8 Moorland Crescent
Scope
Our client sought permission from Leeds City Council for the erection of a single storey side and rear extension. They had previously applied for prior approval for a single storey rear extension and had been told this could be completed under permitted development. Our client then submitted an application that kept the same projection of the original plan but sought to extend this to the side of the property by 0.8m.
This application was refused with the council stating that:
“The proposed single storey rear extension would cause a significant detrimental impact on the living conditions of the occupiers of 6 Moorlands Crescent, through over dominance and overshadowing due to its combined position, size, scale and proximity to the common boundary”
Our Solution
This particular case shows how infuriating the planning system can be at times. Extending the original plans by just 0.8m clearly has no more impact than the extension that the Council had already said could have been completed under permitted development.
The case officer here made reference to the fact that the previous extension had not been completed as planned so therefore the permitted development aspect had to be discounted and the application looked at as a whole. They had stated their preference would have been for the original extension to have been built and then demolished to accommodate the increase in size to the side. Clearly, this decision was lacking in any common sense.
We successfully put forward an argument using the prior approval as a fallback position and added weight to the argument by including the judgement from a previously allowed appeal that set the precedent that the extant permission should be a material consideration, despite being discounted by the LPA.
The Planning Inspector agreed stating that:
“Due to its size, scale and siting, the prior approval development, would have the same material impact on the living conditions of the occupants of 6 Moorland Crescent as the development subject to this appeal. Save for a small increase in the width of the extension at its opposite side, to which the Council have raised no objection, it is essentially the same development.”
“Therefore, in this case, having regard to the likely erection of the prior approval development fall-back position as a material consideration, this would justify making a decision which is not in strict accordance with the development plan.”
The appeal was allowed and the Client has been granted permission for the extension.