tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post49860035280871484..comments2022-12-13T14:45:12.233+00:00Comments on Martin Goodall's Planning Law Blog: Unilateral undertakings – Developers beware!Martin H Goodallhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-49268635840221178332018-01-08T17:24:23.645+00:002018-01-08T17:24:23.645+00:00In answer to Richard Allen, it appears that the pr...In answer to Richard Allen, it appears that the proposed development would be acceptable provided that a legally watertight means can be found of ensuring that PD rights to erect another extension can be precluded. I can see why the Inspector had reservations about a planning condition being used for this purpose, for reasons that were recently discussed in comments on another blog post in this blog. It couldn’t cater for a situation in which the existing PD rights might first be exercised prior to the planning permission being implemented.<br /><br />A planning obligation under section 106 might well be a practical way around this problem, although expert legal advice should be taken on its terms, as planning obligations can often prove to be a trap for the unwary. A unilateral deed is perfectly feasible, and is not infrequently utilised in order to strengthen the applicant’s position in putting forward their application. However, as I have just said, such a unilateral deed will need careful drafting in order to give the protection against a ‘double dose’ of development which the inspector wanted to avoid, whilst at the same time avoiding creating an obligation which could prevent an extension under PD even if the planning permission is never implemented. It really does need someone who is thoroughly familiar with section 106 agreements to draft it for you. (So don’t rely on your local conveyancing solicitor to do the job!)<br />Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-32027398347074509142017-12-31T13:34:02.605+00:002017-12-31T13:34:02.605+00:00Martin,
I have been reading you blog for some tim...Martin,<br /><br />I have been reading you blog for some time to understand more about the planning. This particular post has resonated with a scenario that I have recently found myself in having just had an appeal refused (for a rear extension in the green belt) that relied upon a fallback.<br /><br />The inspectors concluded it was possible to build my fallback, that it was likely that I would build it, and that the fallback was more harmful than the original application. However, my proposal hinged upon using a planning condition used to secure that I would not building an extant side extension (in addition to the rear extension in the application). The Inspector has rejected the use of a planning condition as not sufficiently robust, but implied that a 'binding obligation' could be suitable.<br /><br />It appears that most obligations/undertakings are done as a compromise between developer & LBC and are therefore 'agreed' in advance. <br /><br />Is it common for a unilateral undertaking put in place by a householder/developer (without LBC consent) in order to strengthen their application?<br /><br />Thanks for your time; and Happy New Year<br />Regards, RichardRichard Allenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09958695172048735920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8170718846507476773.post-52552982706898239322011-08-12T20:27:34.369+01:002011-08-12T20:27:34.369+01:00Millgate took the case on to the Court of Appeal, ...Millgate took the case on to the Court of Appeal, where judgment was given on 6 July 2011, but they were unsuccessful in their attempt to overturn the first instance decision.Martin H Goodallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07079479984296674469noreply@blogger.com