What constitutes start of development?

[mvincentd]

@Sensus Thanks for your interest.  This paragraph follows the Schedule of Conditions (of which there are 14) so i guess it's an informative rather than being condition number 15;

 

COMMENCEMENT OF DEVELOPMENT

The attention of the Applicant/developer is drawn to the fact that development pursuant to this planning permission may not lawfully commence unless and until all conditions requiring the consent, agreement or approval of schemes and/or details have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Applicant/developer should be aware of their responsibility in this regard. If you have not already done so, you are advised to put arrangements in place for the timely submission of these requirements and to check that there are no omissions in terms of the details required. Failure to do so may render the development totally unauthorised and could result in Enforcement Action being taken by the Council. 

 

I've attached the whole set of conditions incase of interest.

PLNG-Decision_Notice.pdf

[mvincentd]

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

the six tests rule in the NPPF

 

Bit of a tangent but reading the 6 tests was interesting.

No'2:Relevant to planning;Does the condition relate to planning objectives and is it within the scope of the permission to which it is to be attached? A condition must not be used to control matters that are subject to specific control elsewhere in planning legislation (for example, advertisement control, listed building consents, or tree preservation).

 

I'd have thought permitted development rights are specifically detailed and controlled elsewhere in planning legislation, so surely they shouldn't add a condition that removes my PD rights.  Do I have an argument.

[mvincentd]

 

4 hours ago, Sensus said:

(although apparently it is not that obvious?!)

...maybe obvious reading that advisory in isolation but if I take any one of several conditions that begin with the words "Before any works commence on site...." and assume the same explicit intention of the english used then a single condition can act as a unilateral brake on commencement. So I can't do 12 before 3 is discharged (below);

 

12.Before any other operations are commenced the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number 03A shall be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas shall thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

 

3.Before any works commence on site precise details of all new tree, shrub and hedge planting (including positions and/or density, species and planting size) shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such details shall require approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. 

[Temp]

At least you should be able to reclaim the VAT on those trees etc. You can only do that if they are required as part of your planning permission.

[mvincentd]

21 hours ago, Sensus said:

At risk of stating the bleedin' obvious (although apparently it is not that obvious?!), if the condition doesn't require the agreement of schemes and details (ie. further design information), then it doesn't need discharging prior to commencement on site!

 

12.Before any other operations are commenced the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number 03A shall be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas shall thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

 

12 hours ago, Sensus said:

No you can't do 12 before 3 is discharged

 

Thanks for telling me, I was about to misinterpret how my LPA actually answered -"You can discharge the highway conditions now before any others".

(I thought it was a highway condition as it's full wording includes; "Reason: In the interests of highway safety....") .

 

Aren't I a Klutz, just like you pointed out Sensus in your post prior to edit.

 

[ToughButterCup]

15 minutes ago, mvincentd said:

Aren't I a Klutz, just like you pointed out Sensus in your post prior to edit.

 

No, @mvincentd, you aren't. Planners appear not to care about clearly expressed language. Or readability. That would take effort and care. Simply expressed  communication always requires  inordinate levels of effort. 

I've scanned your conditions, and, at random pick one which is very poorly written;

 

'....Before the development hereby permitted is commenced any entrance gates shall be set back a minimum distance of 4.50 metres from the edge of the carriageway and hung so that the gates can only open inwards...'

 

'Any'  gates .... so you aren't required to have gates, but the purpose of the condition is to ensure safety. So, if you don't have gates,  will the site be less safe? As written, you might conclude you might as well not have gates.

 

How much easier to say: If you install gates at the property, they should be set back from the road by 4.5 meters.

And by the way, have you seen any gates that are 4.5 meters long? No, neither have I. In which case it matters not a jot whether they open in or outwards.