Discharge of planning condition... can I start?

[selfbuildrookie]

We have full planning permission to demolish an existing house and build a new one. We have the demolition contractor lined up to knock down next week, all CIL exemptions sorted and S80 notice approved by Council. HOWEVER there is one planning condition, which states that we cannot start 'above ground works' until it has been discharged, which is for the Council to approve hard & soft landscaping plans. This is essentially one low retaining wall around the boundary in stone, matching neighbours' walls. We have submitted it to the Council, but the official 'start date' of the application to discharge was delayed because they came back to ask for drawn elevations, which they now have - but it means the 6 week statutory period only started from last week when they received these.

 

I'm loathe to delay the demolition for what is surely just a tick box exercise, particularly after we have had to jump through numerous hoops for the council already with several bat surveys despite there never being any sign of a bat (we now have two reports concluding: no bats! Shock). Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if we just crack on with the demolition without waiting for the discharge of planning condition.... Could we realistically claim that we thought the wording meant no building work until it had been discharged, rather than no work at all e.g. demolition?

[PeterW]

Above ground works normally refers to construction of walls etc. Demolition is preparatory works 

[the_r_sole]

.

Edited September 26, 2019 by the_r_sole

[selfbuildrookie]

Thanks @PeterW & @the_r_sole, that echoes what I was thinking! 

[ToughButterCup]

5 hours ago, selfbuildrookie said:

[...]

Just wondering what is the worst that could happen if we just crack on with the demolition without waiting for the discharge of planning condition

[...]

 

They could serve a Stop Notice on you. 

Have a look on your Council website - the Planning bit - and see if there have been any Stop Notices served this century.  If there are, read them and have a look at their thresholds for action - if , recently, anyone has a Stop Notice  in a use case similar to yours  then be a little cautious.

 

If I were in your shoes, I think I'd just get on with it. If all the bits of paper are in, why on earth would they bother to make their own lives harder? 

Just do it.

 

 

[Jeremy Harris]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

They could, but they are extremely unlikely to, if information has already been submitted (almost as unlikely as them serving a completion notice on you ?).

 

 

I believe we have a former Planning Enforcement Officer here, so we could probably get a definitive view on this.  Mind you, it's possible that some might choose not to believe such an authority...

[Jeremy Harris]

24 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 By all means.

 

But there's no such thing as a 'definitive view': each case is taken on its merits.

 

 

 

That's simply untrue.  We have very clear planning policies, in many cases backed by statute law, and so there are many, many cases where policy and legislation override the merits, or otherwise, of many planning issues.  I dealt with one when commenting on an application a few weeks ago, where some of my colleagues wanted to argue against an application and I pointed out that there were no legally justifiable grounds to oppose it (and no, I'm not a Planning Enforcement Officer, just a Councillor).

[Jeremy Harris]

21 minutes ago, Sensus said:

With due respect, it shows.

 

Sorry, JS, I can see you're spoiling for a fight, but a word to the wise: you're so far out of your depth, here, that the fishes have googly eyes and a little light on their nose.  Stop, before you embarrass yourself.

 

 

 

Firstly, the very last thing I would do on this forum is pick a fight with anyone, that seems to be your own forte, amply demonstrated in several threads here.

 

I would certainly not pretend to be an expert in planning, but I have spent years dealing with planning applications of all sorts, and anyway how you can judge my level of knowledge, or otherwise, about planning, when I rarely comment on it here (for obvious reasons) I'm not sure.  I'll assume you're just reverting to an ad hominem tactic as deflection.

 

I've seen the planning system work reasonably well at times, and equally I've seen it fall over a fair few times.  I've seen people gaming the system, too, often as a consequence of a local authority just failing to do their job properly (the classic case here being the long delay in updating local plans and policies).  More recently a lack of funds has created the slightly bizarre situation (which some planning consultants seem keen to exploit) where the LA are keen to avoid any application going to appeal, because of the high cost implications of losing.  This is making planning here risk averse, and consent is being granted when, if there was a strict interpretation of policy, it probably shouldn't.

