Planning permission query ?
11 January 2012, 04:38 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Planning permission query ?
I wonder if anyone with Planning knowledge might be able to help me with this?
In 1972 our Parish Council was granted ..
"Use of land for a childrens play area O.S. *****
subject to the conditions specified hereunder:-
1) The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of five years, beginning with the date of this permission.
The reasons for the conditions specified above are:-
1) This condition is imposed in compliance with section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971."
This was /still is, land held in trust by the Parish council for the good of the village and was originally a sheep wash and grazing land. This application was granted to change the use to a childrens play area. The Parish council at the time did not want to install any play equipment, just provide a recreational playarea within the village.
Can someone please explain to me what it means when it mentions the 'development being begun' when there was no development to begin, nothing was being built or installed!. Children had always played there and still do.
Where can I find reference/detail for the Planning act section quoted to find out how it is applicable and relevant to this?
I hope this makes sense.
Cheers and thanks.
JBL
In 1972 our Parish Council was granted ..
"Use of land for a childrens play area O.S. *****
subject to the conditions specified hereunder:-
1) The development to which this permission relates shall be begun not later than the expiration of five years, beginning with the date of this permission.
The reasons for the conditions specified above are:-
1) This condition is imposed in compliance with section 41 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971."
This was /still is, land held in trust by the Parish council for the good of the village and was originally a sheep wash and grazing land. This application was granted to change the use to a childrens play area. The Parish council at the time did not want to install any play equipment, just provide a recreational playarea within the village.
Can someone please explain to me what it means when it mentions the 'development being begun' when there was no development to begin, nothing was being built or installed!. Children had always played there and still do.
Where can I find reference/detail for the Planning act section quoted to find out how it is applicable and relevant to this?
I hope this makes sense.
Cheers and thanks.
JBL
11 January 2012, 05:00 PM
#2
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Any planning permission has an expiry date, understand your question though.
Was any fencing erected?
A gate?
hedging?
If absolutely nothing then should a query arise as to validity of the permissions then affidavits from people that used theplayground within that period would probably suffice as proof.
Can you explain why you are asking this? Knowing your agenda might make it easier to answer.
Chop
Was any fencing erected?
A gate?
hedging?
If absolutely nothing then should a query arise as to validity of the permissions then affidavits from people that used theplayground within that period would probably suffice as proof.
Can you explain why you are asking this? Knowing your agenda might make it easier to answer.
Chop
11 January 2012, 05:25 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Fencing as it was apart from re-newal, no change to hedges, original gate etc.
Reason for asking is where it gets complicated.
Will try to keep it simple
Area was designated a playarea in 1972 and kids played there, land still grazed for 9 months each year to keep grass down.
1979 and new housing in the village, new, active mums wanted a toddlers playground with pre-5's play things ( swings/slide etc) Parish Council let them apply for Planning permission to fence a part off and install. All done by mums group (wife was part of it at the time). Fence kept sheep and children apart. All fine, super little area.
2011. After years of trying to find alternative site-none found- PC applied for and received £k in grants/S101 money etc to install equipment in the playarea ( not the enclosed fenced bit of 1979-too small) for the 8-15 yr olds. Use of money was time limited. PC was told by Planners original 1972 permission was OK if they got testiments from villagers that they had played there-done-Planners said OK-equipment ordered and installation begun. Residents adjoining (4) didn't like this-employed forceful solicitor and Planners said we have changed our minds and you need planning permission now. Original 1972 permission has expired. Would not give reasons. Planners became hostile to PC. PC solicitor said not to go for planning permission as you already have it.
It was/is much worse than this with enforcement being a possibility but it all seems to revolve around the original 1972 permission and what it means.
Minefields are easier to negotiate !
Cheers
JBL
Reason for asking is where it gets complicated.
Will try to keep it simple
Area was designated a playarea in 1972 and kids played there, land still grazed for 9 months each year to keep grass down.
1979 and new housing in the village, new, active mums wanted a toddlers playground with pre-5's play things ( swings/slide etc) Parish Council let them apply for Planning permission to fence a part off and install. All done by mums group (wife was part of it at the time). Fence kept sheep and children apart. All fine, super little area.
2011. After years of trying to find alternative site-none found- PC applied for and received £k in grants/S101 money etc to install equipment in the playarea ( not the enclosed fenced bit of 1979-too small) for the 8-15 yr olds. Use of money was time limited. PC was told by Planners original 1972 permission was OK if they got testiments from villagers that they had played there-done-Planners said OK-equipment ordered and installation begun. Residents adjoining (4) didn't like this-employed forceful solicitor and Planners said we have changed our minds and you need planning permission now. Original 1972 permission has expired. Would not give reasons. Planners became hostile to PC. PC solicitor said not to go for planning permission as you already have it.
It was/is much worse than this with enforcement being a possibility but it all seems to revolve around the original 1972 permission and what it means.
Minefields are easier to negotiate !
Cheers
JBL
Last edited by jbl; 11 January 2012 at 05:27 PM. Reason: spelling
11 January 2012, 07:08 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting and hard to advise. Before i try i need to stress that i am not a planner or planning consultant but i have had a lot of experience with these matters.
Planners are notorius for taking the easy way out and perhaps felt upon receiving a solicitors letter it would be just easier to ask the PC to apply for a new permission. Also they may have felt they were on slightly sticky ground so for belt and braces asking the PC to apply for a new permission they were not exposing themselves to possible legal action from the neighbours.
All the above makes sense to me, however.
Solicitors are great at writing very threatening letters that contain a lot of threats but nk substance, I am regularly on the end of this.
