Retrospective planning question

[CSLchappie]

I need some advice concerning a planning application, we bought a new build house last December, there was a strip of land to the side of us that had planning permission for a one house (self build) it would sit parallel to ours but quite a way back from it and would thus be obscured significantly by our detached double garage at the rear of our house. We reviewed the approved site plan and council reviews prior to purchase and were confident that we wouldn’t be negatively affected once the house was built and established.

Fast forward 8 months, they are almost up to roof level but something doesn’t seem right with the positioning as we now have almost zero privacy in the rear garden and ground floor living quarters that face the new house. Today we’ve received a letter from the council saying that the owner is requesting retrospective planning permission as he’s built the house at least four meters closer to our house than it should be. There is a lot of history with the planning application for this property (its in a village and next door on the other side is a grade 2 listed building) Its his first build and he chose to manage the build himself and not engage his architect, but there have been numerous objections relating to modifications he’s wanted to make after receiving permission on the main design, some of the objecting comments imply that he’s purposely re-located the property to allow for an additional extension that he failed to acquire permission for earlier this year.

We’re pretty pissed off now, I would expect that once complete the new house will negatively affect the value of ours due to the sheer lack of privacy in the back garden / kitchen / lounge from it’s first floor windows.

I’m gathering all the information I can at the moment but was wondering if anyone had any advice on how to proceed if we decide to formally object?

[Equus]

Stick to 'material considerations'.

Many people don't realise that there are some factors that Planning is legally capable of considering, and some that - no matter how hard you stamp your foot - it is not.

Privacy/overlooking is a valid 'material' objection, for example. Negative effect on your property value is not, so no point even mentioning it. Concentrate on damage to your 'amenity' and enjoyment of use of your property.

Consider engaging a suitable technical Planning consultancy (most are more legally/procedurally focused); you may need to argue overshadowing/loss of sunlight, which may need to be demonstrated by means of proper analyses in line with BRE guidance. They may seem an expensive luxury, but they know the rules, how best to frame your objection, and how not to make a fool of yourself by objecting about things that are irrelevant.

...But bear in mind that you're going to be fighting an uphill battle as, whether they're prepared to admit it or not, LPA's don't like refusing this sort of application: the ultimate decision to enforce demolition would need to come from the Planning Committee, and politicians don't like to be seen forcing people to knock their houses down - it's very bad for election results.

I seem to be saying this an awful lot, just lately, but PM me if you're serious - my company deals with these sorts of issues as our living, and we've got both technical and planning consultancy capability.

[blueg33]

The post above is spot on.

[CoolHands]

Don't want to put a downer on you but if the football club behind us is anything to go by you've had it. They deliberately built the stands higher than the plans, and floodlights much higher than the plans. Both pretty major deviations i think you would agree. Long & short of it is they got it approved eventually after the fact. There was also an endless series of revisions to various plans in the end you could couldn't keep up. Eg changed to the planned paths, planting, extra stands, parking, etc etc it's stupid.

[anonymous-user]

CoolHands said:

There was also an endless series of revisions to various plans in the end you could couldn't keep up. Eg changed to the planned paths, planting, extra stands, parking, etc etc it's stupid

I think it's called 'playing the game' due to relentless nibmyism throughout many planning applications.

I'm with the OP though the job/errors should have been spotted right at the start, someone in the council needs their arse kicking for not doing checks.
The neighbouring local authority to ours insisted a house come down if it wasn't rectified because the neighbours complained, the issue, It was 18 inch too high

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 20th August 02:54

[CSLchappie]

Thanks for the advice, we're going to speak to the other neighbours over the weekend as all have objected at every step of the way against this development.

One final question, it transpires that the move was caused because the owner used out of date and unapproved plans when performing the groundworks, the council were notified of this in early May yet work continued on the build for at least two months after this and its taken the council over three months to inform the local residents of the issue. Can this be used in my argument in anyway as it seems that the progress he made on the build after the error was identified will only strengthen his argument for retrospective planning due to the financial impact it will have on him.

[Equus]

CSLchappie said:

...we're going to speak to the other neighbours over the weekend as all have objected at every step of the way against this development.

