Search the Community

Does anyone know if we have to discharge the "begin the development within 3 years" condition with the planning department as soon as work has started, or are we OK to have in place from Stroma (who are doing our building control work) a letter saying they are satisfied that work has started, which we have? FYI - our 3 years ends in October this year From what I am reading on the Cornwall website, it seems this can all take place after we have completed building (which could be 2-3 years after October this year).

Not sure if this is the best place or if it is better in the design section? One of my planning conditions is Prior to the commencement of development, detailed proposals for the disposal of foul and surface water shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The submitted details must include a diagram of the surface water system, including details of the hydrobrake system used. I am allowed to use a the foul sewer (darker green lines) for excess surface water (blue lines), but have to use a hydrobrake to limit it to the agreed amount. I've been trying to come up with the plans needed to satisfy the condition, I'm a little concerned there is a 3 foul sewer pipes (lighter green lines) under the house especially considering it will have a slab foundation. It all looks rather messy, the land slopes to the front of the house. Any help would be greatly appreciated

We should be in a position to discharge our initial planning conditions in a couple of weeks and the first thing we will do then is get the bat man in and dismantle the roof of the existing bungalow. I know that the VAT reclaim usually relates to goods, but can I reclaim the VAT on the bat guy's services on the basis that it's a planning condition? I seem to recall seeing something alluding to this on BH before but can't find it now.

There are different views about Planning Consultants, and whether they should be used. This is a short example of a Planning Consultant offering superb advice, that most of us self-builders would perhaps not think about. The Problem I have just received a Planning Permission, after 3 months of engagement with the Council. It is a commercial Change of Use but the lesson applies to self-builder permssions. We received our permission, but on the last morning the Planning Department applied an unacceptable Planning Condition which threatened the whole project. The Planning Condition clearly violates several of the basic tests. This condition had not been mentioned in the previous months of consultation, and I did not see it until it appeared on the Decision Notice. At this point the Planning Application has been "determined" (ie decided and frozen), so the Condition cannot be modified without a further Planning Application or an Appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. The problem is that a Full Appeal gives the Inspector the opportunity to reopen the basic Planning Application, and modify it - which I do not want. The Solution The recommendation from our Planning Consultant was: 1 - To apply for a Variation of the unacceptable condition, which might be accepted, then... 2 - To Appeal the Refusal of the application for the Variation if we need. The advantage is that we then if needed we can get a Determination by the Planning Inspectorate on the narrow point, while keeping all the other acceptable aspects of our Planning Permission out of their scope. The Learning Point As self-builders, we think about discharging Planning Conditions at the end of the build process. The same process can be used to vary them before we start building. It takes extra time and a fee, which is smaller than a Full Planning Application fee for a new dwelling, but does not run the risk of reopening the entire Permission to change. More information The appropriate form on the Planning Portal. Explanation of Planning Condition Variations on the Government Website.

Are archaeologists bidding for more archaeology on even modest projects? I came across this requests (excerpted) from the Derby County Cuoncil archaeologist, which includes a request that that analysis, publication and dissemination be included as part of a "modest" "monitoring" process - presumably at the cost of the developer. This is for a development of 2 dwellings and one building conversion in a former farmyard on the possible edge of a medieval village centre. I have not seen this before. Is this unusual? Leaving aside that the comment is a little ungrammatical, the Council appear to have ignored it as there is no Condition relating to Archaeology. The Bat Men are engaged, however. http://planning.bolsover.gov.uk/WAM/doc/Decision-2068853.pdf Ferdinand