Failure to comply with Planning Conditions.

[jack]

On 24/02/2025 at 09:20, FarmerN said:

The protective fencing erected at the start of the project to protect trees, hedging and their roots has been removed , again we should have had LPA written permission before fence was removed. ( Heras fencing )   

 

Fundamentally, planning departments are reactive. We'd nearly finished our build before it sunk in that the planning department has no practical interaction with the build after planning permission has been granted, unless someone complains.

 

I can't imagine anyone complaining about removal of protective fencing, and even if they did, what could the council do? The general cure for a breach is to correct it (e.g., "You need to plant and maintain a hedge along boundary A"), but since the protective fencing has been removed, there's no longer any way to correct the breach. They're hardly going to make you reinstate it so you can ask them to approve its removal! 

 

We had a similar condition on the extensive fencing protecting the trees around our house. I only realised that when re-reading our planning approval about three years after we took the fencing down! We were also supposed to have regular inspections by the arboriculturalist, but decided against it. We felt the worst that could happen had they found out was that they would require us to start doing it. We figured we might have saved the cost of several visits by then.

[flanagaj]

On 24/02/2025 at 23:34, DevilDamo said:

Technically, your Planning approval is invalid

Wow.  So if you fail to meet a condition of the application, no matter how minor, your planning approval is invalid.  Eg, they could in theory make you tear down your house?

Surely, not.

[DevilDamo]

2 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Wow.  So if you fail to meet a condition of the application, no matter how minor, your planning approval is invalid.  Eg, they could in theory make you tear down your house?

Surely, not.

You would have carried out unauthorised works. What the LPA would do is down to them.

[flanagaj]

On 01/03/2025 at 21:10, DevilDamo said:

You would have carried out unauthorised works. What the LPA would do is down to them.

But surely that would not result in the development having to be pulled down.  

[BotusBuild]

4 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

would not result in the development having to be pulled down

Only in exceptional circumstances

[DevilDamo]

On 18/05/2025 at 09:05, flanagaj said:

But surely that would not result in the development having to be pulled down.  

It would be on a case by case basis and the LPA would review the detail and implications or failing to comply with the condition. Not complying with materials (for example) may be seen to be less onerous than erecting further extensions following the withdrawal of Class A PD rights.

[saveasteading]

On 18/05/2025 at 09:05, flanagaj said:

But surely that would not result...

 

That's what people assume when deliberately ignoring the agreement or constraints.

 

Thus some robustness is necessary by the LPA.