If I were the Parish Council I would take some advice off a planning consultant, plenty around and I would have thought they would be able to give a viee very quickly. If he agrees with the PC then ge on and do the works. At the end of the day the neighbours are obviously not happy and may challenge the planners to take enforcement. However if you are in policy then they can write all the letters and make all the threats they want and it wont do any good.
Also I'm not very clued up in terms of if any particular play equipment needs permission i.e. A field for kicking a ball round in may be classed differently in planning terms to a full blown playground with swings etc etc.
Good luck.
Chop
Planners are notorius for taking the easy way out and perhaps felt upon receiving a solicitors letter it would be just easier to ask the PC to apply for a new permission. Also they may have felt they were on slightly sticky ground so for belt and braces asking the PC to apply for a new permission they were not exposing themselves to possible legal action from the neighbours.
All the above makes sense to me, however.
Solicitors are great at writing very threatening letters that contain a lot of threats but nk substance, I am regularly on the end of this.
If I were the Parish Council I would take some advice off a planning consultant, plenty around and I would have thought they would be able to give a viee very quickly. If he agrees with the PC then ge on and do the works. At the end of the day the neighbours are obviously not happy and may challenge the planners to take enforcement. However if you are in policy then they can write all the letters and make all the threats they want and it wont do any good.
Also I'm not very clued up in terms of if any particular play equipment needs permission i.e. A field for kicking a ball round in may be classed differently in planning terms to a full blown playground with swings etc etc.
Good luck.
Chop
11 January 2012, 07:22 PM
#6
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Cheers Chop, you have the first bit spot on ! Planners taking easy route, pressure etc. Just what the PC feel is happening.
They have a solicitor on board who is OK but not a planning 'expert' hence the search for a bit more info about the original wording of 1972. The next step is to ask a Barrister if sworn testimony re' playing there as a child will suffice and then present that to the Planners. Hope is that they won't challenge a Barrister.
Cheers and thanks
Brian
They have a solicitor on board who is OK but not a planning 'expert' hence the search for a bit more info about the original wording of 1972. The next step is to ask a Barrister if sworn testimony re' playing there as a child will suffice and then present that to the Planners. Hope is that they won't challenge a Barrister.
Cheers and thanks
Brian
Trending Topics
11 January 2012, 11:27 PM
#8
Scooby Regular
As Chop has said get a planning consultant on board, lawyers will want one eventually as an "expert witness" because of lack of knowledge about the planning issues.
12 January 2012, 12:23 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suspect this revolves around the old chestnut of what consitutes a start or commencement of an approved application.
It can be as simple as scraping off the top soil or more securley the digging of trenches and/or concreting foundations.
I had cause recently to discuss just this point with a planning consultant and he was stumped for a precise answer.
the original application for a play area could be argued to never have commenced apart from partitioning it with a fence and as the 5 years alotted passed without any equipment installed the approval also lapsed (incidentally reduced to 3 years these days).
the good news is if a new application is made there would have to have been a material change to the site or immeadiate area to refuse an application historically approved and it sounds that this is not the case.
taking my semi proffesional hat off the planners are indeed probably teriffied of there own shadow, as said by chopper asking for the pc to make a new application is the easy way out
It can be as simple as scraping off the top soil or more securley the digging of trenches and/or concreting foundations.
I had cause recently to discuss just this point with a planning consultant and he was stumped for a precise answer.
the original application for a play area could be argued to never have commenced apart from partitioning it with a fence and as the 5 years alotted passed without any equipment installed the approval also lapsed (incidentally reduced to 3 years these days).
the good news is if a new application is made there would have to have been a material change to the site or immeadiate area to refuse an application historically approved and it sounds that this is not the case.
taking my semi proffesional hat off the planners are indeed probably teriffied of there own shadow, as said by chopper asking for the pc to make a new application is the easy way out
12 January 2012, 01:05 PM
#10
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems to me that the development could be said to have begun the moment the children were allowed to play on the area concerned.
That is what the PP was granted for in the first place surely.
Les
That is what the PP was granted for in the first place surely.
Les
12 January 2012, 01:34 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 January 2012, 01:47 PM
#12
Seems to me that the original planning application lapsed in 1977, regardless of what level of development had begun. Whether someone takes up a "build" or not, the application has lapsed. It doesn't matter to the planning committe that nothing was actually done on the green. Use it or lose it comes to mind.
A second planning application was approved in 1979 for the fence.
But since then more changes are wanted (2011), so a new planning application is needed for further changes.
Doesn't sound to me like anyone is disputing it's a childrens play area, but the issue is what was allowed to be built at each date.
A second planning application was approved in 1979 for the fence.
But since then more changes are wanted (2011), so a new planning application is needed for further changes.
Doesn't sound to me like anyone is disputing it's a childrens play area, but the issue is what was allowed to be built at each date.
12 January 2012, 03:36 PM
#13
Bloody planners. I had a friend who wanted to install a large play shed in their garden. The planners were supportive, then when neighbours complained the planners went cold. Planners then darted asking if the land was actually garden and wanting them to apply for lawlful use of land. My friend got a planning consultant who advised not to do what the planners wanted and just let the application go to committee. It passed but not before certain biased councillors objected. It was s bloody shed.
13 January 2012, 07:56 AM
#14
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Hereford
Posts: 479
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty simple I would think. The original approval was granted for the use of land as play area. Provided the land was used for that purpose before the expiray date, the permission would be implimented. The application didnt have any physical development included so wouldnt need any physical development to be implimented.
14 January 2012, 12:07 PM
#15
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its pretty simple I would think. The original approval was granted for the use of land as play area. Provided the land was used for that purpose before the expiray date, the permission would be implimented. The application didnt have any physical development included so wouldnt need any physical development to be implimented.
As I implied earlier.
Les
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Phil3822
General Technical
0
30 September 2015 06:29 PM