Planning consent / NMA / Appeal

[gcm]

I have planning consent after 8 months (only done because of PD revocation) for a job which normally is PD and self-certified at that - rubbing salt in my paper cut wound compared to the pain felt by many here.  I updated my plans to adjust to planners feedback along the way to move them from "minded to refuse" to "consent".  Filed plans reflect the compromise not my original intent. They gave me the normal "to plan" and "to sample" stuff but also added back some of the things we had changed and which are now on the plans as conditions as well.  As they are the same bar extremely minor drafting differences this is - "mostly harmless".   My challenge now as a first timer in process is how to handle a couple of risks I have and the right approach to the paper chase with "consent with conditions".  

Now I can of course clearly go and ask the county duty planner - likely the easiest way to get to talk to one - which precise forms would they like locally for these. Before I go and do that - I feel a strong urge to understand the best and minimal approach - lower friction options - the boundaries of "unreasonable behaviour" - such as sending me off to start a full application once again for say "one glazing bar"

Examples

1 Minor change to elevation plans

As I procure and finalise product in light of planning conditions - I have the usual issues where some solution options drive minor configuration changes (the first is literally one pencil line on the elevation plan to illustrate a new sectional window break/glazing bar.  Tactics clearly could be A) Ignore forever as too minor to be a practical concern or challenged.  B) Bundle any of these up if there prove to be several and make an "NMA" once the job is well on the way to being finalised (albeit with a risk of an inconvenient refusal - costs are at the higher end for these components so enforcement risk of reworking them is low probability but high impact.  Waiting or longer paper chasing before committing the work likely kill the 2018 weather window which I can do without.

2 Variation of an awkward yet explicitly listed planning condition

I have a planning condition on an exterior finish both the usual "to sample supplied xx.xx.xx and also restated as a standalone condition listing the finish

Having read the county plan sections referred to in the justification - the link between the broad  strategy statements on character and the mandate to use this very specific finish is extremely tenuous.  Clearly "because we say so" is good at least until an appeal or other process to vary the planner's decision.  I am not currently aware of any other use of the mandated finish in the locality.  Indeed I may yet find it fairly hard to find it in similar context in this colour - it comes up in darker colours more.  This is my next move either to reconcile myself to it or to the necessity of fight.  Some extra costs and an unhelpfully reduced choice of products being available in it are factors arising out of the condition.  

Options seem to be A) Appeal - I am in timescales to raise one - objecting to the conditioned consent and also a householder type application - but whether this type of condition varying appeal is a "householder category appeal" seems ambiguous to me in the what is used for what descriptions of appeal types on the planning portal.  B) Make a new application - please no - the consent letter says generally as boilerplate that this is my option to change things.  C) Go and see the duty planner with potential configuration and samples and try to gain agreement to go the NMA route - if they *can* change the condition that way.  Does that work? Am I in fantasy land ?  D) Ignoring it and doing something different job wide doesn't seem like a very sensible plan to me.

Thoughts ?

Graham

[ToughButterCup]

I may have mis-read some aspects of your post

• Where the minor change is too small to check, then don't worry: do it,  but evidence the change.
• Where the condition is explicit and obvious if you don't comply, follow it.

Briefly put

9 hours ago, gcm said:

[...]

This is my next move either to reconcile myself to it or [...]. 

[...]

 

Theres already too much to worry about in a build. 

 

[PeterW]

9 hours ago, gcm said:

Having read the county plan sections referred to in the justification - the link between the broad  strategy statements on character and the mandate to use this very specific finish is extremely tenuous.  Clearly "because we say so" is good at least until an appeal or other process to vary the planner's decision.  I am not currently aware of any other use of the mandated finish in the locality.  Indeed I may yet find it fairly hard to find it in similar context in this colour - it comes up in darker colours more.  This is my next move either to reconcile myself to it or to the necessity of fight.  Some extra costs and an unhelpfully reduced choice of products being available in it are factors arising out of the condition.  

 

Can you post the actual condition here as we may be able to help

 

When it comes to things such as a bar on a window, unless its a copy of an "exact" existing window and there is a condition stating that window designs must be agreed or have xyz pattern then I would safely ignore it.

 

As @recoveringacademic says, there is enough to worry about without this !

 

As an aside, a friend spent a number of weeks convincing the local council here that a "detail line" across their front elevation was actually a crease where the council had scanned the paper plans submitted...... They don't have the people to check every application so just get on with the build !