PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING: Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Planning permission from 1969

Hi,

Can anyone help with the following please? 

If planning permission was granted in 1969, a small concrete pad (not to the size of the proposed dwelling)  was installed "possibly" in the early 1970's, or "possibly" in late 1970's and no further work has been undertaken since, would this planning permission still be valid today if no completion notice was issued by the Local Authority (as per section 68 (2) of 1969 regs or section 94 of current regs) or would this be classed as abandonment?

Thank for your any advice


«1

Comments

  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 9,228 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    jolester said:
    Hi,

    Can anyone help with the following please? 

    If planning permission was granted in 1969, a small concrete pad (not to the size of the proposed dwelling)  was installed "possibly" in the early 1970's, or "possibly" in late 1970's and no further work has been undertaken since, would this planning permission still be valid today if no completion notice was issued by the Local Authority (as per section 68 (2) of 1969 regs or section 94 of current regs) or would this be classed as abandonment?

    Thank for your any advice


    Is it being argued that the small concrete pad was (part of) the foundation of a dwelling which is now going to be progressed?
  • jolester
    jolester Posts: 331 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    Hi Section62,

    Yes.  Though the original planning permission was granted with conditions of being a farmworkers (or dependant or widow/er; thereof) dwelling.

    The original owner of the land passed away and it is the executors of the will who are now wanting to sell the land with the planning permission

    Thanks again for any assistance
  • user1977
    user1977 Posts: 17,310 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Seventh Anniversary Photogenic Name Dropper
    Are they expecting someone to buy it with the farmworker etc restriction still in place (and for construction of a 1960s-design building?). If not then I would expect any sale to be conditional on planning anyway.
  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 9,228 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    jolester said:
    Hi Section62,

    Yes.  Though the original planning permission was granted with conditions of being a farmworkers (or dependant or widow/er; thereof) dwelling.

    The original owner of the land passed away and it is the executors of the will who are now wanting to sell the land with the planning permission

    Thanks again for any assistance
    In which case I wouldn't expend too much effort on this, unless the council have made it clear that planning consent would not be given for the site now - e.g. because it is now outside a development envelope, or in a conservation area or a National Park etc.

    If the site could get planning consent for a dwelling now then the historic consent isn't particularly relevant.  Or if the council wouldn't give consent for the site then that would give you a guide on how forcefully the council may argue that the 1969 consent is no longer valid.

    Effectively all you have from the 1969 consent is that a dwelling on this site was once considered acceptable, with limitations.  However, in planning terms things change over time and what was once considered acceptable may no longer be the case.

    As user1977 alludes to, a 1960's farmworker house may not be appropriate development now, therefore the consent - even if extant - probably isn't going to add much value.

    To maximise the value of the plot you really ought to see whether the land could be developed (perhaps with multiple dwellings*) without an agricultural restriction.  For that you will probably find it best to approach a local planning consultant (someone who knows the area) and pay for a few hours of their time to advise on the best strategy.

    (*one farmworker's dwelling in the 1960's possibly occupies the same land area that two modern detached houses could be squeezed into)
  • jolester
    jolester Posts: 331 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    There is no agricultural land there anymore, but the executors haven't mentioned that condition when they are putting their case forward, it is just something we have seen from looking at the historic paperwork. 

    In my lay opinion, it looks a 1960's design.  Because all the documents are from the 1960's and scanned in, they are very hard to decipher a lot of the information 
  • jolester
    jolester Posts: 331 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    The area where the dwelling would be is now in an established wood at the rear of properties, there are trees which have preservation orders on them that would need to be felled in order for this build to go ahead.  
  • pinkshoes
    pinkshoes Posts: 20,495 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    jolester said:
    Hi,

    Can anyone help with the following please? 

    If planning permission was granted in 1969, a small concrete pad (not to the size of the proposed dwelling)  was installed "possibly" in the early 1970's, or "possibly" in late 1970's and no further work has been undertaken since, would this planning permission still be valid today if no completion notice was issued by the Local Authority (as per section 68 (2) of 1969 regs or section 94 of current regs) or would this be classed as abandonment?

    Thank for your any advice


    The area where the dwelling would be is now in an established wood at the rear of properties, there are trees which have preservation orders on them that would need to be felled in order for this build to go ahead.  
    Planning permissions usually last for a few years (3?) and building work has to commence within that time period. After that you would have to reapply for planning permission. 

    If it is now an established wood then it is highly unlikely that planning permission would be granted again.
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
  • jolester
    jolester Posts: 331 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts
    pinkshoes said:
    .  
    Planning permissions usually last for a few years (3?) and building work has to commence within that time period. After that you would have to reapply for planning permission. 

    If it is now an established wood then it is highly unlikely that planning permission would be granted again.
    Hi

    I believe back them the work had to start within 5 years.  The executor is claiming from childhood memory that "work did start in the early 1970's" But I'm also led to believe that planning permission could expire if not completed back then, unlike the current planning laws?
  • Section62
    Section62 Posts: 9,228 Forumite
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper
    jolester said:
    The area where the dwelling would be is now in an established wood at the rear of properties, there are trees which have preservation orders on them that would need to be felled in order for this build to go ahead.  
    You can never be sure, but I think it would be an uphill challenge to get TPO consent to allow you to remove trees to build a 1960's farmworker's dwelling, unless you were able to demonstrate a desperate need for additional farm worker accommodation in the area.

    I'd stick to my previous advice to speak to a local planning consultant.

  • pinkshoes
    pinkshoes Posts: 20,495 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    jolester said:
    pinkshoes said:
    .  
    Planning permissions usually last for a few years (3?) and building work has to commence within that time period. After that you would have to reapply for planning permission. 

    If it is now an established wood then it is highly unlikely that planning permission would be granted again.
    Hi

    I believe back them the work had to start within 5 years.  The executor is claiming from childhood memory that "work did start in the early 1970's" But I'm also led to believe that planning permission could expire if not completed back then, unlike the current planning laws?
    The law changed in 1968 where they had 5 years to start the work, that later became 3 years in 2009.

    "starting work" is apparently something that has seen man contested cases taken to court. So it will come down to what work was started and is this sufficient work for it to have been deemed that the planning permission was used and was going ahead. 

    So what work are they claiming was done?

    See here: https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/how-long-does-planning-permission-last/

    From the link:

    These are the actions – ‘material operations’ – listed in the amended version of the  Town And Country Planning Act 1990 that demonstrate the beginning of work (often referred to as ‘commencement of development’) on a site:

    • any work of construction in the course of the erection of a building;
    • any work of demolition of a building; 
    • the digging of a trench which is to contain the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building;
    • the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations, or part of the foundations, of a building or to any such trench;
    • any operation in the course of laying out or constructing a road or part of a road;
    • any change in the use of any land which constitutes material development.
    Should've = Should HAVE (not 'of')
    Would've = Would HAVE (not 'of')

    No, I am not perfect, but yes I do judge people on their use of basic English language. If you didn't know the above, then learn it! (If English is your second language, then you are forgiven!)
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 349.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 252.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453K Spending & Discounts
  • 242.8K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 619.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 176.4K Life & Family
  • 255.8K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.