Planning request to extend notification time for PD

[masamune]

Planning have contacted my architect to request a three week time extension for a rear PD extension (prior consent). Reason given, apparently they cocked it up and forgot to send out letters to the adjacent neighbours!

The architect said he had no choice but to accept and I guess they can do this?
The thing is a notice has been posted up on a lamp post for weeks since last year and we expected an approved outcome this week.

I have a start target date for works that allows to wait a little longer. But it is still frustrating as I'm quoting builders and they look a lot more committed when you can show approved planning.

Both my neighbours have signed for party wall and we have no issues, so this is unecessary and pushes signing off on various matters further back...

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Do you actually have a question? I did a loft conversion planning application last year that took 4 months & 2 weeks to get approval - suck it up.

 

[masamune]

Do you actually have a question? I did a loft conversion planning application last year that took 4 months & 2 weeks to get approval - suck it up.

Well I just wanted to know if this is standard procedure and ... maybe vent out a bit.

It's a typical PD not a full application, they normally take 6-8 weeks with neighbour consent and it has already been 2 months including another cock up.

I guess no choice but to shut up and wait...

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

'fraid so

 

[garyo]

If it's PD and your neighbours are on side then why not crack on. What are the odds that your neighbours would try to hold you to ransom over it, not that the process needs their approval as such.

 

[LukeB123]

If it's PD and your neighbours are on side then why not crack on. What are the odds that your neighbours would try to hold you to ransom over it, not that the process needs their approval as such.

Would advise against this. I think the OP means its a prior notification for a larger house extension (as they are sending letters out etc) If it was PD then sure go ahead, but it sounds like Prior Notification, as you don't have consultation on PD (LDC) apps.

If you do start, you can't technically gain approval Under Part 1 Class A (4.10) as there's conditions that say you must not have started before getting written consent.

You might have been able to start it Under Class A 10.c) where if they haven't determined it you can start, however now your architect has accepted an extension of time, then I am not sure you can do that now. Just wait it out

 

[tony1851]

The prior notification procedure should take 42 days maximum. As long as the council have acknowledged receipt of the notification (or there is proof of posting etc), then by default, the work is allowed unless you have been notified otherwise, or even if no response is received.
Your architect should not have agreed to the extended period; if the council was in error by not notifying the neighbours, then the council is at fault and the remedy would lie with the neighbours complaining to the council that they were not notified.
But this would not have stopped you building after the expiration of the 42 days. Your architect is an idiot.

 

[Nakajo]

Edit: It's 42 days. If the applicant didn't agree to the extension then (if an objection was submitted - it was [erroneously?] publicly advertised, after all) the LPA would obviously refuse the application, so the architect might not be such a dummy

 

[napoleondynamite]

If the council didn't write to all the neighbours, taking your 'deemed approval' after the original deadline passed would have been open to legal challenge, as the requirements of the legislation would not have been complied with. Albeit that was the council's fault not yours it appears.

I would say the Architect has made the right call in this case, even if a legal challenge is highly unlikely.

 

[masamune]

Yes the PD is for larger extension with prior notification, so the formal process requires determination. I think the architect had no option there anyway.

I was just surprised how they managed to cock this up, I talked to a couple of knowledgeable people from Planning before. Oh well...councils...

I know some may argue this a silly time extension, problem is that builders are booking up their schedules for the year ahead. Showing PD as approved places me in a far more advantageous position for them to commit. The 3 week window may be long enough for some to shift their contracts towards other jobs...

 

[tony1851]

It's 56 days. If the applicant didn't agree to the extension then the LPA would obviously refuse the application, so the architect might not be such a dummy

It's 42 days.
The build could not be challenged, even though it was a clear mistake by the council, because it is permitted development.
The only course for the neighbour would be to make a complaint to the council for maladministration.

 

[tony1851]

It's 42 days.
The build could not be challenged, even though it was a clear mistake by the council, because it is permitted development.
The only course for the neighbour would be to make a complaint to the council for maladministration.View attachment 112553

As before, the architect is an idiot, and should have told the council "sorry guys - your mistake - no time extension".

 

[napoleondynamite]

For the permission to be legally sound all of the requirements of A.4 must be complied with. If a neighbour was not written to, A.4(5) had not been complied with:

(5) The local planning authority must notify each adjoining owner or occupier about the proposed
development by serving on them a notice which—
(a) describes the proposed development, including—
(i) how far the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse extends beyond the rear wall of
the original dwellinghouse;
(ii) the maximum height of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse; and
(iii) the height of the eaves of the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse;
(b) provides the address of the proposed development;
(c) specifies the date when the information referred to in sub-paragraph (2) was received by
the local planning authority and the date when the period referred to in sub-paragraph
(10)(c) would expire; and
(d) specifies the date (being not less than 21 days from the date of the notice) by which
representations are to be received by the local planning authority.

So any permission would be open to challenge. Personally I agree with the Architects approach, but everyone has to make their own call in these situations.

 

[Nakajo]

oops 42 days - I was thinking on change of use

 

[tony1851]

So any permission would be open to challenge.

A normal planning approval could be open to challenge if the LPA mis-directed itself when coming to its decision. For example, if it ignored a valid report, or mis-interpreted its own policy guidelines, if it could be shown that an application would have been refused had the LPA directed itself properly.
However, a Prior Notification is not a planning application, and the LPA has no input if no-one objects. Therefore, an LPA could not be held to have mis-directed itself, if no decision was to be made. It is purely an administrative error and if a neighbour suffers by maladministration (in this case, not being notified by the council) the only recourse is to make a complaint, if necessary to the Ombudsman.
The law is crystal clear that, in the absence of any refusal by the LPA after the 42-day period - whatever the reason - then the work can proceed by default.
As previously, OP's architect should have taken a tougher line with the LPA.