Planning Permission - are planning objections listened to?
Discussion
.. Let me explain..
I live in a reasonable pleasant part of Brighton. It's quiet, away from the center and the hubbub in an area that was built in the 30s with a mix of semi and detached houses and bungalows. Now over the years these have been extended and recently a couple in my road have been given the gutting/extending into the roof(bungalow)/skimming and painting white look.
Now a few days ago my neighbour bought to my attention that the house opposite and two away (if you get what I mean) is planning an extension at the back. Theirs is a semi and it's a joint effort between both properties, though the plans have different names. Interestingly one side seems to be proposing as a Ltd company, the other shows the plans family name (a bit strange I think...)
Now this extention is horrible and I mean horrible. Take a bog standard 30's semi and and a 3 floor flat roof extension to the back (think British linrary style) and you get some idea of what is being planned.
To me, this seems like a really big change, as fundamentally it will make this house completely different to all other houses in the road - not just whitewashed and skimmed, but completely different. In effect they are looking at adding 70% plus to the house size and doing it in an utterly hideous way. Because of the geography of the area, it means that many houses will see this extention... it will stick out like a sore thumb compared to all the houses around it.
Now the fun bit. It seems my opposite neighbour, the one next to this house has put together a little campaign (hence telling me and many others) to write and objet to the planning department, who I understand are none to impressed with the plans as they are.
My question is, does anyone here have experience of planning departments and if/how they listen to objections. I, along with a fair few others think what is being proposed is bloody awful. But do our voices, as not immediate neighbours, get listened to?
I think of a fair few reasons to object but I also want to understand more what objections cary the greater weight.
Cheers.
I live in a reasonable pleasant part of Brighton. It's quiet, away from the center and the hubbub in an area that was built in the 30s with a mix of semi and detached houses and bungalows. Now over the years these have been extended and recently a couple in my road have been given the gutting/extending into the roof(bungalow)/skimming and painting white look.
Now a few days ago my neighbour bought to my attention that the house opposite and two away (if you get what I mean) is planning an extension at the back. Theirs is a semi and it's a joint effort between both properties, though the plans have different names. Interestingly one side seems to be proposing as a Ltd company, the other shows the plans family name (a bit strange I think...)
Now this extention is horrible and I mean horrible. Take a bog standard 30's semi and and a 3 floor flat roof extension to the back (think British linrary style) and you get some idea of what is being planned.
To me, this seems like a really big change, as fundamentally it will make this house completely different to all other houses in the road - not just whitewashed and skimmed, but completely different. In effect they are looking at adding 70% plus to the house size and doing it in an utterly hideous way. Because of the geography of the area, it means that many houses will see this extention... it will stick out like a sore thumb compared to all the houses around it.
Now the fun bit. It seems my opposite neighbour, the one next to this house has put together a little campaign (hence telling me and many others) to write and objet to the planning department, who I understand are none to impressed with the plans as they are.
My question is, does anyone here have experience of planning departments and if/how they listen to objections. I, along with a fair few others think what is being proposed is bloody awful. But do our voices, as not immediate neighbours, get listened to?
I think of a fair few reasons to object but I also want to understand more what objections cary the greater weight.
Cheers.
If they are 'material objections', yes, though a competent Planner Officer (Ok... I know that's a self contradictory term) will have identified all the valid material issues themself.
If they are not 'material', then no, they shouldn't have any influence whatsoever in theory (but see comment above; though if it goes to appeal, the Appeals Inspector will almost always be more careful and restrict his decision to strictly relevant and appropriate criteria).
Planning legislation only gives authorities the power to determine applications on certain criteria that actually fall within the scope of Planning control. If they refuse an application, they have to give reasons for the refusal and those reasons have to be justifiable and consistent with the relevant legislation, national and locally adopted policy.
Examples of items that are not material:
...I personally tend to spend quite a bit of time and effort winding people up at the pre-application public consultation about the stuff that's non-material, so that any reasonable, material objections are drowned out by the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the rabid NIMBY's.
If they are not 'material', then no, they shouldn't have any influence whatsoever in theory (but see comment above; though if it goes to appeal, the Appeals Inspector will almost always be more careful and restrict his decision to strictly relevant and appropriate criteria).
Planning legislation only gives authorities the power to determine applications on certain criteria that actually fall within the scope of Planning control. If they refuse an application, they have to give reasons for the refusal and those reasons have to be justifiable and consistent with the relevant legislation, national and locally adopted policy.
Examples of items that are not material:
- The development will devalue my property.
- I have had this lovely view over open countryside since I was a child, and this development will block it.
- The development includes a proportion of affordable housing, and I don't want a bunch of
scrotes living next to me. - One of the applicants is a limited company, and I think that is a bit strange.
