Noise restriction in Planning Permission

[HERTS P&D]

hi all
I'm after a bit of experience of builders dealing with Planning permissions, I've got my planning application granted and its got a condition in it that says

The applicant is advised that construction works should only be carried out during the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 from Mondays to Fridays; 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays; and no work should take place on Sundays or Bank/Public holidays

Maybe the council know that you are a noisy 8ASTARD!



Andy

 

[^woody^]

12 doors up no sign of it on his permission, I think I need to speak to the planning officer and ask why

Conditions are site and work specific. Typically these are applied for several reasons and you may not get to know why as it could be either policy related or subjective based on things like a neighbour has notified the planners of a particular impact the work may make, or the type of work and likely methods of construction, or a new policy or many things. This type of condition is very easy to prove reasonable, and you can't say "the bloke up the road didn't have one so I don't want one"

If you weren't happy with the condition, you should have formally appealed within the time limits. Or submit a section 73 application to remove or amend it.

 

[Notch7]

will this apply to me doing DIY bits

My apologies:

I had interpreted this as the OP saying could they do DIY in general at other times, not necessarily in relation to the extension to which the condition applies.

The planning condition doesnt constitute a restrictive covenent on the property......so it doesnt apply to other DIY works.

The planning condition is not just noise, but also to restrict site traffic -nobody wants half a dozen builders rocking up a 8.am on a Sunday.

But nobody is going to worry about quiet works being done by you at other times, who will know?

 

[tony1851]

12 doors up no sign of it on his permission, I think I need to speak to the planning officer and ask why

Why stir things up with the council?
It's really a minor condition and as Woody said is "should" and not "must" or "shall"; inspectors will often strike down badly-worded conditions on appeal, but it's not really worth appealing that condition.
In practice, are you neighbours likely to complain if you worked a little beyond the hours stipulated? Is the council likely to follow up, and would they say you are in breach therefore your planning permission is void?? Hardly.
Most neighbours don't particularly like construction noise, but are aware that it doesn't go on for ever, unlike aircraft- or train noise.

 

[tony1851]

Maybe the council know that you are a noisy 8ASTARD!



Andy

More likely that some neighbour has objected to the planning application on account of the potential noise, and the planning officer has added the condition just to shut the neighbour up, without really taking the condition too seriously.

 

[Leofric]

The applicant is advised that construction works should only be carried out during the hours of 08.00 to 18.00 from Mondays to Fridays; 08.00 to 13.00 on Saturdays; and no work should take place on Sundays or Bank/Public holidays

This is a common sort of planning consent condition , although usually for bigger jobs I would say ,but I don't see any ambiguity in this condition, it means exactly what it says , and in plain English.
ps

The planning condition is not just noise, but also to restrict site traffic -nobody wants half a dozen builders rocking up a 8.am on a Sunday.

-exactly , builders and sub contractors vans parking outside the property.

"should" and not "must" or "shall"

It is clear what it means - or maybe it should have said 'thou shalt not etc,etc '.

 

[tony1851]

This is a common sort of planning consent condition , although usually for bigger jobs I would say ,but I don't see any ambiguity in this condition, it means exactly what it says , and in plain English.
ps
-exactly , builders and sub contractors vans parking outside the property.
It is clear what it means - or maybe it should have said 'thou shalt not etc,etc '.

You know what they mean, I know what they mean, the council knows what it means.
But in the world of the courts, statutory interpretation requires more precision than this when dealing with a condition which potentially
restricts the appellant, and 'should' could be struck down as it is suggestive of advice rather than the more precise 'must' or 'shall'.

 

[^woody^]

It is clear what it means - or maybe it should have said 'thou shalt not etc,etc '.

We can babble on and use whatever words we like and know what we mean, but in law and contracts each word has specific meaning, and even punctuation can alter the context of a whole sentance.

 

[plasterman42]

update
I called the planning officer and she said whether it's specified or not all permissions are bound by it, so within reason you can work but if your noisy and get complaints they can stop you, but you DIYers fill ya boots

 

[Tigercubrider]

The house adjoining me had builders 7 days a week from 7.30 am to gone 8pm
It was a nightmare. They used mini diggers and kangos and one night they built a garden fence using head torches at 10pm . It was a close boated fence so every slat was hammered in by hand.

 

[Leofric]

I called the planning officer and she said whether it's specified or not all permissions are bound by it

never heard that before, so all permissions are bound by a condition that isn't specified

 

[paulrockliffe]

My neighbour has the same condition, though his is a must rather than a shall. His permission also says breaking the condition invalidates the permission. He's broken that condition and several others, including varying levels within root protection zones, digging out roots of protected trees, not protecting trees with scaffolding. He's supposed to have a scheme in place so neighbours can raise concerns as well because the Council know he's a complete arse.

The practical reality is that despite all of that being evidenced to the Council and their tree officer confirming that the various tree conditions have been breached, leading to the Statutory position that the permission is no longer valid, the Council couldn't care less when their options are siding with one party that has a formal right of appeal or the other that can only enforce their rights via a Judicial Review.

You'll find that if you bother the neighbours too much the Council will huff and puff, but they won't actually do anything of any practical consequence to you.