Reply To: Regulation 503

Before requesting any support Please search the Forum First. You may find your desired answer. This will save your waiting time and will save our working hour. We may not answer the question which we have already answered. You should also read our Support Policy
Ian Robson

The plaintiffs ran an argument that, because the setback complied with the lightcourt provision of 416, any neighbour objection to side setback under reg 414 could not include use daylight amenity (and pleasant views) as a factor. They call this a ‘carve out’. The judge found that the term ‘amenity’ within the context of the Ministers Guideline was broad and daylight and views were valid considerations under the banner of amenity.
Although this case did not discuss ‘accessibility’ as amenity, I see it as opening up the meaning. The judge explored whether there was anything in the wording that would limit its meaning and could not find one. It would still need to be relevant to context, but accessibility would definitely fall into the scope of reg 503 IMHO. In terms of the pros and cons of what is reasonable to exempt, the broad words ‘take account of the requirements necessary to make reasonable provision for the amenity of ..people using the building..’ are wishy washy. The logical procedure would be the building owner makes a case as to why they should not provide access. This reg also does not take away from any application of reg 116 of course.