| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:No planning permission required for rear outrigger extensions? | |
| Posted by: | James Holmes-Siedle | |
| Date/Time: | 09/08/14 13:58:00 |
| Adam has summed it up well. Just to correct two other elements - while there were 'increases' in some areas of PD they are a 'third way' i.e. they are PD subject to a neighbour consultation - so not the same as PD which the LA can just confirm is 'lawfull'. So within the normal PD an applicant for a certificate of lawfullness is confirming that the application is pd - always worth doing as PD is a bit complicated :) The second one is that "right to light" is not a planning matter - but a civil one - sometimes planners take it into account - but it is a window into a room of a certain type that has the right to light - and that is even more complicated! But it is unlikely that a PD would actually have an affect on your right to light, as the right to light does allow for a reduction in light .....pew :) Takes me a few scratches of heads and re-reading of the legislation to actually work it out, which is why we always recommend applying for a certificate! James |