...I personally tend to spend quite a bit of time and effort winding people up at the pre-application public consultation about the stuff that's non-material, so that any reasonable, material objections are drowned out by the wailing and gnashing of teeth from the rabid NIMBY's.
Edited by Sam_68 on Wednesday 7th September 13:00
Firstly it doesn't matter who the agent is, LTD company etc, so forget about that.
The main reasons the Planning Department will listen to "immediate neighbours" are....
1. Loss of sunlight!
Will this rear extension (depending on its orientation to the sun) block any sunlight from neighbouring gardens for any period of time during the day?
2. Loss of privacy!
Are any new windows which are shown on the drawings mean the, again "immediate neighbours" will loose their privacy ????
If I understand this correctly a 3 storey flat roofed extension - to both properties & increasing the space by about 70% won't go down to favourably with the planners anyway!.
Have you been notified by the council?
How will this rear extension affect you, over the road??? Your objection might not hold any weight as its not "really" affecting you. But the "immediate neighbours could raise concerns over points 1 & 2 above.
Find out from your local parish council when this application will be discussed at the next parish council meeting! This is when the "community" can raise their concerns as a group!
Parish Councils in my experience don't hold much clout but if they object then its another black mark against the application!
The main reasons the Planning Department will listen to "immediate neighbours" are....
1. Loss of sunlight!
Will this rear extension (depending on its orientation to the sun) block any sunlight from neighbouring gardens for any period of time during the day?
2. Loss of privacy!
Are any new windows which are shown on the drawings mean the, again "immediate neighbours" will loose their privacy ????
If I understand this correctly a 3 storey flat roofed extension - to both properties & increasing the space by about 70% won't go down to favourably with the planners anyway!.
Have you been notified by the council?
How will this rear extension affect you, over the road??? Your objection might not hold any weight as its not "really" affecting you. But the "immediate neighbours could raise concerns over points 1 & 2 above.
Find out from your local parish council when this application will be discussed at the next parish council meeting! This is when the "community" can raise their concerns as a group!
Parish Councils in my experience don't hold much clout but if they object then its another black mark against the application!
OK. Having read back the replies as the chap over the road and two houses up, other than the fact it places a potential eyesore into the neighbourhood, there are no legitimate grounds for objection.
It's the case, then fair enough.
As as aside, my neighbour who it does effect directly (their next door neighbour) is livid and has been speaking to the planning dept on a few occasions. It's all probably hearsay, but it does appear to be the case that the plan being put forward is the extreme end... i.e. that they know it's probably going to be rejected, but they will then whittle down the size etc until either the panning officer in effects gets beaten into submission.
Who knows. In some ways, it's really odd. Both sides have factionised - with the two sumbitting the plans posting a letter last night saying in effect, if I do not object I should go to the planning website and in the comments box, state that clearly.
It has become very clear how planning 'disputes' factionise neighbourhoods. I kinda sitting on the sidelines at the moment watching with interest.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. It's much appreciated.
Cheers.
It's the case, then fair enough.
As as aside, my neighbour who it does effect directly (their next door neighbour) is livid and has been speaking to the planning dept on a few occasions. It's all probably hearsay, but it does appear to be the case that the plan being put forward is the extreme end... i.e. that they know it's probably going to be rejected, but they will then whittle down the size etc until either the panning officer in effects gets beaten into submission.
Who knows. In some ways, it's really odd. Both sides have factionised - with the two sumbitting the plans posting a letter last night saying in effect, if I do not object I should go to the planning website and in the comments box, state that clearly.
It has become very clear how planning 'disputes' factionise neighbourhoods. I kinda sitting on the sidelines at the moment watching with interest.
Thank you for taking the time to reply. It's much appreciated.
Cheers.
If some scummy company which specialises in getting planning permission where it has been denied keeps trying again and again, will it eventually succeed? The developer keeps getting knocked back, on the grounds that the green field site on the edge of the village is outside the framework boundary indicated in the local plan, inside the rural buffer between the village and the nearest town and that more housing is not required in the area.
Planning permission is a joke. Behind my parents was an old block of 4 garages belonging to the mill house next to the river. Planning was applied for on numerous occasions for a house to be built, each time it was rejected. Eventually, planning was granted for a "gardeners cottage". The developer swung into action and built this "cottage" and it was eventually sold for £1.5m. His trick was to extend the drawings by up to (IIRC) 25% meaning that no detailed resubmission was required, once the extended plan was agreed, add another 25% and go around again. Eventually the 2 bed integral garage cottage turned into a 5 bed country mansion with a separate double garage.
Oh and to top it all off, the developer had to have his machinery drive over the flood bank to get to the rear since the house was built to about a meter of the bank, this made a low spot on the flood bank that let the river flood the village causing hundreds of thousand pounds in damage. His excuse, "I didn't know it was a flood bank", action taken ZIP.
