45degree rule appeal

Hi,

Hoping to get some help or guidance with a planning issue.

We're looking to get a 3m 2 storey extension to our mid terrace property basically exactly what 1 of our immediate neighbours had built c2003. Another neighbour further down the row had a similar application refused c2005.

We went for pre-application advice citing next door's plans as what we want. While the planning officer sounded positive on site visit, when the pre-app advice came back it stated an application would not get a favourable recomendation due to the 45deg rule on our other neighbour.

I can see why they decline, but the issue is that our immediate neighbour has the extension which contravenes this rule. Also at least two other houses on the row have older but similar size extensions.

Now, the pre-app advice says there's no material difference between our application and the one that was refused. However, by the same test, there's no material difference between us an the several other extended properties. Well, there is because our property is affected by next door's extension.

We've been told by the planners that there is no precedence in planning and that each case is taken on merit. However, aside from implying there is precedence, they really don't seem to weigh the numerous merits (I could write a list) of our extension plan against the only demerit.

This is very frustrating and has put me off from applying until I get some guidance on our chances of success.

I have asked friends who are planners but none have dealt with this issue before so I hope someone can suggest a way forward.

Thanks

Adam

It's true that there is 'no precedent in planning', which just means that they can change their minds when they want.
You've also found out that pre-app. meetings are a complete waste of time.
Get your application in and take it from there, to an appeal if necessary.

As per Tony's comment - pointless pre-app strikes again.

The 45 degree rule is probably from the Local Authority's Supplementary Planning Guidance for Householder Extensions (SPD) and this may not have been around a few years ago. The pre app advice is based on this but as you say, you have lossed some amenity due to a neighbour building contravening this rule and now you wish to 'level the playing field'.

Full application is your only option to find out more (although by doing a pre app and ignoring the advice you are in a more compromised position). Your best bet may well be to get it to planning committee and hopefully being permitted to speak at said committee. You need to start by speaking to your elected ward councillor and seeing if they are happy to help and support your application. They can request that it be considered by the planning committee rather than being decided at officer level under delegated powers. You can register to speak at committee (although some authorities will only permit this if there is an worthy objection to the proposal). Your planning agent should be able to advise further but essentially it is a game where politics can trump planning.

If the above fails then appeal is a further option but the SPD will not help your case.

Hope that helps and let us know how you get on.

Thank you both for your replies.

I will follow your advice and try to contact the ward councillor and put my case to them with a view to sending in the application.

When you say planning agent, do you mean someone like an architect or builder? I was intending on going through the planning process by myself as I don't know by how much a planning agent would increase the chances of getting planning accepted. The builders I've spoken to didn't fill me with confidence that they'd be able to sort it - one spoke about precedence which is obviously a red herring. Also, documents supporting the appeal from the refused application were made by a the builder and that got rejected at appeal.

It does sound like it needs some political intervention to help me here.

Many thanks

Adam

No, he means a planning consultant.. Someone who knows the national planning policy inside out and can argue with the planners using their own language. Many of them are fformer planners and switch sides when they leave the council employ

cjard said:

No, he means a planning consultant.. Someone who knows the national planning policy inside out and can argue with the planners using their own language. Many of them are fformer planners and switch sides when they leave the council employ

Click to expand...

How do I find one of these? Sorry, I'm new to the whole planning side of things.

The proposal is so straightforward I can't see what a planning consultant could add. What you do need is some evidence to show that any negative impact on the neighbour is within reasonable limits. The standard document is a natural light impact assessment. Contact a local surveyor that is experienced in daylight issues and can produce a report for you.

jeds said:

The proposal is so straightforward I can't see what a planning consultant could add. What you do need is some evidence to show that any negative impact on the neighbour is within reasonable limits. The standard document is a natural light impact assessment. Contact a local surveyor that is experienced in daylight issues and can produce a report for you.

Click to expand...

The reasonable limits is where my problem lies. The planners have applied their 45deg rule and deem the impact outside their 'reasonable' limits. Now, they've been unable to explain to me how that 45deg rule is derived from a point of law or based on something scientific but they've been unable to (amount of light required to perform clerical work, perhaps?).

From what I've read, you can get a survey done and a model the impact of the new obstruction on light levels. That's a good option to investigate but there is a risk it may end up supporting the Planning Office's position. I can't deny that the impact on the light through the affected windows will be significant. So I can get the light specialist in, but I'm wary that it might be a waste of time and money.

So I need another angle which the Ward Councillor route sounds like a good one to put more effort into in the first instance. Based on the most recent application being refused, I'm reckoning on having to build the strongest case for an appeal and as much as possible circumventing the planning office.

If you're at all interested, the plans I refer to can be found here:

My neighbour (seems I got my dates a little wrong in my original post):
http://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/onl...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=I9U9ZYHZM8000


The refused application including the appeal:
http://publicaccess.hart.gov.uk/onl...ils.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=J6PKAOHZSA000

Cheers[/b]

45° rules are guidance not law. Problem with giving guidance to a planner is that the average planner doesn't have much imagination and they seem to have a particular ability for turning guidance into golden rules. You are right that a daylight report might not be in your favour. But a good surveyor should be able to advise you on that before you spend a load of dosh.

Adverse affect isn't assessed on pure quantity of light - it is based on a comparison of before and after. There are two main methods of measurement. Each is done before and after and if the values fall below certain limits then a building may be deemed to be adversely harmed. Depending on the situation it could be a fairly simple hand/paper method or it could be a sophisticated 3d modelling type method. My view is you won't pursued an inspector without having some evidence. But if you have evidence - in your favour - you ought to be able to pursued a planner as well.