Is Planning Permission invalid - site area reduced

[beefybash]

Hello All, newbie here!

 

I have an issue with a neighbouring property and I wondered if any of you have had a similar experience that could shed some light.

 

The site in question is adjacent to my property and is contiguous to 2 others. Historically (past 30+ years) this site has had 2 buildings on it, which were used for a workshop and garage for the owner who lives in a house on the opposite side of the (adopted) road – ie. not a contiguous property.

 

In 2015, these two buildings were included in an application for a new dwelling on the site, which was approved with the existing garaging and workshop/storage utilised in that development.

 

The development is in a conservation area and won favour by being an eco-friendly and low energy property, buried into a hillside with a grass roof etc., and specifically repurposing the existing buildings as garaging.

 

What then happened is that the land owner split the plot, and sold only the part with the new dwelling to a self-builder, and retained the existing buildings which formed the garaging and workshop in the approved permission. He has subsequently had 2 attempts to gain permission for a dwelling on the remaining part of the site with these existing buildings, together with an appeal, but so far, he has not been successful.

 

The self-builder is now close to completion of the new dwelling, and is about to put through a planning change for the reduced site area, a new garage and other minor amendments made along the way.

The planners seem to be accepting that when presented with the application, they will have very little option but approve the amendments and reduced site area, which we find very worrying.

Having looked online I have found a couple of references to the ‘red-line’ site area on a planning application as being fundamental and cannot be reduced or indeed increased without a whole new/full application and proper consideration.

 

Both myself and another contiguous neighbour bought our properties post this approval being granted and expected a single dwelling to be built between us. To now find that the same property will be built on a compromised site and potentially another dwelling on the retained land is very upsetting. This particular neighbour’s property is grade 2 listed, which we hoped would carry some weight in this matter.

 

Any thoughts or advice on this would be very helpful and appreciated.

[saveasteading]

Planners look on each application on its merits. 

 

I think your argument here might be that the recent new dwelling was based on the original permission which was founded on sustainable design principles. That the owner should then build less is up to them. If they wish to continue with the original permission then it should not deviate from that original permission, at least in principle.

 

However the owners are entitled to submit as many applications as they like. 

 

If  this matters sufficiently to you, then perhaps have  a word with a local planning consultant. They know the clauses backwards (better than the planning officers usually) and the local precedents. There would be a significant cost (a few hundred for a preliminary discussion and a few for a formal objection.)

20 minutes ago, beefybash said:

2 attempts to gain permission for a dwelling on the remaining part of the site with these existing buildings, together with an appeal, but so far, he has not been successful.

On what grounds was this refused, as this is likely to be a useful start for your objection?

If you don't object in principle to more development, but to the nature of it, it is worth making that clear.

[Ferdinand]

It's not clear what exactly you want to achieve here.

 

It is, as you say, built. And they will not make them knock it down.

 

Planning can't force the landowner to sell the remaining land, for example.

 

Can you stop sign-off / occupation because a condition / policy requirement has not been met?

 

I agree that it is cynical and tricksy of them.

 

[ProDave]

The person who might be on thin ice here is the guy that bought half the plot and built the house.  If the planners come back and enforce the original plan to be built, including incorporating the existing buildings then he will be forced to do something with buildings and land he does not own.  That could get legal and messy.

 

Your objection to any further planning permission should be along the lines that planning was granted for one dwelling incorporating the existing buildings and that has not been done.  Had the original plan been built there would be no spare buildings now left to convert.  It needs someone to frame that sentiment in proper planning terms.

[Conor]

In lines of what Dave has said, your argument will be based on massing and over development of a site. PP was granted for one dwelling on a site, splitting the site in two doesn't change the fact that it's the same physical area. I don't think the splitting of the plot really affects the new house as the density of development is unchanged - it's their landscape plan that would come under the most scrutiny. Planners love hedges and trees in conservation areas. If they don't have the space to reinstate lost vegetation as a result of the development, they may have issues. But again, this will be negotiated out and nothing will be demolished or enforced.

[beefybash]

Many thanks to all for your responses. 

 

We have no desire to have the new structure demolished and have great sympathy for the self builder involved, who seems to have been a little naïve.   What we are very anxious to ensure, is that there is no further development of the buildings now retained by the original land owner.  I feel that if we could prevent the further development of that land, there is a slim chance that the owner would consider selling it to the self builder at a realistic price, thus ensuring that the overall build is as originally envisaged.

 

Self builder is yet to submit his plans with the compromised site.  When he does so I'll post the detail of the application for anyone that's interested.

 

In my view, this is just planning through the back door and I am very keen to try and prevent the original land owner benefitting from his questionable actions.

 

Thanks again.  

[saveasteading]

Did the neighbour modify the exiting planning permission or submit a new proposal?

 

If the former, then that is effectively the project done.

If the latter then the original permission is scuppered as no longer possible.

 

(If he just built something different then he has a potential problem.)

 

In either case it is possible to submit for a building on the now remaining land, as often as they like.

Your argument will always be that the original permission was based on the specifics, which now cannot apply. However, a different officer might not agree with the previous ones who rejected the schemes, and you must make the same arguments every time, but now with precedents of previous rejections and the reasons.

 

 

[Temp]

5 hours ago, beefybash said:

We have no desire to have the new structure demolished and have great sympathy for the self builder involved, who seems to have been a little naïve.   What we are very anxious to ensure, is that there is no further development of the buildings now retained by the original land owner.  I feel that if we could prevent the further development of that land, there is a slim chance that the owner would consider selling it to the self builder at a realistic price, thus ensuring that the overall build is as originally envisaged.

 

It's not possible to guarantee the garages wont/can't be developed. All planning applications have to be considered on merit and normally in isolation but not always. Generally getting pp for one house can make it easier to get PP for another in certain sitiuations but it really depends on the site.

[ProDave]

1 hour ago, Temp said:

 

It's not possible to guarantee the garages wont/can't be developed. All planning applications have to be considered on merit and normally in isolation but not always. Generally getting pp for one house can make it easier to get PP for another in certain sitiuations but it really depends on the site.

In the Highlands there is a general presumption against building in the "hinterland" but there  are then some exceptions to that.  One of which if the current use of the land is "garden ground".  So getting permission for one house on a large plot makes it more likely a second will then be allowed later.

[Jilly]

The only way you can have any say for sure on land adjacent to you, which is retained by the seller,  is to draw up a covenant when you purchase your property. Without such prenuptials, both you and they, can take their chances with the planners and you can only meaningfully object on specific matters of planning law.