Part of work completed before Planning approval

ispookie666

The planning officer came out today!  I showed the officer the two installs which were the smaller units, and showed were the bigger one would be going.  The officer took some pics (off the record did not have any problems with the bigger 7.1 and 2.5 units which were facing the road). Officer wanted to get a sense of sound, so  I turned on these, well with the road and everything else could not hear a thing. The officer asked, Is it on?   
Fingers crossed 

ispookie666

Well this has become complex.  The two installed units have been okayed but the larger unit - if I want to install will need a noise assessment   
The alternate option suggested is - I withdraw the part of the application relating to the larger unit - so that the other two can be made a retrospective kind of approval.  

GDB2222

Are these similar to the heat pumps that the government wants everyone to install?

ispookie666

GDB2222 said:

Are these similar to the heat pumps that the government wants everyone to install?

Well.. the govt wants Air to water HP these are Air to Air.  

GDB2222

But they will be similarly bulky, noisy boxes on the outsides of people's houses, and will require planning permission?

shinytop

GDB2222 said:

But they will be similarly bulky, noisy boxes on the outsides of people's houses, and will require planning permission?

I think you probably know the answers to the questions you are asking but in case not, have a look here.

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/27/heat_pumps/2

Permitted development is carefully targeted at small(ish), single, air to water units that conform to the MCS guidelines.  It doesn't include multiple outdoor units or using them for cooling.  

ispookie666

Just an update on this.  
The planning officer gave me the option of doing a Noise assessment to support the bigger Aircon unit (the two smaller ones, which were already installed were fine) OR withdraw the larger unit from the application and they would change it to a retrospective one.  
I went for the latter, but had to submit new site plan and elevations.  Noise assessment would be upwards of £1000 and was more hassle than any good.  

Finally after a long time, got the approval for both the already installed units.  

Section62

ispookie666 said:

Just an update on this.  
The planning officer gave me the option of doing a Noise assessment to support the bigger Aircon unit (the two smaller ones, which were already installed were fine) OR withdraw the larger unit from the application and they would change it to a retrospective one.  
I went for the latter, but had to submit new site plan and elevations.  Noise assessment would be upwards of £1000 and was more hassle than any good.  

Finally after a long time, got the approval for both the already installed units.  

This is really good news, and thanks for feeding back on a good outcome which shows planners can be pragmatic and perfectly reasonable in dealing with cases.

I also think it is worth commenting on a couple of points from earlier in the thread in case anyone reading this is in a similar position in future....

Newuser1987 said:

You could try your luck and say that you are shielding or something but can provide photos. Then send some old ones. Most of the local councils near me are still not visiting and relying on photos.

(Covid or not) Trying to 'trick' the planners by submitting false information is a really bad idea. It is far more serious than having submitted the 'wrong type' of application, or (usually) in going ahead with work before getting consent.  At worst, doing this could result in a criminal conviction for one of any of the offences relating to intentionally providing false information.

In this situation honesty is definitely the best policy, as the OP has discovered.

Newuser1987 said:

There is even recent case law where it has been decided that incorrect information used when determining an application completely invalidates the local authorities decision if approved.

This isn't a new thing.  In any decision-making process a public authority has to apply the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test (dating from 1948) or otherwise known as the test of "irrationality".  Using incorrect information in making a decision could be regarded as failing the test, because that information should plainly not be included in the decision making.

However, the test is not absolute. It is based on what a reasonable person would consider unreasonable or not. So a planning officer making a decision on an application made on the wrong form, or one on which the wrong entry had been made in a box, could still make a wholly valid and reasonable decision if they are aware of the error and take that into account within the decision-making process.  Recent case law in this area is typically about exploring the boundaries of what a reasonable person would consider to be unreasonable. It would be an earth-shattering decision by a court to decide that a minor procedural issue should require a planning application to be withdrawn and resubmitted in any case one is discovered. If there was specific case law to this effect it would be interesting if anyone knows more of the details.

Ironically, if the OP had taken the previous advice and concealed the fact part of the work had been done (and there was no site visit) then the apparent 'error' in the application wouldn't have been purged and the planning officer's decision could be more vulnerable to legal challenge (if anybody actually cared enough to stump up for a judicial review). So again, honesty was the best policy here.