LDC and Planning apps at the same time?

[low_and_there]

Hi folks, we made a planning application in September and have been asked to modify it to remove one element of it - a dormer on the rear addition - ie not the main dormer but one on the outrigger (I’ll attach a pic). 

 

I believed the dormer to fall within PD, and therefore (perhaps naively) thought it would be fairly straightforward to cover it all in one Planning application, alongside other changes we’re requesting.
 

It seems the council do not like the appearance of the rear dormer so from a planning perspective will not allow it. However there are several examples of a Certificate of Lawful Development being approved for the exact same rear dormer on neighbouring streets.

 

So it seems that even if something is Permitted Dev, planning can say no. Which kind of makes sense in the weird and wonderful world of British bureaucracy.

 

Now im thinking maybe we amend the Planning App to exclude the loft entirely, and then separately submit a request for a LDC to cover that.
 

The disappointing thing is that we can’t then include the solar panel request in the LDC as it’s one of the conditions. So I’m wondering how we cover that - without delaying the planning application itself.

I thought I’d share this here in case anyone else has faced such a nuance in an application before and if anyone has any thoughts - might we run into different issues having two applications run in parallel? I’m concerned this may appear that we’re “gaming” the system, and indeed that is exactly what we’re doing I guess. But it feels silly that just the type of application submitted can result in a different decision. 

 

 

___
 

PS. House is not in a conservation area, nor listed.

 

 

 

 

[low_and_there]

Added our proposed elevation (it’s the one with some yellow highlight) and then an elevation from a house on a nearby street which has received a Cert of Lawful Dev

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> So it seems that even if something is Permitted Dev, planning can say no. Which kind of makes sense in the weird and wonderful world of British bureaucracy.

 

Ah, yes it needs sorting out.

 

It's worth asking what policies in either the NPPF or local plan they are using for their determination. These two plans detail most of the 'rules'. So if you're plans are 'breaking the rules' - then it's only reasonable for planning to point out which rule/s your are breaking.

 

That is, this shouldn't just be a matter of the planner's own opinion.

 

Alan

[low_and_there]

Thanks Alan, I’ll ask on those points, but indeed they have simply said:

• Could you please remove the dormer on the outrigger – we would be unable to support this

[Temp]

If I've understood correctly the dormer on the rear extension will/would have windows facing sideways? In that case to be permitted development the glass would have to be obscure glass.

 

The property hasn't been converted to flats has it? Flats don't have permitted development rights.