Appealing planning consent
Discussion
Sorry if its in the wrong area.
Planning went in at our neighbours to demolish part of their building and replace it with a similar building only taller (30cm) and wider, widening it would also change the pitch. Now, the only part that effects us is the taller part, the side of the building and our house create a walkway/alley/courtyard area. We contested the planning, stating it would starve out property of light and make the walkway feel very overpowered buy the taller wall. The walk way is about 1.5meters wide.
Planning got consent recently, I've spoken to the planning officer and they said they didn't think it was intruding too much onto our house.
Anyway, once its been granted, can we appeal? I've been told the only way to stop it now is a high court order. Surly there is an other way?
Planning went in at our neighbours to demolish part of their building and replace it with a similar building only taller (30cm) and wider, widening it would also change the pitch. Now, the only part that effects us is the taller part, the side of the building and our house create a walkway/alley/courtyard area. We contested the planning, stating it would starve out property of light and make the walkway feel very overpowered buy the taller wall. The walk way is about 1.5meters wide.
Planning got consent recently, I've spoken to the planning officer and they said they didn't think it was intruding too much onto our house.
Anyway, once its been granted, can we appeal? I've been told the only way to stop it now is a high court order. Surly there is an other way?
Piersman2 said:
Doubt it. There are only certain viable reasons for objecting to planning applications.
You've said it would effect your light, which is a valid concern, the planning officer has decided it's within guidelines.
Sound like a case of 'tough' to me.
Yes, I agree. Its the other half who is wanting to contest. You've said it would effect your light, which is a valid concern, the planning officer has decided it's within guidelines.
Sound like a case of 'tough' to me.
I've been told it was reviewed and not seen enough to cause them to deny planning.
illmonkey said:
Yes, I agree. Its the other half who is wanting to contest.
I've been told it was reviewed and not seen enough to cause them to deny planning.
Indeed. Planning officers work to guidelines and will only consider valid objections. I've been told it was reviewed and not seen enough to cause them to deny planning.
If the objections don't highlight anything contrary to the guidelines then they really don't have grounds to reject the application.
When I applied for planning for my place someone at the end of my garden sent in an objection, something along the lines of they didn't want me cutting down the trees in the garden which separated our gardens?
Both the planning officer and myself were confused by that one and she just said it wasn't either valid grounds or anything to do with them so it just get put in the records and ignored.
Edited by Piersman2 on Friday 1st April 14:38
Rights of Light are a Damages case and are NOT impacted by planning. The granting of a consent does not mean that the planning officer has considered that rights of light in their assessment of the development. It is important to remember that a 'Rights of Light' claim only applies to a framed view i.e. a window or opening in the building structure, it does not apply to land you own but which is undeveloped, i.e. a garden or pathway.
I hope that helps.
I hope that helps.
TimCrighton said:
Rights of Light are a Damages case and are NOT impacted by planning. The granting of a consent does not mean that the planning officer has considered that rights of light in their assessment of the development. It is important to remember that a 'Rights of Light' claim only applies to a framed view i.e. a window or opening in the building structure, it does not apply to land you own but which is undeveloped, i.e. a garden or pathway.
I hope that helps.
I should have explained a bit more. I hope that helps.
All of my windows (both floors) are on the top, right and bottom sides of the building. There are 3 big windows on the right wall to allow light to flow into the building. Raising their building hight will defiantly stop the amount of light coming INTO the house.
Can you draw a side profile? Impact on light would be better presented that way. I guess if the roof is taller, but the ridge is also further away, the pitch may be the same.
That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
Can you draw a side profile? Impact on light would be better presented that way. I guess if the roof is taller, but the ridge is also further away, the pitch may be the same.
That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
You're right. The light is the only factor they'll consider. The fact the wall is a fair bit higher will make it seem overpowered, but in reality wont stop much light.That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
I think you'll find this is to scale. Red is the proposed, you're looking at the rear of both hoses, they both face north and gardens face south. All light in the evenings will fade away alot quicker, and we hardly get light in the mornings as there are no windows on the sunrise side.
I think the light issue is worked out via an angle and distance. But I don't know what they are measured against.
Made up regulations:
From the bottom of the window an angle no greater than 60deg, unless more than 10 meters away.
That kind of idea. As the pitch of the roof is shallower it's probably only the height of the wall that would be "in line". E.g. if you can't see the roof from your window, it doesn't matter how high it is.
I'd think what you really need is a set of the local planning regulation things, or a chat with the planners, to have them advise you on the associated part. Without knowing what the "rules" say. All else is guesswork.
Made up regulations:
From the bottom of the window an angle no greater than 60deg, unless more than 10 meters away.
That kind of idea. As the pitch of the roof is shallower it's probably only the height of the wall that would be "in line". E.g. if you can't see the roof from your window, it doesn't matter how high it is.
I'd think what you really need is a set of the local planning regulation things, or a chat with the planners, to have them advise you on the associated part. Without knowing what the "rules" say. All else is guesswork.
illmonkey said:
Anyway, once its been granted, can we appeal?
In short, no. Theres a process called 'Judicial Review', whereby the process of determination can be called into question (ie. if the Council failed to follow the correct legal and procedural processes in dealing with the decision), which can ultimately lead to the decision being invalidated and the application re-assessed (but not a straight overturning of the decision whereby an approval is turned into a refusal).
But Judicial Review is about examining how the decision was reached, rather than questioning the decision itself, if that makes sense?
