Offtopub

Yep they love copying and pasting their policies. If the previous officer hadn’t made a point of saying that it wasn’t overbearing/overshadowing to neighbours it wouldn’t be so bad. The second officer has just totally contradicted her making this the reason for refusal! And they are both still working together at the lpa!

The refusal for the second application was primarily based on concerns overbearing and overshadowing for the neighbour.We have reduced the length by 5m from the first application and actually made it one storey. While I can understand the new planning officer potentially refusing on other grounds. It seems unreasonable and inconsistent to cite overbearing and overshadowing when the original planning officer explicitly stated in her report that these were not issues with the neighbours.

Thanks for replies. “Whilst this dwelling is partially landlocked and surrounded by dwellings on all boundaries, as the proposal is mostly single-storey, it is considered that as there are sufficient boundary treatments in place that the proposal would not cause any harm in terms of overbearing due to having sufficient boundary treatments in place.” The Second officer report stated ‘Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that there will be no significantly detrimental harm to nearby occupiers in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, it is considered that the proposed extension, by virtue of its scale and proximity to the adjoining boundary is considered to create an overbearing impact on this neighbouring occupier and it is likely that the extension positioned directly west of this neighbour will create substantial overshadowing as a result. “ The first application ran down the boundary. Same ridge height etc for both. The second application is now reduced by 6m in length down the boundary where they said before it wasn’t overbearing! There is no overshadowing

Good morning everyone We would really appreciate any input on this We applied for planning permission for a single storey extension which was refused.. However in the planning officer’s report she clearly stated that the extension would not be overbearing or overshadowing to neighbours but was refused on other grounds. We then submitted a revised application for a smaller extension in the same position but this time it was refused by a different officer primarily on the grounds of overbearing and overshadowing to neighbours. This directly contradicts the assessment made by the first officer in their final report. We are planning to appeal but surely planning officers should be consistent in their assessments? Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.