One for the planning people...is this bloke being a bit cheeky?

planning_officer

Hi Dinah, whilst I agree with most of your comments, not quite sure I follow some (highlighted!) -

Dinah93 wrote: »

As for the window in the roof of the dining room extension, lots of ways round this. Is the dining room extension being done under permitted development rights? Extension is two storey and against the boundary so cannot be PD, as greater than 4m in height and closer than 2m to the boundary (I assume!) If so, window is fair game, nothing the planners or the neighbour can do to prohibit it. If permission has been granted for plans without the window (I understood that the approved plans were single storey, so if he's building two storey, none of the building works would have permission, as he is not impmenting the approved permission. If there's no valid permission, he can't apply for a minor amendment), your son can either apply for a minor amendment to the plans to get the window in, or once the extension has been fully completed he can then put a velux in the roof. Remember a building or extension under development has no permitted development rights, and permission must be gained for any changes. Once the structure is up however the same permitted development rights apply as on the rest of the property (assuming your property is not covered by an article IV direction, and no conditions have been applied to the permission to restrict velux windows, which would be a fairly odd condition to dream up and I don't think it would pass at least 2 of the 6 tests needed for a condition to stand up under inspection anyway).

planning_officer

ken_and_dot wrote: »

Any condition attached to a planning permission must pass 6 tests. These are
1. Neccessary
2. Relevant to planning (ie not covering something that can be enforced through other regulations such as building regulations or housing standards)
3. Relevant to the development to be permitted
4. Enforceable
5. Precise
6. Reasonable.

Thanks, that's very interesting although 1. and 6. do seem to be rather subjective. I had an application turned down on the grounds that it would cast unacceptable degree of shadow on the neighbouring property. I appealed and used computer software designed for the pupose to illustrate that between March and September the maximum increase in the area of shadow was less than 3%. Still lost on the appeal and it was clear from comments from the appeal officer that he hadn't even read my documents.

1 and 6 may seem quite subjective but there's a lot of case law to show exactly what is acceptable. Being 'necessary' basically means that if the condition was not imposed, the application would be refused.

bostin

planning_officer wrote: »

1 and 6 may seem quite subjective but there's a lot of case law to show exactly what is acceptable. Being 'necessary' basically means that if the condition was not imposed, the application would be refused.

If that were completely the case then I would guess that a significant number of conditions attached to permissions would fail the test! In the past I've attached conditions to permissions which are more of a bolts and braces approach rather than thinking that I would have the front to refuse it........ and defend an appeal and costs application at hearing......:rolleyes: Sometimes common sense should come in front of the legal niceties

planning_officer

bostin wrote: »

If that were completely the case then I would guess that a significant number of conditions attached to permissions would fail the test! In the past I've attached conditions to permissions which are more of a bolts and braces approach rather than thinking that I would have the front to refuse it........ and defend an appeal and costs application at hearing......:rolleyes: Sometimes common sense should come in front of the legal niceties

Completely agree, I'm sure a lot of conditions fail the 'necessary' test in strict terms - I'm probably as guilty as anyone!! Although we've been told to make sure all conditions are in fact necessary from now on, mindful that people now have to pay to have them discharged!