Grundy Fold

[Morizio]

Pull the cunts down

[Tonge moor green jacket]

3 hours ago, Elson said:

Building on the land as agreed would of been fine as was a building (farm) before.

But to build something not in the plots agreed and in one case 33% bigger if I was in one of those houses next to Bob Smithy I would be unhappy.

Kinell, they're not that close. A old farm or a few houses, I can't help feeling a bit of nimby-ism here. Its not like its a huge development on greenbelt land.

[only1swanny]

But like the one on plodder lane. 

 

Ignored the agreed plans, they need rebuilding properly 

[Spider]

I have no issue with houses being built there, by the way, I think there’s a good amount of green eye going on.

My issue is that the builder took the piss and that cannot go unpunished just because he thought a brown envelope would sort it.

Bolton council are generally a bit Pooh, but fair play to them for standing their ground here.

[DirtySanchez]

23 minutes ago, Dimron said:

I read that the development was supposed to be courtyard style, not what I'm seeing in the pictures.

Amazing that people can invest the thick end of a million without fully checking the planning approvals, I thought this would have been automatic with every conveyancing practice, they always bang on about FENSA stuff and HETAS etc. etc.

There is a precedent over here, a bloke I know lost his cushy number with a Lincoln house builder when he built a row of new houses in town 1 metre forward of the building line and they had to come down, thankfully before anyone took ownership.

I have only ever been involved in one planning hearing, it was fascinating and I was impressed with the Inspector.

Know of one case where a developer got permission to build a site of static caravans, but not the normal ones you see at Butlins but more park homes I think they call them, with foundations etc

Condition of the permission was that they couldn't be a person's main place of occupancy so essentially a holiday home. Except the developer sold them as permanent residency, encouraged people to use his solicitor for a discounted fee who wouldn't point out the clause. Majority were retirement people who sold their original homes (it was alleged that he would buy their original home off them for a further reduction though don't know it that was ever true) and moved in unaware, there were some who knew full well they couldn't live there permanently but thought they'd chance it. 

Council got tipped off so enforcement action began and there was no way they would ever grant permission to occupy them permanently. This was further compounded by the fact he hadn't carried out the permission he had properly which essentially nullified it, so you can't change an occupancy condition for something that hasn't got planning permission.

Couple of public inquiries later, he lost, police got involved and think the solicitor got struck off. 

[jeep]

6 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Know of one case where a developer got permission to build a site of static caravans, but not the normal ones you see at Butlins but more park homes I think they call them, with foundations etc

Condition of the permission was that they couldn't be a person's main place of occupancy so essentially a holiday home. Except the developer sold them as permanent residency, encouraged people to use his solicitor for a discounted fee who wouldn't point out the clause. Majority were retirement people who sold their original homes (it was alleged that he would buy their original home off them for a further reduction though don't know it that was ever true) and moved in unaware, there were some who knew full well they couldn't live there permanently but thought they'd chance it. 

Council got tipped off so enforcement action began and there was no way they would ever grant permission to occupy them permanently. This was further compounded by the fact he hadn't carried out the permission he had properly which essentially nullified it, so you can't change an occupancy condition for something that hasn't got planning permission.

Couple of public inquiries later, he lost, police got involved and think the solicitor got struck off. 

Going slightly off topic, and I suspect you'll know the answer - Why is the permanent residency permission applied to these places? I've noticed some camp sites, etc have it in place.

[Nowack]

It is difficult to see what is actually being appealed. They don't seem to be appealing the planning refusals which have subsequently been made so accept that they have no argument from a planning policy perspective. So they are just appealing the enforcement notice and seemingly from the point of view that they didn`t know and that they have been wronged by a developer. The only way I can see them winning this is if the council have made an error in serving notice or dealing with the enforcement from a technical perspective. 

The argument they are making is for a when they take the developer to court.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nowack
Bad english

[DirtySanchez]

2 minutes ago, jeep said:

Going slightly off topic, and I suspect you'll know the answer - Why is the permanent residency permission applied to these places? I've noticed some camp sites, etc have it in place.

Its usually because the sites are located in places where much isn't within walking distance in terms of shops, pubs etc so it places a dependence on the car when planning policy is to try and discourage it.

Plus often these sites can cover a large area, so can get hundreds of caravans on there, which by modern standards can be nicely insulated and lived in all year round. If they were lived in permanently and say the family had kids, that puts increased pressure on schools etc. 

In the case I mentioned above, it was in East Yorkshire where there are loads of these sites covering thousands of caravans. If they allow one to be occupied permanently, it opens the floodgates for everyone else to try it

Part of the problem is the Council turned a blind eye to some of the ones that let people live there as it would create a whole lot of problems

[DirtySanchez]

18 minutes ago, Nowack said:

It is difficult to see what is actually being appealed. They don't seem to be appealing the planning refusals which have subsequently been made so accept that they have no argument from a planning policy perspective. So they are just appealing the enforcement notice and seemingly from the perspective that they didn`t know and that they have been wronged by a developer. The only way I can see them winning this is if the council have made an error in serving notice or dealing with the enforcement from a technical perspective. 

The argument they are making is for a when they take the developer to court.

Arguing that the period for compliance is excessive?

Has the developer sold off all the houses and left the owners in the lurch?

[jeep]

24 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Its usually because the sites are located in places where much isn't within walking distance in terms of shops, pubs etc so it places a dependence on the car when planning policy is to try and discourage it.

Plus often these sites can cover a large area, so can get hundreds of caravans on there, which by modern standards can be nicely insulated and lived in all year round. If they were lived in permanently and say the family had kids, that puts increased pressure on schools etc. 

In the case I mentioned above, it was in East Yorkshire where there are loads of these sites covering thousands of caravans. If they allow one to be occupied permanently, it opens the floodgates for everyone else to try it

Part of the problem is the Council turned a blind eye to some of the ones that let people live there as it would create a whole lot of problems

Thanks for that 👍

So, would the couple (Lee & Jenny) on Gogglebox have to move out of their caravans once a year? 

I'm presuming you watch Gogglebox! 

[DirtySanchez]

9 minutes ago, jeep said:

Thanks for that 👍

So, would the couple (Lee & Jenny) on Gogglebox have to move out of their caravans once a year? 

I'm presuming you watch Gogglebox! 

I saw one episode of gogglebox years ago and thought what a load of shite 😀

[Nowack]

It piqued my interest so I read the statements of case. It looks like they agreed a scheme with the Planning Department and this was recommended for approval but was then refused by the planning committee. So it may be that the proposals are satisfactory and that if the inspector agrees with the planners and not the councilors then they stand a chance.

[DirtySanchez]

2 minutes ago, Nowack said:

It piqued my interest so I read the statements of case. It looks like they agreed a scheme with the Planning Department and this was recommended for approval but was then refused by the planning committee. So it may be that the proposals are satisfactory and that if the inspector agrees with the planners and not the councilors then they stand a chance.

Are they not just appealing the enforcement notice though? 

[Nowack]

Yes, they are appealing on the grounds that planning ought to be granted. They halted the original appeal so no decision has been made by the inspectorate already.

[Dimron]

9 minutes ago, DirtySanchez said:

Are they not just appealing the enforcement notice though? 

Looks like that to me. I understand the houses appear to be have been constructed fundamentally different to the approved plans, coupled with the fact they are on designated green belt there is a problem here. I would expect the Inspector will decide whether there was an intention to deceive and proceed from there.

[Dimron]

27 minutes ago, Nowack said:

It piqued my interest so I read the statements of case. It looks like they agreed a scheme with the Planning Department and this was recommended for approval but was then refused by the planning committee. So it may be that the proposals are satisfactory and that if the inspector agrees with the planners and not the councilors then they stand a chance.

We had the opposite. A guy wanted to build a BMW dealership on the outskirts of our village in green belt. The planning department threw it out but the planning committee over-ruled on grounds of job creation. The Inspector over-ruled the development after the hearing and the garage was built on a previously stated "unviable site" one mile away.

[Nowack]

3 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Looks like that to me. I understand the houses appear to be have been constructed fundamentally different to the approved plans, coupled with the fact they are on designated green belt there is a problem here. I would expect the Inspector will decide whether there was an intention to deceive and proceed from there.