 

I would like to see the planning system work equably for all, with no single individual or group being more likely to gain consent than any other.  I fear that is getting ever more unlikely as an aspiration, unless there is a fundamental change, ideally one that provides enough resources to local authority planning departments so they can both bring local plan and policies up to date with national policies, and are able to deal with all planning matters faster than the maximum timescales laid down. 

[Ferdinand]

..

Edited September 2, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Jeremy Harris]

Just now, Sensus said:

 

Well, since I'm being accused of ad hominem tactics by you, perhaps you'd like to address the part of my post above that actually matters?

 

Are you still going to try to insist that it's 'simply untrue' that each enforcement case is taken on its merits?

 

 

I'm simply not going to argue with you, as there's no merit to the forum community to do so.  You have made your view clear, hopefully I've made my view clear.  Others can decide which view, if either, to believe.

[Ferdinand]

I think we have the answer, which is that it is overwhelmingly likely to be fine to proceed.

 

They are hardly likely to propose that he be forced to rebuild it, as he has permission to demolish!

 

Edited September 2, 2019 by Ferdinand

[selfbuildrookie]

I'm new here, but have to say I'm enjoying how threads seem to take on a life of their own. Thanks for all the informed opinion on here, I appreciate it and it backs up my own view that we should proceed. Hooray!

 

One last thing - I'm amused by the assumption by many on here that I'm a 'he'. Girls can build houses too!

[Ferdinand]

It is an educational duty.

 

We do not know what you know, so we have to talk about all the unknown unknowns all the time.

 

Like your history teacher who may have explained how to eat clams and oysters, such that they enjoy the experience.

 

Edited September 3, 2019 by Ferdinand

[SteamyTea]

2 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

Like your history teacher who may have explained how to eat clams and oysters

I went to a posh, minor, public school, never had oysters on the menu.

Fought over a small tray of chips once.

[Ferdinand]

Just now, SteamyTea said:

I went to a posh, minor, public school, never had oysters on the menu.

Fought over a small tray of chips once.

 

Yes, but I bet you did Lewis Carroll at some point.

[SteamyTea]

Chaucer and Hardy.

Put me off reading for decades.

Lewis Carroll's 'Alice' stories where a response to quantum theories, so would have been much more interesting to me.

[SteamyTea]

35 minutes ago, Sensus said:

I once spent a week doing a measured survey of a minor public school, and they appeared to subsist almost entirely on boiled cabbage and steamed puddings.

It was what the British Empire, and buggery, were built on.

Probably why I am social liberal and European.

[joe90]

Well I had a stop notice issued against me (by our very pedantic council). We were fighting for planning permission to replace a derelict bungalow with a cottage, it was suggested that I carry on and build the garage under permitted development (which was on the planning permission being sought and was not a problem). We had started building the garage (demolition of existing Nissan hut which constitutes a “start”). Before the bungalow was lost in a fire (no it did me no favours, in fact it cost me a lot more money to clear the site of asbestos than it would if I simply bagged it up and disposed of it, asbestos in a fire explodes and goes everywhere so all top soil had to be cleared and taken away!).      Anyway, said council decided to issue a stop notice (to the wrong address so not being on site I knew nothing about it till the brickie rang me up to say council arrived on site and threatened a hefty fine if they did not stop work immediately). Council would not accept that I had started before said fire so I went to appeal, at the same time I went to appeal on the cottage planning refusal. We won the cottage planning appeal (which included the garage) so I cancelled the appeal about the garage.

 

i think the planners were pushed by a neighbour that fought everything I did on site, in fact he rang the council every time I started my JCB  ( to clear the ditches around our field next to the site). In the end I used to ring the planning enforcement officer (who was alright really) to tell him what I was doing so when the neighbour rang he had an answer.

 

dont ask me my opinion about bxxxxy planners ?

[joe90]

24 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Technically, I think that the Planners were correct - particularly if there was a refusal in place for a replacement dwelling, at the time.

 

The refusal for the planning was purely about shape (our planners down here have a thing about bungalows or room in roof to such an extent that next door is room in roof but 1200mm higher than our bungalow, still it took an appeal person to apply some common sense) . If I applied for a room In Roof bungalow with garage it would not have  been refused. The garage was going to be built anyway.