Has anyone objected to an application for retention before ?

[Joey111]

If so, are there any good general reasons (i.e. not specific to your case) for objecting?

I would have thought that by default an application for retention, is admitting that the builder brokes regulations by building something that they do not have permission for ?

Any opinions or advice are much appreciated.

Joey

 

[kiwijbob]

object to a retention application as you would a normal application,

builder brokes regulations

not exactly, he may have built it perfectly within the building
regulations and besides retention planning permission is allowed
for under the planning regulations, not the perfect way to do
things but it's allowed none the less.

 

[Joey111]

Thanks Bob, I think I'll need to find out as much as I can about it. I'll get the services of a planning consultant.

 

[ang1170]

As I understand it, the grounds for objecting are exactly the same as those for an original application. In other words, it's as if the relevant change had never been made.

There's some annecdotal evidence that if anything planners are less likely to grant pemission for retention then they might have been for permission in the first place, on the basis that the applicant chose to ignore the process. Hence the advice that's usually given to apply for permission before rathar than after building.

Councils can and do insist on restoring sites to their original state, even if it means knocking down a perfectly good house to do so.