Should I appeal, do I have a chance? Outbuilding.

[SimonHills]

Hi. I i live in a row of small houses with small gardens where permitted development was removed when houses built. Imade a planning application for an outbuilding. A 13.44m2 outbuilding. My garden is 53m2. The Council have refused saying it leaves too little amenity space - 40m2.

 

However the same council 3 years ago approved an extension  on a neighbours house, same row,  that had a 35m2 garden (yes very small) that has been  reduced it to a 19m2 garden by the extension.

 

This seems very unfair. Can the council treat an outbuilding differently than an extension when looking at amenity garden space? Do I stand a chance appealing this? Should I try to speak with council first? 

 

Really grateful for any help. Seems so irrational and unfair.

[nod]

Appeal 

[Redbeard]

+1. Is there anything quirky about the outbuilding? Less than 1m from a boundary, for example? Still no reason not to approve it, but I wonder if they have other considerations (of which they have not told you) than the amenity space. I take it they will not discuss the matter with you? Were there any objections?

 

Also have they defined what amenity space they would like? I imagine not.

 

Basingstoke and Deane Residential Amenity Design Guidance (2012) says 50m2 for 1 & 2-bed and 60 for 3B.

 

I looked to see if that was net or gross and it appears net, so your shed's footprint would be deducted from your total amenity area to give the available amenity area AFAICS.

 

BTW I am not assuming you live in B & D; it's just the first one which came up.

 

Do any other houses on your dev'pt have sheds? 

[Johnnyt]

Useful case law regarding consistency in planning
 

In planning law, there is a “principle of consistency” in decision-taking: see North
Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR
137. The principle is not that like cases must be determined alike, but a decision-taker
ought, when considering a materially similar proposal, to have regard to the principle of
consistency, to have good reason if deciding to depart from the previous decision, and to
give reasons for any such departure.

[SimonHills]

22 minutes ago, Redbeard said:

+1. Is there anything quirky about the outbuilding? Less than 1m from a boundary, for example? Still no reason not to approve it, but I wonder if they have other considerations (of which they have not told you) than the amenity space. I take it they will not discuss the matter with you? Were there any objections?

 

Also have they defined what amenity space they would like? I imagine not.

 

Basingstoke and Deane Residential Amenity Design Guidance (2012) says 50m2 for 1 & 2-bed and 60 for 3B.

 

I looked to see if that was net or gross and it appears net, so your shed's footprint would be deducted from your total amenity area to give the available amenity area AFAICS.

 

BTW I am not assuming you live in B & D; it's just the first one which came up.

 

Do any other houses on your dev'pt have sheds? 

Thanks, no nothing quirky at all.  it would be within permitted development if we  were allowed it on the site.  The only thing they mentioned was amenity space. I can say with almost 100% certainty there would be no neighbour objection. Yes others do have sheds. I suspect they didn't apply for permission.

[SimonHills]

6 minutes ago, Johnnyt said:

Useful case law regarding consistency in planning
 

In planning law, there is a “principle of consistency” in decision-taking: see North
Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR
137. The principle is not that like cases must be determined alike, but a decision-taker
ought, when considering a materially similar proposal, to have regard to the principle of
consistency, to have good reason if deciding to depart from the previous decision, and to
give reasons for any such departure.

Thankyou so much, I will use that. What's bizarre is the neighbours houses were built brand new with less than 35m2 amenity garden space. (Same design house as mine,I'm just end of terrace)  I still have more than 40m2 after the outbuilding and the council say its not enough!. I assume the council would have approved the building of all the houses with said amenity space.

[Pocster]

+1 appeal .

 

Council's are anything but consistent ….

[Temp]

Yes appeal. Point out that you application is for much less than the normal 50% of the original garden allowed under PDR. Also cite recent applications by neighbours that were approved.

 

You could also consider making an application for an extension identical to the neighbours. If that's approved it could be raised as evidence at the appeal for the outbuilding.

Edited November 30 by Temp

[SimonHills]

Thank you for replies. Is it worth trying to point all this out to them or do councils usually stick to their guns and force people down the appeal route?

[Pocster]

2 minutes ago, SimonHills said:

Thank you for replies. Is it worth trying to point all this out to them or do councils usually stick to their guns and force people down the appeal route?

Record all conversations 😉

[DevilDamo]

Has there been a change in the LPA’s policies within the last 3 years?

[SimonHills]

8 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

Has there been a change in the LPA’s policies within the last 3 years?

I don't know. Can they just change policy and treat my situation differently?

[DevilDamo]

@SimonHills Yes, absolutely. As an example, amenity space is probably more crucial since the Covid outbreak so it wouldn’t surprise me if some LPA’s have changed their policies accordingly. You need to check what has changed (if anything) since the previous decision you refer to. If nothing has changed, then you have more of a chance winning at Appeal.

[SimonHills]

47 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

@SimonHills Yes, absolutely. As an example, amenity space is probably more crucial since the Covid outbreak so it wouldn’t surprise me if some LPA’s have changed their policies accordingly. You need to check what has changed (if anything) since the previous decision you refer to. If nothing has changed, then you have more of a chance winning at Appeal.

Thankyou. So the "local plan" is 2011-2031 written in 2017. It states that 1-2 bedroom houses should not have an enclosed area less than 45m2. So the neighbours extension in 2021 idefinitely puts their amenity space even further well below that and the council has approved it. 

 

 

[DevilDamo]

@SimonHills That will help go in your favour. It may be worth reviewing the Officers Report for the other property to see what justification was given to accept a substandard amenity space. Also look at others that may have gone through a similar process. 

[SimonHills]

SUCCESS!!  After an initial refusal and discussion with the council includdng a lot of the points on here raised, they have now approved my application. Thankyou for the help and the comments on here. So very much appreciated!! Credit to my council too for reconsidering and being sensible and fair.

[garrymartin]

So you had an actual refusal, not just an email or similar saying they were minded to refuse it, and then they've reconsidered and now approved the application? Didn't even know they were allowed to do that once an application had been refused. Regardless, glad it's worked out for you of course.

Edited December 5 by garrymartin

[SimonHills]

5 hours ago, garrymartin said:

So you had an actual refusal, not just an email or similar saying they were minded to refuse it, and then they've reconsidered and now approved the application? Didn't even know they were allowed to do that once an application had been refused. Regardless, glad it's worked out for you of course.

Yes, apologies it was as you say. Sorry if original title was misleading, I got an email telling me they were minded to refuse and after several back and forth (very professional and polite) they approved it, me not being a veteral at this thought that was it,refused!. I didn't have to change anything I think it was more allying their concerns. But mightily relieved.