Post a reply: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

Post as a Guest

This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
BBCode is OFF
Smilies are OFF
Topic review

Expand view Topic review: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Tue Jul 09, 2019 10:46 am

Thanks ASG - i PM'd you

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Tue Jul 09, 2019 8:49 am

Sorry - this is the Oxford one: 3179870

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Tue Jul 09, 2019 7:48 am

ASG wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:54 pmHi ndubz,

Yes, it is extraordinary that Lambeth are using The Planning Jungle as some sort of opinion poll! Although they are really basing on that one decision you mentioned as many of the others are not equivalent and - as I'm sure you are aware - there are decisions that very clearly support the opposite point of view. There will certainly be people mid-build who will get caught by this - as you may know there's one poor family in Lambeth who built their extension before the decision was issued, got a refusal and are now faced with an enforcement action to take it down - despite being able to see several identical extensions from their back garden! Madness - and shows a complete disregard for their residents. The Appeal in Oxford is 3207119

Thanks for this ASG - that takes me to the Wandsworth case (if you have the Oxford link id be greatful) - and id be really concerned if that decision is now being used as the basis for a change in view given the inspector has completely misinterpreted the legislation again.
 

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:54 pm

Hi ndubz,

Yes, it is extraordinary that Lambeth are using The Planning Jungle as some sort of opinion poll! Although they are really basing on that one decision you mentioned as many of the others are not equivalent and - as I'm sure you are aware - there are decisions that very clearly support the opposite point of view. There will certainly be people mid-build who will get caught by this - as you may know there's one poor family in Lambeth who built their extension before the decision was issued, got a refusal and are now faced with an enforcement action to take it down - despite being able to see several identical extensions from their back garden! Madness - and shows a complete disregard for their residents. The Appeal in Oxford is 3207119

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:39 pm

pie81 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:06 pmSo are they saying (or intending to say) these extensions can’t be done at all, or only that they will now require planning permission rather than coming under permitted development?

If the change is simply that these extensions will now need planning permission it isn’t such a big deal surely. But maybe it’s the former.
Hi pie81, 

For more than 10 years it has been possible to maximise the space you could add in Wandsworth by using a combination of Planning and permitted Development - it is the PD part of this that Wandsworth now seem to be targeting - so it isn't a question of being able to get the same thing with a Planning Application. Although this situation will vary from house to house depending on what is neighbouring and the precise design of the original house - and this is part of the issue, it is turning a level playing field into a ploughed field.
 

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by pie81 » Mon Jul 08, 2019 4:06 pm

So are they saying (or intending to say) these extensions can’t be done at all, or only that they will now require planning permission rather than coming under permitted development?

If the change is simply that these extensions will now need planning permission it isn’t such a big deal surely. But maybe it’s the former.

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:37 pm

Also ASG - which Oxford decision are they using? Thanks!

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:34 pm

Hi ASG - Lambeth are actually basing their decision on the majority consensus published on the The Planning Jungle website which attempts to bring some order to the decisions that have been made and really shouldn't, as a privately owned website, be the basis of council decision making.  They have gone above and beyond applying the results of the Natal Road decision to current and future requests by adding in a passage gleaned from that website regarding the originality of the outrigger. It really is a terribly confused issue and needs clarity at government level. 

Ive noticed now a few appeals fail based on Class A... its almost as if inspectors have been told to fail these projects in any way they can?!

Ive emailed the secretary of state (James Brokenshire) and recommend anyone do that same in order to get clarity on this issue.  Im willing to bet there are builds under construction at the moment that have applied for the LDC expecting it to be issued.

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:08 pm

Hi ndubz,

We've been working with some of those affected in Lambeth for a while and were really shocked to see this now happening in Wandsworth - a Planning Dept who have always, up until now, been the most approachable and sensible!

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:04 pm

Nev123 wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:08 amDoes this have any effect for those wishing to put balconies off the back of existing pod rooms? Ie flattening out the roof. This seems to be a new trend. Would Wandsworth allow that?

Hi Nev123, balconies that you can stand on are not, and never have been, Permitted Development. In our view the new interpretation wouldn't stop anyone from removing a section of pitched roof but you would risk enforcement action if you used it as a terrace - funnily enough Lambeth tried to stop something like this on the basis that it might be used as a terrace and they lost that Appeal. Juliet balconies - railings across doors, shouldn't be affected by the change.

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ASG » Mon Jul 08, 2019 3:00 pm

gorgarella wrote: ↑Mon Jul 08, 2019 10:55 amThanks for your reply. What is it exactly that Wandsworth isn’t allowing then? I’m not clear how it’s different from Lambeth?
Lambeth are using a different Appeal decision to base their refusals on (the Natal Rd one mentioned) to Wandsworth, who are using an Oxford City decision and one (in our view very different case) in Wandsworth. The difference is quite technical - involving different clauses of the General Permitted Development Order but, essentially, Wandsworth are treating the large pod extensions as an extra floor rather than a roof extension. In practical terms this means they may still allow some Permitted Development pods but, again in our view, it then becomes a subjective decision as to how big an extension constitutes an "extra floor" - and the PD rules are meant to be non-subjective! So, in fact, it is very difficult to answer the question "What is it exactly that Wandsworth isn’t allowing then?", in conversations with them they don't seem entirely clear themselves.
 

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:58 am

ASG wrote: ↑Wed Jul 03, 2019 1:16 pmHi residents of Wandsworth, 

We just wanted to share this information with you as it may affect many of you who are looking to extend your properties in the near future. 

Residents of Wandsworth Borough have for many years happily lived with the most pragmatic and sensible Planning Department in London – unfortunately this has now changed. It has, for at least the last 10 years, been possible to add a good amount of extra accommodation in roof extensions by using a combination of Planning and Permitted Development rules. This week the Planning Department have suddenly, without consultation and without any change in policy, started to refuse the Permitted Development part of these applications – the so called “pod” extension over the rear. This means that anyone looking to maximise the living space they can add to their roof will have their application refused – even if their neighbours and other houses on the street have exactly the same type of extension! This will drastically affect not only the amount of extra space you can add to your house but also, of course, the additional value. We would suggest that every resident of Wandsworth contacts their local Councillor as soon as possible to complain about this summary change before it is too late. Please contact us for further details.

If you would like any more information about this, please feel free to contact us on the following:

info@architecturalservicesgroup.com https://architecturalservicesgroup.com/02073819149
ASG  - so glad someone else is finally trying to make people aware of this change!!!
 

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:43 am

Hi Gorgarella - yes theyre all published on the planning inspectorate site.  If you search the address 54 Natal Road you will see the appeal decision driving the change.

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by gorgarella » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:35 am

Have you seen some appeal decisions? Are they published anywhere? Thanks

Re: Disastrous change to Wandsworth Planning

by ndubz » Mon Jul 08, 2019 11:31 am

Hello everyone - I posted about this a few months ago back when Lambeth initiated their change in view without warning. 
This is a very specific change in interpretation of Permitted Development rights driven by a decision in Lambeth in July last year, which is incorrect and a blatant misrepresentation of what the legislation sets out to do (as backed up by the guidance document published alongside it). 
Some appeal decisions are coming through and are failing due to being very poorly written and are adding to the problem... inspectors tend to use previous appeals as a guide in their decision making and tend to go with the consensus.
Unfortunately it now means those without the pod have homes that are less desirable/valuable than those with.

Top