Re: material planning consideration in respect of flawed previous planning - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Joanne Without wishing to point the finger too much, it would appear that whoever signed off the decision notice along with the case officer dropped a `clanger`.(cough cough Ombudsman) There is case law that says if circumstances change and the permission can no longer be implemented as per the approved drawings then the permission is lost ( I just cant remember the case off the top of my head) if the LPA has any sense they would seek to get the permission quashed asap

Whilst I agree with Chris that someone at the LPA should have known better, a scheme's ability to comply with the building regulations isn't a planning consideration. It's more relevant for whoever drew the plans and they might need to check their professional indemnity insurance. In view of the documented concerns about the height of buildings I don't think it can be assumed that the LPA would have approved taller ones. So I would say there is no precedent for houses with greater headroom - unless they can successfully be set even lower into the ground. It looks like the developer's only other options are to consider a fresh application for bungalows or one for houses with the correct headroom they are prepared to take to appeal. I trust the approved plans include proposed ground levels and finished ground floor levels that can be tied to a reliable survey point. If not, things could get interesting. (Please disregard the employer information to the right if it doesn't say Hambleton District Council.)

Hi - the Council has approved scheme A with building heights it finds acceptable. If scheme A can't be built in accordance with the approved plans but that's the applicant's tuff luck. The existing permission for scheme A doesn't set a precedent for anything taller - whether they are called houses or anything else. All it does is establish a scale and height of development that the Council found acceptable on the basis of the evidence that was supplied at the time. Assuming that the necessary increase in height that's needed is more than a "non-material" amendment then the applicant will have to resubmit a revised scheme which can be determined afresh. You might have some difficulty explaining how officers failed to spot there was insufficient head-height but a "mistake" like that shouldn't have any weight in considering whether to permit a fresh application for taller buildings that might have the wider harmful impacts that you have pointed out. That would just turn an embarassing situation into a potentially litigious one. Where would we be if all Councils' planning "mistakes" were capable of amounting to material planning considerations? If the approved houses have pitched roofs then presumably there is some space within to provide sufficient head-height to make some useable floorspace (although rooflights and/or dormer windows might be necessary - so another complication)? Sounds to me like the applicant needs to point the finger at his/her building designer for designing houses that don't meet Building Regs rather than at the Council's planning dept. for approving them.