Redline vs Proposed plan - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Redline vs Proposed plan
Should the land registry be used as the reference point for owned land where it comes to certificate A, B etc or is it OK to submit a proposed plan and land registry entry that are slightly different ??
When an applicant submits an proposal that includes land outside their ownership but argues that discrepencies between the redline and plan are "on the ground" changes, can an authority be challenged if permission is given ?
Thanks in advance.
Hi, There's no requirement to submit a plan showing ownership of land as part of a planning application. The 'red line' plan needs only to 'identify the land to which the application relates.'
There is a separate requirement to serve notice on owners/tenants of the land (other than the applicant), and the application form requires confirmation that this has been done. Confirmation involves signing the relevant certificate.
See regs 7 & 13 (respectively) of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (assuming your question relates to the English system).
Thanks for the response.
Maybe I was looking into it too much ...... I assumed that the land registry entry + the site layout plan + the application for planning should tie up with each other.
eg if a certificate A stated that all land included in the planning application was owned by the applicant, this should also be reflected in the plans and the land registry. In this case no notice was served but the development is partly outside of the land registry. It's not clear on the plans that areas of the development are not owned.
If the application related to land owned by someone else then notice should have been served and certificate B signed. Technically there was a flaw in the process if that didn't happen. But generally it won't matter much because the landowner doesn't have to let the developer build. This sounds like there's a wider issue at stake; perhaps some kind of boundary dispute, in which case it's really a civil matter between the developer and landowner. The actual problem is hardly ever that someone didn't fill a form in correctly, because that doesn't often help to decide whether or not a proposed development is acceptable. Most technical challenges to the validity of an application arise because someone wants to build something and someone else doesn't want it to be built. That is unless the challenge is from the council, in which case it's probably because they have arbitrary 8-week targets to hit :-)
So if the council was under pressure to meet a deadline, was under resourced, and knew the land was not completely owned by the applicant, surely they have a duty to a) not process the application, and then when they were "reminded" of ownership a duty to b) revoke permission as it was possible the incorrect information used made a material difference to the decision.
Why should a 3rd party have to go through a costly civil boundary dispute if the permission would still stand.
Are you saying that in the event of a boundary dispute determining that the plans submitted were wrong that either the permission would become invalid, or the council would have to overturn their decision?
Generally, ownership of land is not a material planning consideration, I'm afraid. Granting planning permission for something does not supersede property rights.
If someone wanted to put up a fence of a certain height they would not need planning permission from the council to do it, even if they were putting it on someone else's land. But the landowner gets to decide whether it goes ahead, because he/she owns the land.
If it's clear who owns the land, all well and good. If there is a debate over who owns the land, that can only be sorted out by those claiming ownership.
If it is very clearly demonstrated that cert B has not been signed when it should have been, the Council will have to look at whether the permission should stand. Its best bet will be to convince the developer not to implement it. Other options, such as revocation, tend to be complicated and expensive. If the real owner knew about the planning application anyway or if the council would have granted permission regardless, then there will be little to be gained; the application could simply be resubmitted, notice served, cert B signed, and permission granted again.
Hope that helps. Boundary disputes are never straightforward!