MintSprint

Well, I can tell you that, contrary to your first post, precedent absolutely and categorically is a material consideration for Planning (that's not to say that it requires an identical decision, but rather, as Johhnyt's Barrister has said, the decision-taker must have regard to it), and while there is no statute law that specifically enshrines the principle of consistency, it is well established at a very basic, very fundamental level in case law.

Because, as I said, it is incorrect in several important respects. The information from Johnnyt's Planning Barrister is, as you might expect, absolutely correct in all regards. I would be interested to see the written statements you have had from Planning Officers, as this is really very basic stuff to any Planner.

This is very clearly and definitely the correct answer (and is pretty basic knowledge to any Planner). Disregard the first response to your post, which is incorrect in several important respects. It is frequently up to the applicant to make the case in terms of local precedent, however, and to point out relevant decisions - you can't expect each Local Authority Officer to hold in their memory every decision the Authority has ever taken, and they don't do a trawl of similar cases each time they make a new decision. The other mistake most people make is to not appreciate why a particular decision was taken in what appears to them to be an analogous case. There can frequently be differences that are material (and critical) in Planning terms, but which may not be immediately obvious to the layman, and this tends to result in the belief that the system is more random and inconsistent than it really is.

In respect of both your original question and Temp's response, a 'dwelling' does not become a dwelling, in Planning Law, until it is occupied as such. Technically therefore: a) It has no permitted development rights until it is occupied and; b) It does not benefit from the 'householder' planning application fee until it is occupied. ... although in some cases, the LPA may either turn a blind eye or not recognise the distinction themselves. The proper way to deal with it, however, would be as a Section 73 'Material Minor Amendment' to the originally approved design.

PM me if you would like a copy of the book in PDF format (on the understanding that you will not further distribute it). The process is somewhat long-winded, but not beyond the realms of the amateur. The usual question is what value you put on your own time: unless it is very little, you're better off paying a professional to do it, rather than spending a long time researching how to do it yourself, for a one-off application. It's much easier, these days (the book was written some time ago) if you use a 3D model in a program like SketchUp, which can generate accurate, geographically located sun path and shadows based upon it. As you say, it won't be a validation requirement for a householder (or, indeed any) planning application, but in lieu of one, they'll apply the basic '45 degree rule'. A sunlight analysis, on the other hand, can very frequently prove that the design is acceptable even where it fails the 45 degree rule.

Class A Domestic Permitted development rights specifically and explicitly exclude: 'the construction or provision of a verandah, balcony or raised platform'.

My main interests are Planning and building technology