Jo J

Pur planning is now recommend for approval- the planning officer confirmed it today after I involved the local councillors named on the application, it was discussed by the planning committee and this is the result.

He changed them because of the 45, it's in the paperwork and it was asked by the planning

I will let it be determined, as the supplements planning says nearest window, and the officer has only quoted nearest window in all correspondence.

I know that 46a didn't ( the new house), but 46 did as to meet the 45 code, they had to move the window, which breached it on our side and is the issue, as officer acknowledged it has been breached, but we would further breach it. The Original picture uploaded show the breach and we've come full circle back to the original question.

With him renting them both out as separate dwellings, withh different house numbers. The house owner doesn't live there as they are developers

I agree, also surely if the door would Class as breaching, it would breach the newly built house, as that is next to the 3m projection of the new build and nearest to it. The window has been used, but is not the nearest source of light for them- so the same rule should apply to both? They moved the window, to use as the 45 code, as then they didn't breach for the new house- how is that fair?

This is our LPA Supplemtary guide for 45 rule

I see your point, but regardless, it was already breached, so that would mean even PD wouldn't be allowed? The utility/outbuilding is part of the original house as it's an outside toilet, utility and shed all joined together for when they had coal fires.

we chose not to go down PD route as we wanted to join the extension to the house through a corridor and PD wouldn't give us the extra space we needed- the extension is 5x4m. Any views on whether, after looking at both, you feel the officers comments are viable- considering the window being moved, which breaks the code, and no mention of this in relation to their planning, but the breach being recognised by the officer, but saying we would further breach it? What is your opinion on this?

1st picture is our plans, 2nd pic is next doors approved planning

Left house, 45 is taken from an outbuilding- inhabitable room. Right side is the window, they were allowed to move there as it was patio doors. Planning approval allowed them to move the window so as not to break the 45 on the new dwelling they built.

That's what we thought and their planning approval is what allowed the breach, in the first place

No, we didn't grant an extension

Feom what you have read, would you say we are within our rights to do that or is the planning officer correct?

Hi, We have a planning application for a rear, single storey extension,that is still listed as pending consideration and has gone past it's decision date, however, the planning officer has asked us we want to withdraw, because we will further breach the 45 code for one side, the other sides nearest window is an outbuilding. To put this in context, next door is owned by a developer, who put planning in to build a new house, next to our immediate neighbour ( corner plot). As part of the approved planning, they moved the kitchen window, which breached the 45 on our side due to our existing outbuilding. This was not drawn as a consideration on the plans, due to the existing outbuilding. The planning officer has noted that the 45 has been breached already, and said our plans would breach it further. 'At present, we would therefore not be supportive of the extent of the intensification of the breach of the 45 degree code, and therefore we would request revised plans to reflect this. Alternatively, there is an option to withdraw the current application, and submit a Larger Homes application, for a single storey rear extension'. How does this even make sense? How can you 1) further breach something that is already breached? 2) allo planning for a whole house, that required the window to be moved, which then broke the 45 code? And 3) suggest we put in for a Larger Homes application, meaning our extension would be bigger and still break the 45 code? Our architect has written back to her asking for her supervisor to intervene with this response, as it is baffling him as well 'Approving a previous breach but refusing ours does not align with a fair and consistent planning process'. Advice, opinions etc would really be appreciated