Planning permission refused - but development went ahead anyway?

[janinlondon]

Does anyone know what happens now? The property developers applied for planning permission to divide a beautiful house in our area into nine flats. Both times the application was refused by council. The flats are now up for sale/rent. Is the council in fact a paper tiger? Can anything be done now, in retrospect?? Any positive stories? Pleeeeaase?

House accross the road is being converted and has no planning permission. Was wondering if I should lodge a complaint. Seems little point. I did speak to the planning people and was amazed at the lack of umph.

Don't Despatches look for people to suggest ideas for programmes???

JanInLondon - contact your local Councillor - not just the officers.
Property developers are playing fast and loose with planning law atm. Lambeth are actually enforcing a whole row of mangled shopfronts in another part of the borough! But get on to the members of the council asap - the local councillor and also the cabinet Member with responsibility fr planning- the officers are lazy incompetent so-andsos ime!

drosophila - I think you live not far from JanInLondon and I, too!

Blu - good advice. I have emailed June Fewtrell. Will see if that brings any joy. I find it so depressing!

Blu!

Know some Lambeth planners. Not many because not my area, but bit shocked to see them described like that.

Spose the old saying about the minority letting the side down may be true, but I have only come across maybe a couple of qualified planners that are as you describe.

There is however a particular recruitment problem in London - tis very difficult to recruit qualified planners in the public sector so some LPA's are having to rely more heavily on agency staff (a lot of planners from NZ or Australia) who I've found very good, but having to learn the UK planning system which differs a great deal to that in NZ/Australia.

But good advice about contacting the Councillors.

I did wonder if I would bring another libel-type action down on MN...and I apologise to any conscientious, sympathetic and beady-eyed officers of the planing directorate.

But I am afraid I do have at least three direct experiences of very frustrating planning department dealings where things have been alowed to slip, slide and be ignored, and when planning law and procedure has been bypassed by developers.

And I spend a good deal of my working life swimming uphill through the custard that is Lambeth council!

Oh crikey - I'm with you on the developers slithering their way around the law. This is a prime example. Permission refused, and yet they go ahead and do it anyway, probably fully aware that is much harder to stop something after the fact. And more expensive too.

I agree that there is a problem in planning in london, much of which is to do with the massive gap between the public and private sector salaries. Many of the good planners end up going into private practice because the salaries are more competitive. Leaves planning departments with unqualified or temporary employees, or planners-in-training. And while planning is generally a good cash-generator for Councils, the departments tend to be those left to self-destruct with insufficient staff to deal with a massive increase in planning applications and enforcement issues.

But I do know of many planners who would be just as frustrated by the OP's situation. Including me. It sucks.
Don't work for Lambeth. So fire away

That all makes sense. For years Lambeth Planning was under the leadership of 'acting' heads and short-term trouble-shooters etc.

I knew one officer who was lovely and helpful....

And have been involved in several cases where the community have reported blatant slitering as it has been in early progress, and nothing at all has happened.

And an organisation I am v close to nearly lost a huge amount of grant funding because having missed several promised (and statutorily guranteed deadlines) the planning dept then gave a promise to give an answer on a routine matter (which would have led to capital investment from a charity source)...an then failed to make a decision because they were too hot.

But also an organisation I am close to has benefitted because having issued an enforcement notice for something slightly different from that which was applied for, the planning dept have never followed it up, and more than 4 years have now elapsed. Maybe they were using benign neglect to let common sense prevail!

Anyway, JanInLondon - I hope you get some satisfaction, because round the corner, families are having to move house, out of the area, because loft conversions to 3 bed houses are being refused....

janinlondon - is one of the houses you are talking about in Prentis Road? I am digging around this and just wondered if we were talking about same developer?

Hardhat - no, its Mount Nod. But I think its pretty rife everywhere. They served the enforcement notice on Thursday.

Resurrecting this thread in the hope that Pooka or others might be able to advise. Enforcement notice was served in November on grounds that the conversion of a house to 9 flats was unauthorized, change of use is over intensive, results in substandard living, inadequate lighting and outlook in basement flats, poor circulation space, some rooms below minumum room size, inadequate dwelling mix (excessive 1bed/studios). Appeal has now been lodged on 2 grounds: A) Planning permission should be granted for what is alleged in the notice. G) Time given to comply is too short. I have been invited by the council Enforcement office to comment on the appeal. Any advice on what I should say? These grounds for appeal look ridiculous, but I have no experience.....help?

Bump for lunchtime...

I know a v v little bit about planning appeals and, tbh, weight of evidence sounds as if it will have to come from developer. Council probably want you to "represent" neighbourhood opinion, not expecting an expert witness just someone articulate who can explain why it is a bad thing for street.

Thanks LLLL. I just want to maximize what will probably be my only opportunity to intervene - is: not balls it up!

The fact that the local authority turned it down for so many reasons but he went ahead anyway will be viewed as a very big - he hasn't complied with basic building regs from sound of it so could well be unsafe as well as undesirable. It may be worth checking with Building Regs dept (who work separately from Planning) to see what they have to say about development - they may not even know about it in which case it is doubly illegal.

