Neighbour planning permission
Discussion
Inkyfingers said:
Planning rules are not based on what is reasonable, but on what is lawful.
If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
Next time you are held up on the motorway by a driver doing exactly 70mph and he refuses to move out of the overtaking lane don't forget he is just helping you to comply with the law, because it applies to you too If they have built something they don't have the relevant permission for, or are using a building for a non-permitted use, then the OP has every right to object, especially if it could negatively affect his own property. Whether he chooses to is up to him.
As frustrating as I often find planning rules, I dislike those who somehow think they don't apply to them even more.
.
22Rgt said:
A real shame some out there just cant get on with their lives instead of always worrying what others do. Its on their land not yours OP, its not doing anyone any harm and you yourself described it as nicely built. So what if it has patio doors instead of stable doors,so what if it contains a table/chairs and pens instead of seeds?
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
HiNone of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
To explain this and why I'm not happy about it.
What they are doing will have a very negative impact to the immediate area. It's an open rural, paddock and fields. And one might say selfishly it will have a negative impact to my property value. That's been confirmed by a surveyor. Without going into the details - I really need to have some value in my house for my future.
gaz1234 said:
If they had planning then it should be on the council website no?
Should all the locals have been sent a letter from the council outlining plans and any objections before they started idling?
Pics required.
I believe it's no longer required to send letters to neighbours. All that needs doing is a A4 letter to be displayed somewhere nearby.Should all the locals have been sent a letter from the council outlining plans and any objections before they started idling?
Pics required.
woof said:
22Rgt said:
A real shame some out there just cant get on with their lives instead of always worrying what others do. Its on their land not yours OP, its not doing anyone any harm and you yourself described it as nicely built. So what if it has patio doors instead of stable doors,so what if it contains a table/chairs and pens instead of seeds?
None of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
HiNone of us are on this earth long, times much better spent enjoying life rather than quarreling with neighbours over something so petty..
To explain this and why I'm not happy about it.
What they are doing will have a very negative impact to the immediate area. It's an open rural, paddock and fields. And one might say selfishly it will have a negative impact to my property value. That's been confirmed by a surveyor. Without going into the details - I really need to have some value in my house for my future.
Whatever the planner says about the use as a home office, your neighbour isn't likely to pull it down now he's built it. But he might just put it to a purpose even less attractive to you than quietly sitting doing his accounts.
The only way to prevent building in your immediate proximity is to own the land, which sadly, you don't. Life's too short for aggro with the neighbours.
Riley Blue said:
Use makes a huge difference. You might be happy to live not far from a building where mushrooms were grown but less happy it was used for raising chicken.
That's my point. Use as a home office has to be one of the least objectionable possibilities, hasn't it?If woof raises a ruckus and compels his neighbour to use the building for something agricultural (possibly noisy or smelly) instead, he might end up wishing he'd let sleeping dogs lie with the office option.
One of my other neighbours took up the reins on this and dealt with the planning officer.
Apparently the building size is OK but the doors that have been put in are not correct. The nice patio doors potentially and I'm still wondering how the hell you are supposed to get a tractor through a standard size door.
Totally sucks and has made me think that it's time to move.
Apparently the building size is OK but the doors that have been put in are not correct. The nice patio doors potentially and I'm still wondering how the hell you are supposed to get a tractor through a standard size door.
Totally sucks and has made me think that it's time to move.
woof said:
One of my other neighbours took up the reins on this and dealt with the planning officer.
Apparently the building size is OK but the doors that have been put in are not correct. The nice patio doors potentially and I'm still wondering how the hell you are supposed to get a tractor through a standard size door.
Totally sucks and has made me think that it's time to move.
If it is the right size and isn't going to be used as a disco, brothel or meth lab, I'm still at a loss as to how it actually affects you?Apparently the building size is OK but the doors that have been put in are not correct. The nice patio doors potentially and I'm still wondering how the hell you are supposed to get a tractor through a standard size door.
Totally sucks and has made me think that it's time to move.
A decision to move house would be different if your neighbour was to park a tractor in their new barn?
It's 4 times the size of the old stables. It's an ugly building. Ruined the view.
If it was a nice new stables then it would add to the overall look and feel of our area. This doesn't. You'll just need to take my word for that.
It's totally obvious that they have built a basic for a domestic dwelling. It's bigger than their actual house!
It's been built up high on a very large concrete area so they can add decking at some point. It's not an agricultural building.
Anyway - not much we can do about it assuming they change their plans and the council approve the changes for the patio doors
If it was a nice new stables then it would add to the overall look and feel of our area. This doesn't. You'll just need to take my word for that.
It's totally obvious that they have built a basic for a domestic dwelling. It's bigger than their actual house!
It's been built up high on a very large concrete area so they can add decking at some point. It's not an agricultural building.
Anyway - not much we can do about it assuming they change their plans and the council approve the changes for the patio doors
If it's permitted development then they can (simplification) build single storey outbuildings on 50% of their land behind the front of their house without seeking permission (although a certificate of lawfulness is handy / prudent).
Does it cover 50% of their land? If not, then marvel at how small they have constrained their rights to your benefit.
Does it cover 50% of their land? If not, then marvel at how small they have constrained their rights to your benefit.
7db said:
If it's permitted development then they can (simplification) build single storey outbuildings on 50% of their land behind the front of their house without seeking permission (although a certificate of lawfulness is handy / prudent).
Does it cover 50% of their land? If not, then marvel at how small they have constrained their rights to your benefit.
When I looked at this for my permitted development, I came across some cases where an outbuilding any larger than the house was not allowed.Does it cover 50% of their land? If not, then marvel at how small they have constrained their rights to your benefit.
IANAL.
Just get used to it guys. Planning (and if ever a word is being misused, this is it), in this country is complete b
ks. It’s very possible, and quite easy, in this country to build something that is bloody awful, and no one wants, because the planning law says so. It’s quite possible to do the complete opposite. I have a friend who owns a (very) small bungalow built the 1930’s that needs complete replacement, He’s put in (many) planning request for a very modest, slightly larger, attractive dwelling, supported by his neighbours, and the local council. He gets knocked down every time, one reason being, “it’s visually obtrusive to the amenity of the green belt.” His close neighbour has the biggest scrap metal, dumped vehicles, falling to pieces buildings site you have ever seen in your life. But because it’s been there since year dot, and has an ‘agriculture’ attachment somehow, it apparently can’t be removed. I know of an incidence about 20yrs ago, when a reasonably wealthy individual offered to purchase one of these established country eyesores, and long as he was allowed to replace it with a barn type residence to fit in with the country side. He was refused permission. The eyesore is still there today!!
ks. It’s very possible, and quite easy, in this country to build something that is bloody awful, and no one wants, because the planning law says so. It’s quite possible to do the complete opposite. I have a friend who owns a (very) small bungalow built the 1930’s that needs complete replacement, He’s put in (many) planning request for a very modest, slightly larger, attractive dwelling, supported by his neighbours, and the local council. He gets knocked down every time, one reason being, “it’s visually obtrusive to the amenity of the green belt.” His close neighbour has the biggest scrap metal, dumped vehicles, falling to pieces buildings site you have ever seen in your life. But because it’s been there since year dot, and has an ‘agriculture’ attachment somehow, it apparently can’t be removed. I know of an incidence about 20yrs ago, when a reasonably wealthy individual offered to purchase one of these established country eyesores, and long as he was allowed to replace it with a barn type residence to fit in with the country side. He was refused permission. The eyesore is still there today!!What a sad tale, Planning Regulations are there for development control and are not a vehicle for neighbours to dictate what people can and can't do with their property. Unfortunately for the OP, just because he doesn't like something which has being built next door, or doesn't like the proposed use, or thinks it will impact on his property value, doesn't mean he has a valid objection. The planning process thankfully doesn't work like that.
The neighbour has consent to build the new block to the size it is, so if that is the issue then though, there is nothing the OP can do about that, nothing at all. How the neighbour uses the building in the future will be bound by the consent he has, he will need a change-of-use application to use it as a dwelling or office. Again if such an application was submitted, the views of the neighbours would be considered but only if it constitutes a valid planning reason for refusal.
What I fail to see is how this will effect the OP's property value to the point where any perceived drop in value (even if that was true, and it rarely is for such a minor change) would be greater than the cost of moving house. As a side, having an on-going dispute with a neighbour will certainly have a greater impact on the OP's property value that a nice new shed next door.
Advice to the OP, let the dust settle, get used to the new-build, re-build the relationship with your neighbour if you can, and carry on enjoying your home.
The neighbour has consent to build the new block to the size it is, so if that is the issue then though, there is nothing the OP can do about that, nothing at all. How the neighbour uses the building in the future will be bound by the consent he has, he will need a change-of-use application to use it as a dwelling or office. Again if such an application was submitted, the views of the neighbours would be considered but only if it constitutes a valid planning reason for refusal.
What I fail to see is how this will effect the OP's property value to the point where any perceived drop in value (even if that was true, and it rarely is for such a minor change) would be greater than the cost of moving house. As a side, having an on-going dispute with a neighbour will certainly have a greater impact on the OP's property value that a nice new shed next door.
Advice to the OP, let the dust settle, get used to the new-build, re-build the relationship with your neighbour if you can, and carry on enjoying your home.
robinessex said:
Just get used to it guys. Planning (and if ever a word is being misused, this is it), in this country is complete bks. It’s very possible, and quite easy, in this country to build something that is bloody awful, and no one wants, because the planning law says so. It’s quite possible to do the complete opposite. I have a friend who owns a (very) small bungalow built the 1930’s that needs complete replacement, He’s put in (many) planning request for a very modest, slightly larger, attractive dwelling, supported by his neighbours, and the local council. He gets knocked down every time, one reason being, “it’s visually obtrusive to the amenity of the green belt.” His close neighbour has the biggest scrap metal, dumped vehicles, falling to pieces buildings site you have ever seen in your life. But because it’s been there since year dot, and has an ‘agriculture’ attachment somehow, it apparently can’t be removed. I know of an incidence about 20yrs ago, when a reasonably wealthy individual offered to purchase one of these established country eyesores, and long as he was allowed to replace it with a barn type residence to fit in with the country side. He was refused permission. The eyesore is still there today!!
If true, why does he not appeal?ks. It’s very possible, and quite easy, in this country to build something that is bloody awful, and no one wants, because the planning law says so. It’s quite possible to do the complete opposite. I have a friend who owns a (very) small bungalow built the 1930’s that needs complete replacement, He’s put in (many) planning request for a very modest, slightly larger, attractive dwelling, supported by his neighbours, and the local council. He gets knocked down every time, one reason being, “it’s visually obtrusive to the amenity of the green belt.” His close neighbour has the biggest scrap metal, dumped vehicles, falling to pieces buildings site you have ever seen in your life. But because it’s been there since year dot, and has an ‘agriculture’ attachment somehow, it apparently can’t be removed. I know of an incidence about 20yrs ago, when a reasonably wealthy individual offered to purchase one of these established country eyesores, and long as he was allowed to replace it with a barn type residence to fit in with the country side. He was refused permission. The eyesore is still there today!!Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff