Side infill planning - help needed!

[Chri5]

Current facts with PD allow 6m for a terrace

Householders are now allowed, subject to a neighbour consultation process, from 30 May 2013 to 30 May 2019, to be able to build larger single storey rear extensions under permitted development subject to receiving prior approval from the council.

This extended permitted development does not apply to houses which are flats or maisonettes, are a listed building or located within a conservation area.

The size limits are now doubled from 4m to 8m for a detached house, and from 3m to 6m for all other houses, with the maximum height remaining at 4m.

 

[chappers]

You're right but I've been persevering with the original plans and hoping that somehow logic would prevail and, amazingly, it might have done.

Spoke with planning officer this morning and we discussed the fall back position of 3m under PD and she conceded that building that would impact neighbours anyway (although it wouldn't very much) and that the extra depth didn't have any real affect so she's going to approve it!

Not celebrating until I'm holding the decision letter but looks like this one might work out. Thanks for the help Nakajo and Chappers

nice one

 

[Darluc]

I had a similar extension done in London. It required planning but it was accepted. Please also bear in mind that if there is a manhole, then a separate permission must be put in place with Thames water as they will not allow you to build anywhere near it without their written consent.
What i would do in your case- if your neighbour has dementia- which I imagine is at an early stage- get somebody else from the neighbor family involved to support what you are saying. Agree everything in writing and send copied to Council with your planning.
Best of luck.

 

[Sn00py]

Thanks chris5 but it's the neighbour consultation process causing the problems here!

It's a good suggestion Darluc but I already got a signed agreement from the neighbour which was promptly ignored by both the neighbour and the council!

 

[Sn00py]

New development on this today - although my planning officer is fine with my plans, I'm told the head of planning has now intervened and said she doesn't think it should go ahead (I assume because they rejected an earlier app and now want to maintain their position).

Anybody heard of or experienced anything like this? Any ideas?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The Head of Planning always has the final say, not uncommon, as you intimated earlier, you can never celebrate until you get the bit of paper.

Well, here's one idea. You're entitled to build an extension 3m deep x 3m high (2.5m high at eaves), so why not propose to the council that you're going to build that if the 4.6m scheme (x 1.85m eaves height) is unacceptable.

IMO it's never a good idea to threaten this or that (and that is what you are saying). I'd go as far as saying its a terrible philosophy in fact.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

they rejected an earlier app and now want to maintain their position

What previous app? You seem to have left that out of the thread - or maybe I missed it?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The Head of Planning always has the final say - its their signature on the decision notice not the officers, as you intimated earlier, you can never celebrate until you get the bit of paper.

 

[Sn00py]

I actually agree that threats are not a good way forward but, to be fair to Nakajo, it's not really a threat - it's the logical fall back position after a rejection so they should really be taking that into account in the decision making process.

The previous app was the one I referred to in the first post - the larger home extensions PD application. I went through the 3 reasons they gave for turning it down.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Planning officers are all too familiar with applicants saying they can do this or that under PD but an application is not for something that would ordinarily be PD and would have no say over so it is a pointless and threatening argument.

The previous app was the one I referred to in the first post - the larger home extensions PD application. I went through the 3 reasons they gave for turning it down.

So that's not this application then?

/confused

 

[Sn00py]

No - this is a proper planning application which was submitted after the PD was turned down (based on the belief that the arguments would receive a more thorough appraisal under planning than under PD where they just seem to say no when there's any objection).

As I said before, it's not a threatening argument - it's part of the considerations of the case. If the concerns the council are citing are only relevant to the part of the extension which is already allowed (i.e. under PD) then that is something most planners would take into account. If I have the time I'll try to dig out the government guidelines that confirm this (although they're just guidelines - councils can and do ignore them).

The alternative, if the planner ignores what is allowable under PD, is that the developer / homeowner can just build their 3m allowance and then resubmit planning for the remaining part which the council have no argument against. It's a silly way to do it though because it costs the homeowner more, takes longer, prolongs noise and disruption for the neighbours and also takes more council time in dealing with multiple applications and site visits.

That's why it's a relevant consideration and it's why a sensible planner will take it into account. I understand your point but it's not a threatening argument, it's a fact of the case.

Thanks for your time on this and please let me know if you have any suggestions.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The alternative, if the planner ignores what is allowable under PD, is that the developer / homeowner can just build their 3m allowance and then resubmit planning for the remaining part which the council have no argument against. It's a silly way to do it though because it costs the homeowner more, takes longer, prolongs noise and disruption for the neighbours and also takes more council time in dealing with multiple applications and site visits.

Eh? How's that then?

 

[Sn00py]

Because, after building the first 3m, the new application (planning, not PD) would only be for the remaining 1.6m (in my case). Those 1.6m have no impact on the light for the neighbours and do not cross any 45 degree line because that end of the extension is not near any rear-facing window.

Consequently, the council would have no choice but to approve it as there are no grounds to refuse. The officers involved have already confirmed this to me.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The officers involved have already confirmed this to me.

Just like the officer said she would approve it on Friday?