saveasteading Posted March 20 Share Posted March 20 4 minutes ago, Alan Ambrose said: planning consultant to demonstrate that you won't be bullied I once asked a head of planning about their thoughts on planning consultants. He said they welcome them because they present the case logically and with reference to policy, making it easy to deal with. So I don't think that bullying logic applies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 14 hours ago, garrymartin said: you can resubmit another for free Not anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garrymartin Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 1 hour ago, DevilDamo said: Not anymore. Hadn't seen that news. Looks like you still have a "free go" if your original withdrawal or refusal was before 6th December 2023 though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 4 hours ago, garrymartin said: Hadn't seen that news. Looks like you still have a "free go" if your original withdrawal or refusal was before 6th December 2023 though. Yes, but would not apply in the OP's case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 21 Share Posted March 21 Remember that when you are applying for an LDC the LPA are not considering any planning policies in their local plan. They are being asked to determine whether the application satisfies the provisions of the permitted development regulations. Ordinarily that can be done by reference to specific measurements and dimensions set out in those regulations. The issue comes in here when the phrase "incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house" has to be determined. For some reason they have decided that the OP's building is not such. They are interpreting the law here and often these things are run by the Council's legal department before issue. There have been several legal cases over this phrase "incidental to the enjoyment" and it is not as clear cut as you may think. I don't have access to my case references unfortunately (they're in the container with the rest of our life) but I recall one judge suggesting that "incidental use" isn't simply up to the whim of the land owner and refusing an application to the court. Here, simply the scale and nature of the proposal may have swung the opinion away from "incidental" (minor, subordinate etc) towards something else. As to a way forward, by all means appeal but it'll take a while. The other approach is to negotiate and try to find out what the LPA do regard as incidental. For this I'd consider using a Planning Agent simply to distance yourself from the discussion. Planners are often more amenable to agents because they talk the same language (and in some cases worked alonside them). Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 On 20/03/2024 at 18:16, joe90 said: Found this…. ...so are the council trying to say your going commercial ? No, I don't think so. I've re-read the refusal document several times and I think it all comes down to this: Although, when broken down, none of the proposed uses of the building appear obviously unreasonable (even though in scale all are more than generous), the activities indicated in the application, in the main fall into categories that, individually, may be acceptable as incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house, however taken together they occupy an unreasonable amount of space. It has not been demonstrated that the outbuilding is genuinely subordinate and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Thus as a matter of fact and degree the proposals do not come within the terms of Class E of Part 1 of GPDO. So, they seem to agree that all of the purposes I've outlined are reasonable (or "not obviously unreasonable" as they prefer to say) but that taken together, they occupy an "unreasonable amount of space". I've worked on the internal layout and I wish it had been submitted as it now is because I'm genuinely having to squeeze everything in rather than it being "generous". But, I didn't want to go into vast detail on the building's intended contents as it's then in the public domain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 On 21/03/2024 at 08:56, garrymartin said: Hadn't seen that news. Looks like you still have a "free go" if your original withdrawal or refusal was before 6th December 2023 though. Sadly, that doesn't apply as they've only just refused it. It's crazy how their rules seem to change so arbitrarily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 15 minutes ago, phykell said: It has not been demonstrated that the outbuilding is genuinely subordinate and reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. This appears to me that the council are telling you how to live your life, most people are happy to have a house and garage but some (like me) want various sheds etc. I have a garage, woodwork shop, potting shed, garden shed and considering a summer house and my plot is not that big (but still under 50% coverage). This might help. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/accessory-building Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 18 hours ago, kandgmitchell said: Remember that when you are applying for an LDC the LPA are not considering any planning policies in their local plan. They are being asked to determine whether the application satisfies the provisions of the permitted development regulations. Ordinarily that can be done by reference to specific measurements and dimensions set out in those regulations. The issue comes in here when the phrase "incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house" has to be determined. For some reason they have decided that the OP's building is not such. They are interpreting the law here and often these things are run by the Council's legal department before issue. There have been several legal cases over this phrase "incidental to the enjoyment" and it is not as clear cut as you may think. I don't have access to my case references unfortunately (they're in the container with the rest of our life) but I recall one judge suggesting that "incidental use" isn't simply up to the whim of the land owner and refusing an application to the court. Here, simply the scale and nature of the proposal may have swung the opinion away from "incidental" (minor, subordinate etc) towards something else. As to a way forward, by all means appeal but it'll take a while. The other approach is to negotiate and try to find out what the LPA do regard as incidental. For this I'd consider using a Planning Agent simply to distance yourself from