How expensive would you like your planning violation?

[joth]

I doubt anyone can beat this

 

https://www.theguardian.com/global/2023/sep/27/london-apartment-block-that-deviates-from-plans-must-be-torn-down-says-council

London apartment block that deviates from plans must be torn down, says council

‘Blight on the landscape’ in Greenwich lacks promised gardens, children’s play areas and accessibility for wheelchair users

 

 

[Andehh]

Hopefully they hold them to account! Not building the underground carpark, to then tarmac over the external green space for car parking is a significant change.

 

 

[ProDave]

That will no doubt go to appeal and drag on somewhat.

[ToughButterCup]

On Radio 4 this evening  Evan Davis and the Leader of the Council....

[nod]

Theres an exclusive development about 20 miles from me where the builders have been ordered to demolish the lot due to planning breaches Councils seem to be getting tough on planning breaches 

[Nickfromwales]

Play with fire, get fingers burnt basically. Some just take the piss and look surprised when they get collared. 🤷‍♂️

[Alan Ambrose]

Demolish is a very stupid solution if there’s not a great safety problem. The property is 80-90% OK and BC will have signed it off as a safe build. By all means fine the developer so much that they will never think of doing it again - say 3x the saving they made.

 

Our society is getting dumb with it’s overly punitive ‘lose all your CIL benefits if you make a tiny paperwork error’ - style penalties. Sure, punish but don’t actually kill them.

Also LPA’s are arrogant enough as it is.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Alan Ambrose

[joe90]

24 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

Demolish is a very stupid solution if there’s not a great safety problem. The property is 80-90% OK and BC will have signed it off as a safe build. By all means fine the developer so much that they will never think of doing it again - say 3x the saving they made.

 

Our society is getting dumb with it’s overly punitive ‘lose all your CIL benefits if you make a tiny paperwork error’ - style penalties. Sure, punish but don’t actually kill them.

Also LPA’s are arrogant enough as it is.

 

 

Actually I agree, why put the tenants out, it was not their fault, yes fine the developer massively to make them an example to others not to take the piss.

[Kelvin]

Demolishing is a big hammer to crack a nut. Fine the them the same cost. 

[joe90]

12 minutes ago, Kelvin said:

Fine them the same cost. 

And use that money for a local amenity (park, playground, residents car park).

[Buzz]

15 minutes ago, joe90 said:

Actually I agree, why put the tenants out, it was not their fault, yes fine the developer massively to make them an example to others not to take the piss.

I do agree, why pull down the whole building ,the only thing wrong with the building is that it doesn't do what they said it would .

So I would take the position that the developer needs to bring it back closer to the original design that planning was passed on , if there was to be a parking spot for every flat then grant permission for the bottom 1 or 2 stories to be converted into parking and the extra retail space that was also promised. 

The disabled access issues should never be allowed to pass by with just a fine no matter how large the fine is and should be resolved regardless of cost to the developer. 

[Mr Punter]

I don't think that a mechanism exists where the developer can be fined, other than for not complying with an enforcement notice.

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> I don't think that a mechanism exists where the developer can be fined, other than for not complying with an enforcement notice.

 

Well the LPA could probably 'invite' the developer to make a specific contribution / design changes in exchange for not having the building razed. Maybe that's what will happen.

 

But it also means, in general, the UK needs to be more sophisticated with penalties and to stop having 'fragile' laws like CIL - where one slip means you get nailed. Life is complicated enough without the state deliberately (or stupidly) setting up mantraps.

 

In this case, the planning deviation is undoubtedly deliberate rather than by mistake - in which case the developer should be punished. But it begs the question what the LPA were doing while the building was being built. "Asked why it did not act sooner, Greenwich said it was not until 2022, when building work was finally finished, that it became clear that the breaches to the planning permission were more than just external."

 

Yeah, right. I'm sure the LPA will have demanded a big chunk of cash from the developer for planning and a regular review wouldn't have been out of order for a development this big. So I think the LPA takes at least 1/2 the blame. Maybe, by not challenging the build as it progressed, the developer even hoped that the LPA was tacitly agreeing.

