6m extension refused 2nd time

[DevilDamo]

The majority of joint Planning applications are conditioned as such that one cannot start and/or complete without the other.

There are also instances where LPA’s require more (legal) control over particular development works, which attract a S106 agreement. I’ve had one where an annexe remained incidental to the host dwelling.

I’m not aware of there being a joint Prior Approval application process nor any conditions or legal agreements being attached to such.

 

[Nakajo]

Woody, round here, Section 106 agreements/Unilateral undertakings are frequently used for just this kind of thing. That said, I could do with some egg-based moisturiser - the effects of lockdown and not seeing the Sun in so long.

 

[^woody^]

The issue is not whether a planning obligation can be used, but whether it would or should be used for a poxy single storey rear extension.

Planners follow guidelines, and putting a legal charge on the land via s106 for something that could otherwise be conditioned is not within that.

Cap'n needs to up his google-fu. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous.

 

[wessex101]

It is also worth remembering that this is a prior approval larger home extension application so all this talk about hypothetical S.106 agreements is not really helpful to the OP.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

The issue is not whether a planning obligation can be used, but whether it would or should be used for a poxy single storey rear extension.

Planners follow guidelines, and putting a legal charge on the land via s106 for something that could otherwise be conditioned is not within that.

Cap'n needs to up his google-fu. As they say, a little knowledge is dangerous.

OK - seeing as how you so want to go there.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

Happy now?

Should I hold my breath while I wait to see if youre man enough to apologise?

 

[Captain Nemesis]

I’m not aware of there being a joint Prior Approval application process nor any conditions or legal agreements being attached to such.

In the example Im aware of there was no joint application nor conditional agreements. What there was were two S.106 agreements, each "mirroring" the other, signed by both applicants, which the council knew about when they granted PP.

 

[wessex101]

So totally irrelevant then and absolutely zero help to the OP. But hey at least you think you won your little ****ing contest!

 

[Captain Nemesis]

please look at the exchange and the context in which I said it -

Thanks guys
I thought I would overcome this issue if i got my neighbour his 6m planning but they refused him and then me.
This is what they said ...

It is also acknowledged that the attached neighbours have submitted a prior approval application for a 6m deep rear extension too. However, officers can only assess applications on the basis of developments that are present on site at the time applications are made. Google maps, the site location plan submitted for this application and the site photos provided all illustrate that this neighbour does not currently benefit from a rear extension.

Surely the planners could set a condition that both neighbours must build?
How do the planners not know that the neighbour might sell up and new people move in (who don't want to build) while the PN application is going through?

Prior approvals can't be conditioned

But a Section 106 agreement can be required to enforce a "both or neither" obligation.

So actually, yeah, informing the OP that S.106 agreements can be used to create binding mutual agreements to actually build two extensions at the same time was relevant to that and could easily have been of use to him. What he said reads as if the council dont want to give either party permission because neither of them has already got an extension.