Planning Officer asked if we want to withdraw

[Jo J]

Hi,

We have a planning application for a rear, single storey extension,that is still listed as pending consideration and has gone past it's decision date, however, the planning officer has asked us we want to withdraw, because we will further breach the 45 code for one side, the other sides nearest window is an outbuilding.

To put this in context, next door is owned by a developer, who put planning in to build a new house, next to our immediate neighbour ( corner plot). As part of the approved planning, they moved the kitchen window, which breached the 45 on our side due to our existing outbuilding. This was not drawn as a consideration on the plans, due to the existing outbuilding.

The planning officer has noted that the 45 has been breached already, and said our plans would breach it further.

'At present, we would therefore not be supportive of the extent of the intensification of the breach of the 45 degree code, and therefore we would request revised plans to reflect this. 

Alternatively, there is an option to withdraw the current application, and submit a Larger Homes application, for a single storey rear extension'.

How does this even make sense? How can you 1) further breach something that is already breached? 2) allo planning for a whole house, that required the window to be moved, which then broke the 45 code? And 3) suggest we put in for a Larger Homes application, meaning our extension would be bigger and still break the 45 code?

Our architect has written back to her asking for her supervisor to intervene with this response, as it is baffling him as well 'Approving a previous breach but refusing ours does not align with a fair and consistent planning process'. 

Advice, opinions etc would really be appreciated

 

[nod]

Ask for her to be replaced 

We did and it was passed the following day 

[Jo J]

5 minutes ago, nod said:

Ask for her to be replaced 

We did and it was passed the following day 

 Feom what you have read, would you say we are within our rights to do that or is the planning officer correct?

[nod]

A breach is a breach 

But it hardly seems fair 

 

We lost patience and requested the planning officer be replaced As she had passed a build near by without any requests 

We cited inconsistencies Her boss requested 48 to make a decision 

Then passed it a couple of hours later

I would say they don’t want the attention 

Everybody has someone above them 

[Johnnyt]

Giving you the option to withdraw relieves her of having to write a report up and therefore perhaps embarrassing herself.

It can often be a cop out.

We refused and got the determination which gave us the meat and bones to appeal against and won with an award of costs.

I imagine you granted an extension of time for determination?

If you reapply there’s another fee. If you appeal the current proposal, it’s free.

I suppose it comes down to how much you want you proposal as is.

[Jo J]

43 minutes ago, Johnnyt said:

Giving you the option to withdraw relieves her of having to write a report up and therefore perhaps embarrassing herself.

It can often be a cop out.

We refused and got the determination which gave us the meat and bones to appeal against and won with an award of costs.

I imagine you granted an extension of time for determination?

If you reapply there’s another fee. If you appeal the current proposal, it’s free.

I suppose it comes down to how much you want you proposal as is.

No, we didn't grant an extension

[Jo J]

2 hours ago, nod said:

A breach is a breach 

But it hardly seems fair 

 

We lost patience and requested the planning officer be replaced As she had passed a build near by without any requests 

We cited inconsistencies Her boss requested 48 to make a decision 

Then passed it a couple of hours later

I would say they don’t want the attention 

Everybody has someone above them 

That's what we thought and their planning approval is what allowed the breach, in the first place

[DevilDamo]

Can you upload a Block or Site Plan?

[Jo J]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

Can you upload a Block or Site Plan?

Left house, 45 is taken from an outbuilding- inhabitable room.

Right side is the window, they were allowed to move there as it was patio doors. Planning approval allowed them to move the window so as not to break the 45 on the new dwelling they built.

[Jo J]

40 minutes ago, Jo J said:

Left house, 45 is taken from an outbuilding- inhabitable room.

Right side is the window, they were allowed to move there as it was patio doors. Planning approval allowed them to move the window so as not to break the 45 on the new dwelling they built.

1st picture is our plans, 2nd pic is next doors approved planning

[DevilDamo]

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. 

[Jo J]

46 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

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. 

we chose not to go down PD route as we wanted to join the extension to the house through a corridor and PD wouldn't give us the extra space we needed- the extension is 5x4m.

Any views on whether, after looking at both, you feel the officers comments are viable- considering the window being moved, which breaks the code, and no mention of this in relation to their planning, but the breach being recognised by the officer, but saying we would further breach it? What is your opinion on this?

[DevilDamo]

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.

[Jo J]

5 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

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.

I see your point, but regardless, it was already breached, so that would mean even PD wouldn't be allowed? The utility/outbuilding is part of the original house as it's an outside toilet, utility and shed all joined together for when they had coal fires.

 

[Jo J]

9 minutes ago, Jo J said:

I see your point, but regardless, it was already breached, so that would mean even PD wouldn't be allowed? The utility/outbuilding is part of the original house as it's an outside toilet, utility and shed all joined together for when they had coal fires.

[Jo J]

This is our LPA Supplemtary guide for 45 rule

[DevilDamo]

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.

[Jo J]

35 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

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.

I agree, also surely if the door would Class as breaching, it would breach the newly built house, as that is next to the 3m projection of the new build and nearest to it. The window has been used, but is not the nearest source of light for them- so the same rule should apply to both?

They moved the window, to use as the 45 code, as then they didn't breach for the new house- how is that fair?

[DevilDamo]

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

[Jo J]

2 minutes ago, DevilDamo said:

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

With him renting them both out as separate dwellings, withh different house numbers.

 

The house owner doesn't live there as they are developers

Edited Sunday at 15:52 by Jo J

[DevilDamo]

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.

[DevilDamo]

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

Edited Sunday at 16:04 by DevilDamo

[torre]

It's intensifying the breach because you're greatly narrowing the field of view out of that window (be honest it's not the view you'd want yourself from either the window or their garden)

 

I agree with @DevilDamo that doing this in two bites may be the likeliest avenue to get most of what you want. 3m PD first hand then applying separately for anything beyond, but you've got to be able to make that 3m extension work in it's own right in case you struggle to get permission later.

 

Have you talked to this neighbour? Would they object to a larger homes compliant extension? Did they object to this one?

[Jo J]

1 hour ago, DevilDamo said:

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

I know that 46a didn't ( the new house), but 46 did as to meet the 45 code, they had to move the window, which breached it on our side and is the  issue, as officer acknowledged it has been breached, but we would further breach it. 

The Original picture uploaded show the breach and we've come full circle back to the original question.

Edited Sunday at 17:15 by Jo J

[DevilDamo]

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.