Oh and to top it all off, the developer had to have his machinery drive over the flood bank to get to the rear since the house was built to about a meter of the bank, this made a low spot on the flood bank that let the river flood the village causing hundreds of thousand pounds in damage. His excuse, "I didn't know it was a flood bank", action taken ZIP.
Last year I bought half a farmhouse, well the cottage on the side. It's the way they did them in the old days if the family expanded they would just build on the gable end. The connecting door has been bricked up now and the wall is about a foot thick.
I applied and had planning granted to turn it into a 5 bedroom house and on the side is a single story room.
Now this room is about 2m not long enough and about 1.5 not wide enough to make it into a snooker room.
I applied to have the room extended and it was refused and it's going to cost me £500 to appeal.
Next door is building a huge extension that will go back about 10m+ further than mine and you can only just see the property from the road or from across the valley.
It is a farm, there are huge farm buildings and sheds all around the property and we are improving the look from an agricultural build to something a lot better looking and it has been refused for a couple of metres on the end that will sort of mirror the other side.
I applied and had planning granted to turn it into a 5 bedroom house and on the side is a single story room.
Now this room is about 2m not long enough and about 1.5 not wide enough to make it into a snooker room.
I applied to have the room extended and it was refused and it's going to cost me £500 to appeal.
Next door is building a huge extension that will go back about 10m+ further than mine and you can only just see the property from the road or from across the valley.
It is a farm, there are huge farm buildings and sheds all around the property and we are improving the look from an agricultural build to something a lot better looking and it has been refused for a couple of metres on the end that will sort of mirror the other side.
herbialfa said:
Very rarely do I see a Planning Officer beaten into submission.
UNFORTUNATELY!!!!!
I do it all the time - in fact these days, I could say that my job is more about this than the actual design of schemes, which unfortunately I am obliged to largely delegate to others. UNFORTUNATELY!!!!!
Quite often it happens in the background, though, fighting behind closed doors with arguments based on national and adopted local Planning policy and other strong-arm tactics. It's not the sort of thing that happens very often at the 'domestic extensions' end of the market, though when I've got involved with such things for friends and relatives, the shock-and-awe effect on the poor Planning Officer, who was anticipating a nice, straightforward determination process, can be quite amusing.
Of course the more visible route (which everybody - especially Planning Officers - will normally seek to avoid) is that of an appeal.
otolith said:
If some scummy company which specialises in getting planning permission where it has been denied keeps trying again and again, will it eventually succeed?
If you're bloody-minded enough (and I am ), you can back them into a corner: If an application is refused, they have to give grounds for refusal. If you appeal and the appeal is refused, you can then go back in with a fresh application that addresses the reasons previously given for refusal. Provided you are careful not to introduce any new reasons for refusal, the application is then pretty much nailed-on for success, because they're not 'allowed' to give different reasons for refusal that weren't identified on on the first application,if that makes sense... in other words, the original scheme will be deemed to have been satisfactory in all respects except those covered by the reasons for refusal.With the specific example you quote (development outside settlement boundary), they've got an uphill battle, but it's not impossible.
Sam, as always on this subject, is spot on.
So I wont repeat the stuff he has said.
Just to pick up on one other post, it is rare that loss of sunlight will be a planning consideration (it has been for me once when a 5 storey block would have shadowed a bowling green)
Rights to light is a legal issue not a planning issue and doesn't cover gardens only rooms
So I wont repeat the stuff he has said.
Just to pick up on one other post, it is rare that loss of sunlight will be a planning consideration (it has been for me once when a 5 storey block would have shadowed a bowling green)
Rights to light is a legal issue not a planning issue and doesn't cover gardens only rooms
blueg33 said:
Just to pick up on one other post, it is rare that loss of sunlight will be a planning consideration...
There's a standard methodology that Planning Officers will follow in most instances, based on a Buiding Research Establishment document, catchily titled 'Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight - A Guide to Good Practice'. The full methodology is quite complex and involves modelling the shadows caused by sun paths, but the bottom line is that you'd have to do something pretty dramatically horrible to fail to meet the requirements.
The big problem with planning is the individual interpretations of planning law by case officers. If there was consistency then we would all know where we stood. I recently won something on appeal (that should not have been refused in first place) and yet I've drawn the same case officer for another application, and some of the same 'points of refusal' are being discussed again....doh...I sense another appeal!
With regard to the OP, he would do well to raise his objections with his local Councillor, who can ask for the application to go to committee, where some of these considerations are at least discussed, rather just having the interpretation of the case officer.
With regard to the OP, he would do well to raise his objections with his local Councillor, who can ask for the application to go to committee, where some of these considerations are at least discussed, rather just having the interpretation of the case officer.
