Jump to content

Reclaiming Removed PD Rights...


harry_angel

Recommended Posts

Hi all, has anyone ever managed to reclaim previously removed permitted development rights?

 

The fool who previously owned our house was outwitted by the council and stupidly signed away clause rights A, B and E. This was 7 years ago now.

 

This article strongly suggests that unless exceptional circumstances were in place (there weren't, aside from basic green belt law), these rights shouldn't have been removed:

 

http://just-planning.co.uk/how-to-get-rid-of-planning-conditions-that-remove-your-permitted-development-rights/ 

 

The National Planning Policy Framework (the NPPF), the granddaddy of planning policies, states that (paragraph 52):

“…planning conditions should not be used to restrict national permitted development rights unless there is clear justification to do so.”


The government’s national Planning Practice Guidance (the PPG) goes further, saying that:

“Conditions restricting the future use of permitted development rights or changes of use will rarely pass the test of necessity and should only be used in exceptional circumstances.”

 

Has anyone been through the process of getting said rights reinstated? Would be very interested to hear any experiences if so...

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If these were removed by a condition, you need to look closely at the wording and justification of the condition before applying to have the condition altered or removed.

 

If you let us know we may be able to have a stab at this before you spend your money on a planning consultant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not me but I think it's a "section 73 Application for removal or variation of a condition following grant of planning permission."

 

Beware that _approved_ local plans can trump the NPPF so check if the reasons given for removing those conditions are supported by the local plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys. Ok here's the precise wording from the Permission Approved Letter:

 

Immediately following the implementation of this permission, notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended on 1st October 2008) (or any order revoking and re-enacting that order with or without modification) no buildings, extensions or alterations permitted by Classes A, B and E of Part 1 of the Second Schedule of the 1995 Order (as amended on 1st October 2008) shall be carried out.

 

Reason: To protect the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the following policy number(s), RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/07).

 

What do you think?

 

The 3-part extensions granted were really routine tbh - one was just a bathroom dormer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, harry_angel said:

Reason: To protect the openness of the Green Belt. In accordance with the following policy number(s), RE2 of the Guildford Borough Local Plan 2003 (as saved by CLG Direction 24/09/07).

 

I think it will be difficult to get it removed because appeal inspectors put a lot of weight on approved local plans. One reason is because these plans have (in theory) been put out to public consultation so the public approves of them, democracy in action and all that. It's not the government fault that few people read or comment on local plans.

 

I think you would need to find evidence that Similar conditions have been removed on another house nearby.

 

Or perhaps prove the 2003 plan is somehow out of date. Eg the area is no longer in the greenbelt or significant new development has been allowed that changes the character of the area since 2003 so that it probably wouldn't be considered green belt today.


 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You have a house in the green belt that the planners and the local plan want to protect from development.  If it was simple to circumvent, there would be no green belt or protected countryside.  I guess your purchase price reflected this reality.

 

Have you asked a planning consultant to look at this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, bassanclan said:

I've got a feeling that you don't pay an application fee for planning permission for something which would be permitted development if your rights have been removed 

I think they knocked that on the head a while ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haven't consulted a planning consultant yet, but definitely will. Thought I'd see whether anyone had been through this process previously.

 

What kills me is how cheaply the previous owner gave away said rights, he didn't even get a massive extension or some giant outbuilding out of it.

 

I want PDR reinstated a) because the council are extremely tough here and will fight tooth and nail over pretty much every sq m you go for, regardless of form or location and b) in a wider sense, I have a natural aversion to going cap in hand to some (not always) brilliantly run or managed "higher" entity! Particularly when immediate neighbours are using PD, willy-nilly!

 

Think I'll follow Temp's investigation ideas below...

 

Thanks for everyone's input.

 

12 hours ago, Temp said:

 

I think it will be difficult to get it removed because appeal inspectors put a lot of weight on approved local plans. One reason is because these plans have (in theory) been put out to public consultation so the public approves of them, democracy in action and all that. It's not the government fault that few people read or comment on local plans.

 

I think you would need to find evidence that Similar conditions have been removed on another house nearby.

 

Or perhaps prove the 2003 plan is somehow out of date. Eg the area is no longer in the greenbelt or significant new development has been allowed that changes the character of the area since 2003 so that it probably wouldn't be considered green belt today.


 

 

Btw this is another rant on the same subject!

 

https://www.accidentalsmallholder.net/forum/index.php?topic=91853.0 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just had this back from one planning consultant:

 

This condition seems to me to be completely unreasonable. Councils cannot remove permitted development rights from a whole house when the application related only to a front extension. I don't think I have ever seen a council try this before. One of the 'tests' of a planning condition is that it must relate exclusively to the development being proposed. In your case, the development is the front extension but the condition stops all other extensions under PD (including rear extensions and roof extensions, for example).
 
I can see what the council is trying to achieve. National policy limits extensions in the Green Belt and the council therefore decided that they would grant permission for the front extension but that, in compensation, future PD extensions should not take place. However, this approach is not valid. If the council was determined to remove the PD rights as part of a quid pro quo, it could only be achieved (as far as I know) though a legal agreement. Conditions should not be used in this way. 
 
