When has a planning permission been implemented?

[Auction]

The Council in its report about the application for this lawful development certificate for unknown reason did not take into account in the relevant planning history of the site this previous planning application with this planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses.


As a consequence at the time this application for this lawful development certificate was made the Council did not investigate the fact that there is a previous planning permission with a planning condition which is in contradiction with this lawful development certificate to insert windows with clear glasses.


Hence it is surprising that the Council says only now following my complaint that the fact that there is a previous planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses is irrelevant because the planning application to which this condition is attached has not been implemented even though it did not take into account this planning permission in the relevant planning history and as a consequence did not investigate whether or not it had been implemented


There is a planning condition in a previous planning permission which is in contradiction with the LDC and there is a law i.e. Section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 which says that there could not be permitted developments contrary to a planning condition so this should have warranted an investigation and an explanation from the Council in its delegated report about the LDC. Hence it was very unfair from the Council to simply ignores this important issue

 

[^woody^]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

[PBC_1966]

It is much easier for the planning officer in charge of the processing of the application for a lawful development certificate to simply look into the relevant planning history if there is a planning condition which is contrary to lawful development certificate and if yes simply to refuse the lawful development certificate

Personally I never saw the point of lawful development certificates in the first place (just a money-making exercise for the council and an excuse for them to start poking their noses into things), since if something's perfectly lawful without getting consent for it, you don't need a piece of paper to tell you that it is.

But that aside, what legal grounds would the council have for refusing to issue a lawful development certificate for something which, according to all relevant permitted development regulations etc., is in fact, lawful development?

 

[leighton92]

If hate to live next door to you

 

[Auction]

I am telling you my opinion to ask you if I am right or wrong

 

[Nakajo]

No, you're not remotely interested in anything that doesn't accord with your world view. We've been there and done that. But let's run this one all over again anyway...

 

[^woody^]

I am telling you my opinion to ask you if I am right or wrong

You're wrong.

The council don't agree with you.
A Solicitor can't help.
You've not got a single supportive reply here.

There's a bit of a theme going.

Does that help?

 

[sparkymarka]

Is this the same Neigbour with the flats or another ? Lol.....

 

[Auction]

There are two types of planning controls. Breach of planning conditions and unlawful developments.

Section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 concerns unlawful developments i.e. developments without permitted development rights and not breach of a planning condition. Hence the issue is why developments made under a lawful development certificate would depend on developments made under another planning permission with has nothing to do with this lawful development certificate?

I think that this is further evidence that Section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 which says

“(4) Nothing in this Order permits development contrary to any condition imposed by any planning permission granted or deemed to be granted under Part III of the Act otherwise than by this Order”

applies even if the planning permission to which the planning condition is attached has not been implemented

 

[cjard]

You're right, it does say that.

You're confused though. The intent of the wording is to ensure that the GPDO does not override a planning condition, not the other way round.

You obtain a permission for a house. A condition says "thou shalt not build a shed in the back garden". The GPDO says you may have a shed at the back.

You build the house, and build a shed. You're in breach of the condition, the GPDO cannot give you permission for that which a planning application has taken away.
You build the house and don't build the shed. You're a good boy
You just build the shed; you're allowed because you didn't build the house, so the permission to build the house is irrelevant

 

[Auction]

Your example is simple because no house has been built at all rendering the condition which says that no shed should be built irrelevant. Hence your example is not comparable to my case where windows were enlarged and added even though not necessary in the same size and numbers as in the planning permission .What means that the condition which says in case windows are enlarged and added the new windows should have obscured glasses to prevent overlooking was still relevant

What would happen in your example if the guy would have built a smaller house or a bigger house? Would have been this condition which says that no shed should be built not anymore relevant?

And concerning my previous post I maintain that it was entirely irrelevant that the windows were enlarged and added in the same number and same size as stated in the planning permission to make lawful or not the enlargement and insertion of windows with clear glasses under the LDC

 

[Nakajo]

You're right, it does say that.
You just build the shed; you're allowed because you didn't build the house, so the permission to build the house is irrelevant

...and your permission to build the house remains intact [and I promised myself I wouldn't post to this thread ever again]

 

[Auction]

This makes me think to an important issue. If this guy does not build his house we can think that he has permitted development rights to build the shed because the condition that he has no right to build the shed is relevant only if he has build the house. However what would happen if he does not build the house and build the shed under permitted development rights and then decide to build the house because the planning permission is valid three years? Finally he will end up having implemented this planning permission and having a house and a shed what is banned by the planning condition attached to this planning permission

However this will not happen if I am right and Section 3(4) of the GPDO 1995 applies to any condition of any permission even those which have not been implemented

 

[Nakajo]

So-called 'Conditions Precedent' of this kind are (for the most part) non-sensical for precisely this reason. As stated above, as long as the shed is built before the work to the house is commenced, this is perfectly acceptable.

 

[Auction]

If you were right it would be very easy to overcome this condition which says that if you build a house you cannot build a shed by simply building first the shed and after the house what would not be difficult specially that a shed is easier to build than a house