DavidY said:
The big problem with planning is the individual interpretations of planning law by case officers. If there was consistency then we would all know where we stood.
I agree totally; but that is where the appeal system comes in (if you have the knowledge and resources to take advantage of it).On the other hand, the Labour government tried to reduce everything (not just the Planning system) to a mindless tick-box system in order - as they would argue it - to introduce this sort of consistency, and it just resulted in vastly unweildy and beaurocratic systems. Unfortunately, with something as compex and subjective as the design of the built environment, you can't rule for every eventuality, so you have to rely on personal judgement to some degree.
A better system would be instead of relying (ultimately) on the report of one grossly underpaid and overworked professional and a large number of largely clueless amateurs (the Planning Committee), Planning Committees should be composed of people who actually understand both Planning Law and the design of the the built environment and therefore can take properly informed and balanced decisions. But then where would you find such people - you can hardly draw them from the ranks of Architects and Planners, if you want an equitable and unbiased system?
covmutley said:
...except that design/character can be a strong reason to refuse an application- on extensions it is one of the only issues.
I hear what you're saying and agree that it's certainly one of the most common areas where applications for extensions fall over... but I'd argue that 'only' doesn't necessarily mean 'strong'. It's fairly easy to design something that is 'in keeping', provided you take a sensible approach, so there shouldn't be too much risk of it providing a justifiable reason for refusal, and it's not something that draws a lot of support from Appeals Inspectors, if you take it all the way. As a broad and potentially unfair genrealisation ('cos there are some good people out there), lots of domestic extensions are designed by amateurs or people who are inexperienced (it's a bit of a vicious circle: the fees are crap, so it tends to be young Architectural Technologists who do it for extra beer money, and because there are young 'uns willing to do it for next to nothing, the going rate is crap), and if you pay peanuts, you shouldn't be surprised if you get a monkey. Other than for friends and relatives, I haven't touched a domestic extension for 20 years, but I don't think I've ever had a refusal on such work that I didn't turn round at appeal (or, far more usually, at the threat of appeal coupled with a re-submission).
Mind you, I did tend to put my foot down and tell potential clients at the outset not to waste their time and mine if they were asking for something that I knew wasn't going to work...
covmutley said:
I also agree with Sam, except that design/ character can be a strong reason to refuse an application- on extensions it is one of the only issues. Having said that, if the extension is at te rear the 'impact on the street scene' will usually be non existent.
There is a complication with this, in that the road I live on is a side valley and abouve us both sides on the ridges are houses. Hence, the extention hasn't the potential to be seen by one or two houses, more twenty or thirty. The opposing neighbour seems to have mobilised support for objection from houses on the ridge.With regard to the sun and light, it's not going to be a contributory factor as the house proposing the extension is north of the house objecting and it would be very unlikely if ever the sun cast shadows. The only factor that might is privacy and the fact that at the side of the extension there is planned a set of vertical 'letterbox' windows at all levels that will overlook her property.
I can really understand her being so upset. It is a huge and ugly beyond belief extension to a 30's mock tudor style semi. Think along the lines of sticking a grey 'modern' stylised box onto this kind of house and you get the idea. Whether that in itself is enough to warrant rejection, is I guess in the lap of the planning officers.
drivin_me_nuts said:
There is a complication with this, in that the road I live on is a side valley and abouve us both sides on the ridges are houses. Hence, the extention hasn't the potential to be seen by one or two houses, more twenty or thirty. The opposing neighbour seems to have mobilised support for objection from houses on the ridge.
With regard to the sun and light, it's not going to be a contributory factor as the house proposing the extension is north of the house objecting and it would be very unlikely if ever the sun cast shadows. The only factor that might is privacy and the fact that at the side of the extension there is planned a set of vertical 'letterbox' windows at all levels that will overlook her property.
I can really understand her being so upset. It is a huge and ugly beyond belief extension to a 30's mock tudor style semi. Think along the lines of sticking a grey 'modern' stylised box onto this kind of house and you get the idea. Whether that in itself is enough to warrant rejection, is I guess in the lap of the planning officers.
Sometimes a fusion of older house and modern extension works quite well......With regard to the sun and light, it's not going to be a contributory factor as the house proposing the extension is north of the house objecting and it would be very unlikely if ever the sun cast shadows. The only factor that might is privacy and the fact that at the side of the extension there is planned a set of vertical 'letterbox' windows at all levels that will overlook her property.
I can really understand her being so upset. It is a huge and ugly beyond belief extension to a 30's mock tudor style semi. Think along the lines of sticking a grey 'modern' stylised box onto this kind of house and you get the idea. Whether that in itself is enough to warrant rejection, is I guess in the lap of the planning officers.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff