Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:41 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:not quite...

...you've misquoted the guidance, which reads as follows:

“Unadopted street” – means a street not being a highway maintainable at the public expense within the meaning of the Highways Act 1980.

the guidance has nothing to say on what is or is not a "private way"

Kind regards, Mac
ps this just concerns Part 1 of the GPDO, not the GPDO in its entirety as your last posting implies...



Please see the link - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2015 ... 596_en.pdf.

Page 5, Line 20 - definition of Private way
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby ukmicky » Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:10 am

the_one_loft wrote:
ukmicky wrote:
the_one_loft wrote:

For it to be a highway under planning purposes the public will have a right to access . If to access this land you need a fob it is not a highway as defined for planning purposes.



Sorry, the new definition for GPDO states that "any other way" is a private way and private way is a highway.
Effectively - that means any way - whether it has public right of way or not - is a Highway for GPDO.

As long as it is a "Way" - it is a highway.

UKMICKY - do you disagree?


No

It needs to be a public right of way.

The technical guidance the GPDO 2015 says


Highway” is a public right of way such as a public road public footpath and bridleway. For the purposes of the Order it also includes unadopted streets or private ways.


A highway is

1) - A Public right of way

on

2)
A)Public road
B)Public footpath
C)Bridleway
D)Unadopted streets
E)Private ways
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4556
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:24 am

An update on the dormer facing private road without public right of way -

The Tower Hamlets council has today issued an Enforcement Notice to me. The letter says I have until 23rd December to file an appeal with the secretary of the state.

Any thoughts and advice will be highly appreciated. I am also going to look for representation, please message me with recommendation.

Kind regards,
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby Roblewis » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:55 pm

You must appeal on the basis that the LA has misinformed itself. The test is as ukmicky states that it applies to highways and then goes on to include private ways but by definition of a highway only those private ways with a public right of way can be included in the definition of a highway. There is a real conflict of definition here and the GPDO has to be subservient to highways as it is the later and not primary legislation. The Highways definition rests in primary legislation and should therefore take precedence. I doubt very much that the secretary of state, or the ODPM as it was then, would have intended to bring private enclosed communities into the remit in this way. The result has the potential to limit much rural improvement to property and also towns
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby pilman » Sun Nov 20, 2016 4:04 pm

The advice offered by Roblewis may be the only point that will need to be argued in an appeal conducted by written representations if the enforcement notice claims that the road in front of your property is a public highway.

What did the enforcement notice claim was the breach of planning control?

Seeing the wording used may allow further advice to be offered.
pilman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby SwitchRich » Tue Nov 22, 2016 1:58 pm

Would you be willing to send any pictures of your development?
Very interesting thread! Good luck and please keep us updated :)
SwitchRich
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2016 11:34 am

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:47 pm

The notice is surprisingly quiet on the highway point and does not refer to any previous correspondence. i am copying relevant section from the notice below:

4. REASONS FOR ISSUING THIS NOTICE
It appears to the Council that the unauthorised front roof extension and solar panels referred to in this notice were installed within the last four years. The
Council considers it expedient having regard to the provisions of the development plans and to all other material considerations to issue an Enforcement Notice for the following reasons:

The front roof extension disrupts the attractive, uniform, unspoilt character and appearance of the pitched roof. It appears as a discordant and visually inappropriate feature which also adversely interrupts the solid linear parapet line. It is out of keeping and detracts from the character of the building and terrace. It also sets an unacceptable precedent which is visually detrimental to the site, · terrace and its surroundings. Additionally, the solar· panels, due to their design, materials, scale, bulk, height and positioning protrude well above the roofline and are an eyesore which further blights the symmetrical, uninterrupted roofline. They also have a detrimental impact on visual amenity and outlook and interfere with views.

The development is therefore contrary to policies 7.4 and 7.6 of the London Plan (2015), SP10 of the Core Strategy Development Plan Document 2025 (adopted 2010) and policy DM24 and DM25 of the Managing Development Document 2013.
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 22, 2016 4:52 pm

Thanks for your replies Roblewis and Pilman. I couldn't figure out a way to attach images from the notice.. if I could, i shall upload shortly.
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:23 pm

Link with pictures in the notice
goo.gl/photos/7FbkJ1d2g5pz9QdC6
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby pilman » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:42 pm

Any thoughts and advice will be highly appreciated. I am also going to look for representation, please message me with recommendation.
Perhaps I can assist if you intend to make an appeal by way of written representations.

A full public enquiry or an informal hearing are the alternative forms of appeal that will need an appearance at a venue in Tower Hamlets with quite a lot of preparatory work needed.
Now that I am retired that is not something I would be prepared to do, although there will be local planning consultancy companies who will offer their services at the current local rates for such representation.

Perhaps you should look in Yellow Pages or search on Google for local firms and get a few quotes on probable costs.

PS your link above cannot be accessed.
pilman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby pilman » Tue Nov 22, 2016 6:57 pm

The LPA are also claiming that the solar equipment is part of the enforcement notice as well as the extension of the roof which will be dependent on whether the property is facing is a highway.

Looking at Part 14 of the GPDO did your solar panel installation fail to comply with requirements that have nothing to do with highway locations.?

PART 14
Renewable energy
Class A – installation or alteration etc of solar equipment on domestic premises
Permitted development
A. The installation, alteration or replacement of microgeneration solar PV or solar thermal
equipment on—
(a) a dwellinghouse or a block of flats; or
(b) a building situated within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse or a block of flats.
Development not permitted
A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if—
(a) the solar PV or solar thermal equipment would protrude more than 0.2 metres beyond the
plane of the wall or the roof slope when measured from the perpendicular with the
external surface of the wall or roof slope;
(b) it would result in the highest part of the solar PV or solar thermal equipment being higher
than the highest part of the roof (excluding any chimney);
(c) in the case of land within a conservation area or which is a World Heritage Site, the solar
PV or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a wall which fronts a highway;
(d) the solar PV or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a site designated as a
scheduled monument; or
(e) the solar PV or solar thermal equipment would be installed on a building within the
curtilage of the dwellinghouse or block of flats if the dwellinghouse or block of flats is a
listed building.
Conditions
A.2 Development is permitted by Class A subject to the following conditions—
(a) solar PV or solar thermal equipment is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its
effect on the external appearance of the building;
(b) solar PV or solar thermal equipment is, so far as practicable, sited so as to minimise its
effect on the amenity of the area; and
(c) solar PV or solar thermal equipment is removed as soon as reasonably practicable when
no longer needed.
pilman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:04 pm

pilman wrote:The LPA are also claiming that the solar equipment is part of the enforcement notice as well as the extension of the roof which will be dependent on whether the property is facing is a highway.

Looking at Part 14 of the GPDO did your solar panel installation fail to comply with requirements that have nothing to do with highway locations.?
[/quote]

We had solar panels on the pitched roof from many years. When the dormer was built, we put the solar panels over the dormer. They are not attched to roof and are left on the oof in the free standing cases completely un-tethered to the roof. The company that makes plastic tubs which hold the panel thinks that they are chattels - just like a flower pot that you can put on the roof. In any case I am not overly worried about them as we will just bring them in the house and store over the winter and leave them outside for a few summer months.

PS: Please copy and paste photo link in the browser to see the pictures.
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 22, 2016 11:08 pm

pilman wrote:
Any thoughts and advice will be highly appreciated. I am also going to look for representation, please message me with recommendation.
Perhaps I can assist if you intend to make an appeal by way of written representations.

A full public enquiry or an informal hearing are the alternative forms of appeal


Should I just opt for the written representation or hearing, what are the main advantages of each? The dormer is completely covered by parapet and cannot be seen from the street level, the officer has used a picture from far angle and even that shows just a sliver of the extension. I think any hearing which involves meeting authorities on the site will really help clear it up.
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby the_one_loft » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:04 pm

I am confused about the grounds -

Ground (b) - that the breach of control alleged in the enforcement notice has not occurred as a matter of fact;
Ground (c) - that there has not been a breach of planning control;

What is difference between B & C? - which one should I chose?
Thanks..
the_one_loft
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:48 pm

Re: Highway for the purpose of Permitted development Right

Postby pilman » Tue Nov 29, 2016 12:46 pm

Ground C applies where the appeal is based on the fact that planning permission was granted by the GPDO, which means that there was no breach of planning control.

I now also realise that a Householder planning application can be made at a cost of £172 rather than the full application fee of £385, which would be for a new development.

An appeal that also includes Ground A, which is a deemed planning application to be decided by the Inspector, will require a fee of 2 x £172.
It may be sensible to pay the fee of £344 to the LPA and add an argument to the appeal that planning should be granted even if there has been a breach of planning control because the development did not comply with the PD rights granted in the GPDO.
pilman
 
Posts: 2841
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2010 5:08 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
PreviousNext

Return to Rights of Way

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests