Field behind our property will be a housing estate
Discussion
funkyrobot said:
SpeckledJim said:
funkyrobot said:
Again though, these rejections have been ignored.
If the complaints of the already-live-here-thanks were heeded, nothing would ever be built, anywhere.If you get the chance, have a look on I-player for a BBC programme called "The Planners". It's a really interesting series & looks at the decision making process from start to finish on both sides.
There were a couple of applications on that programme which nobody wanted (including the planning committee), but they fulfilled all the requirements for what Central Government wanted so they had basically no choice but to approve.
One was a similar situation to you, but the people objecting were living in 1990s Barratts houses objecting to new-builds going up in the fields in front of them. They failed to see the irony of their complaints.
Hooli said:
Get a Tree Preservation Order on it now.
We had a row of trees behind our old house which were meant to stay when the old college site was used for housing. Yet one saturday morning they all got chopped down. about ten two hundred year old trees, gone for no reason.
Thanks. I'll look into that asap. Would be good if we could at least keep that monster there. I wouldn't want someone to move into the house on the other side and complain about it.We had a row of trees behind our old house which were meant to stay when the old college site was used for housing. Yet one saturday morning they all got chopped down. about ten two hundred year old trees, gone for no reason.
Rude-boy said:
Hooli said:
funkyrobot said:
Incidentally, there is a very large tree that is growing out of the ditch at the end of our garden. Our boundary stops at the top edge of the ditch and the tree is rooted in the slope from there down. This tree currently provides us with a lot of privacy and the plans for the build include keeping it there. It would be nice if it stayed. However, we'll see what happens.
Get a Tree Preservation Order on it now.We had a row of trees behind our old house which were meant to stay when the old college site was used for housing. Yet one saturday morning they all got chopped down. about ten two hundred year old trees, gone for no reason.
You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
northwest monkey said:
Because people will make all sorts of comments - some relevant & some not.
If you get the chance, have a look on I-player for a BBC programme called "The Planners". It's a really interesting series & looks at the decision making process from start to finish on both sides.
There were a couple of applications on that programme which nobody wanted (including the planning committee), but they fulfilled all the requirements for what Central Government wanted so they had basically no choice but to approve.
One was a similar situation to you, but the people objecting were living in 1990s Barratts houses objecting to new-builds going up in the fields in front of them. They failed to see the irony of their complaints.
Ok, thanks. I'll take a look.If you get the chance, have a look on I-player for a BBC programme called "The Planners". It's a really interesting series & looks at the decision making process from start to finish on both sides.
There were a couple of applications on that programme which nobody wanted (including the planning committee), but they fulfilled all the requirements for what Central Government wanted so they had basically no choice but to approve.
One was a similar situation to you, but the people objecting were living in 1990s Barratts houses objecting to new-builds going up in the fields in front of them. They failed to see the irony of their complaints.
I completely understand that people will complain about new things being built near them. However, we had some genuine reasons for objecting that weren't simply based on us being a bit NIMBY. We based our objection on these factual points.
MrJuice said:
I'd estimate each of the decision makers had a nice bonus drip in their lap before the permission was granted.
Property is a filthy business
Indeed. We have a house built in our street outside of the village envelope. We often wonder just how large an envelope was given to a planner.... Property is a filthy business
blueg33 said:
Rude-boy said:
Hooli said:
funkyrobot said:
Incidentally, there is a very large tree that is growing out of the ditch at the end of our garden. Our boundary stops at the top edge of the ditch and the tree is rooted in the slope from there down. This tree currently provides us with a lot of privacy and the plans for the build include keeping it there. It would be nice if it stayed. However, we'll see what happens.
Get a Tree Preservation Order on it now.We had a row of trees behind our old house which were meant to stay when the old college site was used for housing. Yet one saturday morning they all got chopped down. about ten two hundred year old trees, gone for no reason.
You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
funkyrobot said:
Why do they let you make comments then if all they will do is ignore them?
They are taken into account. However, your wishes are not the only thing taken into account.
The only way you can assure that your neighbours don't do something you don't want them to do is to buy the land for yourself.
blueg33 said:
Too late for a TPO is planning has been granted.
You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
I realise that planning has been granted but if the tree has been retained in the planning (as is seem to recall has been mentioned?)then surely there is no reason why a TPO can not now be issued? You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
It's far more your day to day bag than mine but I can obviously see it is too late for a tree that would be in the middle of a plot, and which is not part of the planting scheme, but on the edge of the site and when it has already been marked for retention?
And yes, I know that you guys have your little bag of answer to questions you have had to deal with 1001 times (like the newts and I am sure you will start finding more and more sites with JKW problems as well now it is in the public conscious)
Hooli said:
I agree. That's how 'our' trees vanished. Several people applied for TPOs on them & within days they got cut down. So you need the TPO before they start work on the site at least.
Its highly likely that the planning would over rule the TPO as the consent is so recent. The application would have considered impact on trees.People don't apply for a TPO they can notify the Council that the ythink a tree is at risk. If the Coucil agree they issue an emergency TPO which is formalised at a later date. One the emergency TPO is issued its a criminal offence to tamper with the trees.
Fruit trees are exempt from TPO rules
Colonial said:
funkyrobot said:
Why do they let you make comments then if all they will do is ignore them?
They are taken into account. However, your wishes are not the only thing taken into account.
The only way you can assure that your neighbours don't do something you don't want them to do is to buy the land for yourself.
