| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Planning application notices | |
| Posted by: | Adam Beamish | |
| Date/Time: | 15/07/20 16:40:00 |
| You'd think by now Councillors sitting on the planning committee would know what an "illegal" extension actually is, but based on Vanessa's transcript in her post the vice-chair of the Planning Committee doesn't - one wonders what training Members get these days... I knew nothing of this case before Vanessa's post, but were it not for the fact the applicant is a Councillor I don't personally feel this is a 'big deal'. The existing extensions on both sides of the application property are lawful, 1 seemingly through the passage of time (it's been there over 17 years) and the other benefits from permitted development rights. So neither existing extension is either illegal or unlawful, indeed precisely the opposite, they are both entirely lawful. And I don't understand how a proposed extension could be either 'unlawful' or 'illegal', that is absolute nonsense. How many times have I written on these forums about the importance, when objecting to planning applications, of remaining credible by not exaggerating things or making comments that are completely false ?. No, the proposed extension doesn't comply with the Council's guidance, but given the existing, LAWFUL extensions to both sides of the application site (which have to carry weight when assessing the impact of the proposed extension), it's a very subjective call as to whether the proposed extension would cause any material harm or be unacceptable in these site specific circumstances. My own view would be that the proposed extension wouldn't have any adverse impact on neighbours, and the judgement would therefore boil down to whether the extension would harm the living conditions of the occupant of the bedroom. But as I say it really is a storm in a tea-cup. At least back in my day we had to deal with a minority of Members who were clearly making decisions based on matters other than relevant planning considerations and consequently got dragged over the coals by the Ombudsman. |