No. They accept that the partially constructed  buildings are not in compliance with the approved plans but that the efforts they have made to mitigate this are justifiable from a planning policy perspective and the Local Authority have not dealt with it fairly. The fact it was recommended for approval and then refused gives them some grounds for this. Intention to deceive wont come into it or emotions or financial loss.

[Zico]

When we bought and did our house up we had to jump through hoops with the council, and couldn't do certain things to ours as it was a conservation area and has to be in line with next doors house 

Something like that 

Anyway, a developer bought next door, did it up ignoring a few of the things we couldn't do, or had to do, sold it and fucked off

His builders told us he does it all the time without issue

[MickyD]

May buy one of the holiday home things on Hall Lane, Moses Gate. Anyone been? Is there a kid’s club and a bar with entertainment and bingo?

[Dimron]

2 minutes ago, Nowack said:

No. They accept that the partially constructed  buildings are not in compliance with the approved plans but that the efforts they have made to mitigate this are justifiable from a planning policy perspective and the Local Authority have not dealt with it fairly. The fact it was recommended for approval and then refused gives them some grounds for this. Intention to deceive wont come into it or emotions or financial loss.

Sounds like it hasn't been handled very well at all, always more than meets the eye

[DirtySanchez]

2 minutes ago, Dimron said:

Looks like that to me. I understand the houses appear to be have been constructed fundamentally different to the approved plans, coupled with the fact they are on designated green belt there is a problem here. I would expect the Inspector will decide whether there was an intention to deceive and proceed from there.

Wouldn’t have thought in this instance there was a deliberate intention to deceive as it seems clear they were being built in full view. It’s not like the aptly named Mr Fiddler who hid his house in straw bales then after four years revealed it to claim exemption as it was immune from enforcement. That’s more what intention to deceive is about and fortunately he lost and was shown up to be the knob he was 

If the developer sold all the houses and emigrated to Cuba with the proceedings unfortunately he’s immune from the enforcement side and it falls on the owners 

 

[Dimron]

3 minutes ago, Zico said:

When we bought and did our house up we had to jump through hoops with the council, and couldn't do certain things to ours as it was a conservation area and has to be in line with next doors house 

Something like that 

Anyway, a developer bought next door, did it up ignoring a few of the things we couldn't do, or had to do, sold it and fucked off

His builders told us he does it all the time without issue

Most of the time you get away with it, planning departments are so under-resourced they only act when there are complaints. How far do you go? With my builder head on, I am currently advising one of my clients to "press on, the planners will catch up"

[DirtySanchez]

3 minutes ago, Nowack said:

No. They accept that the partially constructed  buildings are not in compliance with the approved plans but that the efforts they have made to mitigate this are justifiable from a planning policy perspective and the Local Authority have not dealt with it fairly. The fact it was recommended for approval and then refused gives them some grounds for this. Intention to deceive wont come into it or emotions or financial loss.

The decision to refuse is the decision of the Council. Doesn’t matter if it is the Planning Committee even if Officers recommend approval, that’s not unreasonable 

it’ll be harsh on the officers being cross examined by a lawyer as the opposition will ask them for their opinion yet they are there to defend the councils decision 

Been there, done it and it’s cruel 

[DirtySanchez]

12 minutes ago, Zico said:

When we bought and did our house up we had to jump through hoops with the council, and couldn't do certain things to ours as it was a conservation area and has to be in line with next doors house 

Something like that 

Anyway, a developer bought next door, did it up ignoring a few of the things we couldn't do, or had to do, sold it and fucked off

His builders told us he does it all the time without issue

Thought yours was different from in that he ripped out existing windows and replaced them with upvc, so allowed to under permitted development 

Doing a new build is different and is one of the many quirks of the planning system, loads of loopholes if you know how to do it 

[Zico]

Just now, DirtySanchez said:

Thought yours was different from in that he ripped out existing windows and replaced them with upvc, so allowed to under permitted development 

Doing a new build is different and is one of the many quirks of the planning system, loads of loopholes if you know how to do it 

No idea, the other half was banging on about it but I wasn't really listening