Until the balance of demand and supply of houses is met then the issue of planning and what's allowed and where will almost certainly never go away. The broad brush of planning and the Nation planning policy framework can only really be looked at from the outside as a 'general guide' I suspect.
Each site is of course is different and may have specific issues, but it comes down in the end to supply and demand.
I hope this new development doesn't do as much harm as you might think OP.
Just remind yourself that when ever the Queen is at Windsor, she can see and hear the M4, and she is also under the flight path on occasions, so none of us can escape !
Each site is of course is different and may have specific issues, but it comes down in the end to supply and demand.
I hope this new development doesn't do as much harm as you might think OP.
Just remind yourself that when ever the Queen is at Windsor, she can see and hear the M4, and she is also under the flight path on occasions, so none of us can escape !
funkyrobot said:
dtmpower said:
funkyrobot said:
department has seen the opening of loads of European mini markets and gambling shops in the local town, whilst other types of shop have closed.
What's this got to do with housing ?funkyrobot said:
SpeckledJim said:
funkyrobot said:
dtmpower said:
funkyrobot said:
department has seen the opening of loads of European mini markets and gambling shops in the local town, whilst other types of shop have closed.
What's this got to do with housing ?Bet you don't object to your own house though. Nobody ever lobbies against their own house.
New houses are always a looming total disaster, but the house someone already lives in is never a problem at all.
Weird.
Also, our house wasn't built because too many people now reside here.
And I imagine back in the 1930's, everyone in the nice Victorian villas were very upset at the idea of your spondooly house being built. Good job they weren't listened to, otherwise you'd be very cold of an evening in your bivouac.
The houses NEED building, and nobody anywhere wants them in the field at the bottom of the garden. But hey, it's only a view/house/field. Compared to the incremental utility of people having somewhere to actually live, the complaints are as to nothing.
Your house was built to give someone somewhere to live. What's different today?
Dedicated topic in its self but I really get annoyed at TPO's and the lack of respect shown them by builders and the toothless enforcement when they disappear.
We had a protected old Yew near us that was hundreds of years old many moons ago that was in the way of a builders access for a large development, he just chopped it down over a weekend and denied all knowledge. If it was up to me I'd make the fine a very large percentage of the development costs. Money and profit are the only thing that will make them stop and think tbh.
We had a protected old Yew near us that was hundreds of years old many moons ago that was in the way of a builders access for a large development, he just chopped it down over a weekend and denied all knowledge. If it was up to me I'd make the fine a very large percentage of the development costs. Money and profit are the only thing that will make them stop and think tbh.
Rude-boy said:
blueg33 said:
Too late for a TPO is planning has been granted.
You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
I realise that planning has been granted but if the tree has been retained in the planning (as is seem to recall has been mentioned?)then surely there is no reason why a TPO can not now be issued? You have to understand that the developer will know how to tackle all of these "quasi" issues. We do it day in day out.
It's far more your day to day bag than mine but I can obviously see it is too late for a tree that would be in the middle of a plot, and which is not part of the planting scheme, but on the edge of the site and when it has already been marked for retention?
And yes, I know that you guys have your little bag of answer to questions you have had to deal with 1001 times (like the newts and I am sure you will start finding more and more sites with JKW problems as well now it is in the public conscious)
The bif thing that stops developments at the moment is Asset of Community Value (ACV), we have just got past one, but there is virtually no case law, badly drafted statute and QC's with opposed opinions.
Its the developers job to sort site issues, that why we have the answers available. Most developers donlt bother with sites that will be too much of a headache. Development 101 - never go for a site that you know will go to a planning appeal.
funkyrobot said:
northwest monkey said:
Because people will make all sorts of comments - some relevant & some not.
If you get the chance, have a look on I-player for a BBC programme called "The Planners". It's a really interesting series & looks at the decision making process from start to finish on both sides.
There were a couple of applications on that programme which nobody wanted (including the planning committee), but they fulfilled all the requirements for what Central Government wanted so they had basically no choice but to approve.
One was a similar situation to you, but the people objecting were living in 1990s Barratts houses objecting to new-builds going up in the fields in front of them. They failed to see the irony of their complaints.
Ok, thanks. I'll take a look.If you get the chance, have a look on I-player for a BBC programme called "The Planners". It's a really interesting series & looks at the decision making process from start to finish on both sides.
There were a couple of applications on that programme which nobody wanted (including the planning committee), but they fulfilled all the requirements for what Central Government wanted so they had basically no choice but to approve.
One was a similar situation to you, but the people objecting were living in 1990s Barratts houses objecting to new-builds going up in the fields in front of them. They failed to see the irony of their complaints.
I completely understand that people will complain about new things being built near them. However, we had some genuine reasons for objecting that weren't simply based on us being a bit NIMBY. We based our objection on these factual points.
You're only upset about the one in your back yard?
Nobody gets worked-up about Not In Someone Else's Back Yard
funkyrobot said:
Why do they let you make comments then if all they will do is ignore them?
They don't ignore them - they are taken into consideration and upheld or rejected based on their merit.Just because you make a complaint - doesn't mean it has to be upheld. Sometimes people will complain just because they can.
We had neighbors complain when we applied for planning permission. Some of the complaints were upheld and we were asked to amend the plans. Others were rejected as the planners could clearly see they were without merit and the neighbors were just being bloody minded.
We had one neighbor who complained about the roof design we were proposing not being in keeping with the village (gable ends and slate). Only 3 years previous they had extended their house and put a new roof on with........yep you have guessed it - gable ends and slate. The planners reply to this particular comment was rather terse to say the least.
Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 20th March 13:47
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff