Potential planning issues

[cloughy513]

So here the potential issue

I live on a road of 10 houses all semi detached in 2016 my property has planning approved for a side 2 story extention (garage already there but would be rebuilt) for whatever reason it didn't get built. In 2017 next door the side not joint on did the same application and was approved. They also had a pre existing garage.

So both properties had been granted planning permission within the same window (so development could have happened at the same time) their extention is all built and finished.

A few doors down have recently submitted a similar application where their non joined next door have already extended to the side. This has been rejected based on the 'teracing effect'.

I'm concerned that when I resubmit our planning this year the same will happen. My question is have they already set a precedent by previously approving both applications within the 3 year build window?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

It's unlikely they'll take the old application into account, the application will be decided on it's own merit and take into account anything now built next to it and using the policies that are current, unfortunately it's a case of whoever builds first.

 

[cloughy513]

I thought as much but should they not have considered the impact when approving the next doors application given that ours was already approved. Seems like a bit of a loop hole otherwise

 

[noseall]

should they not have considered the impact when approving the next doors application given that ours was already approved.

Yours didn't exist at the time of their application. Also your application will have lapsed.

 

[cloughy513]

So once approved you have 3 years ours was approved 2016 and there's 2017. Meaning there was a cross over where planning had been approved for both extentions at the same time so they must have considered the 'terracing efect' and dismissed it?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

They can only determine something on what's actually built. Otherwise what would be the alternative? That the second applicant was refused until the first applicant's application is either built or has expired? If it sounds bonkers it's because it is but I'm not sure there's a practical solution either.