Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'planning'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Forums

  • The Consumer Forums: The Mall
    • Welcome to the Consumer Forums
    • FAQs
    • Forum Rules - Please read before posting
    • Consumer Forums website - Post Your Questions & Suggestions about this site
    • Campaign
    • Helpful Organisations
  • CAG Community centre
    • CAG Community Centre Subforums:-
  • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
    • Consumer TV and Radio Listings
  • CAG Library - you need to register to access the CAG library
    • CAG library Subforums
  • Banks, Loans & Credit
    • Bank and Finance Subforums:
    • Other Institutions
  • Retail and Non-retail Goods and Services
  • Work, Social and Community
  • Debt problems - including homes/ mortgages, PayDay Loans
  • Motoring
  • Legal Forums
  • Latest Consumer News

Blogs

  • A Say in the Life of .....
  • Debt Diaries
  • Shopping & Money Saving Tips
  • chilleddrivingtuition

Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


About Me


Quit Date

Between and

Cigarettes Per Day


Cost Per Day


Location

Found 34 results

  1. A retired lawyer by the name of Robert Ransome has published his research into the planning consents or lack of them for all the private car parks he knows exist. It is clear that in most of the places no PP exists and is required by law so the arguments we have used here have been reinforced by his work and the ParkingPranksters commentary on the whys and wherefores. There is alos some clarification over whether retrospective permission can be given and the answer is NO so those who got caught out by Parking Eye's lies have recourse to remedy if they wish to choose it. the problem is that you have to get the local trading standards people interested and they rarely look into matters that are of little concern as far as things like public safety go but it is always worth getting a compaint lodged so they can collect the data for the future. The research is linked to the parking pranksters web page ( the dot com, not the blog) but is linked via the blogspot. My first fight with a private parking co was with Parking Eye over a NTK issued at Lidl in Addiscome Rd Selsdon more than 7 years ago. I took them on regarding the lack of PP and was helped by the fact that Lidl's main car park used to be the pub next door they flattend but failed to tell the Valuations Agency and the local council so a relatively easy victory it set the scene for how the parking companies hide behind the skirt tails of the landowner when they are threatened with having to pay business rates for being there ( Lild forgot to tell the council and VA that they had turned the pub into a car park so the land hadnt been assessed for business rates). I know the upshot was that PE just passed the buck and Lidl landed a bill for another £50k on their rates becasue they denied that it was a separate business. I suppose Lidl paid up as they could then give PE the boot if they desired to do so but my gut feeling is that the contract was so poorly worded they didnt fancy testing it. So, look up the relevant place and even if your ticket is from a hotel or residential development the law is the same, they need PP, even if it is given on the nod upon application.
  2. Ive built a skateboard ramp for my son in the back garden, because of my neighbour on are left complained evan though she can't see or hear the ramp in use the council have said it has to be removed because its a raised platform and i should of got planning permission, There is no platforms on the top either end. Can i dispute the councils decision have it removed in court? ,what are my options?,the neighbour to are right agrees that it makes no noise and they can't see it. the ramp at its highest point(the vertical bit) is 6.5 feet no higher than any of my neighbours out buildings.The flat part is only 6 inches of the ground. The kent county council have given me 3 months to remove it or there starting court action, A childs trampoline would have far more impact on are neighbours.
  3. Hello All, I reside in a property which has an old Enforcement Notice from 1996 for breach of planning conditions against it. Council are NOT taking action against me at the moment, but the threat is always there in the back of my mind. After considerable research I think I have discovered that it was invalid as being "Out of Time" at date of issue. This view is upheld by recent decisions Council have made for other properties here on the same site where the occupants were contravening the same planning condition, but Council accepted that it was too late to Enforce against them and granted "Certificate of Lawful Use" for residential occupation. My problem is that Council say that even if I get the old Enforcement Notice removed, I will have to wait 10 years from the date it was removed in order for it not be used as reason for automatic refusal of an application for a "Certificate of Lawful Use for Existing Development". Can anyone advise. I would have thought that once an Enforcement Notice has been removed as "Invalid at Date of Issue", it should be as if it never existed and cannot therefore be used as reason to refuse anything.
  4. I had debt 9 year ago due to unemployment. i also have a mortgage debt because of repossession of the house in uk. My question is simple how can i avoid being swamped by the debt collectors before i find a job, settle in and be in a position to negotiate a repayment. i have a bank account in uk where registered address is overseas. i will have to change that to my current address in uk for criminal records bureau check (now called dbs check) as req for the job. i know banks share the address change with credit companies. Please advise me on best strategy. thank you
