As per the title. Another saga in the life of FC
Very potted version.
Small CL caravan site adjacent to cul-de-sac of 6 properties where we reside. Subsequently bequeathed to someone who had land and access to rear of it and subsequent permission to create own small site. The two became one and in 2007 obtained Consent to change from caravans to Lodges 18 in total. Lodges started being sited in 2009 but not completed.
Conditions were very explicit and comprehensive in regards to landscaping, tree retention and maintenance but they had a 5 year time constraint. The rear part of the site is visible from the rear of our house however the thick area of established trees and bushes provided a very effective screen and distancing to the site. All protected in the Application.
The Park was subsequently sold 2/3 years ago to a holiday lodge company who have further developed the site and completed siting the 18 lodges.
Come 2020 the wooded area was striped out, 2 lodges have been sited and there are bases for a further 2. There is little screening from what is left of the boundary trees. The land rises so is even more obvious.
There has been no planning Application so we’ve been on to the LA Enforcement. That’s where the fun starts and is a fine example of ‘bureaucratic palm off don’t bother us’.
According to them because 18 lodges are not specifically mentioned in the Consent then they can put in as many as they wish with no further Applications.
However when you go through the 2007 Application Decision and Conditions it all links to 18 units. The initial Application covering letter requested 18. All submitted plans showed 18 lodges, drainage landscaping etc and amended plans showing the same.
Below are a couple of extracts from the Approved Decision:
"……and has been APPROVED in accordance with the terms and details as submitted,..."
"The development shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted application except insofar as this is amended by the drawing ref F20/01/02 B ……. Dated 20th March 2007 and titled ‘Site Plan as Proposed - Location Plan’"
There are loads more of examples which I have put in a detailed report to both the Enforcement Officer and Parish Council. It has become email ping pong and is definitely the wrong time to undertake this process but it has to be done as things are still moving along. It’s all there in black and white.
The Enforcement Officer has loosely admitted this may be outside his area of knowledge and has sought guidance from his supervisors. He has even been in touch with the Planning Consultants who work for the developers and has now come back with at best this is in breach of the Site Licence which strangely enough was for 18 units and supposedly now his Supervisors have been consulted still maintains ‘no breaches of planning permission restricting numbers.'
There were a number of conditions such as:
"No development shall take place until details of the proposed floor levels of the building(s) in relation to the existing and proposed levels of the site and surrounding land have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The building shall then be constructed with the approved levels."
I see that as an enforceable condition on the recent batch.
And
"If you are proposing to alter the plans hereby approved you must first consult the Local Planning Department."
This evening another email arrives apparently stating that:
“The site is an historic application with ineffectual conditions”
I can’t find any information regarding an expiration time for Planning Consent and am somewhat sceptical. Nearest I can find is to apply for a ‘discharge in planning conditions’. But there is no evidence of this.
I asked the question based on what they are telling me, what have they in place to control a developer who goes totally off grid? But haven’t received a response to that.
So, in a nutshell that’s where we are at. I’ve never had a positive interaction with LA planning over the years and this continues to be an unsurprising level of apathy and indifference to what actually is not an insignificant breach.
All the protections of a normal Application: highways, drainage, landscaping, trees, and local considerations have been steam rollered.
If anyone has any specific knowledge/experience of such issues please feel free.
Last edited by: Fullchat on Wed 23 Dec 20 at 21:44
|
Planning Breach Advice. new
Planning Breach Advice. new