Developers knocking down next door...

[geeks]

Am I the only one who looked at the pic and thought "How are they going to fit four properties there?"

[DoubleSix]

You can't see the plot from that pic, it runs way off to the left...

[blueg33]

Muncher said:

blueg33 said:

Incorrectly tarred. Not all developers are alike. Equus has a point, some NIMBY objections are so wide of the mark that they get ignored, if they are taken on board with a refusal then very often an appeal will grant the consent.

I have a policy - never make an application where you think you will get a refusal for any reason. Its a waste of time and resource

What about if you are taking an incremental approach and you get a refusal on one scheme and are going to appeal it, so you may as well stick in an application for the full blown scheme (which will get refused) and get them both determined at the same time at appeal?

I have never needed to use that approach. If I have a local refusal, I submit an appeal and re-submit my application to the local authority, maybe with a tweek or maybe not

[geeks]

DoubleSix said:

You can't see the plot from that pic, it runs way off to the left...

Ah fair one.

[98elise]

Equus said:

DoubleSix said:

I've got three days before objections can no longer be lodged. At which point my leverage deminishes considerably I guess...

Don't fret yourself: public objections very seldom have any influence at all on the outcome of a Planning application.

I had to move my planned extension an additional 1m (total of 2m) from the boundary because my neighbour objected. His house is about 4m from the same boundary and the only window that faces my house is a hallway.

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

I have a policy - never make an application where you think you will get a refusal for any reason. Its a waste of time and resource

Absolutely. And during my career working for major developers, I NEVER failed to gain Planning Approval for a site at the end of the day (although some were a long, hard slog).

It's only now that I'm running my own practice and taking on a lot of work for 'amateurs' and self-builders that I'm getting the odd refusal - because despite best advice, there are those clients who insist that they want to 'have a go' anyway. It's their money...

Having said that, the OP's site looks like the sort of project that's being promoted by a smaller builder, so it's entirely possible that the application is flawed. But if it's something as basic as parking provision, even the most incompetent Planner will pick it up.

Loss of daylight is unlikely to help you, if they know what they're doing: if you follow the standard methodology that Planners usually use (BRE: Site Planning for Daylight and Sunlight) through to its more complicated, calculated conclusion instead of just the initial-rule-of-thumb, pretty much anything short of the Black Hole of Calcutta will come out as compliant.

Ditto traffic generation: I've had NIMBY's in the Forest of Dean who think that waiting more than 30 seconds at a junction is an unbearable infringement on their human rights. Oh, how we laughed!

[DoubleSix]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

I have a policy - never make an application where you think you will get a refusal for any reason. Its a waste of time and resource

Absolutely. And during my career working for major developers, I NEVER failed to gain Planning Approval for a site at the end of the day (although some were a long, hard slog).

It's only now that I'm running my own practice and taking on a lot of work for 'amateurs' and self-builders that I'm getting the odd refusal - because despite best advice, there are those clients who insist that they want to 'have a go' anyway. It's their money...

Having said that, the OP's site looks like the sort of project that's being promoted by a smaller builder, so it's entirely possible that the application is flawed. But if it's something as basic as parking provision, even the most incompetent Planner will pick it up.

Loss of daylight is unlikely to help you, if they know what they're doing: if you follow the standard methodology that Planners usually use (BRE: Site Planning for Daylight and Sunlight) through to its more complicated, calculated conclusion instead of just the initial-rule-of-thumb, pretty much anything short of the Black Hole of Calcutta will come out as compliant.

Ditto traffic generation: I've had NIMBY's in the Forest of Dean who think that waiting more than 30 seconds at a junction is an unbearable infringement on their human rights. Oh, how we laughed!

Thanks for the input.

They're a professional outfit with numerous developments across the City. Plans include the shadow projections from around the clock etc.

Hence I reckon the parking issue is calculated and not an oversight. Apparently, 18 of my neighbors are objecting, they keep asking me to join them!

Tbh I don't want to get on bad terms with the developer without good reason so if there's nothing to be gained I shall not object.

Does my proximity give me any extra consideration or am I just one more name on a list?

[Equus]

DoubleSix said:

Hence I reckon the parking issue is calculated and not an oversight....

Does my proximity give me any extra consideration or am I just one more name on a list?

As I said, look at their DAS/Planning statement (which will be available online, on the Council's website for the application): it should explain quite clearly the rationale behind their parking provision.

If the objection specifically relates to your property (eg. loss of light or privacy) and is a material Planning matter, then yes, it gives you extra consideration. And conversely, if you don't object, a poor Planning Officer might assume that you don't mind and give less weight to the issue as a result. That's why there are specific neighbour notifications of Planning applications, as well as the more general ones.

[SonicHedgeHog]

Equis, where are you based?

[Equus]

SonicHedgeHog said:

Equis, where are you based?

These days, East Anglia, Lincolnshire and Devon, but we cover the whole of England, where the project justifies it.