  5. https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/3143151/france-emissions-sticker-117-fine/ Hopefully the UK are going to reciprocate this in the UK for French vehicles ?
  6. Twelve years ago I applied to the planning department of my local council for planning permission to build an extension to my house. I was granted planning permission and therefore built the extension. A planning officer from the council visited here to make sure my application was truthful and accurate. OK no problem. However, I have recently discovered that it was illegal for me to have the extension built due to a restrictive covenant on my house deeds. I wasn't aware that the covenant said that I'm not allowed to extend my house without permission from the owner of the covenant. I have been ordered from the owner of the covenant to demolish my extension as I never obtained covenant permission to build it. The owner of the covenant has offered me the option of paying them £10,000 to remove their demand to have my extension demolished. You may be wondering who is the owner of the covenant. Well the owner is the same council who granted me planning permission to build my extension. I give up.
  7. Hello I recently made a Planning Application to the local Council to make some adaptations to our house for a disabled person. On the application form/guidelines it stated that the application was exempt from application fees, if the application was for use of a disabled person. The application was made and adequate proof was provided to show that the person was disabled. The Council accepted the application. However, after a week they called to say that as the Disabled person was not currently living at the Planning Application site , that the application was invalid and the fee would have to be paid to progress the application. I had a look into this and the following rules apply: P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } The Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) Regulations 2012 In that regulation, a “disabled person” means— 4. (2) (a)a person who is within any of the descriptions of persons to whom section 29 of the National Assistance Act 1948(1) (welfare arrangements for blind, deaf, dumb and crippled persons, etc) applies. In those rules can be found : P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } Exceptions – access and facilities for disabled persons 4.—(1) 4.—(1) Regulation 3 (the requirement to pay the local authority a fee) shall not apply where the local planning authority to whom the application is made are satisfied that it relates solely to— P { margin-bottom: 0.21cm; } for the purpose, in either case, of providing means of access to or within the dwellinghouse for a disabled person who is resident in, or is proposing to take up residence in, that dwellinghouse,or of providing facilities designed to secure that person’s greater safety, health or comfort. I pointed this out to the official and they have now reinstated the application for free. So, Contrary to what you may be told by your Local Council, if you are making a Planning Application for a Disabled person it is free!. even if the Disabled person is not residing at the Application site. Which makes absolute sense, if you consider that a disabled person may want to see if he or she can alter a property for their use before purchase. Hope that helps someone uphold another regulation that the Council seem unaware of. nn
  8. I successfully applied for planning permission last year to convert a townhouse garage into habitable space. Whilst often no planning permission is required for this, there are special parameters around parking on my street which meant I needed to apply. The street is a row of about 20 identical (not mirror-image) townhouses in a row. As part of my submission, I engaged an architect to draw up plans, costing around £1k. A neighbour on the street is in the process of selling their house and the prospective owner has just applied for planning permission to do the same work. The planning drawings are identical to mine, other than that the architect's details have been hidden with some different text - it looks like that was done with a white box in powerpoint or paint. This is essentially theft of intellectual property although I feel it may be hard to prove. Do I have any leg to stand on to seek compensation? Thanks for your help!
  9. I haven't been able to find a link to the actual decision, but an Upper Tribunal has apparently now decided that 'cannot follow' means both cannot because of some physical or intellectual disability AND cannot because of e.g. anxiety, thus clarifying whether all of the descriptors can apply to conditions such as agoraphobia. There were previously two contradictory decisons on this subject, and of course DWP guidance reflected the most restrictive so people with agoraphobia who were able to leave the house could only score a maximum of 4 points and were therefore being denied any rate of mobility. I suspect it will take some time to update DWP guidance for assessors, and I doubt they'll be backdating any previous claims so if this may affect you, it may be worth considering putting in a new claim if you were previously turned down completely or effectively reporting a change of circumstances if you believe you should have had an award of standard or enhanced for the mobility component. In the latter case, be aware that your existing award can be reduced as well as increased. If anyone can find a link to the case report, it was apparently last month, I would be grateful.
