When has a planning permission been implemented?
- Thread starter Auction
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Regulations are often illogical, inconsistent, and nonsensical.
‘Nakajo’ is wrong because the issue to which he refers the So-called ‘Conditions precedent’ concerns another kind of conditions which say that you have to do something instead of saying not to do something.
It is very likely that a condition will say you cannot have both a house and a shed instead of saying if you build a house you cannot build a shed or maybe it will say instead if you build a shed you cannot build a house. I do not think that the planning officers are stupid
It is very likely that a condition will say you cannot have both a house and a shed instead of saying if you build a house you cannot build a shed or maybe it will say instead if you build a shed you cannot build a house. I do not think that the planning officers are stupid
The hypothetical situation concerns a house extension of a size that requires planning permission, and a shed which can be built under permitted development.
A condition attached to the house extension cannot say 'you cannot have both a house [extension] and a shed'. It can only say 'if you commence with the construction of the house extension then your permitted development rights are suspended'. However this in no way prohibits you from first building the shed and then building the house extension. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of Planning Officers does not enter into the equation.
A condition attached to the house extension cannot say 'you cannot have both a house [extension] and a shed'. It can only say 'if you commence with the construction of the house extension then your permitted development rights are suspended'. However this in no way prohibits you from first building the shed and then building the house extension. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of Planning Officers does not enter into the equation.
Sponsored Links
You do realise that you are now on the sucker's list and every pyramid schemer and Nigerian scammer will be in touch shortly?
The OP is clueless about planning law, and is pursuing a fallacious argument by using selective areas of the statue to support an already biased and preconceived conclusion. He's ignorant to the concept of precedent and policy, so will just continue quote the Acts without mercy.
He's not open to anyone's opinion that does not fit with his.
Laughably this has now spawned into a hypothetical scenario, but it's still a hiding to nothing.
‘Nakajo’ says
“However this in no way prohibits you from first building the shed and then building the house extension. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of Planning Officers does not enter into the equation”
Here it is the intelligence of the applicant which enters into the equation and not this of the planning officer
What this guy should have done is to build his shed before making an application for planning permission to build a house. What he could have done if he would have been intelligent enough to predict that this permission application to build a house will be granted to him with an unpleasant planning condition which says that he cannot build a shed. In this case he would have built his shed under permitted development rights and it would have been the end of the matters.
However because before building his shed his has made this planning permission application which was granted to him with a planning condition which says that if he build a house he cannot also build a shed Section 3(4) of the GPDO applies and he cannot anymore build his shed under permitted development rights because this would be contrary to a previous planning condition which says that he cannot build a shed.
This same thing happened with my neighbour if he would have acted in an intelligent way and would have transformed his block of flats into a single dwelling to get permitted development rights to insert windows with clear glasses before making a planning permission application to insert windows to his block of flats which was granted to him with an unpleasant planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses he would have escaped the consequence of Section 3(4) of the GPDO and would have inserted these windows with clear glasses legally.
My neighbour could have done so if he would have been intelligent enough because after all it was very predictable that this planning permission will be granted to him with this planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses because his property was still a block of flats and flats contrary to house does not have permitted development rights and there was an issue of overlooking
“However this in no way prohibits you from first building the shed and then building the house extension. The intelligence (or lack thereof) of Planning Officers does not enter into the equation”
Here it is the intelligence of the applicant which enters into the equation and not this of the planning officer
What this guy should have done is to build his shed before making an application for planning permission to build a house. What he could have done if he would have been intelligent enough to predict that this permission application to build a house will be granted to him with an unpleasant planning condition which says that he cannot build a shed. In this case he would have built his shed under permitted development rights and it would have been the end of the matters.
However because before building his shed his has made this planning permission application which was granted to him with a planning condition which says that if he build a house he cannot also build a shed Section 3(4) of the GPDO applies and he cannot anymore build his shed under permitted development rights because this would be contrary to a previous planning condition which says that he cannot build a shed.
This same thing happened with my neighbour if he would have acted in an intelligent way and would have transformed his block of flats into a single dwelling to get permitted development rights to insert windows with clear glasses before making a planning permission application to insert windows to his block of flats which was granted to him with an unpleasant planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses he would have escaped the consequence of Section 3(4) of the GPDO and would have inserted these windows with clear glasses legally.
My neighbour could have done so if he would have been intelligent enough because after all it was very predictable that this planning permission will be granted to him with this planning condition which says that the windows should have obscured glasses because his property was still a block of flats and flats contrary to house does not have permitted development rights and there was an issue of overlooking
As we've pointed out previously, you're not interested in taking on board information that contradicts your world view, so I won't continue this conversation beyond this point, except to say that it is NOT the 'granting of the permission' but the 'implementation of the permission' that activates any associated condition concerning the suspension of PD rights.