I recommend that you apply to the council to have the condition removed. I would charge a fee of £1,000 plus VAT, 50% of the fee payable upfront and the remainder when the application is ready to be submitted. There is an application fee of £250 to the council. The fee includes a detailed supporting statement that sets out the government's position and relevant case law and explains why the condition is not justified. Hopefully, the council would bow to the logic in the supporting statement. If it is stubborn and the application is refused, I could appeal the refusal for an additional fee of £400 plus VAT.
 
Any thoughts?
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He might be right but planners do similar things all over the country.

 

All new houses, including mine, in our village have PDR removed. Our planning consultant and architect wern't surprised. Officially we're in a conservation area but it's not deemed important enough for the planners to write a conservation area statement explaining why (unlike other villages nearby). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like the phrase "I don't think I have ever seen a council try this before. ".  It is vague and equivocal.

 

If he is so confident, suggest a no win no fee deal, offering only to pay the Local Authority application fee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mr Punter said:

I don't like the phrase "I don't think I have ever seen a council try this before. ".  It is vague and equivocal.

 

If he is so confident, suggest a no win no fee deal, offering only to pay the Local Authority application fee.

 

Thanks, yes looking in to him. He has a big online presence or digital skin in the game. Doubt whether he will go for no win/no fee but can try... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

In case anyone out there is interested - we managed to reclaim our PD rights successfully.

 

A real result. Much teeth-gnashing among the neighbours but hey, the rules are the rules, right? We found the council lob this remove PD rights clause almost as a default setting, which is extraordinary. There's a total pattern to it. It's like preying on the naivety of home owners.

 

Anyway, this is the man we have to think for a formidable application > http://just-planning.co.uk/ 

 

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice outcome.

 

It is fairly common to see applications to have conditions varied or removed.

 

Feel free not to reply but I would be interested to know how much were the fees for the planning consultants?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

We had our PD rights removed when we built an extension - a modest one. At the time we neither had the time or money to appeal it with the council.  We weren't happy but there you go.

So now I am in the position where we would like to build a structure which under PD rights wouldn't be a problem. Because we have had them removed it is a problem. I have been quoted £950 plus VAT and fees. I have been told we have a good chance of getting the PD's reinstated.

I just wonder whether anyone has done this for themselves on here?  I can't seem to find any information out apart from the professional planning consultants who advertise themselves.  I am not against the planning consultants earning a living, we just don't have a spare £1000 plus VAT and fees....

We are not listed. We are not in a conservation area. We are in an area of archaeological interest - but that should not take away PD rights, so I've been told.  We have had all PD rights removed A to E due to our modest extension - which incidentally we now think would have fallen under PD rights!!!!!
 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NLC speaking freely the removal of PD rights (in the way you describe, or the way that it happened to us) is in the vague arena of unlawfulness / illegality.

 

Why should a homeowner have such permitted development rights removed, and then have to pay to have them reinstated?

 

They should never have been removed in the first place.

 

It's an outrage, but gives you a window into the wider mentality of LPAs and the little people who work for them which, basically, is: block, block, block, obstruct and block.

 

It's wrong and the inspectorate really need to be far tougher on them: they're essentially preying for the most part on "civilian" homeowners who don't have a scooby doo that they're entitled to their PD rights.

 

Anyway, rant over. We used a great consultant who specialises in this and had a field day with his report.

 

The LPA didn't even spitefully force us to go to appeal: they just gave the PD rights back, tail between legs, and skulked off in to the shadows.

 

If you don't want to spend the cash you could cobble together a supporting statement using your own research and people's advice on this board, and then if they refuse it simply appeal and the inspectorate won't fall for the LPA's dirty tricks or take any notice of the amateurism of your statement: they'll likely just give the rights straight back.

 

That way you also contribute to the LPA's list of failed appeals (to my knowledge, if they get enough of these, they get put on the govt naughty step) that particularly year.

 

Double whammy.

 

Good luck.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just reminds me of a situation my parents had years ago when replacing a roof with concrete tile and the Planning Officer wanted them to put in steel plates bolted together to strengthen it, but in such a way that it did not look to me to be anything but none-sense. Luckily we were in touch with a Forensic Surveyor and he sent a letter off to the PO and said "if he ever so much as darken your door again I will throw him in court!" Latter found out that the PO's major qualification for the job was that he did woodwork at school! He had major companies end up with roofs that did not match up and so on, seemed quite dangerous to be honest.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Lorenz said:

Just reminds me of a situation my parents had years ago when replacing a roof with concrete tile and the Planning Officer wanted them to put in steel plates bolted together to strengthen it, but in such a way that it did not look to me to be anything but none-sense. Luckily we were in touch with a Forensic Surveyor and he sent a letter off to the PO and said "if he ever so much as darken your door again I will throw him in court!" Latter found out that the PO's major qualification for the job was that he did woodwork at school! He had major companies end up with roofs that did not match up and so on, seemed quite dangerous to be honest.

 

 

Doesn't surprise me.

 

They're advertising for emergency planning officers near me at £130 a day.

 

Pay peanuts....etc.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/03/2020 at 21:31, bassanclan said:

I've got a feeling that you don't pay an application fee for planning permission for something which would be permitted development if your rights have been removed 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...