Reply To: PRECEDENT for modern domestic

This rule i think is one the very few positive planing guidelines that planners actually seem to follow…. in an effort to protect the countryside (you did say ‘rural’) and encourage people to live in urban areas.
Maybe it’s the case everywhere but in the south-east, ‘precedent’ issue includes not only the previous existence of building structures but also matters like the length of time an applicant has already spend living in the area , and often the request of proof of ‘need’ to live in the specific area (family nearby and distance to work place being the two major elements). This of course reduces the tendancies to build holiday homes away from resort towns and reduces the blight that would occur when ‘blow-ins’ try to come to live in an area, yet at the same time providing an (admittedly very small) window for locals.

Of course its very easy for the planners to stick to guidlines when its only one house, one applicant etc.. but as we all know this changes when we get to the wedge-like principle of a wealthy developer tacking on to a town, a huge sprawling estate of underserviced semi-ds …. here its ok of course if 90%of the inhabitants will work 75 km away, its fine that they use up valuable land with low density, over priced and single class housing, It’s perfectly fine that despite being part of a town people still have to use their cars to go everywhere (like you would in a rural situation), because here there’s not a large enough population to make public transport viable.
I could go on (and on) but the public would get bored… and i’d just get angry.
Stuff we all know a bit about i guess.