Another big difference between a certificate of lawful development and a full planning application is that there's no notification to neighbours and no mechanism for them to stick their oars in, at least as I understand it. Also, it's half the cost (£75 instead of £150 - but that might be different for different councils and countries, not sure).

Posted By: cscThe phone call I received was from the planning officer dealing with the case. I have asked for written confirmation and awaiting for it to arrive. Hopefully it will come tomorrow and see how they have worded it. Will consider getting a certificate of lawful development.

I suspect the certificate is not something that is widely known about, so asking him for it will probably put him even further on the back foot

Well done, great research and great result.

An application for a certificate is the same price as a planning application if you apply after the installation (or development) has taken place. It's only half the price if you do it before you start the work. That's why I'm always telling folks to do it beforehand - its cheaper and takes away any potential stress later on once you have that Certificate in your hands. The certificate is a legal document saying its PD - there's no argument with that.

Posted By: Ed Davies

Posted By: Dominic CooneyAn application for a certificate is the same price as a planning application if you apply after the installation (or development) has taken place.

That's worth knowing, thanks.

Pity, though, that the system is set up to pressure people towards getting paperwork for things parliament has specifically said they shouldn't have to.

I thought it was designed to give the planning depts. an additional revenue stream

It really annoyes me that rules for permitted development are ambiguous, why should someone have to pay for confirmation of what was meant

Posted By: billtIt might be a revenue stream, but it won't be profitable.

I have said this many times also.
The planning fee will not cover the cost of processing the application, even the full fee.

Unless they get the apprentice to do it.

I seriously doubt that LA planning departments are under worked, especially as you seem to need to apply for permission do do the most trivial work on a building these days.

In July I applied for permission to erect a ground mounted PV array. As simple as it's possible to get and not visible from any public area, but it still took 5 weeks more than the statutory 8 weeks to get approval. The excuse given was that the officer dealing with this application was suffering from stress due to excess workload.

Of course the LA in question are cutting about half their staff for reasons of economy and the planning department won't be immune, so the workload will increase.

The fact that most of the workload consists of trivial applications that shouldn't need PP is not the fault of the LA.

I quite agree that it shouldn't need PP.

I'd guess that the LA only got involved after the complaint and had to be seen to be doing something, rather than a revenue raising exercise.

Posted By: TriassicA self builder in our village, building on an infill plot, was told his planning application for a 130 m2 affordable home with a local residency clause was above the limit of 100 m2, so was rejected. A revised application was then made at 100m2 and a new planner questioned the original decision as there is no local size limit, resulting in 12 months delay, planning fees, architects time and costs wasted.

Surely the applicant and his architect should have known that and objected at the time? The rejection should have listed the policies that were relevant, so all that had to be done was read them after the event to know something was wrong even if they hadn't properly prepared their performance in advance.

Posted By: TriassicApparently the policy was set to limit the size of affordable homes but was challenged by another self builder and it was accepted as being unenforceable, however no one In planning thought to tell those whose applications had been refused under the policy. At the same time there was an attempt to limit the resale value of affordable homes and subject them to an inflation escalator of 5%pa limit, again this was rejected as being unenforceable.

Fair enough. It doesn't sound like an example of a lack of a consistent approach though, just changes in policy that the applicant could have kept up with.