Prior Approval refused due to Development Plan
February 8, 2022 by John Heaney in forum Planning Forum
- Home
- Forums
- Planning Forum
- Prior Approval refused due to Development Plan
#1219 John Heaney, 8 February 2022, 22:56
We have had an application for prior approval refused for the enlargement of our dwellinghouse, by construction of one additional storey, under Class AA of GPDO.
The officer report claims that, whilst the development complies with all parts of the Permitted Development Rights requirements, it does not meet their development plan requirements and therefore they can refuse it because “Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
This seems an overstretch from the council. They do not have an Article 4 in place preventing this kind of permitted development to take place. It seems against the purpose permitted development rights to have National guidance on what is permitted without planning permission, but then Local authorities can ignore that guidance and force the planning permission route.
The Officer’s Report found that “On the above assessment, officers can be satisfied that the proposed development works would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), subject to the further assessment set out in the sections below in respect of AA.2.(3).”
But the report concludes “ Upon full assessment of the submitted material supporting the application, taking into account all material considerations, it is considered the objectives of the development plan have not been met.”
This is on the basis that “ the proposed addition would appear as an incongruous development in relation to the neighbouring properties either side as the eaves and ridge height would project above those neighbouring properties. As such it is considered that the proposed extension would represent an incongruous addition and would detrimentally impact upon the external appearance of the dwellinghouse”.
If anyone has any experience, advice or relevant case law they can point to, it would be greatly appreciated.
The officer report claims that, whilst the development complies with all parts of the Permitted Development Rights requirements, it does not meet their development plan requirements and therefore they can refuse it because “Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires planning decisions to be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise”
This seems an overstretch from the council. They do not have an Article 4 in place preventing this kind of permitted development to take place. It seems against the purpose permitted development rights to have National guidance on what is permitted without planning permission, but then Local authorities can ignore that guidance and force the planning permission route.
The Officer’s Report found that “On the above assessment, officers can be satisfied that the proposed development works would comply with Schedule 2, Part 1, Class AA of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), subject to the further assessment set out in the sections below in respect of AA.2.(3).”
But the report concludes “ Upon full assessment of the submitted material supporting the application, taking into account all material considerations, it is considered the objectives of the development plan have not been met.”
This is on the basis that “ the proposed addition would appear as an incongruous development in relation to the neighbouring properties either side as the eaves and ridge height would project above those neighbouring properties. As such it is considered that the proposed extension would represent an incongruous addition and would detrimentally impact upon the external appearance of the dwellinghouse”.
If anyone has any experience, advice or relevant case law they can point to, it would be greatly appreciated.
#1221 Damian, 9 February 2022, 21:01
I have never heard of known of that. They cannot or should not be making reference to full policies when going down the Prior Approval route.
You may be best speaking to a Planning Consultant and/or Appealing.
You may be best speaking to a Planning Consultant and/or Appealing.
Reply to topic
Return to topic list | Return to forum list