I appreciate you've no reason to have your finger on the pulse like I do Raymond, but much of what you've said is incorrect.Over recent years the government has widened the scope of permitted development rights, especially in respect of converting commercial floorspace to residential units. As with many such attempts, I can totally see the wisdom behind the logic, but the practical application has proved a different matter altogether.Many authorities spent alot of money and resources on legal action seeking to obstruct such legislative changes, and got absolutely nowhere. In my view, given the ever increasing struggles LPA's face in terms of resources, LPA's should choose their battles carefully.But going back to this specific issue, we're not talking about guidelines or recommendations, we're talking about legislation in the form of the Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development Order.And when I post on here, I post as a local resident who happens to be a planning consultant, I'm not "exploiting" any loophole, a query was raised and I clarified that it was permitted development. And whilst yes as with any legislation there is always a slight degree of interpretation etc., both myself and the lawyers are of the same view. You say "the very same structures are being refused elsewhere" - well, it's easy to make that sweeping statement, another to actually substantiate it.It goes back to what I said - no doubt had the LPA taken the firm stance you've so keen on, and then had the operator got an planning consultant or QC to contest that stance, it would have almost certainly resulted in a hefty costs application against the LPA. And that money has to come from somewhere.
Adam Beamish ● 2983d