Had a objection on my rear application

[^woody^]

You would not submit a full application if the policies that would then be applied would mean that the application would not be approved.

 

[Nakajo]

Just let the Council know your response to these comments, as clearly and as objectively as possible, and see what they say.

 

[Dicky mint]

I do have a architect working on these extensions. the side extension ground and first floor ) was passed with conditions that if we started the work our permitted development would be revoked. Hence the up to 6 metre rear single under permitted development / neighbour consultation and a few other plans before getting a builder to start

 

[cdbe]

Further to my previous post, I think this is the change since I used the scheme:

"If your application is refused

If an application is refused, you have a right of appeal through the Planning Inspectorate. However we would recommend that you contact us prior to lodging your appeal. Some problems can be solved through minor changes to proposals."

At the time I did mine there was no opportunity to work with the planner to modify it - but it does seem to be something you have to do after a refusal rather than by responding to or refuting objections while the application is live. (This is just something I found on an LA site rather than the actual PD rules, wherever they are.)

I don't know whether it's worth obtaining an LDC for 3m, maximum ridge and eaves height, right up to the boundary, in case you are refused the 6m and wish to appeal.

 

[bobyarg]

Has your case officer given you any indication of their thoughts yet? Any objections hurt, but to be frank they don't often matter. The opinion of the planning officer is the main one, then secondary to that is the opinion of your local councillor, as they may get the option to disagree with the officer, in which case it could go to committee where the reasons for both (and any) opinions can be heard.

 

[Dicky mint]

Good news.... Approved


09:10

Neighbour Consultation Scheme:
During the consultation period, comments were made by the neighbouring property
adjoining on the left side, generating the requirement for the LPA to consider the impact of
the proposal on the amenity of this premises.

-Loss of light to the neighbouring property / overbearing effect

The proposed flat roof height/ eaves height is a standard height for single storey extensions and does not exceed the limits allowed under permitted development. Furthermore, under permitted development the applicant could have proposed a pitched roof with a total height of 4 metres, which consider could have a greater detrimental impact upon neighbouring amenity than the flat roof proposed at 3 metres in height. Additionally, the total height of the proposed extension would only exceed the height of the existing fence by less than a metre (approximately 0.9m).

While I sympathise with the objections received by the neighbouring property regarding loss of light to their kitchen, given that the proposal would have less of an impact on the loss of light from an extension constructed under normal permitted development, the proposal is therefore considered acceptable.

-Concerns about the fence/ drains / extractor fan

The other comments received from this neighbour are noted, however, the prior notification application process only allows the LPA to assess potential impacts on the amenity of neighbouring/adjoining properties from height and scale. The concerns regarding the maintenance of the fence, drains and the positioning of the extractor fan would be a civil matter and not something the LPA can enforce. Further advice can be sought by the Councils Environmental Protection Team.

6. CONCLUSION
This proposal conforms to all the limitations set out in the Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A of the GPDO. Its impact on the amenities of the adjoining neighbour has been considered, however I do not consider that the proposal would cause much harm to the occupiers of the neighbouring property. As such, recommend that prior approval is granted for the proposal.
7. RECOMMENDATION - Grant of Prior Approval

 

[cdbe]

Congratulations - the scheme seems to be better now in that they take into account what you could do under PD.

 

[Dicky mint]

We have now reduced the rear extension from 6m deep to 3m deep reducing the footprint but adding a wrap round with a small balcony at the far end with 1.8m privacy screens. Which we have another set of objections from the next door neighbour. All of which last time were ignored by the local lap . See below

######## -######### (Objects)

The application that has been submitted will have several high value negative effects on my property. The house is ex council and is a semi detached property .....This planned application will be out of character for the period the house is from, not only this the planning application talks of a balcony which will give the landowner the opportunity to take my privacy from me, they will be able to look directly into my bedroom window, garden and my rear conservatory.

While it states that a 1.8m frosted glass partition will be erected this only stops people viewing the landowner whilst they utilise this area, this doesn't stop the landowner viewing neighbouring properties and the gardens attached to the property, this is a breach of privacy, this balcony will be used to entertain with being at high level will impact my sleep due to noise levels.

The sheer size of this planned extension will put my house into shade and a loss of light will be cast on my house, I will also loose the views across the Greenland which I have been able to appreciate for the 30 years I have been in my home.

This application will have a negative affect on my mental health as I will feel overlooked and not comfortable in my own house and garden, light and noise travelling through my bedroom window will have a negative effect on my sleep which will then impact my work life.

With this I object to the above planning application on the below covering points:

Noise
Disturbance
Overlooking and loss of privacy
Shading/loss of daylight
Local design/out of scale and out of character in terms of appearance.


As mentioned before the side and rear have been both permitted and the neighbours rents from the housing association ( I of course still respect there comments)

 

[Dicky mint]

The neighbour has been to another neighbour 3 houses away and got her to object now. Almost word for word see below…..

Mrs @@@@@@@@@@ (Objects)​

Comment submitted date: Tue 21 Jun 2022​

The application has a sizeable 1st floor balcony, which whilst it will have a 1.8m high glass partition, it will only protect the privacy of the applicant when it is being used for entertaining, which it clearly will be. Due to the elevation of the applicants property, they will have an unhindered view into my and adjacent properties and gardens. Secondly this is a breach of personal privacy and i feel very uncomfortable that my property and garden will be overlooked in such away. This will have a negative effect on my wellbeing and mental health for a woman of my age.

As the big level balcony will be an entertaining space, there is a great potential for late night noise and external lighting which could potentially disturb my sleep.

To confirm i object to the application based on the following:
Noise and disturbance
Loss of privacy
Overlooking of my and other properties

I also have concerns over damage to the drainage which runs across the back of all 4 properties into the cesspit on the edge of my property. As my property is the lowest level, any issues/blockages end up being my problem to resolve. I need reassurance that this has all been taken into account and appropriate risk assessment completed prior to any foundations being dug.

 

[Dicky mint]

There’s a lot of presumption in her comments please let me know anything that is factual correct that planners might take into account. It’s a shame that a 85 year old lady is renting a 3 bed house from a housing association and a single lady is also renting a 3 bed house yet between them there are 4 bedrooms not being used with a social housing shortage for families but that’s a separate matter

 

[jeds]

Balconies are always controversial, and many a planning application has been refused because of them. The issue is privacy and overlooking. Some people ask me what the difference is between a balcony and a window in the same position? The answer is angle of view and the fact that people don't tend to sit for several hours at a window.

Noise and disturbance is not a valid reason. You could equally say the complaining neighbour might also have late night rave parties and disturb your sleep. The fact is there is no evidence either way.

So, privacy and overlooking, yes, possibly - noise and disturbance no. Although your privacy and overlooking issue might be ok with a 1.8m high balcony?

 

[Nige F]

maybe the moral of the story is ............don't buy ex council surrounded/joined to council housing ?

 

[biryani_boy]

maybe the moral of the story is ............don't buy ex council surrounded/joined to council housing ?

neah, they're too good value for money. difficult neighbours are everywhere, but I agree that a balcony is a big no no, generally speaking.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Apart from say sea-front apartments, I'd say for every balcony I see actually being used there are 500 that are seldom or never used.

 

[Dicky mint]

Why has the local parish council mentioned this on the consultee section of the planning portal ( it has nothing to do with my application and would put off any potential buyer if they believed what the local parish councillors has written here ( no structural or underpinning work had been done anyway) can it be removed. The second attachment is based on a neighbour’s perception of what they feel is happening and yet I have it from the inspector for the housing association that only plastering and decorating work has been carried out. Surely under pinning a house has mini diggers grab hire and pumping concrete around the footings