Developers knocking down next door...

[DoubleSix]

C'est la vie.

I'm not the sort to object without good reason. However a few issues have come up.

Firstly, they have offered to turn the currently shared side access path over to me exclusively (olive branch I guess).

My question is that I have nothing other than their word on this - in reality what needs to happen to make this legal? When they've built and sold on I don't want the new owner contesting...

[Muncher]

It needs to be conveyed to you in a transfer and registered at the Land Registry.

[CoolHands]

Yeah that. Would it need a deed of variation? I would want it wrapped up legally ahead of the event.

[DoubleSix]

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

The other neighbors are up in arms but I'm trying to keep cool, got enough on my plate already.

[hyphen]

Why are they knocking it down?

Not much point getting the side access path if an ugly block of flats is going to knock a huge chunk off the house price.

[Equus]

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.

[blueg33]

Equus said:

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

Depends who writes them. We have 100 percent success record in objecting in my village. I usually coach the objectors.

[kiethton]

blueg33 said:

Depends who writes them. We have 100 percent success record in objecting in my village. I usually coach the objectors.

Poacher turned gamekeeper

[Equus]

blueg33 said:

Depends who writes them. We have 100 percent success record in objecting in my village. I usually coach the objectors.

But is that because of the objection, or because the application was flawed?

If the Planning Department is doing their job right, they should spot any valid and material reason for refusal without prompting by Joe Public.

And where a valid objection is raised that can be overcome, we simply design it out and submit a revised proposal... it takes a pretty obvious problem in policy terms to prevent large scale residential development going ahead altogether, which the Planning Officer should certainly spot themselves.

I love NIMBY's... they make my job easier: they can be wound up like clockwork mice to go scurrying off with non-material complaints and distract the Planning Authority from noticing all sorts of real (but minor) issues that we want to slip past them.

[DoubleSix]

On the whole the development does not offend my sensibilities - the developers have clearly pitched it 'well'. But I'd be happier if it weren't happening of course.

The existing site is a decrepit bungalow on a massively outsized plot in a very desirable suburb.

They want to knock it down and build 4 semi- detached dormer bungalows.

Mine is semi on the right in this pic; bungalow on the left... the proposed development will increase height to about where my upstairs lintel sits, so our rear garden will lose a little privacy and light.



I have done some reading around what grounds will and won't be taken into account regarding objections.

They have made no provisions for parking which seems odd. One might suggest a degree of overdevelopment is taking place too. Is it in keeping with other property, not sure really....


Be happy to PM a link to any more knowledgeable folk here from either side of the development/resident fence. As I say I am not a NIMBY but obviously taking a view on what's occurring next to my property.

[Mammasaid]

Equus said:

But is that because of the objection, or because the application was flawed?

If the Planning Department is doing their job right, they should spot any valid and material reason for refusal without prompting by Joe Public.

And where a valid objection is raised that can be overcome, we simply design it out and submit a revised proposal... it takes a pretty obvious problem in policy terms to prevent large scale residential development going ahead altogether, which the Planning Officer should certainly spot themselves.

I love NIMBY's... they make my job easier: they can be wound up like clockwork mice to go scurrying off with non-material complaints and distract the Planning Authority from noticing all sorts of real (but minor) issues that we want to slip past them.

And you wonder why developers have a bad reputation?

[Equus]

DoubleSix said:

They have made no provisions for parking which seems odd.

Read their Design and Access Statement or Planning Statement, as submitted with the application. It should explain why they have taken this approach, and justify it in terms of local Planning policy.

[Equus]

Mammasaid said:

And you wonder why developers have a bad reputation?

I'm not a developer.

But when you're faced with an endless supply of blinkered, bigoted Daily Mail readers, what else are you to do? The temptation is simply too great...

[blueg33]

Equus said:

blueg33 said:

Depends who writes them. We have 100 percent success record in objecting in my village. I usually coach the objectors.

But is that because of the objection, or because the application was flawed?

If the Planning Department is doing their job right, they should spot any valid and material reason for refusal without prompting by Joe Public.

And where a valid objection is raised that can be overcome, we simply design it out and submit a revised proposal... it takes a pretty obvious problem in policy terms to prevent large scale residential development going ahead altogether, which the Planning Officer should certainly spot themselves.

I love NIMBY's... they make my job easier: they can be wound up like clockwork mice to go scurrying off with non-material complaints and distract the Planning Authority from noticing all sorts of real (but minor) issues that we want to slip past them.

In both cases the PO was minded to approve when I first spoke with him. As you know, its how the info is presented that counts and in particular pointing out the factually incorrect statements made by the applicant that the officer can easily miss.

(This is Tewkesbury DC, not always the best of planning departments, but better than Stroud)

[DoubleSix]

Equus said:

DoubleSix said:

They have made no provisions for parking which seems odd.

Read their Design and Access Statement or Planning Statement, as submitted with the application. It should explain why they have taken this approach, and justify it in terms of local Planning policy.

Thanks. Yes, I did that and indeed our Council are very anti-car/pro public transport. As such they have placed much emphasis on the good local transport links etc. What has erked other residents, and myself actually, is that they have been disingenuous in stating there are no issues with parking kerbside when in fact parking is a constant bun fight.

[Mammasaid]

Equus said:

Mammasaid said:

And you wonder why developers have a bad reputation?

I'm not a developer.

But when you're faced with an endless supply of blinkered, bigoted Daily Mail readers, what else are you to do? The temptation is simply too great...

Developers, consultants, they're all tarred with the same brush...

[blueg33]

kiethton said:

blueg33 said:

Depends who writes them. We have 100 percent success record in objecting in my village. I usually coach the objectors.

Poacher turned gamekeeper

Happy to support appropriate development and I have done so. Where the development is ill conceived, badly designed or is lying about material points, then I am happy to object and to help other residents object of they wish. As a result the recent development in out village has been appropriate and has good standards of design.

I think that developers should get applications correct and appropriate as much as possible. My business makes circa 25-30 application per annum, in the last 4 years we have only had one refusal (we were royally stitched up by the politicians).

[blueg33]

Mammasaid said:

Equus said:

Mammasaid said:

And you wonder why developers have a bad reputation?

I'm not a developer.

But when you're faced with an endless supply of blinkered, bigoted Daily Mail readers, what else are you to do? The temptation is simply too great...

Developers, consultants, they're all tarred with the same brush...

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

[Swervin_Mervin]

DoubleSix said:

Equus said:

DoubleSix said:

They have made no provisions for parking which seems odd.

Read their Design and Access Statement or Planning Statement, as submitted with the application. It should explain why they have taken this approach, and justify it in terms of local Planning policy.

Thanks. Yes, I did that and indeed our Council are very anti-car/pro public transport. As such they have placed much emphasis on the good local transport links etc. What has erked other residents, and myself actually, is that they have been disingenuous in stating there are no issues with parking kerbside when in fact parking is a constant bun fight.

You need to check your local authority's parking standards - this will state a minimum provision and should allow any taking into account for accessibility by public transport, or on foot/cycle. I'll tell you one thing though - even Manchester City Council now requires some level of parking even at inner-city development sites. I've never come across an authority that would allow zero parking provision at a residential development in anything other than a City centre area.

On that basis, I'd bet good money that the local standards will require some level of parking provision. Any failure to provide should be considered a failure to meet Planning Policy.

[Muncher]

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?