Planning officers reports contradict

[Offtopub]

Good morning everyone 

 

We would really appreciate any input on this 

We applied for planning permission for a single storey extension which was refused.. However in the planning officer’s report she clearly stated that the extension would not be overbearing or overshadowing to neighbours but was refused on other grounds.

 

We then submitted a revised application for a smaller extension in the same position but this time it was refused by a different officer primarily on the grounds of overbearing and overshadowing to neighbours.
This directly contradicts the assessment made by the first officer in their final report.

 

We are planning to appeal but surely planning officers should be consistent in their assessments? 

Any thoughts or advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you.

 

[ToughButterCup]

Welcome.

Nothing like starting with a bang eh?

 

To help you we need the following detail: unless you want us merely to speculate ...

• The Delegated Officers report
• The Planning Officers original report
• The Decision Notice.

In general terms ( speculation) , it seems - as written - that two officers offered different opinions on same topic. Its what they wrote - and how they phrased it -  that's very important.

 

[BigBub]

Look in to the Principle of Consistency: https://www.tpexpert.org/plannings-ultimate-curse/

 

"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."

 

It doesn't necessarily mean you would be successful with an appeal but it would put the onus on the council to justify why they changed their view on the extension being overbearing/overshadowing.

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, BigBub said:

Look in to the Principle of Consistency: ... 

 

I forgot that @BigBub 😑... thanks

 

[Offtopub]

Thanks for replies.

 

“Whilst this dwelling is partially landlocked and surrounded by dwellings on all boundaries, as the proposal is mostly single-storey, it is considered that as there are sufficient boundary treatments in place that the proposal would not cause any harm in terms of overbearing due to having sufficient boundary treatments in place.”

 

The Second officer report stated ‘Overall, whilst it is acknowledged that there will be no significantly detrimental harm to nearby
occupiers in terms of overlooking and loss of privacy, it is considered that the proposed extension,
by virtue of its scale and proximity to the adjoining boundary is considered to
create an overbearing impact on this neighbouring occupier and it is likely that the extension
positioned directly west of this neighbour will create substantial overshadowing as a result. “
 

The first application ran down the boundary. Same ridge height etc  for both.

 

The second application is now reduced by 6m in length down the boundary where they said before it wasn’t overbearing!

There is no overshadowing 

[Offtopub]

The refusal for the second application was primarily based on concerns overbearing and overshadowing for the neighbour.We have reduced the length by 5m from the first application and actually made it one storey.
While I can understand the new planning officer potentially refusing on other grounds. It seems unreasonable and inconsistent to cite overbearing and overshadowing when the original planning officer explicitly stated in her report that these were not issues with the neighbours. 
 

 

 

[Temp]

I sympathise. The planners speant a year telling me the house had to be right at the front of the plot where its too narrow. Then we found a letter in which they told the previous owner that a house "further back might be better". 

 

You can try and point out the inconsistency to the planners but if that doesn't help you can point out the favourable opinion and improvements at appeal. 

 

 

[Alan Ambrose]

We’ve had a bunch of LPA inconsistencies on our various applications. Some of them are laughable. It seems each case officer is allowed to make it up as they go along - a lot of the decisions are based essentially on someone’s opinion, even though they’re wrapped up in the language of ‘policy’. Appeal is a route but plan on it taking 9 months for householder’s. The ‘consistency’ thing is large a myth IMO.

 

Maybe set an appeal rolling but at the same time re-submit a v similar application but this time hassle the LPA management and get it pulled into committee. Good luck, you have our sympathy.

 

p.s. we did eventually prevail on both our applications. Two elapsed years and a lot of energy wasted though.

[Offtopub]

Yep they love copying and pasting their policies.

If the previous officer hadn’t made a point of saying that it wasn’t overbearing/overshadowing to neighbours it wouldn’t be so bad. The second officer has just totally contradicted her making this the reason for refusal! And they are both still working together at the lpa!