The Lemon Fool

Morning All.

A slightly unusual question from someone who's asked me for advice, let's call them 'X'.

X has built something in their rear garden which (presumably) a neighbour has complained about to the Local Authority (LA). The LA sent around a planning officer, who (in writing) has said as follows, though I am summarising what I read

The use, footprint and height of the outbuilding are fine
In fails in one minor respect
Strictly speaking it needs retrospective planning permission (and that is what the communication formally requires)
The council is unlikely to take enforcement action if no retrospective planning permission is sought

The last point is made informally and without prejudice by the planning officer.

The question that 'X' in context has is

If they choose not to immediately apply for retrospective planning permission*, and
Against the odds, the council chooses to take enforcement action, could they
Belatedly apply for retrospective planning permission?

Regards, Newroad

* which appears to be what is hinted at/suggested

Newroad wrote:Morning All.

A slightly unusual question from someone who's asked me for advice, let's call them 'X'.

X has built something in their rear garden which (presumably) a neighbour has complained about to the Local Authority (LA). The LA sent around a planning officer, who (in writing) has said as follows, though I am summarising what I read

The use, footprint and height of the outbuilding are fine
In fails in one minor respect
Strictly speaking it needs retrospective planning permission (and that is what the communication formally requires)
The council is unlikely to take enforcement action if no retrospective planning permission is sought

The last point is made informally and without prejudice by the planning officer.

The question that 'X' in context has is

If they choose not to immediately apply for retrospective planning permission*, and
Against the odds, the council chooses to take enforcement action, could they
Belatedly apply for retrospective planning permission?

Regards, Newroad

* which appears to be what is hinted at/suggested

I have no idea of the answer to your question but if 'twer me, I would apply for planning permission anyway. Firstly to answer the neighbour in the event of future dispute and secondly, in the event that X wishes to sell the property in the future, any buyer or at least their solicitor will probably want to be assured that planning permission was granted. It will also keep X on the right side of the Council.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

Newroad wrote:Morning All.

A slightly unusual question from someone who's asked me for advice, let's call them 'X'.

X has built something in their rear garden which (presumably) a neighbour has complained about to the Local Authority (LA). The LA sent around a planning officer, who (in writing) has said as follows, though I am summarising what I read

The use, footprint and height of the outbuilding are fine
In fails in one minor respect
Strictly speaking it needs retrospective planning permission (and that is what the communication formally requires)
The council is unlikely to take enforcement action if no retrospective planning permission is sought

The last point is made informally and without prejudice by the planning officer.

The question that 'X' in context has is

If they choose not to immediately apply for retrospective planning permission*, and
Against the odds, the council chooses to take enforcement action, could they
Belatedly apply for retrospective planning permission?

Regards, Newroad

* which appears to be what is hinted at/suggested

I have no idea of the answer to your question but if 'twer me, I would apply for planning permission anyway. Firstly to answer the neighbour in the event of future dispute and secondly, in the event that X wishes to sell the property in the future, any buyer or at least their solicitor will probably want to be assured that planning permission was granted. It will also keep X on the right side of the Council.

And if it was me I would not apply for planning permission.

I would think about how it failed in the one minor area and whether this could be rectified to remove the requirement for the need for permission, but if it couldn't then so be it.

Choosing to apply for planning permission has the risk that it is refused - and having seen how the dunderhead councillors on planning committees make decisions, then I wouldn't trust them to make any kind of sensible decision.

Far better to let sleeping dogs lie, and if the council want to take enforcement action then let them and apply for permission then.

AF62 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:
I have no idea of the answer to your question but if 'twer me, I would apply for planning permission anyway. Firstly to answer the neighbour in the event of future dispute and secondly, in the event that X wishes to sell the property in the future, any buyer or at least their solicitor will probably want to be assured that planning permission was granted. It will also keep X on the right side of the Council.

And if it was me I would not apply for planning permission.

I would think about how it failed in the one minor area and whether this could be rectified to remove the requirement for the need for permission, but if it couldn't then so be it.

Choosing to apply for planning permission has the risk that it is refused - and having seen how the dunderhead councillors on planning committees make decisions, then I wouldn't trust them to make any kind of sensible decision.

Far better to let sleeping dogs lie, and if the council want to take enforcement action then let them and apply for permission then.

A neighbour of mine did not apply for planning permission for a garage conversion, and 'let sleeping dogs lie' but when he came to sell, he faced the prospect of seeking planning permission with all the delays that that would entail or taking a reduced price for a timely sale. I think he chose the latter. I understand the sentiment but that is why I would go for planning permission.

Dod

AF62 wrote:And if it was me I would not apply for planning permission.

I would think about how it failed in the one minor area and whether this could be rectified to remove the requirement for the need for permission, but if it couldn't then so be it.

Choosing to apply for planning permission has the risk that it is refused - and having seen how the dunderhead councillors on planning committees make decisions, then I wouldn't trust them to make any kind of sensible decision.