You don't implement conditions, you implement planning permissions keeping within the conditions they may impose. If you don't implement the permission, you cannot be held to be complying or subverting the conditions
Extending the house and shed analogy:
You have a piece of land that already has some permitted dev right for a small shed, and there is no house there
You apply for two different permissions because you cannot make up your mind
One permission is for a big house, it is granted but a condition says "thou shalt not build any shed"
One permission is for a small house, it has no condition mentioning a shed
You build...
..a big house and a shed, in that order -> you're in breach of the condition of the permission for the big house
..a shed and a big house, in that order -> you're not in breach, because at the time the shed was built the big house permission was not implemented or even started. its conditions cannot be held to apply
..a small house and a shed, in any order -> you're not in breach
..a medium house of a style that combines bits from both of your two permissions, and a shed -> you've carried out unlawful development with regard to the house as you have no planning permission for it, and the shed is fine because you were allowed to build it independently of the big house permission that confiscated it (which does not apply because you didn't build a big house)
You must appreciate that you can have 2 planning permissions current and active on a plot of land; you may build either or none but you cannot build both. It is thus as Nakajo says, not the granting of permission that binds you, but the implementing of it. I have 3 permissions for my plot, each one saying I must pay the council umpteen thousands of pounds in S106 bribes to implement it. The council acknowledge that just because they have granted the permission, the money is not due until I start on one of the schemes at which point I will owe the amount relevant to that scheme.
Ultimately, the only body remotely intersted and having the authority to do anything about your complaint, has given you their view: the conditions do not apply because the permission they're attached to has not been implemented so they don't care
You're on a hiding to nothing. Take up a useful pass-time such as volunteering at your local homeless shelter, and leave your neighbours alone
Last edited:
There is no point in granting permitted development rights contrary to a planning condition even if the planning application to which it is attached has not been implemented if this planning permission is still valid because it has not elapsed and can be implemented at any time. For the reason that you will end up with this planning permission being implemented in breach of this planning condition
Yeah, youre confused. Parliament gave everyone PD rights, then councils take them away on an ad hoc, one by one basis (usually). Planning permissions don't give anything back by condition, they only take away. Once lost, tis gone unless you can make a case to have the condition removed - this can occur at any point after the condition comes into effect. Conditions only come into effect when the permission theyre attached to is implemented (built)
For the record, this is the third time you've been told this now.
At the risk of repeating myself - there is no difference between a planning permission that has not been implemented and a planning permission that never existed. If you apply for planning on a site, and get it, and don't implement it the only thing that changed was your bank balance. The site neither gained, nor lost any rights. If you build something completely unrelated to that permission, whether illegally or under another permission, it is still as though the first never existed
For the record, that's the fourth and final paraphrasing I'll do of that particular point
For the record, this is the third time you've been told this now.
At the risk of repeating myself - there is no difference between a planning permission that has not been implemented and a planning permission that never existed. If you apply for planning on a site, and get it, and don't implement it the only thing that changed was your bank balance. The site neither gained, nor lost any rights. If you build something completely unrelated to that permission, whether illegally or under another permission, it is still as though the first never existed
For the record, that's the fourth and final paraphrasing I'll do of that particular point
Thank you very much for your very interesting explanations
However an applicant can implement a planning permission with planning conditions attached and then he can change his mind and restore the site at its prior condition and apply to do the same work under permitted development rights so that to escape the planning condition that he does not like. In this case he would have done the work contrary to a planning condition of a planning application which was implemented. It is why I am maybe right and Section 3(4) of the GPDO applied to all conditions of all planning permissions even those which have not been implemented to avoid this from happenning
However an applicant can implement a planning permission with planning conditions attached and then he can change his mind and restore the site at its prior condition and apply to do the same work under permitted development rights so that to escape the planning condition that he does not like. In this case he would have done the work contrary to a planning condition of a planning application which was implemented. It is why I am maybe right and Section 3(4) of the GPDO applied to all conditions of all planning permissions even those which have not been implemented to avoid this from happenning
Why would someone implement a permission, to then put everything back exactly how it was pre-implementation, to do something that was permitted development in the first place?
It is possible that the applicant was not aware that he has permitted developments rights when he made his application for planning permission. This could happened because planning law is so complicated.
Or it is possible that he does not have permitted development rights but he got them later. For example a block of flats which does not have permitted development rights but got them later when it is transformed into a single dwelling. However there could be others examples
Or it is possible that he does not have permitted development rights but he got them later. For example a block of flats which does not have permitted development rights but got them later when it is transformed into a single dwelling. However there could be others examples
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
Sponsored Links