  10. How can fence cause so much agro, sorry for such long post. Around August 2014 we started to convert and old garage and workshop into accommodation for my disabled mother. The building regs guy came & said he would contact the council just incase it needed planning permission, on the lady’s first visit she just had quick look round , I showed her the lounge and kitchen area, bedroom and ensuite & showed her where the cupboard for washing machine & tumble dryer would be, she said she would need to come and inspect it when it was finished. After it passed building regs and my mother had moved in I contacted her to come and give it final inspection, she came round & saw it all finished lounge kitchen bedroom ensuite etc, she told me everything was fine, then I received letter of her 4th November 2014 – Nature of Investigation – Conversion of detached garage and storage building to habitable use: ‘I refer to my site visit concerning the above. This matter has now been investigated and it has been established that no breach of planning control has taken place. As such no further action will be taken by the planning enforcement department. Move forward eighteen months & due to bereavement my mother has moved out and gone to live with her sister. A close friend has moved in rent free temporarily I erected a fence for privacy and security for my children. And this is where all the trouble has started. The first planning officer wrote a letter (26th May 2016) stating I need to apply for planning permission for the fence adjcent to the highway & Common Lane and submit a planning application for change of use of the outbuilding into separate residential dwelling Then we have a new planning officer as the last one left. The next letter stating we need to: Remove separate postal address, signage & post box Review the number of waste bins at the property Create a large access between cottage & the house Ensure that our friend who lives in the cottage uses the main house for certain functions Also he stops paying a separate Council Tax We said that the property had been banded and so council tax would still have to be paid, to which we were told to remove the kitchen. They have since confirmed that the property is still liable for Council tax. The guy who put in the plans for our fence said there is no reason why we can’t have dividing fence. My main questions re: Am I allowed to put fence up on my property – I already have a letter stating I can put a gate in the fence, now she is asking me to take the whole fence down which is a safety issue for my children. They constantly keep changing what they want and don’t want. Now, I've had a letter stating that: We need to remove separate postal address & have post delivered to the main house. remove waste bins (which we pay for via Council Tax. Remove fence from inbetween properties & we are not allowed to put a gate in (which previously they said would be ok. & ensure that our friend uses the facilities in our house. It we do not comply with these requests then our friend has to move out. What is the point of having permission to turn it in to habitable dwelling if no one can dwell in it? Any help in this matter would be really appreciated.
  11. I am 67 years old and severely disabled as a result of Polio contracted at age 9 Months. For the past 25 years I have been confined to a wheelchair full time. For this reason I sought and bought a bungalow on a flat and level site so that it could be easily adapted to meet my special needs. The bungalow which I now own and occupy is built on part of a site which was formerly an American Navy Air Force Base during World War 2. There are in excess of 150 similar such properties on this site. I bought the bungalow in 2002, and shortly after was fortunate enough to be given a “Disabled Facilities Grant” by the Local Council to install ramps to facilitate easy entry from the outside, adapt the bathroom, and install central heating. One of the conditions of that grant was that I remain “Resident” for at least 5 years. Therefore it came as something as a surprise when within a year I received an Enforcement Notice from the Local Council saying that I had to vacate on the grounds that I was contravening one of the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission under which my property was developed which stated the property was “Holiday Use Only” and could NOT be utilised for residential purposes. Of course I fought the case which went all the way to Crown Court in December 2005. At that hearing the Judge threw the case out saying that the action taken by the Council was an abuse of the legal system and a waste of public money. Council did not really accept the Judge’s ruling and still held that the Enforcement Order was valid. However, Council did decide not to take any further action against me personally, but warned that if I ever vacated for any reason, they would take similar action against the next occupants if they deemed it necessary to maintain the conditions of the 1986 Planning Permission. Following that, and for almost 10 years, Council took no enforcement action against the many other occupants who had taken up residence in similar properties to mine developed under the same Planning Permission containing the “Holiday Use Only” condition. Until very recently that is, when they began issuing Enforcement Notices against a number of other properties whose occupants have been long term residents here. Since my case of 2005, I and a number of other interested parties have continued our research. What we have uncovered is quite interesting:- 1. In April of 1971, there was a Section 37 Agreement granted on all this land which was formerly an American Navy Air Force base. This Agreement permitted the development of “Dwellings” amongst other structures, but stipulated that the “Dwellings” may not be used for “Residential Purposes” for the period from 2nd January to 28th February in any given year. Note:- “Residential Use” was permitted for the remainder of the year – that is from March to December inclusive. My understanding of such Agreements is that they cannot be rescinded at the whim of a Local Council Planning Department without obtaining a “Deed of Release”. Something which to my certain knowledge has never been done. However, what Local Council Planning Departments do have the power and authority to do is “Lift” restrictions on such agreements. Some development took place and was successful, the properties sold well. Some years later, a new developer took possession of the land, and seeing the success the previous developer had enjoyed, that developer applied for Planning Permission to build bigger and better bungalows on the same land covered by the Section 37 Agreement. 