Informal Planning Advice prior to Complaint?

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Pheo said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

It was said slightly in sarcasm, as I can't fathom any other way that someone looks at that abomination and thinks 'yeah, that's fine'

Because determination is based on planning law, not whether it looks bad or not...

Part of planning law, and decisions made, is the issue of over bearing.

[blueg33]

This is the problem with retrospective applications, the planners are wary of forcing people to remove things, so the tests are less stringently applied - in my view this is wrong.

Op did the Officer recommend this for approval? Did it go to Committee? Did the Committee visit the site? Did you present at the Committee Meeting? Did your neighbours present at the Committee Meeting?

[youngsyr]

blueg33 said:

This is the problem with retrospective applications, the planners are wary of forcing people to remove things, so the tests are less stringently applied - in my view this is wrong.

Op did the Officer recommend this for approval? Did it go to Committee? Did the Committee visit the site? Did you present at the Committee Meeting? Did your neighbours present at the Committee Meeting?

Wasn't recommended to Committee, was simply approved at the planning officer level, as far as I'm aware.

[blueg33]

youngsyr said:

Wasn't recommended to Committee, was simply approved at the planning officer level, as far as I'm aware.

How many objections were there? Some authorities will go to committee if their are at least x objections.

I would be looking at proceedure. I would have also lobbies my councillor to demand it goes to committee

[youngsyr]

blueg33 said:

youngsyr said:

Wasn't recommended to Committee, was simply approved at the planning officer level, as far as I'm aware.

How many objections were there? Some authorities will go to committee if their are at least x objections.

I would be looking at proceedure. I would have also lobbies my councillor to demand it goes to committee

There were 3 objections.

From what I understand, from here on in it's in the legal realm and would require solicitors to have even a chance of success.

Not sure I want to take that gamble to be honest.

[Swervin_Mervin]

There are some (some would say sad b*stards with nothing better to do) people that spend much of their time applying for JR of applications up and down the country. Or at least their used to be - not sure how they funded it. You could do with one of them right now I think.

[youngsyr]

In my disappointment with the result, I missed something important in the approval letter:

Permission has been granted for the platform with a 1.8m obscured glass partition.

BUT, the application was for a 1.5m obscured glass partition and it is this that we objected against.

I'm really struggling to understand the decision notice - nowhere in any of the application is a partition of 1.8m mentioned, on all the drawings, notices, summaries, etc it has always been 1.5m that was being applied for.

We objected to this on the basis that people over 5 ft (1.5m) could see over it, back into our lounge.

Now the decision notice has come through, referencing the application being approved, but stating the partition must be 1.8m.

Where does this leave me - I haven't had a chance to object to (or even be notified of) a 1.8m high barrier?!

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 27th November 19:14

[blueg33]

Swervin_Mervin said:

There are some (some would say sad b*stards with nothing better to do) people that spend much of their time applying for JR of applications up and down the country. Or at least their used to be - not sure how they funded it. You could do with one of them right now I think.

We beat those sad b'stards every time

[blueg33]

youngsyr said:

In my disappointment with the result, I missed something important in the approval letter:

Permission has been granted for the platform with a 1.8m obscured glass partition.

BUT, the application was for a 1.5m obscured glass partition and it is this that we objected against.

I'm really struggling to understand the decision notice - nowhere in any of the application is a partition of 1.8m mentioned, on all the drawings, notices, summaries, etc it has always been 1.5m that was being applied for.

We objected to this on the basis that people over 5 ft (1.5m) could see over it, back into our lounge.

Now the decision notice has come through, referencing the application being approved, but stating the partition must be 1.8m.

Where does this leave me - I haven't had a chance to object to (or even be notified of) a 1.8m high barrier?!

Edited by youngsyr on Tuesday 27th November 19:14

They made a last minute change to overcome your objection.

Did you object on any other grounds? Eg overbearing?

[Swervin_Mervin]

blueg33 said:

Swervin_Mervin said:

There are some (some would say sad b*stards with nothing better to do) people that spend much of their time applying for JR of applications up and down the country. Or at least their used to be - not sure how they funded it. You could do with one of them right now I think.

We beat those sad b'stards every time

Just mentioning in case it might be useful to the OP. Might frustrate matters a little if nothing else. Buggered if i can remember the names that used to get up to it though

[youngsyr]

blueg33 said:

They made a last minute change to overcome your objection.

Did you object on any other grounds? Eg overbearing?

Thanks for the reply, sorry if my tone is a bit short; this is really frustrating.


Yes, we did object on over bearing, but it main ficus was on inter visibility as this was the main issue with the application as submitted.

I don't understand how they can just change the application without telling anyone? I thought they were obligated to notify affected parties of the details of the application - isn't that the whole point of the exercise?

