can developer begin demolishing without planning approval?

[CraigW]

hi all, will be speaking to planning tommorow but wondered if the wisdom of ph had any answers in the interim.

In short, the house next door to me has stood empty for some time. Typically the owner has decided to develop just as I am in the precarious act of selling my house (buyer super nervous)

I'm not against him developing but I do want some say in it. (proposed roof terrace would look into my living room)

I looked at the council website today & saw the plans, letters havent come out to neighbours yet, I spoke to the planning officer & she hadnt even been given the case yet.

However, this am at 7 skips were being unloaded and I came home this evening & the whole back of the house inc the kitchen is completely gone.

Can they do this?

Help appreciated.

[Pothole]

so the question is do you have to have permission to demolish something?

[smifffymoto]

You don't need permission to knock down or build.You get permission if you don't want the council to make you rebuild or demolish what you have built with out permission.The developer is banking on approval and getting on with it while the weather is good or the cashflow to keep men busy

[CraigW]

yep, just want to know if he'll allowed to start doing this. If and when my buyer sees it before planning is granted then I suspect he will pull out & i.ll be royally fooked,

[Sam_68]

He may (depending on the nature of the building to be demolished) need to submit a Demolition Notice under the Building Act, but this is completely unrelated to Planning Permission.

A demolition notice is there to ensure that Building Control (not Planning) can make sure that the work is done in a safe and satisfactory manner, that's all.

The exception is for a Listed Building, which would requires a Listed Building consent before you're allowed to demolish it (edited to add: or, as SJobson has quite rightly pointed out below, in a conservation area).

Edited by Sam_68 on Monday 28th September 20:16

[SJobson]

You need permission to demolish if it's in a conservation area, or listed.

[CraigW]

hmm, will have to check. I'm not sure whether better to tell the council or not, might be better to let him get on with it so its done sooner.

[ALawson]

They should have applied for a Section 80, although this does depend upon the volume of the building being demolished.

This is a requirement of the Building Act 1984 and applies for volumes over 1750 cubic feet or 50m cubes.

In Scotland you need a demolition warrant.

[pikey]

I would have thought (I don't know) that he needed permission. What if he demolishes it, but the planning application then gets rejected? Isn't there something against substantial change?

[sleep envy]

he's proceeding at risk - sounds like he may be using a planning consultant

if PP isn't granted he'll either be in a whole heap of trouble and/or skint

[Sam_68]

pikey said:

What if he demolishes it, but the planning application then gets rejected?

Then he's left with a vacant site and no planning permission.

pikey said:

Isn't there something against substantial change?

You need Planning for anything that changes the appearance of a building or impact on the amenity of neighbours, but not to remove it altogether (unless its listed/in a conservation area). Demolition, as stated above, is only controlled by the Building Act (which only takes account of safety and technical suitability of building work, not appearance and amenity).

[pikey]

Sam_68 said:

pikey said:

Isn't there something against substantial change?

You need Planning for anything that changes the appearance of a building or impact on the amenity of neighbours, but not to remove it altogether (unless its listed/in a conservation area). Demolition, as stated above, is only controlled by the Building Act (which only takes account of safety and technical suitability of building work, not appearance and amenity).

Surely the 'changing the appearance' condition is met by demolishing it?

[Sam_68]

pikey said:

Surely the 'changing the appearance' condition is met by demolishing it?

Nope. The legislation controls development. Not un-development.

Take my word for it. Honestly.

[Pupp]

pikey said:

Sam_68 said:

pikey said:

Isn't there something against substantial change?

You need Planning for anything that changes the appearance of a building or impact on the amenity of neighbours, but not to remove it altogether (unless its listed/in a conservation area). Demolition, as stated above, is only controlled by the Building Act (which only takes account of safety and technical suitability of building work, not appearance and amenity).

Surely the 'changing the appearance' condition is met by demolishing it?

Planning permission is needed for development; demolition is not generally development. Development without PP is not an offence but can become one in the event the planning authority enforce and any required steps to regularise are not taken.

[ianreeves]

Unless the work he is 'planning' already falls within the permitted development rules, like adding a conservatory etc..

This explains most things

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/hhg/house...

[Tuna]

pikey said:

Sam_68 said:

pikey said:

Isn't there something against substantial change?

You need Planning for anything that changes the appearance of a building or impact on the amenity of neighbours, but not to remove it altogether (unless its listed/in a conservation area). Demolition, as stated above, is only controlled by the Building Act (which only takes account of safety and technical suitability of building work, not appearance and amenity).

Surely the 'changing the appearance' condition is met by demolishing it?

You see, your problem is you're thinking logically, when you should be thinking bureaucratically. If (after demolishing) a house isn't there, then it can't have changed appearance, can it?

[Sam_68]

Tuna said:

You see, your problem is you're thinking logically, when you should be thinking bureaucratically. If (after demolishing) a house isn't there, then it can't have changed appearance, can it?

Precisely so.

[Pupp]

ianreeves said:

Unless the work he is 'planning' already falls within the permitted development rules, like adding a conservatory etc..

This explains most things

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/hhg/house...

If the 'unless' was aimed at me, the various categories of PD in the 1995 GPDO are actually categories of development for which PP is deemed to have already been granted by operation of law. PP is still needed (the Govt have just kindly given it already)

[pikey]

Tuna said:

pikey said:

Sam_68 said:

pikey said:

Isn't there something against substantial change?

You need Planning for anything that changes the appearance of a building or impact on the amenity of neighbours, but not to remove it altogether (unless its listed/in a conservation area). Demolition, as stated above, is only controlled by the Building Act (which only takes account of safety and technical suitability of building work, not appearance and amenity).

Surely the 'changing the appearance' condition is met by demolishing it?

You see, your problem is you're thinking logically, when you should be thinking bureaucratically. If (after demolishing) a house isn't there, then it can't have changed appearance, can it?

LOL

[marc.l]

The chances are the plot was sold with out line pp to demolish existing house and replace with new. All he will be doing is now putting in an aplication for detailed planning permishion.