Planning issues - HELP

[Pimms0clock]

We are currently in the process of buying a renovation project and due to delays in the sale have applied for planning permission before completion.

Our plans show a side bedroom on the first floor with a window, this decision was made on the basis that 3 other properties in a 100 meter radius have done the same thing and have had planning granted.

The planning officer has told us that a side bedroom is not possible and we will have to change our layout (which we don’t want to do).

I could understand the refusal if permission had never been granted previously but can anyone explain how they they refuse our application when in the last 3 years the other properties (with exactly the same layout we are asking for) have been allowed. Can anyone help me understand if we can use the argument that a precedence has been set and what I should do next. Thanks

There really is no such thing as precedence in planning.

Every application has to be looked at on its own individual merits, with regard to the policies in place at the time.

Basically no two sites are ever identical. Whilst your house maybe the same as others, the setting of the property is likely to be different in terms of the relationship to neighbouring properties, land levels etc.

Also, it is possible that hte council may have adopted new policies since previous applications were granted.

Did the planning officer explain why they viewed your proposal as being unacceptable? Did they mention any policies etc?

Depending on what hte Planning Officer has said, you can either proceed with your application as you want it, and then lodge an appeal with the Planning Inspectorate once planning permission has ben refused (there is no charge for this, although you may need to pay for professional advice on the actual appeal statement. Householder appeals are usually straightforward though, so it is possible to do on your own), or you could amend your plans to overcome the Planning Officer's objection.

Hi Seeline,

Thanks for your comments. The property is on a straight road and one of the houses that has had permission granted is next door.

The issue is having a window that looks to the side in a habitable room, which I am aware is frowned upon but on the basis that approval had previously been given for larger rooms / windows in neighbouring properties I thought we would be alright.

Now I know that each case is reviewed on its own merit we shall have to have a rethink.

What will the window be looking out onto? Are they concerned about an overlooking/loss of privacy issue? What is the difference between what you are proposing and what has been approved elsewhere - is the neighbouring property in a slightly different position, does it already have side windows which could be looked into or overshadowed, does your extension project to the rear of the property which means a greater level of overlooking etc?

It is worth pointing out to the PO that there are other very similar extensions in the area, but it will not guarantee an approval.

Hello Seeline,

The properties are in a straight line with the same orientation. There is no difference that I can see but the property the window will face already has a dormer window to our side.
.
The window is looking out on a roof and an obscured bathroom window (placement of our window is to be staggered so the two windows are not in direct alignment). The roof then extends at least a further 5 meters to the back of the property. There is a garage between us and the sun is in their favour so I don’t think light is the issue, but I could be wrong.

Our extension will bring us to the back line of both neighbouring properties (which have already been extended out the back at full height.)

Thanks for your help.

@Seeline

Hello, I just wanted to say thank you for your help as we have just been granted planning permission.

We went back to the council with examples of other approved planning permissions and after a long period of hearing nothing back we were reassigned a new planning officer. They wrote a comprehensive response arguing against it but they did tell us what would be possible. So we made a slight change and here we are. Many thanks.