2. In 1986, Planning Permission was granted to build the bigger and better bungalows, BUT, within that Permission the new and more onerous condition of “Holiday Use Only” was introduced. A good number of the bigger and better bungalows were constructed under this Planning Permission, mine being one of those. Note:- Council either did not realise or chose to ignore the previously existing Section 37 Agreement which was still in force and does allow “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year. Some years later, Council may have realised that the 1986 Planning Permission was flawed because of the previously existing Section 37 Agreement. 3. Planning and Development Committee Meeting of 4th March 1991. Here a resolution was floored. The intention was apparently to rescind the Section 37 Agreement, but they did not have the power or authority to do that. At that meeting, the resolution that was floored was worded in such a way that all it achieved was to relieve the restriction as to when the properties could not be used for residential purposes. This much was within their power to do – that is – relieve restrictions. Nevertheless, two days after that meeting, a Memo was sent to the Council Land Registry Department saying that the Agreement of April 1971 (Section 37 Agreement), allowing “Residential Use”, had been cancelled. I have copies of the notes of that meeting, including the wording of the resolution that was passed, and the memo to the Land Registry Department. Note:- There seems to be deliberate deception by the Officers involved. Planning and Development Committee did not have the power to rescind/cancel the Section 37 Agreement, so they amended it, then informed the Local Land Registry that it had been cancelled. This was a lie. Shortly after that Planning and Development Meeting, Council began issuing numerous “Enforcement Notices” on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, causing considerable worry, stress, inconvenience and financial duress to many people. Many, if not all of these actions by Council were successful, lots of families were evicted. Of late, since Council began issuing Enforcement Notices again based on contravention of conditions contained within the 1986 Planning Permission – some of these have been challenged by owners and occupiers of the properties concerned. We have it on record that Council have admitted that the Section 37 Agreement is still in force and has never been rescinded. Now, one of the new Enforcement Orders has been challenged by the owner of the property who pointed out that according to the original Section 37 Agreement of April 1971, and the “Lifting” of restrictions in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991, the property in question had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council admitted in a telephone conversation that this was the position, and that the “Enforcement Order” had been withdrawn and the case closed. However, they refused to put this in writing. This is of great interest. Why do Council refuse to put this in writing? The theory is that if Council admit the Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Use” for 10 months of the year is still in force on all this land, then the 1986 Planning Permission attempting to introduce a more onerous “Holiday Use Only” condition is unenforceable. That would effectively mean that all the successful actions Council took for eviction on the grounds of “Contravention of Planning Conditions” under the 1986 Planning Permission, were in fact “Illegal Evictions”! It would also mean that following the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991 when restrictions were lifted as to the periods when the properties could not be used for residential purposes – all 150+ properties have the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. So my position and question is this:- I have been arguing with Council over the years on many different levels and aspects of Planning Law that my property has the benefit of “Full Residential Permission”. Not least because it would significantly increase its value and make it easier to sell if I ever decide to re-locate. All of my arguments have been dismissed as irrelevant as in their view the 1986 Planning Permission stands and the “Holiday Use Only” condition is valid and enforceable. Now, of late, I learn that the original Section 37 Agreement allowing “Residential Occupation” for 10 months of the year still stands. I also know that the restriction on the 2 months of the year when it could not be used for “Residential Occupation” was lifted in the Planning and Development Meeting of March 1991. Thus allowing “Full Residential Permission” all year round. This means that the “Holiday Use Only” condition in the 1986 Planning Permission was never valid or imposable in full in the first place, and that since March 1991, well before taking me to Court, my property had the benefit of “Full Residential Permission” all year round. Council Officials were well aware of that before taking me to Court. My problem is how to get Council to admit that, put it in writing, and have that recorded in the Local Land Registry, and the National Land Registry?
  12. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3569255/Hundreds-parking-fines-overturned-Aldi-failed-planning-permission-number-plate-recognition-cameras-operating-one-stores-FIVE-YEARS.html
