Issues with LPA

[Sydney M]

Hi All,

I'm hoping for some advice on dealing with the LPA.

1. Got approval under NCS for ground floor extension, great.

2. Applied for first floor extension, went out for consultation.
A week before the decision date. I get an email from LPA stating that there was an oversight on their part and the description should be "Part single, part two storey" rather than "First floor extension to the rear"

Because of the description changes, it will need to be re-consulted adding another 2 months (ie 4 months in total for the decision)

LPA also said on an email that they were minded to approve the "Part single, part two storey" extension.
They also requested some minor modification which was done and I sent it through.

3. Two days later, I get another email from the LPA stating that after a further assessment, they are requesting that the first floor be reduced in width.

----

Is there anything I can do here? do I just have to put up with it and do whatever they request in order to get it through? We're not keen on reducing the width.

The description was set by the LPA. It's their oversight and it looks as though they have now changed their minds on the first floor.

Any help from the experts here (especially from woody & tony) would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks guys.

 

[^woody^]

The short answer is "no".

The longer answer is "not a lot"

You could potentially appeal to the Planning Inspectorate on the basis of non determination by the due date, but it won't get you a decision any quicker and then you rely on their assessment with no further appeal if not in your favour.

If you don't want to reduce the size then either argue the point or just let it run its course and see what the decision is and appeal if need be.

If you are going to argue the point, find out exactly the basis for them requiring changes in the context of the local planning policies or good but design.

 

[Sydney M]

Greatful for the excellent advice. Thanks Woody.

 

[Nakajo]

So the width is non-compliant ?!?!?

 

[Sydney M]

I don't think it's a question of compliant. It's at the discretion of the planners so it's more about how they feel on the day.
The official reason was that it's "out of character with the area"

 

[^woody^]

"Out of character" only tends to crop up if the extension can be seen by the wider public - ie is on the front or side, not it its just a few of the neighbours who will see it.

 

[Sydney M]

Thanks woody.

It's a rear extension so it can't be seen from the street, the garden is also 30+m in length so the back neighbours are far, far away.

Do you think it's worth me arguing it on that basis? I don't see reducing the width helps with the "character" either.

I believe they are referring to the first floor extension as out of character with the area, in that not many properties have first floor extensions?

 

[Footsoldier888]

Well is isn't how they feel on the day, that applies to the planning committee who really can be loose cannons. They must have some policy reasons even if they may be reluctant to specify them precisely.

Someone must have objected or it would have been passed provided it met the NCS critera. Have you read the objection?

If they are wanting it narrower perhaps someone has objected and they are concerned about dominance/overbearing issues to a side neighbour?

 

[^woody^]

Thanks woody.

It's a rear extension so it can't be seen from the street, the garden is also 30+m in length so the back neighbours are far, far away.

Do you think it's worth me arguing it on that basis? I don't see reducing the width helps with the "character" either.

I believe they are referring to the first floor extension as out of character with the area, in that not many properties have first floor extensions?

Out if character would be say putting flat roof square box on the back of a Tudor cottage.

If you have a typical house then I'd presume that the extension is designed the same, so will naturally fit in with the character of the house and its siting.

It should not have anything to do with there being not many other extensions, because the local policy will allow for extensions.

Regardless, the "character" argument is weaker for rear extensions because the impact on others is much less. Subjective arguments like character and appearance are always worth arguing as they are only opinion.

 

[Nakajo]

If there was no neighbour objection, and the scheme is otherwise policy compliant then I can't see that there's anything further for the LPA to say on the matter.