How can a neighbour object to an application that they know nothing about?

[Blib]

David Seaman reckons Sol's a really nice chap. He just said so on the wireless.

[anonymous-user]

Given the design it seems a strange decision but it's probably best to move on with your life now - don't let it consume you.

The next thing will be that they never actually complete the work and install the proper specification balustrade.

On the positive the precedent is set for you to get something similar.

[blueg33]

youngsyr said:

blueg33 said:

They made a last minute change to overcome your objection.

Did you object on any other grounds? Eg overbearing?

Thanks for the reply, sorry if my tone is a bit short; this is really frustrating.


Yes, we did object on over bearing, but it main ficus was on inter visibility as this was the main issue with the application as submitted.

I don't understand how they can just change the application without telling anyone? I thought they were obligated to notify affected parties of the details of the application - isn't that the whole point of the exercise?

How can a neighbour object to an application that they know nothing about?

A minor change (subjective I know) is often made to overcome objections.

The whole thing is annoying, but like Desolate, I think that you need to move on, its really too small to think about legal challenge and Judicial Review, and even if you did go this route, it basically looks at procedure and if procedure has been ignored would the outcome have been different.

[youngsyr]

blueg33 said:

youngsyr said:

blueg33 said:

They made a last minute change to overcome your objection.

Did you object on any other grounds? Eg overbearing?

Thanks for the reply, sorry if my tone is a bit short; this is really frustrating.


Yes, we did object on over bearing, but it main ficus was on inter visibility as this was the main issue with the application as submitted.

I don't understand how they can just change the application without telling anyone? I thought they were obligated to notify affected parties of the details of the application - isn't that the whole point of the exercise?

How can a neighbour object to an application that they know nothing about?

A minor change (subjective I know) is often made to overcome objections.

The whole thing is annoying, but like Desolate, I think that you need to move on, its really too small to think about legal challenge and Judicial Review, and even if you did go this route, it basically looks at procedure and if procedure has been ignored would the outcome have been different.

Thanks for the advice, as frustrating as it is, I think you're right in that we're just going to have to suck it up and try to look on the bright side.

I guess at least when we eventually decide to sell up, getting a whopping great extension with raised deck through planning as a potential add on for the new buyer should be easy enough.

The only remaining angle is that the planning approval has a condition that the partition must be in place by one month from the approval date. This means that the owners have until 23 December to order and install a 6ft high glass partition along 4 metres of the platform.

My experience of ordering and installing glass balustrades says they haven't got a hope in hell of meeting that deadline, but as it seems with everything else with this process, I bet their failure to meet that condition is ultimately meaningless and they can end up putting it up whenever they like.

[ThorB]

Out of curiosity, have the other issues with your neighbours been resolved? How's the atmosphere on the driveway these days?

[youngsyr]

ThorB said:

Out of curiosity, have the other issues with your neighbours been resolved? How's the atmosphere on the driveway these days?

Atmosphere is frosty to say the least, but thankfully they are out most of the time.

The other issues remain unresolved, but it seems that the neighbours are attempting to push a sale through without acknowledging them, complicit with the estate agent (that's another long story).

[FiF]

It all depends on the council. Guy built extension, garage and boundary wall without any planning approval, not even an application. He was forced under threat of having to tear it down to apply for retrospective planning approval. With reluctance approval was granted for the extension and the garage, but not the wall. He didn't remove it, later received a tear it down order, which he appealed. The result of the appeal by the inspector was to deny it and confirm the "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall" demand. 5 years later it's still there. On the other hand all the neighbouring dogs, including ours, use it for a literal pissing contest, and we know it winds the owners up so ain't all bad.

What's the betting they don't build the screen.

[youngsyr]

FiF said:

It all depends on the council. Guy built extension, garage and boundary wall without any planning approval, not even an application. He was forced under threat of having to tear it down to apply for retrospective planning approval. With reluctance approval was granted for the extension and the garage, but not the wall. He didn't remove it, later received a tear it down order, which he appealed. The result of the appeal by the inspector was to deny it and confirm the "Mr Gorbachev, tear down that wall" demand. 5 years later it's still there. On the other hand all the neighbouring dogs, including ours, use it for a literal pissing contest, and we know it winds the owners up so ain't all bad.

What's the betting they don't build the screen.

Well. I guess that's where we do have at least some leverage, as the neighbours are trying to sell up to take their profit, so I'd hope not having the partition would be a block to their sale.

I'm willing to bet they don't have it up by 23 December though and so technically breach their approval and that ultimately nothing comes of it.

Seems that I'm the only one who plays by the rules and yet I'm the one who gets the shty end of the stick.

[Lazermilk]

Sorry to hear they got away with it, I didn't think they would!

Does this mean they now have to declare a dispute with their neighbour when selling also?