Does anyone understand LDCs and how councils evaluate them!

[jimmybond007]

err I may have forgotten my law lectures but what are you all on about...was there a restriction in the original planning permission for the pool to specify opening hours, its use as a commercial operation etc etc? if not this is just a calm the morons party piece.

See all the endless twaddle actions...the pub next door got planning permission for a kitchen extension...now they have more clients and i don't like it ..well tough.... The restaurant got planning permission for tables outside...now people sit outside and eat a meal...I don't like it well tough.

Unless there was a restriction placed on the original permission eg planning or license as to the volume, hours or days of use then any business or public body or individual can carry on with its business regardless. If you vary the activity of the business..eg a pub that now wants to serve food then the there needs to be a variation of use.

In your case swimming before roof , swimming after roof...end of.

As I say, nuisance will likely be our route.

 

[Lower]

Can't see how planning permission for a glass roof over an outdoor pool has any bearing on it's hours of use. The school could have used the pool at different times before the roof was installed, they just chose not to.

 

[blup]

Thanks. Yes, the EHO has been around and says the noise is unacceptable. However he is waiting for the outcome of the LDC application which of course would render nuisance irrelevant if the LDC is refused.

Just bear in mind statutory nuisance (EHO) and planning nuisance are two different things, although there is often an overlap

Blup

 

[jeds]

I would class this as an intensification of use. The use as a pool may be permitted but the additional use of evenings and renting (the intensification) may not?

 

[martygturner]

I would class this as an intensification of use. The use as a pool may be permitted but the additional use of evenings and renting (the intensification) may not

Hmmm really an intensification by adding a roof...that's a stretch ... has the pool been expanded in size and swimmer capacity ? could you swim in it before the roof in the evenings ?

As for trying it on under noise nuisance, plenty have tried plenty have failed in court...

.as for statutory nuisance that will be a fudge ...there are a a large body of cases out there..see noisy sex, choir practice etc that all state that the performers have the right to carry out whatever they are doing but must modify their behaviour...its called the shut the window injunction...because that's all it amounts to. You will not get an abatement notice and most probably you will get something you don't want..like a 7m high acoustic wall or a tree screen....and they always plant the most horrible cheapest fastest growing trees... and which by the way as its a school the council will use its powers to do that without planning consent or any consultation. That's called a now do f off you got what you wanted injunction Happy ?

The best policy is to open up a dialogue with the school and its pool users...

 

[mrrusty]

Hmmm really an intensification by adding a roof...that's a stretch ... has the pool been expanded in size and swimmer capacity ? could you swim in it before the roof in the evenings ?

As for trying it on under noise nuisance, plenty have tried plenty have failed in court...

.as for statutory nuisance that will be a fudge ...there are a a large body of cases out there..see noisy sex, choir practice etc that all state that the performers have the right to carry out whatever they are doing but must modify their behaviour...its called the shut the window injunction...because that's all it amounts to. You will not get an abatement notice and most probably you will get something you don't want..like a 7m high acoustic wall or a tree screen....and they always plant the most horrible cheapest fastest growing trees... and which by the way as its a school the council will use its powers to do that without planning consent or any consultation. That's called a now do f off you got what you wanted injunction Happy ?

The best policy is to open up a dialogue with the school and its pool users...

I tend to agree with this. This all smacks of potential unintended consequences to me. You live next to a school. Schools can be noisy. No different to living next to football pitches and complaining. It is what it is.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

People living in the ten year old houses near the local primary school are always complaining about the cars/traffic at drop-off/pick-up times, the school's been there for 147 years.

 

[blup]

I would class this as an intensification of use. The use as a pool may be permitted but the additional use of evenings and renting (the intensification) may not?

A stand alone use can intensify within the limits of the permission e.g. hours of operation, not an ancillary one which by definition has to remain ancillary or it becomes a change of use.

Blup

 

[cdbe]

I know it's not the same, and I can't stand invasive noise either but as it's for the kiddies I think you may be on a hiding to nothing.

 

[jeds]

Hmmm really an intensification by adding a roof...that's a stretch ... has the pool been expanded in size and swimmer capacity ? could you swim in it before the roof in the evenings ?

Intensification has nothing to do with building anything - it is a material planning matter relating to how something is used. There is a difference between use as an educational facility and use as a commercial enterprise.

 

[mrrusty]

use as an educational facility and use as a commercial enterprise.

I think it's a bit of a leap from a school letting out its facilities to local groups (as schools have done for decades) and a commercial enterprise. I expect it isn't. I expect the earnings just go into the "school funds" the same as PTA events.

 

[jimmybond007]

Really interesting reading all this. As I have said and to be clear, I agree that under the LDC, it's likely to be approved. Just because the pool is used by a third party now that is has a roof, doesn't mean they could not have used it before. They just chose not to. Rather like the pub example, although bluntly put was a good example - choosing to have outside tables is perfectly acceptable.

Dialogue was our first call over a year ago but nothing changed. So it was only then that we lodged a nuisance complaint. The EHO came on a Sunday morning and heard all the noise inside a neighbours house with the windows shut. As mentioned earlier in this post, he agreed it was unacceptable and started a conversation with the school about they would do about it. That then got put on hold as enforcement got involved and the LDC was requested. I'll update everyone (if you're interested) on the outcome of the LDC but I agree (again), that it's likely to be approved considering what the majority on here are saying.

 

[jimmybond007]

Hmmm really an intensification by adding a roof...that's a stretch ... has the pool been expanded in size and swimmer capacity ? could you swim in it before the roof in the evenings ?

No it has not been expanded. Yes you could swim in it; weather dependent. Like anything that has a cover - it becomes available regardless of time/weather.

To reiterate planning. 1974 - build a pool with no restrictions or conditions. 2018 - put a roof on it. Decision made clear it was for a roof only and was not to address alleged extended hours.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I'll update everyone (if you're interested) on the outcome

Always.

 

[martygturner]

No it has not been expanded. Yes you could swim in it; weather dependent. Like anything that has a cover - it becomes available regardless of time/weather.

To reiterate planning. 1974 - build a pool with no restrictions or conditions. 2018 - put a roof on it. Decision made clear it was for a roof only and was not to address alleged extended hours.

In that case then I think you will have one mother of a fight... Please pay for some advice from a solicitor with who has done this before...average will be about £600 for an opinion on the likelihood of each potential action giving you your desired outcome...ask for the outcomes to have supplemental risks highlighted. Like statutory noise complaint ..so say remedial work to limit noise is imposed, eg a fence...what are the supplemental effects on your property will it make it harder to sell / devalue it etc etc, will you be expected to contribute...which is where a lot of these crash and burn....

forewarned is forearmed....