Can a council cancel an approval?

[Penny926]

Hi all - good evening. So glad there is a forum and a site to discuss these kind of things! This has been a great stress for us, so wanted to share our dilemma and concern and hoping to get some advise! 
 

We have a detached house which on purchase had a side extension already in place (2 story), which extended 3M out to the back. The original house had not been extended.

 

We applied for permitted development for a 6M rear extension for the original house. This was granted on prior consent not required/ no objections etc.

 

The next part we wanted to do was then infill the side rear extension by another 3M to match the permitted development extension. It would look odd without it (an L shape..), and we thought this was a no brainer given they had already given us the 6M of the main house… This is where things went wrong.

 

Being a bit nieve on this all, the builder and I discussed that instead of building the original house extension first and then waiting for the approval on the side, we instead build the whole structure. So that is what we did. We then submitted a retrospective application for the side extension infill - we thought this would be an easy one to get.

 

The council visited last week, and they said they would likely reject the infil, they also seemed perturbed that we had not built the permitted development piece first (they did not buy our rationale that structurally more sound to build the whole rear vs splitting it up).

 

I feel they will reject the infill retrospective, but here is where I wanted some advise, I'm thinking two scenarios:

 

1. They reject the infill and the say we can only have the permitted development that was agreed on prior consent, we have to undo the infill bit. And we appeal for that one.
2. They reject the infill and now say as we did not build the permitted development work exactly to plan, that application is now cancelled and we have to undo everything.

 

I'm ok if this say number 1 (totally fair..), but worried about number 2… 

 

Wanted to understand, would number 2 even be allowed? I'm mean if we have committed a planning breach against a prior consent, I would expect them to ask us to make it good and in align with plans (happy to do that). If they have given us approval under permitted development/prior consent can the turn around and withdraw that?

 

Just super worried that they will say our prior consent that they gave is now revoked and we have to undo all works and start again…

 

Been up all night thinking over this - so any advise would be really great.

 

Thank you

[Marvin]

Hi @Penny926

 

In the cases I've seen, only when altering the permitted size of the structure turns out not to be cost effective is the structure completely demolished.  For example when every room is bigger or all the building is higher or in the wrong position.

 

Is possible to remove the "infill" and leave you with the existing permitted building?

 

I am not sure how the change would effect the roof structure, foundation requirements for the, then, not internal walls but external (presumably) cavity walls which are thicker, or the services through the building.

 

 

59 minutes ago, Penny926 said:

they also seemed perturbed that we had not built the permitted development piece first

Yes, well, they know if you do not obtain permission what a difficult situation it will leave you in. 

 

 

 

[Penny926]

13 minutes ago, Marvin said:

 

Is possible to remove the "infill" and leave you with the existing permitted

Thanks.. yes we can do that as it’s only a rear extension.. but they can’t revoke their approval to the permitted section?

[Marvin]

If the permitted section is permitted, er, its permitted in my book. 

 

However, we will see what other's have to say.

 

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2002-03/Planning_and_Compulsory_Purchase_(Re-committed)_Bill/04-0_2003-10-16a.8.0#:~:text=the planning authority may revoke the grant of planning permission.

 

The last paragraph in this one:

 

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn00905/#:~:text=They all allow councils to,Plan and other material considerations.

Edited June 22 by Marvin
clarification

[Marvin]

the last paragraph of the page

 

Powers to revoke planning permission are very rarely used. Where they are used they are often uncontentious and unopposed. Since 2009 only 3 revocation orders issued under section 97 of the Town and Planning Act 1990 have been submitted to the Secretary of State for confirmation.

[Penny926]

I see.. that’s really helpful. Thank you for the research and quick response. I may even be able to sleep tonight 😀

[nod]

It’s unlikely that the PD would or could be revoked So there next best option is to play with your head 

You’ve already excepted the worse that they can do 

[Temp]

2 hours ago, Penny926 said:

We have a detached house which on purchase had a side extension already in place (2 story), which extended 3M out to the back. The original house had not been extended.

 

We applied for permitted development for a 6M rear extension for the original house. 

 

Did the planners not say anything about the combined extensions being wider than half the width of the original house? 

 

Suppose the original house was 8m wide and  the first extension "A" made it 3m wider and extended out the back 3m. 

 

If you then want to build a rear extension "B" onto the original house that connects to the previous side extension "A" its width is limited to just 1m. That's because the width of the combined side and rear extension cannot be more than 4m wide (4 being half of 8m).

 

If on the other hand your rear extension "B "did not connect to the previous side extension "A" its width could wider. In practice it could be say 6m wide, just not the full 8m as that would connect it to the first side extension.

 

This is from the Technical Guidance..

 

 

Edited June 22 by Temp

[Penny926]

Thank you all! This is very helpful! I think it might be easier to show with pictures, the side extension here is shown on the existing plan as the 'kitchen', it is unusual side extension (dates back to 1975), where they built the side extension and moved the stairs etc.

