Planning Applications - Page 38

katex · 14-01-2011, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neil

But what if they are built it as it should be but not in the right place though? Should they have to pull in down again and rebuild in the right place if they wish?

Only guessing like ... Park will probably know more, but I guess if it were on the same land, but just in a slightly different position which did not flout any planning rules would be OK. Does appear a bit suspicious though that maybe this builder thought that he would get permission to chop down the trees if he did this. Maybe that was his plan all along (whoops did I really say that !).

katex · 14-01-2011, 16:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by park381

I wish, some people think they can do as they please, but again that depends on who you are, hows this for trying to get away with it

No permission for dome on Blackburn mosque (From Lancashire Telegraph)

The dome is fixed to a bulit up felt roof that covers a "tank room", me thinks building regs, structural calcs.need I go on

If you scroll down on the comments, some jester ... SS11 .. has stated permission has been granted ! Was only submitted (retrospectively of course) on 12th January ... and no decisions yet as I can see.

jaysay · 14-01-2011, 17:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Agree there should be some heavy fine put in place for people who ignore planning rules ... 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse' should be applied.

There are loads of enforcement notices every year for the committee to consider .. granted those who have overstepped the mark on their granted PP mostly.

Having to pull a building down on retrospective if not in line with regulations does happen on all types of buildings including signs, shop fronts, etc. Think it reasonable to accept if they have built it in accordance with Planning, but a slap in the pocket, with a heavy fine, would not go amiss. Would at least help to cover the cost to the council.

I think you'll find that if retro planning permission is applied for, it has to adhere to the planning regs just like any other, to turn it down is not really wise, because if appealed to, I think the home secretary, (I'm not sure on this) it could cost the council a hell of a lot of money, maybe Bernard or Joan my be able to shed light on this as they are at the coal face as it were

Bernard Dawson · 14-01-2011, 18:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I think you'll find that if retro planning permission is applied for, it has to adhere to the planning regs just like any other, to turn it down is not really wise, because if appealed to, I think the home secretary, (I'm not sure on this) it could cost the council a hell of a lot of money, maybe Bernard or Joan my be able to shed light on this as they are at the coal face as it were

That's right, planning law applies whether it's retrospective or not.A planning authority can't turn down an application because it's retrospective. But a development that's been started without planning permission runs the risk of course of not complying with planning law. And then the developer could be told to knock it down.

Its the Planning Inspectorate that deals with appeals.

jaysay · 14-01-2011, 18:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

That's right, planning law applies whether it's retrospective or not.A planning authority can't turn down an application because it's retrospective. But a development that's been started without planning permission runs the risk of course of not complying with planning law. And then the developer could be told to knock it down.

Its the Planning Inspectorate that deals with appeals.

Thanks Bernard, but I think I'm right in saying that if an appeal is upheld it could cost the council a lot of cash

katex · 14-01-2011, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I think you'll find that if retro planning permission is applied for, it has to adhere to the planning regs just like any other, to turn it down is not really wise, because if appealed to, I think the home secretary, (I'm not sure on this) it could cost the council a hell of a lot of money, maybe Bernard or Joan my be able to shed light on this as they are at the coal face as it were

Of course it is not wise, that is what I was trying to say, as that would just be bloody minded on behalf of a council. If it fits all the rules, then they have to be reasonable and let it through .... although they still should be taught that PP has to be sought in the first place like everyone else.

It has to be something very special to reach the Secretary of State.

Bernard Dawson · 14-01-2011, 18:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Thanks Bernard, but I think I'm right in saying that if an appeal is upheld it could cost the council a lot of cash

It can, and the Council as lost appeals in the past. And as you say it can be an expensive job. You've got to have sound planning grounds for turning an application down.

jaysay · 14-01-2011, 18:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bernard Dawson

It can, and the Council as lost appeals in the past. And as you say it can be an expensive job. You've got to have sound planning grounds for turning an application down.

And of course that applies to ALL applications including retro

jaysay · 14-01-2011, 18:45

I think the last retro planning application that i can remember being turned down was the garden on the garage roof of the Chippy on Catlow Hall Street Ossy, and that was quite a few years ago

katex · 14-01-2011, 22:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

I think the last retro planning application that i can remember being turned down was the garden on the garage roof of the Chippy on Catlow Hall Street Ossy, and that was quite a few years ago

Oh dearest Jaysay, please don't have me looking for all the retrospective one's that have been turned down ... too hard a task.

They are usually very small as per your example you have submitted and even if they have stepped outside the rules, usually there is guidance to put it right.

You won't get many big builds doing this, so that is why you think they do not exist. If they did ... they know what the Planning rules are anyway.

Here is a little one from a recent meeting which is going to legal :

8. ENFORCEMENT NOTICES BEING PREPARED BY LEGAL
8.1

The enforcement officer has sent memos to the Council’s legal
department with a view to taking enforcement action in respect of:

-

208/210 Union Road, Oswaldtwistle – Unauthorised shop front in
conservation area (Following second refusal of retrospective planning
application)

lancsdave · 14-01-2011, 22:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

8. ENFORCEMENT NOTICES BEING PREPARED BY LEGAL

8.1 The enforcement officer has sent memos to the Council’s legal
department with a view to taking enforcement action in respect of:

-

208/210 Union Road, Oswaldtwistle – Unauthorised shop front in

conservation area (Following second refusal of retrospective planning
application)

Not a good advert for an Estate Agent is it ?

katex · 14-01-2011, 22:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by lancsdave

Not a good advert for an Estate Agent is it ?

[/left]

Oh, is that what it is ..hahaha .. did wonder. Ironic.

jaysay · 15-01-2011, 08:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Oh, is that what it is ..hahaha .. did wonder. Ironic.

I Could just been a council officer just don't like estate agents

park381 · 15-01-2011, 15:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

If you scroll down on the comments, some jester ... SS11 .. has stated permission has been granted ! Was only submitted (retrospectively of course) on 12th January ... and no decisions yet as I can see.

I do think BwD will be require full structural calcs, not be surprised if they don't make them take it down

park381 · 15-01-2011, 15:54

Quote:

Originally Posted by katex

Only guessing like ... Park will probably know more, but I guess if it were on the same land, but just in a slightly different position which did not flout any planning rules would be OK. Does appear a bit suspicious though that maybe this builder thought that he would get permission to chop down the trees if he did this. Maybe that was his plan all along (whoops did I really say that !).

You could be correct kate, it is a big site and "had" a lots of trees. This guy is also building his big office block adjacent to the new petrol station (his) across from JJB so may be he will get away with the slight miss calculation that took place in the setting out of the houses, been past the site, the houses are huge