Also, as you are working to support planning dept's case, you can probably speak to one of the planning officers involved to find out what sort of arguments would be considered relevant etc - I'm pretty sure that is allowed. You're seen as being on the same "team".

Thanks LLL - that's all really helpful.

Ground a is basically a rehash of the request that planning permission be granted. So all planning considerations would be relevant and you can use the grounds for serving the enforcement notice as a guide when working out what your grounds for objection are.

Ground G is only relevant if the planning inspector dismisses the appeal and upholds the enforcement notice. It's not something I would expect a local resident to make a case about. Basically the appellant is saying that there is no way that they'd be able to reinstate the property in the time period specified by the council. They will say that the people living there have set leases and that it would be too difficult to break these leases/make people homeless within the time period. They will also most likely say that it will take time to contract a builder or whoever to undertake the reinstatement works. Even if the appeal was to be allowed on ground g, what the inspector can do is to uphold the terms of the notice, while varying the time limit if he thinks that it's unreasonable. The end result is the same i.e. house back, but the inspector might suggest a longer period of compliance.

Is it a written appeal or an informal hearing? If an informal hearing (possibly more likely in this case), you can attend as a third party, put your case to the inspector in addition to the Council's case. Or you can just send a letter of objection and the inspector will take that into account in determining the appeal. Personally, if I were you, I would try and attend the hearing. It isn't a court, there isn't cross examination per se, and is generally supposed to be as informal and meeting-like as possible. A public inquiry is a different kettle of fish and there tends to be legal representation there.

Pooka it is a public inquiry. They have told me that I have to send any written comments in triplicate to some address in Bristol before 29 Feb, and that I have to include my name and address (that bit I'm not thrilled about considering the builders are bully boys...). Hearing date not yet set.

Well, if I were you I would just write a letter with bullet points explaining what your concerns are. Along the lines of:
"I am writing to respectfully request that the Planning Inspector supports the decision of the Local PLanning Authority and the concerns of local residents by dismissing the appeal ref: APP/XXXXXXXX.
The unauthorised conversion of the single dwelling into X flats would:

• constitute a cramped and overintensive use of the original dwelling
• result in inadequate, substandard living conditions for the occupiers of the flats
• be out of character with the pattern of development in the locality
• fail to provide an adequate mix of flat sizes
• result in on-street parking detrimental to the free flow of traffic and conditions of safety in the adjacent highway (???)

And so on.

Keep it simple and just make sure that you highlight your concerns.

WRT compliance with the building regs: compliance with separate legislation is not necessarily a planning matter. The fact that the proposal does not comply with building regs does not mean that the development is unacceptable in planning terms. But But But, the inability of the developers to comply with the regs is indicative of the cramped overintensity of the proposal (i.e. they would be able to provide adequate outlook, daylight and sunlight if there weren't so many poky flats proposed, if the conversion was to 3 or 4 or whatever number of flats but not NINE!).

WRT providing your address, alas this is true.

Pooka I also suspect that the developers are fairly blatantly trying to encourage annual lease tenancies on flats for families to get their kids into the incredibly oversubscribed high school across the road. Would this be a valid point (presuming I can word it correctly)?

We are having a planning meeting here about this very subject today. Shop and house developed into 4 flats - no parking. Hoping the bstard gets told to pull it all down Funny thing is that now, being one of the main developers that is making our lives a misery and worsening an already terrible parking situation, he is now up in arms because his office staff will have nowhere to park when the council sell the car park next to him! Oh there is* a God!!!

I would have thought that that argument would not help your case - if this was the case, it would be likely that these flats would at most be occasional 'pads' so would not all be likely to be occupied at the same time (ie people getting 'flat' opposite good highschool may well keep existing house... (unless I am misunderstanding the High School of course)). 'Normal' use of the flats - ie couples and potentially families (? I don't know whether families tend/need to go for flats in your area) are likely to generate eg two vehicles per flat and be there most of the time - thereby exacerbating the existing parking situation in the street.

I agree with Pooka's approach - although I attended an Inquiry recently and it wasn't too bad - there was a neighbour there who had no legal representation who attended and said their own bit - it meant that the Inspector was able to ask a few questions. Whilst the solicitors/barristers acting on behalf of the Council and the Appellant did also ask questions, these were not adversarial, and the Inspector would have stopped that from happening if they had been.

If you are worried about being intimidated by the builders, I suggeset that you phone the Planning Inspectorate - there should be a Case Officer assigned to the case and this should be on your letter or available through their website - discuss the problems that you have in relation to your wish to send a letter in but fear of recrimination, and they may be able to suggest an alternative.

I would also be asking your neighbours all to write in - they can do this even if they did not object to the original application.

Keep us posted!

Oh. Poo. I was hoping I could throw it into the mix on a sort of general "overloading already stretched local amenities" clause. Will start canvassing locally though. Good suggestion! Thanks.

Mistlethrush is right, would not be adversarial for you as a local resident at Inquiry.
Sorry - they scare the bejesus out of me, but then that's because I'm usually the poor planner being quizzed by the other side, seen as fair game (and rightly I suppose).