Permitted Development Trade - how it works

[Hilldes]

Hi all,

 

Looking for some advice on a 'permitted development trade'. Got a bungalow in the green belt. Plan is to demolish and rebuild - with something that is "materially larger".

 

Pre-app advice indicated the planners would not accept a replacement dwelling of the size I proposed. So the plan is to:

 

1. Obtain a Lawful Development Certificate for permitted developments. This will (hopefully) show we can increase the size of the exiting property by 100%.
2. Submit a full planning application for a replacement dwelling that would be a mere 60% uplift in size.

 

The question is how to go from 1 to 2 above.  I've heard that you need to get then LDC then actually start to dig the foundation trenches before the change of mind and then submit the application for a replacement dwelling.  Is this starting of the build really necessary, or can I submit the replacement dwelling application as soon as I have the LDC?

 

Advice would be greatly appreciated.

[Russell griffiths]

We sort of did this. 

We wanted to go from 60m to 260m planning was not happy and said they are likely to refuse it, we asked for a site meeting where we showed them the extent that we could go to under permitted development. 

We explained that we could put on 3 extensions and a loft conversion over the course of a couple of years and there is nothing to stop us. 

Or knock it down and build a far better constructed new house. 

 

What did help was a scale model of the existing house, with permitted development extensions stuck on, then make a model of new proposed. 

 

After presenting the planner with these models he started to look a bit beaten, so told us to put it all in writing showing the exact dimensions that we could achieve under pd, it passed a few weeks later. 

 

We did use a planning consultant to do a to do a lot of leg work and it did cost a small fortune but it achieved what we wanted. 

[Ferdinand]

You do not say which region you are in.

 

>heard that you need to get then LDC then actually start to dig the foundation trenches before the change of mind and then submit the application for a replacement dwelling

 

This sort of process can work, but it is tactical and can take time. I would probably want a locally-knowledgeable Planning Consultant on board, perhaps partially incentivised.

 

I suspect the pre-App advice could have blown the gaff, because they now may think you are playing silly-buggers. So it may be more interesting getting it through.

 

I have a local example of a chap who turned a single garage into a nearly 1000sqft workshop with storage over by dint of changing different elements in it as minor asides in a serious of adjustments to his main house planning application. And there was a chap on BH who applied for a garage then workshop in his back garden that happened to be the same size as the bungalow he really wanted, then moved from bait to switch and there were no reasons to refuse.

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20150424220429/http://www.ebuild.co.uk/blog/20-a-modern-house-in-the-back-garden/

 

In the GB it would be more interesting.

 

 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Brickie]

2 hours ago, Russell griffiths said:

we could put on 3 extensions and a loft conversion 

@Russell griffiths May I ask why 3 extensions & not one big one? Was it due to the shape of the previous building or a PD loophole to do 3 on separate occasions? 

Asking as I know very little about PD rights & need to swot up for my next house. 

[Russell griffiths]

@Brickie as we are detached and a long way from the road we could put a rear extension, a side extension and a front extension. 

 

Not many people can do that as there are rules regarding setback distances from the road

 

i suppose it would look like one big one if it wrapped all around the building. 

Edited June 26, 2019 by Russell griffiths

[Big Jimbo]

Some planning depts will take account of permitted devl rights when considering what you would like to build. However, sometimes you may have to demonstate by way of drawings exactly what you can do under your permitted devl rights, and make sure the drawings show the most ugly thing you can build. Then with drawings, you can show them what you want to build, and demonstrate that it will be better, and less harmful to the Greenbelt than what you could build under permitted devl rights.

This is what i did last year, and got permission to extend my bungalow, in the greenbelt to aprox Six times it's original size

[Temp]

How do you do a front extension under PDR?

[Hilldes]

Many thanks all for the replies.

 

What I have established via Pre-App is that PD rights are unaffected in the green belt (and the property is not in other 'challenging' areas such as conservation area) and that PD rights have not been removed from the particular property. It is correct that the planners do know from my enquires I am looking at both PD extension route and replacement dwelling.

 

I have submitted plans for the LDC which include an 8m deep rear extension, one side extension and a loft conversion. I don't have the result yet, but from my analysis of the PD policies, all should be permitted.

 

I have discussed with a local planning consultant, but concluded they did not know a lot more than I did already - e.g. the theory of a PD trade. They did have a view on the maximum uplift that had been achieved for a replacement dwelling - which was 30 to 40% GEA uplift. For me, I need to go for 60% GEA uplift for a viable knock down & rebuild project (and a property that is appropriate for the size of plot).

[Ferdinand]

The 8m rear development will require a Local Consultation Scheme with your neighbours or whatever it is called now, of course, to implement.

 

Unless the system has been changed again :-).

[Ed Davies]

If you do the PD extensions that's it, the PD has been used up and you can't build anything else. But, if they give you permission for a new house wouldn't that have PD rights to extend further? Or is the expectation that the new PP will have PD rights withdrawn (article 4 notice, or whatever)? So if you do the rebuild you might finish up with a house you want but maybe without PD rights for other things, e.g., garden sheds and the like.

[Ferdinand]

10 minutes ago, Ed Davies said:

If you do the PD extensions that's it, the PD has been used up and you can't build anything else. But, if they give you permission for a new house wouldn't that have PD rights to extend further? Or is the expectation that the new PP will have PD rights withdrawn (article 4 notice, or whatever)? So if you do the rebuild you might finish up with a house you want but maybe without PD rights for other things, e.g., garden sheds and the like.

 

In the GB, I would expect removal of PD rights by condition to be the default. At least in England and Wales.

 

F

[Hilldes]

Yes, I'm expecting to lose PD rights if a replacement dwelling is approved. 