Far better to let sleeping dogs lie, and if the council want to take enforcement action then let them and apply for permission then.

Seconded.

A friend of mine is on the planning committee and he says there is no predicting what the committee will decide about any given application. He says they tend to look benevolently on someone trying to 'regularise' an inadvertent planning breach but he has also seen perverse decisions where reasonable (in his opinion) applications get turned down.

Hi All.

Thanks for the replies thus far.

[Dod] I don't understand there to be any imminent sale consideration, but if there is, your point is well made.

[AF62] Fair suggestion re remediation, but I understand (without going into the details) that would not be practical.

Regards, Newroad

Dod101 wrote:A neighbour of mine did not apply for planning permission for a garage conversion, and 'let sleeping dogs lie' but when he came to sell, he faced the prospect of seeking planning permission with all the delays that that would entail or taking a reduced price for a timely sale. I think he chose the latter. I understand the sentiment but that is why I would go for planning permission.

Their other option would have been to have paid for an indemnity insurance policy.

AF62 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:A neighbour of mine did not apply for planning permission for a garage conversion, and 'let sleeping dogs lie' but when he came to sell, he faced the prospect of seeking planning permission with all the delays that that would entail or taking a reduced price for a timely sale. I think he chose the latter. I understand the sentiment but that is why I would go for planning permission.

Their other option would have been to have paid for an indemnity insurance policy.

I think getting planning permission would be easier.

Dod

Dod101 wrote:

AF62 wrote:
Their other option would have been to have paid for an indemnity insurance policy.

I think getting planning permission would be easier.

Have you ever attended planning meetings - it isn’t a pretty sight, with logic, reasoning, and impartiality being in short supply.

There is a reason why developers with highly paid consultants achieve what they want and Joe Public on their own doesn’t.

AF62 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:I think getting planning permission would be easier.

Have you ever attended planning meetings - it isn’t a pretty sight, with logic, reasoning, and impartiality being in short supply.

There is a reason why developers with highly paid consultants achieve what they want and Joe Public on their own doesn’t.

Which is another way of saying that the entire process and system is corrupt.

I generally avoid getting planning/building permission if I can possibly avoid it. The whole thing is a racket.

And generally older works are grandfathered in. My Grade 2 listed period property had a whole host of non-conforming additions and I rarely lost sleep over it. Sold with no problem.

Lootman wrote:

AF62 wrote:Have you ever attended planning meetings - it isn’t a pretty sight, with logic, reasoning, and impartiality being in short supply.

There is a reason why developers with highly paid consultants achieve what they want and Joe Public on their own doesn’t.

Which is another way of saying that the entire process and system is corrupt.

No, it is worse than corrupt.

At least if the councillors on the planning committees were taking cash then the decisions would have some logical basis - but they do not!

You have encountered councillors who are dim - one who thought that 100 meters was twice the distance of 100 yards. Councillors who vote on political grounds irrespective of whether the application is good or not. Councillors who reject applications with no basis to do so at all. Councillors who accept applications despite it being against published policy.

The developers at least know that the planning committee process is utterly random and have the knowledge and means to appeal it, if necessary taking it to the inspectorate who do know the rules.

Joe Public normally doesn’t have the knowledge or the money to do that.

AF62 wrote:

Dod101 wrote:
I think getting planning permission would be easier.

Have you ever attended planning meetings - it isn’t a pretty sight, with logic, reasoning, and impartiality being in short supply.

There is a reason why developers with highly paid consultants achieve what they want and Joe Public on their own doesn’t.

I assumed that you had an agenda.

Dod

I would not apply for retrospective planning - it's too much of a gamble given the level of knowledge in the typical planning committee. I would try to address with indemnity insurance if required when (if) the property is sold.

Did 'X' check the house deeds/covenants before building in the back garden? This could be equally problematic if breached. More indemnity insurance!

Crazbe7

Crazbe7 wrote:I would not apply for retrospective planning - it's too much of a gamble given the level of knowledge in the typical planning committee. I would try to address with indemnity insurance if required when (if) the property is sold.

Did 'X' check the house deeds/covenants before building in the back garden? This could be equally problematic if breached. More indemnity insurance!

Crazbe7

Yes although indemnity insurance is cheap at the point of sale. I bought three separate indemnity policies when I sold a property with multiple violations, and I think in total they cost about 200 quid, reflecting the low risk of any problems.

AF62 wrote:
You have encountered councillors who are dim - one who thought that 100 meters was twice the distance of 100 yards.

Ridiculous. 100 meters would be less than 100 yards I reckon.


Below for example, I illustrate a distance of two meters:






(Edit to fix the quoting!)

Lots of mentions of planning committees (who I agree are largely filled with people who shouldn't be let near any decision). But the vast majority of small planning applications are decided by planning officers alone. Where I live a good couple of hundred applications are decided each month but only about 10 are ever looked at by one of the committees.