Planning application approved and then refused

[luisdesign]

Hi rjm2k. It says on the website : application undecided.

Okay, don't fret.

Wait for the decision. If the planning officer was originally recomending approval then his report will have been written like that. The councillors changing the decision means he/she now has to write a new report detailing the refusal. The refusal should set out the reasons why it was refused. You (or your agent) should speak with the planning officers to try to ascertain why they thought it was okay but was thought inappropriate by the councillors.

You're basically trying to gather your arguement for your appeal.

Unfortunately councillors DO hold a lot of weight, and can make decisions against planning policy or even expert advice... (and sometimes even decisions that are unlawful but thats another story!) However most of these "show decisions" are quick to get overturned on appeal because the inspector is impartial and simply looks again at the facts and the policy.

This is of course assuming the planning officers were in the right in the first place.

 

[Peters1]

Parts of what it says on the commitee report before the meeting is shown below:

Whilst 3m extensions to the rear of dwellings are normally supported, with respect to Policy BE14, the continuation of the extension to the rear of the application property, at first floor and across the full width of the house with a projection of 3m, due to its orientation sitting to the South West of the adjoining dwelling, has in this case had an adverse impact in terms of loss of light, overshadowing and overbearing on the occupiers of the adjoining property. The development has resulted in a loss of light to a habitable room window and overbearing in terms of both the outlook from the window and upon the remaining amenity space.

The wording of condition BE14 states “unless the proposal would have a detrimental effect on visual amenity, adjoining dwellings or occupiers of adjacent land”; in the case of this application, the harm is on balance, considered to be unacceptable.

Representations:
Concerns have been raised in representations about the scale of the previously approved application, which they feel should not have been approved and that inadequate separation distances resulting from the extension would result in a loss of privacy. The majority of concerns raised relate to the original grant of planning permission and cannot be taken into consideration as part of this application.

Conclusion:
The impact of the extension would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbours in terms of loss of potential privacy, overbearing and overshadowing. Whilst the extension is 3m, which would normally be supported, in this instance the impact on the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring properties is considered to be unacceptable and therefore contrary to Policy.

 

[rjm2k]

The impact of the extension would be detrimental to the amenity of the neighbours in terms of loss of potential privacy, overbearing and overshadowing. Whilst the extension is 3m, which would normally be supported, in this instance the impact on the amenity of the residents of the neighbouring properties is considered to be unacceptable and therefore contrary to Policy.

A lot of that sounds like unquantifiable waffle, but if "the planners" on TV is anything to go by they should have a "daylight test" (ooerr) in order to quantify whether or not there is unacceptable overshadowing. It does take the p when a lot of properties are built far closer together these days anyway.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

rjm2k, with all due respect you don't really know what you're talking about, it just says it doesn't comply with the Local Plan guidance in which case the LA may be justified in rejecting it.

 

[rjm2k]

rjm2k, with all due respect you don't really know what you're talking about, it just says it doesn't comply with the Local Plan guidance in which case the LA may be justified in rejecting it.

Maybe, but I've yet to see a quantifiable definition of any of the following

loss of light ("The planners" suggested there was a test but they didn't give any detail)

overshadowing (how much overshadowing is too much, why might one application not over shadow too much but another does?)

overbearing (how much overbearing ( scale, massing and general dominating effect) is too much, why might one application not over be too overbearing but another is?)

They are all "soft" constraints so at the end of the day boil down to the opinion of a person/committee

 

[jeds]

It would be very unusual for a planning officer to support a two storey rear extension for full width and directly on the adjoining boundary. My guess is you either misheard or misunderstood something - or both. You could try an appeal but, going on your description of 'boxing in' the neighbours living room window, I wouldn't bet on success.

 

[rjm2k]

so builders had started work on the extra part of the extension, on the 29th of jan 2013 received a call from the architecht to tell me the application is going to be refused which it has now been refused as a neighbour has contacted and complained to them of a light issue, can this be done even after the public consultation date? As most of the work is already done now.

TBH you may have been your own worst enemy here, it could well be that if your builders hadn't start work ahead of approval, your neighbours wouldn't have even considered these issues until it was too late, as it is they've seen the impact for real and at your cost. Very often, people simply don't like people to do something just because they haven't been given permission.

Is your "architect" actually an architect, as in a member of RIBA or just someone who does drawings?

 

[Peters1]

If the neighbours didnt have a single storey extension bigger than ours (about 5 meters) made on the other side of the window then there shouldnt be an issue, because of this theyre room is boxed in and we should not be blamed or stopped in making our own extension as everyone has rights dont you think.

 

[rjm2k]

If the neighbours didnt have a single storey extension bigger than ours (about 5 meters) made on the other side of the window then there shouldnt be an issue, because of this theyre room is boxed in and we should not be blamed or stopped in making our own extension as everyone has rights dont you think.

I agree, but sadly that's not how it works, they "assess" based on what's there now. You can probably find cases where one neighbour has built an extension like your neighbour with the equivelant of you objecting only for it to be allowed, and then applying yourself only to find that the exact same objection you originally had is held up for your neighbour against your plans!

 

[tony1851]

Is your "architect" actually an architect, as in a member of RIBA or just someone who does drawings?

What's that got to do with it?
You imply that 'just someone who does drawings' is somehow less competent than an RIBA registered person.

 

[luisdesign]

Is your "architect" actually an architect, as in a member of RIBA or just someone who does drawings?

What's that got to do with it?
You imply that 'just someone who does drawings' is somehow less competent than an RIBA registered person.

I agree, you don't need to be an architect to do design buildings.

I think in this case, maybe rjm2k is suggesting that if the person is selling themselves as an architect and they are not then they are actually breaking the law.

To Peters1, why not take a few pictures of what you've got and show us the situation first hand. It's incredibly difficult to give any sort of meaningful advice when we are all picturing something very different (and even with pictures what we can say online is still very limited).

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I agree, it doesn't matter if he's a registered architect, techy, or a coal miner, provided they are qualified to do this and any of them could do the job better or worse than the other.

Right to Light can include calculations, some LA's do not use this at all, some follow it to the letter, all authority's are different in this respect.

 

[rjm2k]

Is your "architect" actually an architect, as in a member of RIBA or just someone who does drawings?

What's that got to do with it?
You imply that 'just someone who does drawings is somehow less competent than an RIBA registered person.

not at all, someone else asked but it wasn't clearly answered. I believe riba require members to provide info on what they can and can't do, it seems strange that op seems to think going ahead on his agents wordwas enough.

 

[^woody^]

it seems strange that op seems to think going ahead on his agents wordwas enough.

Why wouldn't he?

When someone employs a professional, they should be able to rely on the advice given and statements made. Anyone not experienced in this, is entitled to rely on their agents. It is up to the agent to explain things correctly and accurately.

Invariably, anyone doing extension plans is referred to by the homeowner as "their Architect". Again, its up to non-Architects to correct this with their client

 

[JohnD]

I don't know if the draughtsman said "the planning officer says he is quite happy with the plans and will be recommending approval" or "the planning officer says the plans will be approved" or even "the planning officer says the plans are approved"

Do you?