‘I was ordered to demolish my brand-new £85k extension under Britain's broken planning system'

Telegraph

18-02-2025

When Steve Farmiloe needed more space in his Edwardian end-of-terrace house in the Withington suburb of Manchester, he looked upwards. There wasn't much room to extend at the back into the garden, but there was a huge volume of wasted space in the loft.
' Moving house is too difficult these days, and I already had a small loft room, but it was small, dark, freezing cold, and the roof was leaking,' he says. 'Since it needed renovating anyway, I decided to build out.'
The job was ambitious, but he thought he could do it quickly, and without needing full planning permission. But this was almost an £85,000 mistake.
'The system isn't fit for purpose'
Farmiloe took advice from two firms which both recommended the construction of an L-shaped dormer over the main roof and the outrigger. They confirmed that it would be permitted development, meaning that planning permission was not required.
The company he chose for the project applied to the council for a lawful development certificate, a type of application seeking confirmation that the permitted development rules are met.
The Government insists that planning decisions be made within eight weeks, so the builders were booked in for two months after submission – Farmiloe was confident that the project would be waved through.
When the decision was finally issued five months later, the extension was almost finished.
But to Farmiloe's horror, Manchester City Council had refused the application, on the obscure grounds that the dormer's size meant it should be considered an upwards extension rather than a roof enlargement. It meant that the whole structure therefore fell outside of permitted development rights for roof works.
He now faced the prospect of demolishing an extension that had cost him £85,000, as well as several long months of dust and disruption. He applied for retrospective planning application – which was refused – and then, with my help, submitted an appeal.
After a year of sleepless nights (albeit in a comfortable new bedroom in the newly converted loft), the Government's planning inspector granted permission at appeal. It reached the common-sense conclusion that the extension was very close to being permitted development, whatever the technicalities, and several of his neighbours had built very similar extensions.
'The system is just not fit for purpose,' says Farmiloe. 'What is the point in allowing homeowners to extend without needing a planning application, if those rules are open to interpretation and acting on them is a throw of the dice?'
'A lay person can't possibly be expected to navigate the ins and outs of the system on their own, and even the experts I spoke to all gave me different advice,' he adds.
'I am a sceptic by nature and checked the rules online when the loft conversion company told me the works were permitted development, and it looked to me that we met the requirements.
'And if you make an innocent mistake, there is no humanity at all in the system. When the council refused our first application, I asked the case officer for a call to discuss what had happened and he said he did not think a call would serve any useful purpose.'
A Manchester City Council spokesman said: 'It's important that anyone considering a project of any size contact their planning authority first and before starting any work to a property...third-party advice may not always be correct.'
They added: 'This includes waiting for a formal response to a Certificate of Lawful Development submission, which confirms whether or not a full planning application is required, before assuming a development can go ahead under permitted development rights.'
'Firm but fair'
There is no doubt that a sizeable minority act deliberately to build without permission in the hope or expectation that they will never get caught.
Planning application fees are due to be doubled, and even ministers have conceded that this could spark a rise in illegal house extensions. Many argue that planning enforcement is toothless.
But not all planning breaches are made by criminal landlords or dodgy developers. I represent hundreds of clients every year facing enforcement action – what of those, like Farmiloe, who make an innocent mistake and face the prospect of demolishing part of their home?
It offends our sense of fair play that chancers should do something without permission and get away with it, while the rest of us grapple with a system that is on its knees.
In truth, lots of people break the rules and get away with it. That is partly because building something without planning permission is a legitimate planning strategy.
A breach of planning is not, in itself, an offence. If you choose to take the risk, you have done nothing wrong. An offence is only committed if the council finds out about it, serves an enforcement notice against it and you fail to comply with the notice.
The local council finding out about it depends on your neighbours – most enforcement investigations are triggered by complaints. If your neighbours are happy, a breach is unlikely to be discovered.
And whether a neighbour complaint then leads to the service of an enforcement notice is something of a lottery – it depends on the culture within the planning department (some are more aggressive than others), resource pressures (almost all enforcement departments are understaffed), how loudly and persistently neighbours are complaining, and whether elected councillors have shown an interest in the case.
Some severe breaches go unpunished, other minor breaches are pursued more vigorously.
When a council investigates a breach and decides that it is harmless, that it would probably be granted permission or that further action is not in the public interest, the case will simply be closed. The landowner will 'get away' with the breach, but only in the sense that the council is exercising its discretion to take no action.
The problem is that councils may be closing some cases simply because they don't have the resources to do anything about them. Planning departments have no money – real terms spending has fallen by almost 60pc since 2010.
Enforcement action by local authorities has also fallen – the number of enforcement notices issued in England in 2023-24 (3,993) was 21pc lower than the number issued in 2015-16 (5,025).
In November 2022, the Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) carried out a survey of 103 local authorities and reported a crisis in planning enforcement, with 'unmanageable workloads and insufficient staff, leading to an inability to meet public demand'. Some 90pc of councils reported an enforcement backlog; the RTPI says that the system is falling apart.
Since enforcement is a discretionary power, it is a service that is easier to cut when resources are tight. There is anecdotal evidence of some London boroughs pursuing only the most egregious cases.
If they don't act quickly, they lose the ability to act at all – a planning breach becomes lawful after four or 10 years (it varies depending on the circumstances). Some people who break the rules simply keep their heads down and hold tight, hoping to run out the clock.
Some local authorities are fighting on. London Borough of Brent issues more enforcement notices than almost any council in England (it issued 134 in the year to September 2024 placing it second on the leader board, whereas 29 authorities issued none at all).
It takes direct action against a dozen or so developments a year (sending the diggers in itself when people refuse to comply with a notice to demolish).
It also uses powers it has gained under the Proceeds of Crime Act to seize unlawful profits from landlords and developers and use them to help fund its operations, covering the cost of a couple of extra investigating officers in the planning enforcement team.
Nevertheless, the council says that the team has relentlessly high workloads, with each case officer balancing around 250 cases under investigation.
Brent describes its enforcement policy as 'firm but fair', which probably encapsulates what most of us expect from the system as a whole. It must have some bite, to discourage unauthorised development and to deal with the most egregious cases, but also some compassion for those who make genuine mistakes.
As Steve Farmiloe found out, you can try and do everything right and still find yourself in deep trouble. Readers, it could be you!
Martin Gaine is a chartered town planner and founder of Just Planning (just-planning.co.uk).