Does this Condition Remove PD Rights?

[Ferdinand]

Can I have quick confirmation.

 

I believe this Planning Condition restricts future Permitted Development (in this case Improvements to the Dwellinghouse).

 

 

Is that correct?

 

Cheers

 

Ferdinand

 

[ToughButterCup]

Yes.

But only for four years, (so I have heard.... That'll need checking)

[Ferdinand]

No need to worry about the four years.

Was just confirming my translation from the Chinese.

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Temp]

Is it me or is that wording slightly strange? It doesn't explicitly remove PDR. For example to meet the condition do you need planning permission or just written permission to do work under PDR? 

 

This link points out that the condition must be justified in writing on the approval..

 

http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/can-conditions-preclude-permitted.html

 

 

 

 

[Ferdinand]

The full PP record is here (and the Decision Notice attached):

https://www2.ashfield.gov.uk/cfusion/Planning/plan_history.cfm?reference=V%2F2016%2F0140

 

@Temp

 

I always have to go and look up the exact meaning of "notwithstanding", as it seems to be a double negative in a single word :-). I can never tell whether it intends to say "whatever the Planning Act says, our statement takes precendence" or "our statement applies unless contradicted by the Planning Act". I still cannot tell.

 

If I have your suggestion here right, Martin Goodall's argument would require an explicit declaration of removal of PD rights from the dwelling house in the condition.

 

My understanding is that this condition should mean "no further changes to the dwellinghouse without a further Planning Application". In the circs of a complex project I think that is reasonable:

 

Quote

Internal & External Alterations to Subdivide 46 & 50 Main Street to 3 Separate Residential Units. The Removal of the Southern Boundary Wall to Create 2no.s Parking Spaces Within an Existing Garden Area. The Demolition of an Existing Outbuilding and the Part Removal of the Northern Boundary Wall to Create an Opening to Serve an Additional 1no. Parking Space. The Erection of 1.8m High Close Board Fence to Subdivide Proposed External Amenity Space

 

I would probably have applied more conditions myself around parking provision, occupation of each element of the project only when that parts works were complete etc.

 

This was a branch off my other thread on objecting to a Planning App on a site next to this one.

 

That just got more complicated because *that* later proposal incorporates the amenity land from one of the conversions on *this* earlier proposal (which is being built) into the garden of *that* new application.

 

Ferdinand

 

Ashfield-2017-0140-Decision-Notice.pdf

[Jeremy Harris]

FWIW, our original (draft) decision notice had this as a condition:

 

Quote

Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A to H of Schedule 2 (Part 1) to the Town and Country
Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order
with or without modification), there shall be no extensions or external alterations to the dwelling (including
the insertion of rooflights or windows into the external elevations) nor the erection of any structures within
the curtilage unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority upon submission of a
planning application in that behalf.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity of the area and to enable the Local Planning Authority to consider
individually whether planning permission should be granted for additions, extensions or enlargements.
 

 

I assumed that this permanently removed PD rights at the time, so I wrote to the planning officer and asked if he would consider removing it,  He emailed me straight back, saying it was a bit of standard "boilerplate" text they tended to use in decision notices in our area and had no problem with removing it in our case, especially as we were covered by the restrictions of the Conservation Area and the AONB anyway.

 

I've not read of the four year limit of clauses like this; anyone know where that's written down, by any chance?