 

 

Edited September 28, 2023 by Alan Ambrose

[saveasteading]

3 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

one slip means you get nailed

Oops we missed out the basement isn't a  slip. It is a calculated risk that they will get away with it.

The LA has to stay tough or the developer will, indeed , get away with it.

Getting tenants in also seems to have been a calculated risk, as the dispute was already in place, or so I heard.

As above, a 'voluntary' proposal to pay 3 times the cost of the basement would buy land and playground.  Actually, maybe 3x is not enough. Half the cost of the project sounds right...

but they may suddenly go bust, as many developments are by a custom-made ltd company, for this very reason.   

3 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

not challenging the build as it progressed,

You don't like planners, do you? There is only one party to blame here.

Anyway, planning law is that you can build anything you want, but may have to take it down again.

[Mr Punter]

LPA don't make regular checks during construction.  The full extent of the breaches may not have been apparent until the scaffolding was down.  Even if they had LA building control, they don't care what the building looks like, as long as it complies with Building Regulations.

 

The LPA will normally only act following a complaint, unless it is clearly obvious that the development does not have the correct planning consent.

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> You don't like planners, do you?

 

Not the ones I've dealt with.

 

But, ignoring that, it's dumb knocking down largely sound buildings. A bit like crushing your car if you stayed too long on a yellow line.

 

And the planners should have better systems for compliance for what is probably a £200-300m project than 'let's inspect it when it's done'. Not that the developer has been smart, but the LPA has also acted dumb.

[saveasteading]

1 minute ago, Mr Punter said:

Even if they had LA building control, they don't care what the building looks like, as long as it complies with Building Regulations.

They can be in the same corridor or even room, but seldom liaise. On balance I think this is correct and proper, or they would be dabbling without the full knowledge.

I'm sure a planning officer could ask the bco whether a basement had been constructed....but why would they, in normal life?

[saveasteading]

6 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said:

the LPA has also acted dumb.

I refer you to my previous comment. 

 

Perhaps I am respectful to planners because they have always been respectful to me. 

They are pitted against bullying, cheating, litigious developers all the time, yet have to go by the book.

 

I've done perhaps 200 planning applications. Maybe I've been lucky every time.  Yes, on some we had differences of opinion about what were reasonable conditions, but it all worked out.

And then we built what was proposed, and informed them of necessary changes, such as window positions.

 

Thinking about it, we did delete basement parking once, because it didn't work as the original designers' proposal (cars could get down but not out again). but we did get permission  for a variation.

Edited September 28, 2023 by saveasteading

[Alan Ambrose]

Well drifting off the topic, but I think the 'LPA experience' varies enormously between LPAs. Mine is in the bottom decile for turnaround times - hovering just above the 70% special measures status. It has 39% overturn rate at appeal vs. a national average of 29%.

 

The 4 neighbouring LPAs are in the second highest decile (where 'high' is good). Just the luck of the draw, but super time and energy wasting for me.

[kandgmitchell]

Of course the Approved Inspector will not be employed by the local authority which employs the planners so that'll be a long corridor....................

[saveasteading]

9 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said:

that'll be a long corridor.................

Good point.  I favour approved inspectors over LA but choose knowledgeable, tough ones so that we get it right.

Developers don't perhaps want the best.   A LA near me once made a planning condition for a housing development that their bco was entitled to inspect from time to time, to maintain standards.

[joe90]

I think in this case the developer was taking the piss, not small deviations, banking on the LPA not bothering about it and should be hit hard but not to demolish as that’s just a pure waste of money and puts tenants out at no fault of theirs. Back in Devon my neighbour was given a height limit but exceeded it by about 1200mm and the planners didn’t even notice or bother to look, so what’s the point  🤷‍♂️

[Temp]

The massive tilt wasn't on the approved plans 🙂

 

 

[Mr Punter]

Brought to you by Monaco based tax avoiders.

[SteamyTea]

Happened down here at Cardis Bay after the G7.

Not sure of they were removed or not.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-60333927