back through the Planning process again and pay the relevant fees.

@Alan Ambrose Still not getting used to the quote function so others would receive a notification when you quote them…? @mjc55 It varies between LPA’s but the majority need a push to keep applications on track.

@Canski Excavations to form retaining walls are deemed as an engineering operation, which require Planning. Assume you ended up getting or needing Planning for that reason? @Alan Ambrose The guidance is very clear when measuring on sloping sites. No need to over complicate it.

Think AA’s quote function doesn’t work. @Alan Ambrose Percentage uplift in terms of footprint, area and volume within the Green Belt. So having a PD fallback position can help in those situations.

@Alan Ambrose Once an application has lodged with the LA, it cannot then switch over to a private company. It can work the other way round. I’ve not heard (yet) of LABC’s going bust.

The PA route would not allow the installation of EWI. That would be formal Planning. The PA route can act as a fallback and even more so within the Green Belt where percentage uplifts are a major policy factor.

Quite a lot different. For starters, a HH application would allow the homeowner to make additional changes of which the PA would not, e.g. changes to the new roof, windows in side elevations, enlarging non-original elements.

The application has already been submitted and validated by the LABC.

The 1m and 30sq.m relates to BR’s, not Planning.

Not in the OP’s case.

No reason to amend them. If you’re wanting to change any elements, then you may need their approval to copy or reproduce them. But do check the previous T&C’s.

A Lawful Development Certificate from your LPA would confirm the Planning situation. You would have to check if your LABC offer something similar for Building Control.

@Bruce The floor area relates to Building Regulations, not Planning. If it’s within 2m of a boundary and under 2.5m high, then it would usually be exempt from Planning.

No applications required.