the discussion. Planners are often more amenable to agents because they talk the same language (and in some cases worked alonside them). Good luck! It is indeed just down to the incidental enjoyment, etc. and it even seems that they're happy with all of the reasons I've specified. The problem is the amount of space, and of course, I don't agree. They've even suggested that I should have discussed the shed I have, I guess as a potential location for the lawn tractor and other gardening equipment - needless to say, my mechanical equipment will fare better in an insulated brick building and I feel like it's a bit over the top having to justify absolutely everything such as, for example, intending to use the shed for cutting wood for the log burners, woodworking, potting and general gardening - we have a very large garden so I need a lot of equipment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 22 Author Share Posted March 22 25 minutes ago, joe90 said: This appears to me that the council are telling you how to live your life, most people are happy to have a house and garage but some (like me) want various sheds etc. I have a garage, woodwork shop, potting shed, garden shed and considering a summer house and my plot is not that big (but still under 50% coverage). This might help. https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/accessory-building Exactly - we have loads we want to do with the space, just as you're doing, including growing our own vegetables which is a huge undertaking on its own. In the current climate as well, people are spending more time at home, pursuing hobbies/interests, etc. - a good thing 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 5 hours ago, joe90 said: This appears to me that the council are telling you how to live your life, Along with just about every other bit of authority out there I would suggest...................... after all, don't forget they know more than you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 (edited) 42 minutes ago, kandgmitchell said: don't forget they know more than you! No, they Think they know more than me 🥷 which is why I have never lost a fight with planners or building inspectors. 😎 knowledge is power. Edited March 22 by joe90 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 14 minutes ago, joe90 said: Think they know more than me 🥷 which is why I have never lost a fight with planners or building inspectors. 😎 knowledge is power Being right is important. Avoiding it becoming a fight is next. However, My weapon of choice was the entire folder of building regs, which I would place on the table before we started a debate. The implication being that I know this book better than you, and do you feel lucky? I miss the old hard documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe90 Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 2 minutes ago, saveasteading said: Being right is important. Avoiding it becoming a fight is next. Oh yes, my day job used to be negotiating projects with high spend customers and I was good at it which helps, however any point of view must be backed up by knowledge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saveasteading Posted March 22 Share Posted March 22 1 hour ago, joe90 said: point of view must be backed up by knowledge. "Can you show me where it says that please" generally ended the debate. I had some issues with LA bcos who had a self confidence beyond their knowledge. I think it was related to being all powerful fof decades. But did I dislike that more with the old timers or the day release boy, I'm not sure. They would always ask for an extra 100mm out of a trench. Apparently nobody had ever refused. No, unless you are you paying for it? With planning it can be more nebulous though. This is not wandering off the subject, but adding background and context. Basically explain what you want and why it is a good thing before they have to ask. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 16 hours ago, saveasteading said: Basically explain what you want and why it is a good thing before they have to ask. I think that I could have done more to do just that. I sent the case officer an email yesterday to ask for her consideration of the additional information I was able to provide based on the contents of the refusal. As I say, because the documents end up in the public domain, I didn't think I needed (or wanted) to show/explain everything and I'm unaware of any specific rules regarding the information that the LPA can and cannot (or should not) request. Unfortunately, if an applicant arguably doesn't provide enough information, the LPA can and does take advantage of this grey area and isn't compelled to warn the applicant that they're considering a refusal, which could be mitigated with more information, before they make their decision. I've provided a plan in my email with images of the contents of the proposed garage as, for example, the refusal cited the size of an average family car and how the garage was larger than necessary. As it turns out, we have two estate cars which are longer than the average car and the other items quickly fill the available space. Another thing I missed (only thought about this last night) was the length of the pool - I wanted to stick to the size of the original pool but chose to use 11m as an ideal compromise based on what I read online, etc. I should have underlined the point that the pool length wasn't arbitrary. Luckily, I did remember to point out that the plant room size was suggested by the pool company I'm using (and online sources concur). I'm convinced I'll have to go to appeal and, from my experience appealing another decision about a balcony, I believe the process will allow me to offer supplementary information that wasn't originally provided to the LPA rather than simply arguing the case based on what they originally had. I hope I'm right about that. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted March 23 Share Posted March 23 >>> I believe the process will allow me to offer supplementary information Yeah, typically a 'statement of case' from each side followed by a 'final comments' doc from each side a few weeks later. Or more accurately, a statement of case from you, then wait 6 months where nothing much happens, then a statement of case from the LPA, then final comments two weeks later, then wait a couple more months for the inspector to make up their mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 23 Author Share Posted March 23 4 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said: >>> I believe the process will allow me to offer supplementary information Yeah, typically a 'statement of case' from each side followed by a 'final comments' doc from each side a few weeks later. Or more accurately, a statement of case from you, then wait 6 months where nothing much happens, then a statement of case from the LPA, then final comments two weeks later, then wait a couple more months for the inspector to make up their mind. I hope it's not going to take that long as I've been living with my garage contents cluttering up my main lounge (we can't use it) and a driveway covered in hardcore/MOT with unsightly, temporary wooden gates. Perhaps mentioning all that would speed up the process - hope springs eternal, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted March 24 Share Posted March 24 (edited) Ah those times are for ‘minor developments’ i.e. full planning for small numbers of houses (including only one). Let me see if I can find the numbers for ‘householders’ i.e. changes to an existing dwelling and LDCs. (All the numbers are averages, of course, and have quite a bit of variation.) Edited March 24 by Alan Ambrose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kandgmitchell Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 Well I got this back in October 2023 for a simple LDC appeal which started in November 2022 -- Thank you for your email relating to the above appeal, I apologise for the delay in arranging a site visit. Please note we have a significant backlog of Enforcement and LDC cases awaiting a site visit, we apologise for the inconvenience this causes. We will generally be working through the backlog in chronological order (oldest first), but I must also make you aware that you may notice that on occasions a more recent appeal may be scheduled earlier - the reason for this is we create all Inspector programmes in a geographical way, which might result in the need to allocate a new case to complete a group of older cases to ensure the Inspector is utilised to his/her full potential when visiting an area. Please also be assured that we are putting new measures in place to deal with the current delays and hope to see improvements over the coming months. We are unable to respond to any queries regarding appeals awaiting a site visit at this stage. While we understand that this is frustrating, doing so takes valuable resource away from our case work processing and can further delay appeals. I then got this in response to a chase up a couple of weeks ago.... Thank you for your email relating to the above appeal, I apologise for the delay in arranging a site visit. How long will I have to wait for an event date? Unfortunately, we can't give an accurate date when we can allocate an Inspector and set an event date, but please be assured that we are doing everything we can to process your appeal as quickly as possible. For some cases this might be longer depending on the complexity of the issues and availability of Inspectors with the particular specialisms required. Please also be assured that we are also putting new measures in place to deal with the current delays including the recruitment of additional resources to help recover performance over the coming months. Our average handling times on GOV.UK provide a useful reference for how long appeals take from submission to decision. How do you allocate Inspectors to cases? We generally allocate Inspectors to cases in chronological order (oldest first). However, Inspectors work geographically, and to make best use of their time, we sometimes need to prioritise newer cases within a certain region. This may appear that cases are 'leap frogging' older cases, however this ensures we make the best use of the Inspector's time while they are conducting other site visits in the area. We are unable to respond to any further queries on delays on this appeal, but please be assured that will continue to work hard to arrange a site visit and we will be in touch as soon as possible. Please use our customer contact form if you need further any assistance. Thank you for your patience and we hope to be in contact shortly. So still awaiting a site visit from the Inspector - I may be unlucky but just be aware of the delays out there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 On 21/03/2024 at 07:14, DevilDamo said: Not anymore. I have just done a free resubmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Ambrose Posted March 25 Share Posted March 25 >>> Well I got this back in October 2023 for a simple LDC appeal which started in November 2022 Oh FFS, LDCs are lumped in with enforcement which is running at an average of 51 weeks + validation? @kandgmitchell - did you get to 'validation' yet - it would be useful to have a time-from-file-to-validation data point for that flavour. I have one for householders, which is 4 weeks file -> validation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phykell Posted March 25 Author Share Posted March 25 3 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said: >>> Well I got this back in October 2023 for a simple LDC appeal which started in November 2022 Oh FFS, LDCs are lumped in with enforcement which is running at an average of 51 weeks + validation? @kandgmitchell - did you get to 'validation' yet - it would be useful to have a time-from-file-to-validation data point for that flavour. I have one for householders, which is 4 weeks file -> validation. To think, I started this process back in January 2023... So I'm looking at a year for a decision from the point I appeal - seems like the councils have the odds stacked against the householder and the planning inspectorate aren't even approaching the performance targets they're supposed to be aiming for: New ministerial performance measures for the Planning Inspectorate - published January 2022: "moving progressively towards all cases across all appeal types being decided in these ranges: wholly written representations: 16-20 weeks" https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-ministerial-performance-measures-for-the-planning-inspectorate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevilDamo Posted March 26 Share Posted March 26 On 25/03/2024 at 13:38, Mr Punter said: I have just done a free resubmission. When was it determined, prior to 6th December? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted March 27 Share Posted March 27 14 hours ago, DevilDamo said: When was it determined, prior to 6th December? March last year, so yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now