Hello All,
I'm dealing with a scenario which I'm struggling with...
An application for a house has been granted with a condition which the applicant appealed and the inspector allowed the appeal to vary a conditon. The applicant had commenced work and had the shell of the building completed at the time of the inspectors site visit. The applicant however has built the house too long by 0.5m and 0.3m too wide (with consent for a 10m long by 6m wide dwelling).
The inspector was made aware the development was slightly different to approved plans verbally at the time of the site visit although he didnt mention it in his report other than to state "at the time of my site the dwelling was at an advanced stage of construction and the appeal has been determined on this basis"
An enforcement officer has subsequently determined the house deviates so much from approved plans that the permission has not been implemented at all. (post inspector decision)
The development in my view despite modest increase in size would still accord with the local development plan, spgs/spds etc.
The question is, does the explicit wording of the inspector effectively grant permission for what is present on site, even if it has deviated from the original approved plans? If not is it still expedient to pursue enforcement action as it otherwise accords with development plan and the enforcement officer has said they are unlikely to invite an application which would not stand much chance of success (The enforcement officer has invited an application)
Can provide more deails of this case and the appeal decision if required.
Really appreciate some views on this. Cheers.