 

Attaching the  1) Existing plan image and the 2) Approved plan under permitted development and 3) What we have built (just the shell, so substantial completion). The infill i  am referring to would fill the gap between the 'diner' (on the approved plan) and the new rear wall from the approved extension.

 

 

 

 

Their decision notice states:

 

Conditions:
1. The materials used on the external surfaces of the development shall match those used in the building
to which it is attached in terms of style, colour, texture and, in the case of brickwork, bonding, coursing and
pointing.
2. All openable parts of any side windows in the extension shall be more than 1.7 metres above finished
floor level and permanently retained as such.
Any side windows shall be in obscure glazing and permanently retained as such. Once built, no further side
windows shall be installed.
 

Informative:
1. The Council cannot confirm that this development is lawful until it has been built and until you have complied
with the conditions of this decision. Once you have done so, if you would like such proof, you will need to submit an
application for a certificate of lawfulness of existing development and show that you have met the conditions.
2. The approved extension shall not be attached to the existing side extension. Failure to comply may result in the
approved extension being unlawful.

 

So there is a clause, about the extensions not being attached, but hard to interpret that - does it mean maintain a gap between the two?

 

Given they are likely to reject the infill, the scenario I am hoping for is that we restore the property to what was approved and then appeal for the infill.

 

 

[MikeSharp01]

1 hour ago, Penny926 said:

So there is a clause, about the extensions not being attached, but hard to interpret that - does it mean maintain a gap between the two?

 

1 hour ago, Penny926 said:

2. The approved extension shall not be attached to the existing side extension. Failure to comply may result in the
approved extension being unlawful.

 

Couple of observations - not sure they are helpful though.

• I interpret that as meaning you cannot extend the existing side extension (the 1975 one) you could build off the the second one and, as you say maintain a gap between them but that would mean your kitchen diner having a pair of walls, with a gap, jutting out into it where the diner window is now so it seems a daft thing to do. Given that, there must be some other motivation for the clause and I have no idea what that might be.
• On another matter you seem to have removed the pillar in the middle of the original kitchen diner - presumably with some structural work, will having to restore the building compromise that?
• Have other houses in the road done the same thing you have done?
• Finally do we take it that you still have a right to normal retrospective planning permission or is permitted development your only available route here for other reasons - maybe I missed something.

 

 

[Penny926]

Thank you Mike!

 

Yes maintaining a gap would be odd - which is why I kind of think that clause is also kind of strange. I'm hoping we can appeal on those grounds. We have indeed moved the middle pillar, but will have to incur cost now to move it back and correct the structure. We live on a road with a varied style of houses, but yes there are examples of this kind of extension. I think the council are being very strict on the extension of an extension rule, which I can understand but is frustrating.

 

We have put the 'as built' image through retrospective - this is what I think they will reject.

[DevilDamo]

Firstly, all PD/PA works have to be built/completed prior to applying for or building any extensions under Full Planning.

 

Secondly, I’m surprised you were granted Prior Approval as it doesn’t comply with the PD requirements. Reason being is that it’s a wrap-around extension and the width is greater than half the width of the original house.

[Penny926]

Thanks! Yeah - I see that now. Hence why we are hoping we can restore the property to what was approved under PD/PA and then deal with the infill as separate matter.

 

'I’m surprised you were granted Prior Approval as it doesn’t comply with the PD requirements' - on this... goes back to my first statement, if the council have goofed up an approval under PD/PA I was asking if they have any remit to revoke or correct the approval.

[DevilDamo]

They can try but it isn’t usually successful. However, the issue you may have is that should you submit a LDC application post completion of the PA works, it’s likely to be refused. The LDC is a full belt and braces approach. LPA’s should be checking all the PD rules in relation to PA works.

[Jilly]

Eek, the pain of taking 'planning' advice from a builder. 

[Temp]

@Penny926 I have sent a PM.

[Penny926]

Hi all - an update on this matter. I sent the council an email asking them what the likely decision would be.. here is what they said:

- there is nothing that indicates the prior approval extension had been built in accordance with the plans or legislation.

- In order to rectify this, you will have to demolish part of the extension and built in accordance with the plans submitted as part of the prior approval application. There would need to be a gap between the extension and the existing side/rear projection

- You can withdraw this application and once the extension has been rebuilt in line with the above, you can then apply for the infill extension. This will very likely be the quickest way to resolve this.

 

Firstly, I am grateful that they took time out to respond. I responded back saying we would start the rectifying work they requested. I also suggested instead of withdrawing, could we rectify and update the application, the statutory expiry date is not till the 10th July, so if we can get the work done and show it to them then no need to withdraw.. (i'm not sure if they will accept this, but seems more logical then withdrawing and resubmitting..)

[DevilDamo]

Logic and Planning do not go in the same sentence. Amendments like that would require re-consultations and those persons would normally be given 21 days, which will take the application beyond the target date. I’d be surprised if they were to agree to any amendments this late in the process.