Burgeoning housing demand in urban areas has resulted in widespread 'infilling' and narrowing of gaps between detached homes. The practice came under analysis by the High Court as it opened the way for construction of a new home less than a metre from a neighbour's boundary.
The owner of a house in a city street proposed to demolish the property's garage and outbuildings and construct a new detached home in their place. The flank wall of the new dwelling would stand 0.8 or 0.9 metres from the neighbour's boundary. Despite the neighbour's objections, a local authority planning officer, to whom the decision was delegated, granted planning consent for the development.
The officer found that the proposal would achieve a satisfactory appearance from the street and would preserve the character and appearance of the locality. Car parking provision would be adequate, and the proposal was acceptable in that it accorded with local planning policies and was compatible with the prevailing style, form, scale and character of the street.
In arguing that the officer's decision should be quashed, the neighbour pointed to an emerging local plan policy, which stated that, in order to guard against what was described as undesirable terracing, infill developments should be at least a metre away from the boundaries of existing homes.
Ruling on the matter, the Court accepted that, although the emerging policy was not yet part of the local development plan, it was a relevant consideration. However, the policy's reference to a one-metre separation did not constitute a hard-and-fast rule and the officer was entitled to exercise her planning judgment in finding that the proposal would have no undesirable terracing impact.
The neighbour's argument that the grant of consent was inconsistent with previous planning decisions in the area fell on fallow ground, as did his plea that the officer had irrationally failed to impose a condition requiring that car parking spaces to serve the new house be maintained permanently. The latter point was academic, in that the developer had subsequently entered into a binding agreement with the council that the parking spaces would be retained in perpetuity. The neighbour's challenge was dismissed and the planning permission upheld.
"If you are considering making an alteration close to the boundary of a property, it is important to ensure that you have the legal right to make the proposed alteration. Our expert lawyers can advise."
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