ETA: in terms of daylighting, the benchmark is a methodology set out in a Building Research Establishment document called 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice', and trust me, you'd be pissing into the wind trying to fight the decision on that basis: the proposed development would need result in a massive and completely over-bearing reduction in the amount of sun reaching your house before it would be deemed to have an unacceptable impact. Raising the ridge line of an existing building by a couple of feet or so isn't going to come close.
Edited by Sam_68 on Friday 1st April 17:19
Getting the PP stopped isn't going to happen.
Taking them to court on the grounds that they will be diminishing the amount of light and air your Property receives, assuming your rights in such matters have not been removed, is going to be a hard call. You have to prove a substantial reduction, not just that you will get 30-45 minutes less sunlight at certain times of the year.
Looking at this the first thought I had is whose land are they building on? I assume theirs otherwise you would have mentioned this. Okay so This passageway, do you have a right over way over it? If so will that be obstructed if they extend? Is there an 'in' there?
Ultimately though I suspect that unless you wish to spend £1,000's and make yourself as popular as a turd on the Queen's carpet you're stuffed (legal term).
Taking them to court on the grounds that they will be diminishing the amount of light and air your Property receives, assuming your rights in such matters have not been removed, is going to be a hard call. You have to prove a substantial reduction, not just that you will get 30-45 minutes less sunlight at certain times of the year.
Looking at this the first thought I had is whose land are they building on? I assume theirs otherwise you would have mentioned this. Okay so This passageway, do you have a right over way over it? If so will that be obstructed if they extend? Is there an 'in' there?
Ultimately though I suspect that unless you wish to spend £1,000's and make yourself as popular as a turd on the Queen's carpet you're stuffed (legal term).
The work of raising the wall will presumably be carried out using a Party Wall Etc Act notice which will allow the neighbours to go on the passage whether they own it or not.
Rights of Light will be a waste of time. I was involved in a case once where we employed an expert as his fee would be paid. Large multi storey car park, replacing another smaller multi storey, and the new one was nearer and taller and did diminish light. Surveyor who travelled from London, spent most of a day measuring this that and everything. His recommendation was £360 plus his fee and costs. My time couldn't be claimed. Other side agreed and paid up. The whole lot totalled about £1k. Complete waste of time
Rights of Light will be a waste of time. I was involved in a case once where we employed an expert as his fee would be paid. Large multi storey car park, replacing another smaller multi storey, and the new one was nearer and taller and did diminish light. Surveyor who travelled from London, spent most of a day measuring this that and everything. His recommendation was £360 plus his fee and costs. My time couldn't be claimed. Other side agreed and paid up. The whole lot totalled about £1k. Complete waste of time
MJG280 said:
The work of raising the wall will presumably be carried out using a Party Wall Etc Act notice which will allow the neighbours to go on the passage whether they own it or not.
Agreed so far as access is concerned but not so far as the building goes. Looking at the plan the OP drew it is wider than the original and so will reduce the width of the RoW, standing on part of it. There could be an obstruction there (very thin thread to hold on to though as likely on foot only anyway (if any)). But if the land which the passageway is situate upon land owned by the OP then it's game on. Except I doubt it is, otherwise it would have been game over from day one for the PP.ETA: Sorry, just looked back up and the second plan by the OP suggests that the height of the wall is the only change to the wall in question, not that it is being replaced by one closer to the OP's property which the first plan suggested. Your point stands and is valid and i shall go back to sleep
Edited by Rude-boy on Friday 1st April 17:48
Rights of light is a highly specialised area of surveying practice. There are really only a handful of proper experts in the field, and I'm not one of them.
However, I suspect they would conclude in this case that there is no real loss. To be sure you will need advice from a specialist. Thats gonna cost.
However, I suspect they would conclude in this case that there is no real loss. To be sure you will need advice from a specialist. Thats gonna cost.
Sam_68 said:
illmonkey said:
Anyway, once its been granted, can we appeal?
In short, no. Theres a process called 'Judicial Review', whereby the process of determination can be called into question (ie. if the Council failed to follow the correct legal and procedural processes in dealing with the decision), which can ultimately lead to the decision being invalidated and the application re-assessed (but not a straight overturning of the decision whereby an approval is turned into a refusal).
But Judicial Review is about examining how the decision was reached, rather than questioning the decision itself, if that makes sense?
ETA: in terms of daylighting, the benchmark is a methodology set out in a Building Research Establishment document called 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight: A guide to good practice', and trust me, you'd be pissing into the wind trying to fight the decision on that basis: the proposed development would need result in a massive and completely over-bearing reduction in the amount of sun reaching your house before it would be deemed to have an unacceptable impact. Raising the ridge line of an existing building by a couple of feet or so isn't going to come close.
illmonkey said:
Mr Whippy said:
Can you draw a side profile? Impact on light would be better presented that way. I guess if the roof is taller, but the ridge is also further away, the pitch may be the same.
That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
You're right. The light is the only factor they'll consider. The fact the wall is a fair bit higher will make it seem overpowered, but in reality wont stop much light.That will have very very little impact on light, which is probably why the planner has allowed the change.
Once it's complete you probably won't even notice, except you'll be looking out onto a nicer roof from upstairs
Dave
I think you'll find this is to scale. Red is the proposed, you're looking at the rear of both hoses, they both face north and gardens face south. All light in the evenings will fade away alot quicker, and we hardly get light in the mornings as there are no windows on the sunrise side.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff