Refused Permitted Development - bad advice from architect?

questionthing

There are many large extensions on the Street but usually a side and half width. Some have very large plots and have built extensively. Adjoining neighbours have side and half width that goes out 8 meters. I've never been through this process before so was completely in the trust of an 'expert' who was a recommendation. We thought it would be nice to go full width and not once did he advise us against it. Possibly the downfall was that he wasn't local, but still I would have thought that he would know the basics. The planning department said that PD was national legislation and the onus was on the agent to submit something that complied with PD rules. I simply cannot see hoe there are any grey areas with this. It should comply based on all points in the legislation in my book. Even though this is my first experience with PD I now know that you cannot full width a house that has already been extended to the side. Surely this should be learned in year 1 of architect school?

snowcat75

questionthing said:

There are many large extensions on the Street but usually a side and half width. Some have very large plots and have built extensively. Adjoining neighbours have side and half width that goes out 8 meters. I've never been through this process before so was completely in the trust of an 'expert' who was a recommendation. We thought it would be nice to go full width and not once did he advise us against it. Possibly the downfall was that he wasn't local, but still I would have thought that he would know the basics. The planning department said that PD was national legislation and the onus was on the agent to submit something that complied with PD rules. I simply cannot see hoe there are any grey areas with this. It should comply based on all points in the legislation in my book. Even though this is my first experience with PD I now know that you cannot full width a house that has already been extended to the side. Surely this should be learned in year 1 of architect school?

I'm still somewhat confused is this a planning consultant or an architect or, both?

Planning is not an exact science its full of grey areas, and how one authority interprets  and apply the rules may be different to another whilst all working within the same framework. A refusal can be down to a planner not likeing you (although that would never officially come out) 
 
The appeal process is relatively inexpensive especially under lawful development it may require some amendment's but around 50% of failed applications are overturned at appeal.
It is a bad idea to contact the council in any shape or form yourself if employing an agent,  all planning decisions are available online and will be hard copied in due course, doing so may make matters worse with regards on what to do next, you are paying someone to do that job for you who should understand the law much better.

NO Planning is clear cut,(even with the rules of PD)  it can cost a serious amount of money and still you have nothing to show. I think you may have been somewhat naïve. 

questionthing

Snowcat. What is naive about asking a professional to supply a service and expecting them to deliver a solution that complies with national legislation. Im wondering if you are my architect. You sound just like him

planningitnow

It does sound like you have been badly advised. Generally speaking you can't have an extension under permitted development that touches an existing extension.  Your architect should have known this and just applied for planning permission straight away.

[Deleted User]

I have a feeling he wasn't an architect.  But the OP might not have helped matters if she responded as aggressively as she has on here to doubts and queries.  I'm not sure if the architect would have been listened to.  Sometimes people aren't aware of the disservice this kind of response can do them.

snowcat75

questionthing said:

Snowcat. What is naive about asking a professional to supply a service and expecting them to deliver a solution that complies with national legislation. Im wondering if you are my architect. You sound just like him

I have been through many planning matters everything from simple PD, through to full plans for dwellings, change of use even retrospective, and into court...... I have already stated twice an architect is not a planning consult, any more than a planning consultant isn't an architect, Iv also stated planning law is far from clear cut, and there's no guarantees the decision will go in your favor (9 times out of 10 it doesn't) ... and TBH what you have spent is peanuts in the terms of battling with councils. You have already been recommended to take it to appeal, the choice is yours...... but as sure is sure the attitude shown on here when someone doesnt give the answer you want (ie dont pay the invoice) means that moving forward would require a new professional, just be aware they tend to talk so if you knock one that avenue may become very small. 

societys_child

questionthing said:

Snowcat. What is naive about asking a professional to supply a service and expecting them to deliver a solution that complies with national legislation.

Is your architect really a pro, though . . ?

Im wondering if you are my architect. You sound just like him

Ah, the old "you've not given the answer I want, so you must work for 'em".

Strange response to someone freely giving their time . . .

thearchitect

If I understand properly:

-  Architect is appointed to prepare a scheme comprising extension, garage conversion, and sundry works.

- Original plan is to apply for planning permission but Architect suggests splitting the scheme, with extension under PD but remaining works subject to  seperate application in due course.

-Prior Notification was required (similar to an application for a  Certificate of Proposed Lawfulness in other Home Nation jurisdictions) for the extension.

- The local authority have declined to issue that certificate on the basis that it breached the PD requirements, hence requiring a full application.

- In the course of this, it has come to your attention that design changes may be required.

In your duplicate thread you have confirmed the Architect is full qualified and registered with ARB.   He should therefore be aware of PD requirements, in my view, although as others have said it can sometimes be a little fuzzy around the edges.

Your concern is that he is seeking to charge you additional fees for, presumably, either the seperate applications or the revised scheme. 

To answer this, you'll need to look closely at the terms of the original appointment and what was included (or not).  ARB require this to be formally recorded prior to undertaking work and hence it should be to hand. 

The key thing, in my view, is whether the extra work (and thus fees) are caused by matters beyond the architect's control - so, for example, normal tweaking of a design is normally included but an onerous interpretation of policy by planners or similar external force can lead to fees.   These should be notified to you prior to incurring such costs.

Also look at how the Architect set out his recommendations regarding the revised consent strategy. So, for example, did he mention the risks/swings and roudabouts?

questionthing

societys_child said:

questionthing said:

Snowcat. What is naive about asking a professional to supply a service and expecting them to deliver a solution that complies with national legislation.

Is your architect really a pro, though . . ?

Im wondering if you are my architect. You sound just like him

Ah, the old "you've not given the answer I want, so you must work for 'em".

Strange response to someone freely giving their time . . .

He says he's a pro. But not sure now. And it's not 'the old' not given the answer you want. It's not a strange response. I just didn't wan't to hear that I was naive, because I'm not.

I'm a customer who was told that I could do a full width PD extension on a house that had a side extension that was done under full planning. Damn, at that point I forgot to take my dusty old Town & Country planning legislation out of my drawer and refer to section A1 (j) (iii) just to check. Come on, as if I would know that you can't do that, the architect didn't know for gods sake. And snowcat75. I wanted to build at start of July, not submit a plan that would go through a lengthy appeal process. If I had known that I would have asked him to submit something else that complied with a full planning application. And yes I may have spent peanuts, but every penny spent on this is a penny not spent on the house itself. 

I seem to have landed in a world of smoke and mirrors where everything is a bit fuzzy around the edges. In my eyes rules are rules and if they aren't then the profession needs a big shakeup. I wouldn't go into a car showroom and expect to buy a car with no engine would I?

snowcat75

questionthing said:

societys_child said:

questionthing said:

Snowcat. What is naive about asking a professional to supply a service and expecting them to deliver a solution that complies with national legislation.

Is your architect really a pro, though . . ?

Im wondering if you are my architect. You sound just like him

Ah, the old "you've not given the answer I want, so you must work for 'em".

Strange response to someone freely giving their time . . .

He says he's a pro. But not sure now. And it's not 'the old' not given the answer you want. It's not a strange response. I just didn't wan't to hear that I was naive, because I'm not.

I'm a customer who was told that I could do a full width PD extension on a house that had a side extension that was done under full planning. Damn, at that point I forgot to take my dusty old Town & Country planning legislation out of my drawer and refer to section A1 (j) (iii) just to check. Come on, as if I would know that you can't do that, the architect didn't know for gods sake. And snowcat75. I wanted to build at start of July, not submit a plan that would go through a lengthy appeal process. If I had known that I would have asked him to submit something else that complied with a full planning application. And yes I may have spent peanuts, but every penny spent on this is a penny not spent on the house itself. 

I seem to have landed in a world of smoke and mirrors where everything is a bit fuzzy around the edges. In my eyes rules are rules and if they aren't then the profession needs a big shakeup. I wouldn't go into a car showroom and expect to buy a car with no engine would I?

No one enjoys planning law and everyone wants to just get on and build and the last thing anyone wants to spend there money on is paperwork , but the LAs don't work like that hence my comment on naivety....

Rules are not rules in any walk of life, and interpretation is key.... and iv stated different councils will apply the same rules slightly differently.  
You really are banging your head against a wall here,

Either amend you plans to bring them into PD and make up with your architect,

Submit a full plans submission (probably through a planning consultant),

Give up,

Or build without PP and hope to get around on the 4 year rule, or hope to get retrospective.

There really is nothing more to add, the choice is yours.