DevilDamo

Does the porch actually require BR’s? If so, will you be carrying out the porch and extension at the same time?

Something to note… Planning is not normally required to change or insert or new windows. So the developer swapping those positions may have well aided their application. Although you think it has hindered your application, the window even in its previous position would have put a limit on your proposals anyway.

To the rear of no. 46 is a window and French doors. As those openings serve one room, then the LPA can decide which opening to take. The new dwelling (no. 46a) breached the 45 degree line line from the French doors but was acceptable from the window, which is why it was approved. Your proposal breaches the 45 degree lines from the French doors and window, which is why the LPA are stating is the issue. So your options are to withdraw or allow the application to be determined. Bear in mind that the former will not provide you with a formal decision to Appeal, nor will you have the Officers’ Report to cross reference to.

I have found the application for no. 46 myself. The new dwelling did not impact a 45 degree line, hence why it was approved.

But he still owns them so the LPA may be a little more relaxed with that breach. But is there a plan that shows how the new build house breached a 45 degree line? Even still, applications are determined on their own merits.

But the new build house is under the same ownership as your neighbour?

LDC applications to confirm works are PD do not take into account the 45 degree line. Prior Approval (Larger Home Extension) applications will only take into the 45 degree line if that impacted neighbour objects. But as mentioned, the PA application wouldn’t work as it wouldn’t comply with Class A of the GPDO anyway. As per your LPA’s own guidance, the window from the outbuilding should not be taken into account as it does not serve a habitable room.

You stated the window replaced some doors so the breach would have always been there. The fact it is now a window is kind of irrelevant. I would argue the breach to the north but I don’t think you can do much in relation to the south.

Windows to non-habitable rooms should not be taken into consideration for Planning. Whether they may be taken into consideration in relation to Right to Light is something different. I’m not sure why and even more concerned the LPA have suggested a Larger Homes application as that proposal would not comply with the Class A requirements. You may be better going down the PD route to infill that area between the rear and side walls. You may end up having to build it and then apply for the additional rear element. Some LPA’s are more pro-active than others.

Can you upload a Block or Site Plan?

From a Planning perspective and as a minimum, it should go through the Non-material amendment process. Btw, is your username missing an “l”?

Local planning authorities may, at their discretion, take into account comments that are made after the closing date (but have no obligation to do so).

LABC’s have up to 2 months to make a decision on an application. If you only submit some of the information, did they then issue a conditional approval so the rest can be submitted later, i.e. after 2 months?

@Tuppers On the assumption you are working to a maximum roof/ridge height, then adopting a cold roof isn’t going to make a huge difference to the internal height. Overall, a the build up of a warm roof is quite a lot thicker than a cold roof hence having that space to play with.

@Russell griffiths So were the LABC happy to issue a Conditional Approval which meant everything else could follow later?