Precedent in Planning Permission - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Precedent in Planning Permission
Hello all
I have a question regarding precedent and "reasonableness" in local authority planning decisions.
2 years ago my immediately adjoining neighbours applied for and recieved permission to erect a rear dormer as part of a loft conversion on their property. I have recently applied for the exact same, expecting this to be straightforwad given the recent granting of permission for them. My planning officer recommended my application for approval, however his supervisor has decided that she considers the application to be contrary to the LA's planning policy. The rationale she gives is that a supplemntary planning document/guide says that dormers should "usually" be 50cm from the roof ridge, whereas this application would only be 20cm and argues that the planning officer who allowed next door's made a mistake. The head height is not sufficient in the loft to have it further than 20cm so I cannot really go any further.
My question is whether the council is entitled to apply their policies inconsistently in this way? I would expect this would not only be overturned on appeal (if it went to that) but that they would also be responsible for costs as this would be deemed "unreasonable" behaviour. A couple of further things should be noted - 1) that the rationale given for the "usual" 50cm from the ridge is so that the dormer doesn't project into the roofline from a distance - this is a trivial point in this case as this is to the rear of the building and blocked by a much larger building so not visible from the street 2) two doors down approval was also given, about 10 years ago 3) the planning policies also refer to uniformity of the roof line, which if I was to go 50cm from the ridge would actually be worse 4) the council have not formally changed their policies since either of these decisions
I would be grateful for your expert views as this is proving quite frustrating and I am keen to avoid the whole appeal process if possible.
Many thanks,
Gabriel
As is often the case I am afraid, what is a guideline , is sometimes interpreted as 'policy' or the 'law' when in fact it is neither. If the guidelines say 'usually' then the planning officer who approved the neighbour's extension is perfectly entitled to approve the dormer as an exception. They have done nothing wrong and in that regard the supervisor is il advised to make such a comment.
Precedent....? well there is a very interesting case in 2009 where an inspector took into account other decisions of a similar type and scale in determing an appeal. The LPA challenged the decision on the grounds of each application on its own merits etc. The High Court backed the Inspector and said " in the exercise of planning judgment a relevant consideration may be the local authority's own approach to similar applications in the locality. Public law principles demand consistency in the application of policies by public bodies such as local planning authorities, unless there are good reasons to the contrary. Consistency is required as a broad principle of good administration and derives from general principles of fairness in the treatment of citizens. "
It never ceases to amaze me how often decision makers ignore that basic principle! It is however, unlikey that the supervisor is likely to see the light and will probably be prepared to argue their case on appeal. It is of course for them to jsutify what the harm of the extra 300mm at the rear of the building will have in terms of streetscene or visual amenity. Out of interest and without facts of the case why was this not permitted development?
Thanks for the response. It isn't permitted development because I (and next door) are flats rather than houses. Incidentally we are also in a conservation area but the article 4 direction does not apply to the rear elevation.
Should this go to appeal, would the planning inspectorate be bound to apply the consistency or could they take their own view do you think?