"Local Need" Ambiguity in KE

Can’t answer all of your questions, tommyt, but I’ll give what I know.

Sounds like the usual ‘Oh the deadline’s tomorrow! Send out a request for A.I. and buy some more time’ tactic- a not uncommon occurrence. But afaik, the ‘local need’ criterion only applies to new builds, which this clearly isn’t.

Might be worth your while contacting the LA directly to ask about the applicability of ‘local need’ to replacement dwellings- without necessarily declaring your hand re involvement in this application.

@ctesiphon wrote:

Can’t answer all of your questions, tommyt, but I’ll give what I know.

Sounds like the usual ‘Oh the deadline’s tomorrow! Send out a request for A.I. and buy some more time’ tactic- a not uncommon occurrence. But afaik, the ‘local need’ criterion only applies to new builds, which this clearly isn’t.

Might be worth your while contacting the LA directly to ask about the applicability of ‘local need’ to replacement dwellings- without necessarily declaring your hand re involvement in this application.

thanks ctesiphon,
I reckon they are buying time as well but I don’t know how unusual a case scenario this is.L.A. are pretty much uncontactable, I am chasing this one up as a favour for old friends and have brought it as far as I can without getting more involved so was hoping for a few possibly related anecdotes..

Buying time? Not that unusual at all, sadly.

As for the rest of it, I’m out of my depth I’m afraid.

Was there any other content in the A.I. request, or was it exclusively for the ‘local need’ proof? That’d seem mighty thin on its own, imo. Maybe the other (possible) A.I. content is more substantial? But I confess I’m clutching at straws here…

they probably just want it in writing so that if anyone asks then they can say they got proof. a solicitors letter confirming their presence there and stating other such things along with the form will sort it out.

If the existing house is being demolished – the new house is presumably classed as a ‘new build’. I know of a situation where a semi derlict timber cottage near me was re-developed. The applicant applied to build a concrete block external skin aorund the ‘shack’. In effect when it went on site the existing building was completely demolished and a new house was built on the same footprint. The L.A. turned a blind eye to it.

It sounds like your freind would have little difficulty proving a connection with the area and if he is refused he has the option of going back and looking for alterations to the existing house.

I think you need to look at the content of the county development plan – most likely available online –

If its a replacement house it may be more favourably looked on but I think its a case of the documentation being sought now as it was not included with the original application. After all the planning dept. would not be able to grant permission in the absence of details that may be clearly set out in the development plan.

I’m a great believer in talking over issues like this with the planner concerned. Most times they are very approachable.

Hopefully it wont be too much to worry about

Thanks for all the replies folks. The people in question got a little feedback off the area planner and it is looking a little more positive. I will post anything interesting that comes of the decision as I think this could be an interesting test case..