Gah! New PD rules I'm gonna be a Guinea Pig!

[freddiemercurystwin]

To cut a long story short, for a job I have probably acquired today I will probably need to submit an application under the new PD rules for a 6m deep rear extension on a detached house asap, pleasingly it turns out that the at least the LA in question has a new form to fill in online albeit that also requires the following:

Site location plan – preferably to a scale of 1:1250 or 1:2500 with North clearly marked and showing the full
site, all site boundaries, its relationship to adjoining properties and where possible at least two roads. Please outline the application site including the garden in red.

Block plan - please show the proposed extension in relation to the boundaries of the site and any other
buildings within or surrounding the site.

Elevations – please provide a plan which shows all elevations affected by the proposed extension.

Unfortunately the LA in question is stating a 42 day turnaround (suspect this may be working days will know more on Monday) for such an application which won't go down too well with the client but respectably that's his problem. Why they need 42 days when the consultation period for the neighbours is 20 days is (at the time of writing) a bit of a mystery.

I shall add to the thread as things develop and report progress.

 

[rjm2k]

42 days is the "determination period" I saw it mentioned in some of the official links posted about this

 

[luisdesign]

Remember, if you only apply for the prior approval then you will not get a certificate if lawful development. Indeed the council are not required to assess the full range of pd requirements so you will not be told whether the thing is within your rights or not.

The prior approval is basically you stating an intention. "we want to build 6m, anyone got a problem with that?" and so the respone is basically a yes or no. If you want a certificate for proof the thing is actually pd you need to apply for a CoLD.

My advice would be to make the full application which would encompass the prior approval element.

Its interesting how the council interpreted wanting more drawings (elevations), i know some councils are just saying that you need to state the height in the description.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The prior approval is basically you stating an intention. "we want to build 6m, anyone got a problem with that?" and so the response is basically a yes or no. If you want a certificate for proof the thing is actually pd you need to apply for a CoLD.

Yes well aware of all that and to do so defeats the whole object of PD which is development without having to apply for any formal certification or approval. If the government had got it right I should be able to start building it tomorrow!

Feckin bollix system, I'm starting to sound like Tony!

 

[tony1851]

Freddy;

You do NOT have to submit a 1:1250, nor elevations.

All they should require is a plan (could be freehand) sufficient to show the property and the extension.

Also, they only need the distance out, maximum height, and height to eaves.

If they write back and ask for any other nonsense, you should remind them firmly that the 42-day clock is ticking and that they should get their fingers out and stop asking for details they are not allowed to require. If they hold it up like this, you could get on with it at the expiration of the 42 days, and if they tried enforcement, they could well loose and be liable for costs.

Remind them that this is supposed to be 'light-touch' legislation; there is a danger LPAs wiill try and turn theseinto proper applications

I knew this would happen when this half-baked legislation came in. I'd better stop now because my anger is coming out on my keyboard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

We shall see Tony .....

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Tony, so apart from this nameless document http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/neighbour_consultation_scheme_guidance_may13.pdf to what else do we have in our arsenal?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Doh! The property is in an AONB anyway so the new rules do not apply, full Planning App here we go!

As a side issue and as Tony has correctly pointed out though, the information would need to be submitted to validate an application as written within the Act (here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1101/article/4./made) is all that is required by the council. They cannot insist on anything else despite what their new downloadable forms may ask for.

 

[tony1851]

Yes; the info. required is quite minimal, though LPAs will probably produce elaborate forms asking all sorts of unnecessary questions.

However, if one neighbour complains, then the LPA has to assess the impact on amenity and this could well be impossible on the basis of the limited info. required by 4 (2) (a to e).

This is another area where problems may occur because if the LPA is tardy in sending notification to the neighbour, and if the neighbours are late in responding, then there may be little time for the LPA to request further details to enable them to assess the impact on amenity. The default position may then be for them to refuse to give the go-ahead.

But if any subsequent appeal is successful, LPA coud be liable for costs?

What a mess.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes a mess indeed, at least I'm not the guinea pig just yet though!

 

[luisdesign]

Yes; the info. required is quite minimal, though LPAs will probably produce elaborate forms asking all sorts of unnecessary questions.

However, if one neighbour complains, then the LPA has to assess the impact on amenity and this could well be impossible on the basis of the limited info. required by 4 (2) (a to e).

This is another area where problems may occur because if the LPA is tardy in sending notification to the neighbour, and if the neighbours are late in responding, then there may be little time for the LPA to request further details to enable them to assess the impact on amenity. The default position may then be for them to refuse to give the go-ahead.

But if any subsequent appeal is successful, LPA coud be liable for costs?

What a mess.

I agree whole heartedly with this.

The only contentious bit would be if the LA would be liable for costs. Ultimately, they would have made the desicion based on the level of information they had. They would simply say that they requested the information and it was not provided... in theory they could request this information as late 1 day before expiry...

That alone is probably reason enough to just supply the necessary information anyway. I mean, you would need elevations and such in order to build from regardless so I can't see it being that major a deal no?

As you may be aware, my Wife is a planning officer. They have only just been told how they are supposed to deal with these things (the gov basically are giving no guidance on the legislation they made!) and she's warned me of a number of things;

1. getting prior approval does not show compliance with the PD rules.
Meaning if someone wants a certificate they will need to apply separately - and presumably this will allow for a second consultation and thus a second chance at refusal (this is entirely unclear)!

2. the LA are also allowed to object, but only on the grounds that the proposal is not lawful under PD.
This is interesting on account of the fact that they are not supposed to assess whether it meets the PD rules. However, if they aren't given sufficient information either way you could find them objecting and you having to provide the necessary information. The waste is that you will provide this information but you will get no comment as to whether the proposals meet with the rules or not...

3. an application for a certificate of lawful development which includes a larger extension should, in theory, encompass both the normal CoLD procedure AND the prior approval.
This means that neighbours would be notified and ge tthe chance to object. You would be notified of this at 21 days giving you the chance to adapt the plans before the CoLD app expiry date of 8 weeks. (However, remember that some councils don't allow adaptations to plans submitted under CoLD)!!!

4. Whilst the residential app has no fees, it may apparantly be possible for councils to introduce fees associated with the changes to the commercial class uses applications.
On that note, councils are apparently fuming at the offices to residential change as they make no reference to minimum sized units or the need to meet with local or national standards on size!