Appeal against/changing "standard" planning rules

[chim_knee]

How-do,

Does anyone know whether it is possible/worthwhile challenging the local council/planning department over their "normal" planning restrictions - i.e. ones not specific to a planning application?

The case is that, around our way, first floor extensions are not allowed to be built closer than 1 meter from the property border. Ground floor is fine, first and above isn't.

Now, a lot of houses down our road have the space along side their houses that this won't be a problem... ours doesn't though (I'd say 10% of houses in our street fall foul of the regulation).

Is there grounds to challenge the ruling based on the fact that it discriminates against people in the street in houses like mine. Or is it, as I suspect, a case of "like it or lump it".

Two things spring to mind...

1, It stops us improving the value of our house by adding rooms
2, It devalues our house as the other 90% can (and are) putting extensions up... meaning our house is becoming smaller than "usual".

Cheers,
Phil.

[B17NNS]

its not devaluing your house.

its not discrimination.

[chim_knee]

Ta. Is that honestly the case. I'm quite prepared to accept it is - despite the arrogant way you presented it.

But anyway - the question was whether one could challenge the ruling.

I'll add another observation:

3, Neighbour has said that he'd have no problem with it and we want to add an extension.

>> Edited by chim_knee on Tuesday 17th May 15:24

[Tuna]

chim_knee said:

How-do, Does anyone know whether it is possible/worthwhile challenging the local council/planning department over their "normal" planning restrictions - i.e. ones not specific to a planning application?

Ring up your friendly local planning officer who will be able to give you a 'view' on the case. You can put in planning applications for just about anything, even if you don't own the property. Of course, the planning department have the right to refuse on pretty much any grounds they like, and will tend to follow the local planning guidelines. However the setting of your house may mean that the local guidelines are not so appropriate, so they may be willing to accept your application if it meets the right criteria.

[chim_knee]

Tuna said:

chim_knee said: How-do, Does anyone know whether it is possible/worthwhile challenging the local council/planning department over their "normal" planning restrictions - i.e. ones not specific to a planning application? Ring up your friendly local planning officer who will be able to give you a 'view' on the case. You can put in planning applications for just about anything, even if you don't own the property. Of course, the planning department have the right to refuse on pretty much any grounds they like, and will tend to follow the local planning guidelines. However the setting of your house may mean that the local guidelines are not so appropriate, so they may be willing to accept your application if it meets the right criteria.

Thanks for that - I'll give it a go.

Cheers,
Phil.

[MilnerR]

Tuna gives good advice. Much of planning "law" isn't law at all, rather planning policy guidelines. The way in which these guidelines are applied seems to be pretty random. The problem you may have though is if the planning officer feels it will be setting a precedent, then they may refuse even if there is no problem with your case.

[chim_knee]

MilnerR said:

The problem you may have though is if the planning officer feels it will be setting a precedent, then they may refuse even if there is no problem with your case.

hmmm... I think I would fall foul of that too! Oh well!

Thanks for the info. It gives me something to think about.

[hut49]

And of course if they turn your application down you must appeal. In fact I'm pretty sure that the bureaucracy is so ingrained and the need to maintain high volume of work to sustain the local council's (expanded) infrastructure is so important that the system is set up to ensure first application gets rejected and then goes to appeal. So even if you don't get what you reasonably expect first time round it needed be the conclusion of the matter

[chim_knee]

hut49 said:

And of course if they turn your application down you must appeal. In fact I'm pretty sure that the bureaucracy is so ingrained and the need to maintain high volume of work to sustain the local council's (expanded) infrastructure is so important that the system is set up to ensure first application gets rejected and then goes to appeal. So even if you don't get what you reasonably expect first time round it needed be the conclusion of the matter

That's interesting - I wondered (in my naivity) whether "anyone" could appeal or just iffy decisions... I guess it's down to who thinks it is an "iffy" decision!

[hut49]

chim_knee said:

hut49 said: And of course if they turn your application down you must appeal. In fact I'm pretty sure that the bureaucracy is so ingrained and the need to maintain high volume of work to sustain the local council's (expanded) infrastructure is so important that the system is set up to ensure first application gets rejected and then goes to appeal. So even if you don't get what you reasonably expect first time round it needed be the conclusion of the matter That's interesting - I wondered (in my naivity) whether "anyone" could appeal or just iffy decisions... I guess it's down to who thinks it is an "iffy" decision!

A walk with a camera around the streets in your area that lie within the planning offices area of responsibility might provide some useful precedents that can be presented to support your case. Also check with the other neighbours that the council will advise of your application. We had a similar situation and while the "affected" neighbour had no problem with our proposal, one of the other neighbours who the Council contacted had nothing better to do and decided that this was going to become their life's work under the motto "protecting the interests of everyone who lives in the street".

[Tuna]

hut49 said:

We had a similar situation and while the "affected" neighbour had no problem with our proposal, one of the other neighbours who the Council contacted had nothing better to do and decided that this was going to become their life's work under the motto "protecting the interests of everyone who lives in the street".

Thus confirming my belief that people, on the whole, should be shot.