  13. Hi Folks. A quick question but, as well as possibly needing planning permission for their signage, do the PPCs need planning permission for their ANPR cameras? Apologies if this has been answered already but I can't find reference to the answer anywhere. Might not be looking in the right place. Thanks.
  14. I received a windscreen invoice from UKCPS after being parked illegal in a private car park. The background to the case was that my elderly mother who is diabetic was having a hypoglycaemic attack. It was medical emergency. My mother is a Blue Badge holder but there was not time to display the badge. I completely ignored UKCPS demands for payment after reading advice on forums. I have now received the attached letter from Miah Solicitors. They have sent me Practice Direct on Pre-Action Conduct. What would action would you all advise me to take? Should I now just pay it or continue to ignore it. Are they likely to take to court and would they like win they did so. I'm unable to provide evidence to support my case. Many thanks.
  15. UK ruling party’s plan to scrap the Human Rights Act has sparked harsh criticism from the UN arguing that the act would be disastrous for victims of abuses and ruin the UK’s commendable record. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein said the threat by the UK’s Conservative government to replace the act with a British Bill of Rights would leave many people unable to remedy the abuses they suffer. https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCQQFjAAahUKEwjcgPfEo8XIAhWJXRoKHZYlAHc&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Flaw%2F2015%2Foct%2F12%2Fun-official-warns-against-uk-plans-scrap-human-rights-act&usg=AFQjCNHLFJNSZcX3Iq9RMC9HDnAPoPybRg http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/1...-UN-criticism-
  16. Hi A local developer has received planning approval for a project that will place a side wall less than 3m from several of the properties. It will also build over a public sewer that we have an easement for. The community believes the decision was taken without proper consultation, and ignores rules and guidelines for local planning. In addition it was possibly rushed through to meet the deadline to avoid CIL in July. Due to the council being short staffed, by the time we had an opportunity to explore options with them, the decision had been made and also the time limit has passed for us to request a judicial review. Complaining to the council for an incorrect decision via the ombudsman will only result in a slap on the wrists and fine but won't undo the wrong. The developer has put forward several arguments to support keeping the plan as is, as opposed to a simple modification that will not cost much. The residents feel cornered by a system that is loaded against the people it should be there to protect. Any suggestions welcome.
  17. I may need to make an objection to a planning permission change of use of residential garden. Where is it that I have to look to see if and when one has been submitted, please? Thanks.
  18. Hi all, I'm pretty sure that I don't have any rights in this situation, but I wanted to get your view. I rent a one bedroom flat and have been here over 4 years. I have an AST that we restarted for 12 months this February when the rent was increased. I discovered last week that my landlord has applied to redevelop the building - the planning permission was sought to basically demolish the building and rebuild brand new flats. Yesterday the public notice went up outside our building for local residents to send comments, etc. Obviously I object to this planning application as I will be evicted! There is no chance I will be able to have one of the redeveloped flats - this is in east London where we are going to go from a fairly run down set of flats on a low-ish rent, to a set of brand new premium flats that will cost a great deal more. Well, I'm sure that you've all seen the constant headlines about rents in London and redeveloped properties. My question is really about whether when granting planning permission if the council will take into account displacement of tenants? And whether we have a right to respond to the planning application as residents due to the inevitable resulting eviction? I just can't seem to find any info on this online. Basically, I don't want to lose my home or be evicted, but I realise there may be no choice in the matter. It's just so sad, the flat was in a horrible state when I moved in and I've done a lot to make it a real nice place. In fact, the LL just a month ago agreed for his handyman to come and put shelves up in the bedroom, so it feels like the worst timing. Thanks in advance for your advice. Claire
  19. Can anyone tell me what the law is on planning application time limits are? Do the council have to place a notice on the building that is the subject of the planning application and if so do they have to allow a certain amount of time between posting the notice and actually making a planning decision? Thanks in advance.
  20. Dear All, A dispute has arisen over scattering of mymother’s ashes and I welcome any views or comments on this predicament! My mother was diagnosed terminally ill, earlier thisyear, and is still with us. Prior to this diagnosis, my mother hadasked us to assist in arranging her pre paid funeral, which we did. I am downas contact (eldest son). My mother wishes to be cremated. Due to diagnosis advance care planning was arranged (lastwishes booklet-this is not a legally binding document) and completed at mymother’s home, between my mother, MacMillan nurse and my mother’s sister. Thisnotes my mother wishes her ashes to be scattered in garden of remembrance. 