One further bit of advice based on this comment: don't try to resurrect dead objections. The development was permitted (albeit not in the form that it has been built), so trying to argue the basic principles all over again is again irrelevant and won't do you any good.

Stick to the material issues that have been caused or worsened by the deviation from the approved plans.

In this respect, if the deviations only affect you, a petition signed by 200 of your neighbours and closest friends isn't going to help you at all.

CSLchappie said:

...
...the council were notified of this in early May yet work continued on the build for at least two months after this and its taken the council over three months to inform the local residents of the issue. Can this be used in my argument in anyway as it seems that the progress he made on the build after the error was identified will only strengthen his argument for retrospective planning due to the financial impact it will have on him.

It's worth mentioning, perhaps (provide documentation to prove your assertion if you can), but ultimately it shouldn't make any difference.

In theory, they should determine the application as if it hadn't been built, with no bias either against the applicant (for deviating from plans) or in favour of them (to avoid imposing the financial penalty of demolition).

In practice, as I said, there will be a heavy bias toward allowing the development to remain as it stands, and a measured, non-antagonistic argument that there have been failings on the Councils part not to respond earlier might help tip sympathy slightly further in your direction - but it's not a material consideration and hence shouldn't, technically, affect the outcome.

[CSLchappie]

Thanks for guidance, its helped shape my response to the application to be solely factual and objective. Talking to the neighbours has been very beneficial and an eye opener, there is a smoking gun relating to a second planning application that would rely in part in the re-location of the property to provide better access. Planning department have been helpful so far in answering questions and providing technical guidance to support my points, I know it'll be an uphill battle but I'm going to put forward a damn good argument regardless of the chances of success.

[anonymous-user]

Just out of interest from your 1st post

CSLchappie said:

Today we’ve received a letter from the council saying that the owner is requesting retrospective planning permission as he’s built the house at least four meters closer to our house than it should be.

We’re pretty pissed off now, I would expect that once complete
the new house will negatively affect the value of ours due to the sheer lack of privacy in the back garden / kitchen / lounge from it’s first floor windows.

It probabably isn't an option but hypothetically how much of a sweetener would you want to make you not want to object or would you prefer the house came down at whatever cost due to the overlooking?

[V8RX7]

speedyguy said:

the job/errors should have been spotted right at the start

someone in the council needs their arse kicking for not doing checks.

It is NOT the Council's responsibility to check.

They will ONLY get involved if someone complains.

[anonymous-user]

V8RX7 said:

speedyguy said:

the job/errors should have been spotted right at the start

someone in the council needs their arse kicking for not doing checks.

It is NOT the Council's responsibility to check.

They will ONLY get involved if someone complains.

OK then that's a free for all.
It's a shame then when councils enforce against people when "due process" hasn't been followed and no complaints have been made and many people are in favour, yet here the "process" hasn't been followed.
It will be interesting if OP wants house demolished.

[CSLchappie]

Not an option I was thinking of, the more we uncover the more i'm convinced it was a cynical and deliberate tactic considering the implications for the second planning application. We live in a conservation area with a grade 2 listed next door but one (also massively affected) I now have a three story modernist box featuring a substantial number of large non-obscured floor to ceiling windows on the ground and first floor less than 17 meters away from my kitchen & dining rooms with almost no privacy to the rear garden, lounge is also significantly overlooked. And they've managed to remove one of the original conditions of planting trees along the boundary to maintain privacy....

speedyguy said:

It probabably isn't an option but hypothetically how much of a sweetener would you want to make you not want to object or would you prefer the house came down at whatever cost due to the overlooking?

[dav123a]

So what sort of outcome do you want ? Fence and trees or the house demolished ?

[CSLchappie]

I don't want to be in this situation is probably the best way to describe my feelings on the subject. I see three possible outcomes, none of which will satisfy all parties to a reasonable degree.

Probably best if I wait until the process has moved onto the next stage before commenting anymore.

dav123a said:

So what sort of outcome do you want ? Fence and trees or the house demolished ?

[Jonesy23]

One thing that would be interesting to know is how tight (or otherwise) the finances of the developer are, also is this a development for sale or for them to live in themselves.

I know how I would want to deal with this situation and satisfying the other party would have zero bearing on it.