Planning for changes after timber frame erected

brundle

My Brother was granted planning in december 2004. Just now he has got round to building it. Timber frame is now finished on site and house will be complete eternally at least when planning runs out.
The problem is there was a small problem with the boundary as submitted for planning (ownership issues) and to avoid any hassle he made the house a little shorter. I am assuming that he will now have to apply for permission for the slightly revised house and also to adjust the boundary so that everything is spot on.
Will he therefore have to retain the complete structure and pay the retention fee on the whole house even though it looks the same and is a little smaller than he was granted?

muffler

If he had someone there supervising the works and signing off on same then he should really talk to them as after all it will be that person who will be certifying if the house has been built in substantial compliance with the pp granted.

Strictly speaking any house that is not built in accordance with the approved plans or any site that has a change in boundaries could be deemed as unauthorised. However if the changes are minor some planning authorities will allow this by way of a letter.

But talk first to the supervising architect/engineer/technician.

onq

brundle wrote: »

My Brother was granted planning in december 2004. Just now he has got round to building it. Timber frame is now finished on site and house will be complete eternally at least when planning runs out.
The problem is there was a small problem with the boundary as submitted for planning (ownership issues) and to avoid any hassle he made the house a little shorter. I am assuming that he will now have to apply for permission for the slightly revised house and also to adjust the boundary so that everything is spot on.
Will he therefore have to retain the complete structure and pay the retention fee on the whole house even though it looks the same and is a little smaller than he was granted?

The substantive issue appears to be that the person will not have the house finished and ready for occupation within five years from the date of the grant of permission.

That is to say, it will not be habitable, with all systems installed and commissioned just because the envelope is enclosed.

That will require a planning application for an extension of time and any changes can be incorporated into that.

The fact that LESS development occurred than was permitted weighs in your favour I think but it depends on the extent of the reduction.

The reduction affects both the site area and and house design as I understand it and the issue goes to several points of planning law;-

• whether permission would have been granted for such a house size and type on the reduced site
• whether the reduction in the house changed the type [omitting bedrooms] or the amenity of the house.
• whether the remaining site allows for separation distances as specified on the original planning documents to be preserved

This is not definitive advice nor is the above listing exhaustive.

This advice does not address constructional, insulation or servicing complications caused by shortening what may have been a "kit of parts" building and the firm who supplied it should be fully appraised of the changes to the building and his advice sought.

HTH

ONQ.

Poor Uncle Tom

brundle wrote: »

Timber frame is now finished on site and house will be complete eternally at least when planning runs out.

onq wrote: »

The substantive issue appears to be that the person will not have the house finished and ready for occupation within five years from the date of the grant of permission.

That is to say, it will not be habitable, with all systems installed and commissioned just because the envelope is enclosed.

If the house is 'substantially' complete within the period of the planning permission and if the building is in compliance with the planning permission then the house is 'valid' (it depends on how the changes affected the house). This appears to be the case as a LA considers substantially complete as having the walls completed. The house need not be habitable or have all its systems functioning.

onq wrote: »

That will require a planning application for an extension of time and any changes can be incorporated into that.

Any application for an extension of planning permission must be applied for and granted within the 5 year period of the original planning permission. This is not going to happen in this case.

Planning permission to complete the development should be straight forward, depending on how extensive the house alterations have been and by how much the site has been reduced.

onq wrote: »

The fact that LESS development occurred than was permitted weighs in your favour I think but it depends on the extent of the reduction.


The reduction affects both the site area and and house design as I understand it...

This is as I understand it as well and it depends on how the planning officer views the changes as to how a new application goes.

onq

Poor Uncle Tom wrote: »

If the house is 'substantially' complete within the period of the planning permission and if the building is in compliance with the planning permission then the house is 'valid' (it depends on how the changes affected the house). This appears to be the case as a LA considers substantially complete as having the walls completed. The house need not be habitable or have all its systems functioning.

<nods>

This is a bit of a gray area, but compliance with the permission seems to be the issue.

I won't certify a house unless its habitable and fit for the intended purpose - an unsealed house with no services, kitchen or bathroom isn't a house, its a shelter.

Some LA's may take a different view of what constitues compliance for the purpose of taking enforcement action, but that doesn't mean the house was complete on the day, just that they're not going to go after it.

RE the need to go for an extension of duration planning, this is where talking to the planner comes in and your assertion that when the roof is one its deemd ot be complete may hold up.

But I wouldn't take it as read, especially if considerable site works are to be done. Developments is classed as works on over or under land and this includes the siteworks. The internal works may be classed as exempted dvelopment, but I wouldn't assume it to be so - some planners within an LA may differ, particularly where the build should have taken perhaps a year to complete and its now coming in at the very end of the five year period.

Any application for an extension of planning permission must be applied for and granted within the 5 year period of the original planning permission. This is not going to happen in this case.

The application must be applied for not more than one year from the date of the expiration of the relevant period. It must be applied for within the relevant period, ie five years from the date of grant of permission. As far as I know it doesn't require to be granted within that period.

Planning permission to complete the development should be straight forward, depending on how extensive the house alterations have been and by how much the site has been reduced.

<nods>

The only things I'd be really concerned about is the relative encroachment on the boundary and boundary distances generally, which could affect both the amenity of the subject dwelling and the privacy, overlooking and overshadowing of the adjoing land.

He's having fun at least.

ONQ.

muffler

onq wrote: »

That will require a planning application for an extension of time and any changes can be incorporated into that.

No, it will require an "application" for an extension of time but not a PLANNING APPLICATION

brundle

More info to clarify.

The boundary changes are minimal..... Still has the 2000 sqm as was required at the time of granting and still has the road frontage requirement of 30m that was in force at the time of granting planning. Its just a little movement of the boundary line to side & rear due to confusion over ownership.
The house is same style and to be honest you would have to look at drawings of the 2 houses side by side to realise the difference. Its simply shortened by about 2.5m and drops a bedroom.
The timber frame is supplied to suit the short design so that is not an issue.
This was mentioned to architect before when doing the revised drawing but at that time there was a strong possibility that this house might never be built. He better get onto him so and see what the story is.