10 days later, my mother had 2 trips at home and asprocedure was taken to hospital, by paramedics. My mother was admitted andadvised it would be unlikely she would return home due to her restricted mobility.Whilst in hospital, on a visit(within 2-3 weeks after the ‘last wishes booklet’had been completed), my mother’s brother informed my mother that her ashes donot have to be scattered in garden of remembrance, but can be scattered/placedat ‘family’ grave (where my mother’s mother is buried, along with her sister inlaw). This was obviously favourable as it would give a specific place to payrespects. Also present at this visit were myself & 2 other family members. We,all 4 confirmed this & an additional note was made to ‘last wishesbooklet’. My mother was lucid and understood options described. It may assistto note that on page of ‘last wishes booklet’ titled Funeral Planning, at ‘PersonI wish to be responsible for making my funeral arrangements’ is my name, not mymother’s sister. The dispute that has arisen is my mother’s sister who waspresent when ‘last wishes booklet’ completed, is demanding that 1stoption is stood by and that ashes are scattered over garden of remembrance,where 4 other family members had witnessed my mother’s change of mind, once sheknew such option was open to her, and now wishes for her ashes to bescattered/placed at family grave. Since knowing her diagnosis, my mother has always askedme and my younger brother to look after and ‘take under our wing’ our youngestbrother, who is 30 years. My mother is of the opinion that it will hit ouryoungest brother the hardest. Bearing this in mind, I decided to broach thevisit we (4) had with my mother and asked his opinion. He is more than happyfor our mother to be scattered/placed at family grave as oppose to garden ofremembrance. Even knowing this, my mother’s sister is being difficult and notconceding my mother’s ‘new’ wish. I could add more but this would only muddy the waters, save to say that not all family members see eye to eye with others! Many thanks for reading.
  21. Hello All, I live in a London council flat purchased a year ago (2014), there is a roof space size of a bed room that i want to insert a roof window. Also In 2009 I inserted a full size door to lead to the roof space.This wasn't discovered when purchase survey was carried out. Question is what do i need to do to get the permission? and also do i have to apply for a retrospective permission for the door or has this already passed a limit? Thanks in advance
  22. We were granted planning permission for a rear and side (wrap around) extension which doubled the floor area of our very small bungalow. The approved drawings showed that all of the walls except the front facade are to be demolished and a completely new roof structure is to be constructed. All work is being carried out under Building Control supervision. However, a local busy body complained that we are undertaking more than just an extension. The council have agreed and requested that a new application for a new build/rebuild is to be submitted. The enforcement officer has been involved but (for the time being at least) has not issued any formal notices. The planning and enforcement officers view is that the planning permission notice description does not state that all of the walls and roof are being demolished and the drawings alone are not sufficient (!). Furthermore, had we built the extension first, and then demolished these walls and roof, we would have been ok (there is no condition in our Decision Notice to state the order of works). We are adamant that our PP is valid and are building to the approved drawings. We currently do not have a mortgage, but will be looking to either take out a mortgage or sell the property once complete. If we go down either route, I presume that any lender's or buyer's solicitor will undertake a Local Search, yes? If so, will they be advised of the local planners current opinion/dispute, and will this have any merit in view of the completed property looking as per the drawings in our existing PP for the wraparound extension? Via a telephone conversation, the enforcement officer stated that upon any future sale, the council would have to advise a solicitor that the property does not have PP.
  23. read the lastest post on the parking prankster's blogspot about planning consent for parking signs, it is something I have beaten PE on before so not an isolated example. http://parking-prankster.blogspot.co.uk/ So, if you get a Court Claim than one of the documents you should ask for from the parking co is the planning consent for the advertising display board. Check with your local council as consent is needed for any sign big enough to be acceptable under the CoP covering the signs that form contracts. Generally the parking co's do not apply for PP and rely upon existing consent from the stores. However, in the case when I beat PE, the car park had a separate address to the store as a building was demolished to make way for it and no planning applied for so not only were the signs illegal, the car park was separate and thus would have attracted business rates of its own. I know that PE applied for PP and had to erect new signage as a resulot of my action so it is always worth checking.
  24. hi just had front rooms of my house passed to a1. as i live in the town center and there are plenty of shops,small village with about 30 shops parish council being a real pain and have had the below restrictions imposed which seem ridiculous as there are other shops selling the same as each other why should i be so restricted any help pleas Following your visit to County Hall earlier today, I have checked further into the outcome of the Committee Meeting yesterday and an additional condition was imposed by Members to be included within the Notice of Decision. The additional condition will specify that the retail element will be limited to the wedding business only and no other retail use and can only occupy the front room and it will only be allowed to be run by the occupiers of No. 77. Members felt that if any other retail use were to occupy the premises it could have a detrimental impact on adjacent properties and the area in general. Kind Regards
×
×
  • Create New...