 

The 8m rear extension does need neighbour consultation - its been 8 weeks already for the LDC and neighbour consultation.

 

I'm still not sure whether to (1) apply for the replacement dwelling immediately after the LDC, or whether to (2) notify building control of the start of the build for the PD extensions, start to dig the foundation trench then stop and submit the replacement dwelling application. The planning consultant recommended the latter.  I guess I'll do (2) unless anyone here has succeeded with (1).

Edited June 28, 2019 by Hilldes

[Hilldes]

An update on the outcome...

 

1. Secured LDC + PAN for permitted development extensions to existing chalet bungalow. This demonstrated that with PD extensions we could increase the GEA of the current dwelling by 89%.
2. Immediately after above PD, submitted a full application for demolition of the bungalow and build of a replacement 1.5 storey dwelling. Did not start to dig foundations for the PD extensions or even submit a building control notice. The full application secured approval for a 55% increase in GEA relative to the existing house, 1m max ridge height increase and 1.3m eaves height increase. Best estimates were that we would achieve a 30% to 40% increase in GEA given the green belt location. PD rights were not removed with the full application decision.

Got a planning consultant for the full application. One tip is that if you have the skills to write the planning submission to look for a planning consultant that will charge fees for advising on strategy and reviewing the draft planning documents - saved a few thousands of pounds this way relative to others that wanted to take full control of the planning submission. It's not hard to write the planning submissions if you look at all planning applications online for similar projects that have been submitted in the locality.

 

Thanks for the advice last year!

[DevilDamo]

That is a good result!

 

With some of the LPA’s down this way, they have stated we’d have to build out the PD works before submitting a Full application for a replacement dwelling within the Green Belt plus any increase. This is obviously a massive inconvenience along with substantially additional and abortive costs, but the LPA aren’t too concerned about that.

 

On one particular project, which were extensions to a dwelling within the Green Belt, we did finally reach an agreement with the LPA. We presented them with outline drawings illustrating what could be done via PD, which they came back and said to not worry about submitting a CoL application but just submit an application for a 50% increase. This did involve several emails and telephone conversations with the original Planning Officer but ended up going direct to the Head of Planning.

[Big Jimbo]

2 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

That is a good result!

 

With some of the LPA’s down this way, they have stated we’d have to build out the PD works before submitting a Full application for a replacement dwelling within the Green Belt plus any increase. This is obviously a massive inconvenience along with substantially additional and abortive costs, but the LPA aren’t too concerned about that.

 

On one particular project, which were extensions to a dwelling within the Green Belt, we did finally reach an agreement with the LPA. We presented them with outline drawings illustrating what could be done via PD, which they came back and said to not worry about submitting a CoL application but just submit an application for a 50% increase. This did involve several emails and telephone conversations with the original Planning Officer but ended up going direct to the Head of Planning.

It is daft though. You would think that the planners could, every now and then, could engage the One brain cell that they share between them.

[DevilDamo]

If only!!! The LPA’s argument has been that any application is determined on the ‘current’ situation, so they could not agree a respectable percentage increase on something that doesn’t exist.

[Randomiser]

We have some friends starting a similar journey with their local planning department.  I have discussed it a few times with them and I must admit I have rather come to the conclusion there is a subtle balancing act required.  Let's be honest there is an element here of trying to 'strong arm' the planners into agreeing something that the local policy would otherwise compel them to reject

 

In the case of my friends it is a house in the countryside and the local policy says any extension should be pretty small, but under current PD rules they can probably add 80% in terms of floor area.  But the implicit threat is 'approve something reasonable or I will just build the PD option'.  For this to have the desired effect the PD option must be less desirable to the planners than the alternative extension, that would suggest designing the PD option to be unattractive to the planners.  But, if the design is so unattractive the planners do not believe anyone in their right mind would want to live in the resulting threat they may decide to call the applicant's bluff.

 

My friends are in somewhat of a quandry as to what to put forward as the PD option for this very reason.

[DevilDamo]

This is partly the reason why LPA’s do not like PD as they lose that control over the design. I suppose the only option is for your friends is to submit and secure CoL approval with these ‘ugly’ extensions. Then go back to the LPA with a formal application with something more in keeping and less of an overall increase than the PD scheme. Some support via a Planning Consultant may help in their case and if your friends offered this ‘what they want’ scheme along with potential removal of Class A rights, then the LPA may be willing to compromise.

[Hilldes]

On 08/05/2020 at 23:23, Randomiser said:

Let's be honest there is an element here of trying to 'strong arm' the planners into agreeing something that the local policy would otherwise compel them to reject

 

I'd call it more a 'tactical negotiation'. I do empathise with the planners - I know it is really challenging to reconcile the desires of home owners with the constraints of policy.

For me there is a substantial inconsistency in policy that makes it extra hard for the planners in this case. If you look at the floor area uplift possible (again in the green belt):

• PD extensions: Large uplift (assuming the original house has had minimal extensions already as was the case with our 1950s chalet bungalow)
• Non-PD Extension: Medium uplift 
• Demolish and rebuild: small uplift. 

We made a strong case that the approved  PD extensions were ''bungalow sprawl' (we didn't call it that) and a replacement 1.5 story dwelling with much the same footprint as existing house will cause less "harm to the countryside".

[joe90]

My planning farce was similar, we wanted to replace a (derelict nearly) bungalow with cottage only 10% bigger footprint, refusal 3 times, each time we compromised a little. Planner actually told me “build what we like then extend under PD at a later date” anyway I went to appeal and won with our first design and still retained PD rights (not that I am likely to use them). Appeal officer told planners they were not abiding by their own policies ?