Neighbour wanting a front extension, not pleased.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Equus said:

StanleyT said:

.... Don't think being the smartest, nicest, commentedest on house is the best if you're getting unsure about the standards locally, you might get caught before the time to move on to another area before it is too late?

It does certainly sound as though you might be happier in a Conservation Area, with a nice Article 4 Direction in place, where you can take pride in your 'authenticity' and twitch curtains to your hearts content.

Otherwise, you need to learn to live and let live, a bit more, perhaps?

It would be nice, but it comes at a cost, and sometimes they go far too far. EG having to have single glazed windows. It would be nice though if there were minimum standards in place so people weren't allowed to completely butcher their house. And that's not a dig at the neighbour BTW.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

StanleyT said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Equus said:

DonkeyApple said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Equus said:

desolate said:

Would having a toilet on the boundary be a relevant factor in the decision?

Nope, not even slightly.

Really, a toilet next door to our front door behind a wooden structure. Greeting a guest 'oh don't worry about the grunting and the stink, that's just the neighbour squeezing one out'

Would anyone be happy about that?

I would think that you have some kind of argument with regards to extraction as he wants it to be a kazi?

Is there any kind of case to argue that it cannot be a toilet?

No, really, honestly, I kid you not. The Planning system does not consider the proximity of a khazi to neighbouring boundary when determining applications. They just don't.

The environmental impact of odours from neighbouring development is a valid planning consideration, and if we were talking about the extract duct from the kitchen of a curry house they'd be valid concerns, but a single domestic toilet? As dickymint says: get a grip.

I'm beginning to believe that, what with this and "to completely destroy a 146 year old Victorian wall would be sacrilege in our eyes" this is really all a subtle wind-up on the OP's part.

I mean, FFS, its not the Taj Mahal... its a very ordinary section of brick wall, outside a very ordinary brick terrace in a very ordinary Northern village.

Perhaps the OP should seek to get the property listed, if it's really so precious...

It may be a modest house, but we like to have sympathy to it's history. You see that front door of ours? it receives regular compliments, because it looks so good, which it wouldn't if we did what the rest of the village did and stuck in a white UPVC one with gaudy stained glass.

You see the fireplace, which I spent 80 hours working on, hacking off plaster, brick acid'ing, replacing damaged bricks and re-pointing? Again, regular compliments. The reclaimed Victorian bricks passageway replacing the tarmac path, the same. I could go on, but I wont bore you.

What I am getting at is that when you put all these elements, and more, together the sum of its parts can make the house right, impressive, I'm struggling for the word. Compare it to 4 years ago, pictured some pages back.

So no, a Victorian wall is not going to be destroyed to install a cheap B&Q wooden fence.

Also, to come on and call every part of our existence ordinary is poor form.

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 16:24

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 16:26

I do understand where you come from in that scentance. My Mum and Dad had the same sentiment in their "forever home" in Midlands/Northern ex mining village, Eckington. They were always proud to have their front door commented on, they had the original wooden door (and sash windows) when everyone else had gone to uPVC on the street.

They tried selling in 2008. Everyone commented on how nice and well cared for the property was and "nice door, nice windows, looks out of place, needs modernising, how much off".

They finally sold in 2016, by then everything was uPVC and guess what, the street was becoming infiltrated by uPVC porches (about 1 in 10 houses).

My Dad must have wasted thousands on estate agents, he kept falling for up front fees even though I told him not to, of course got "Everested" in the uPVCisation of the house and they lost money on the nett difference when they finally moved after years of anguish about it - I can't even imagine what the angst of wanting to move for nearly a decade is, after two years I offered to buy my folks a place near me and I'd rent it them but no dice, too independent.

Sounds like you've the right idea in compromise, sounds though like your being taken down visually to lowest common denominator. Don't think being the smartest, nicest, commentedest on house is the best if you're getting unsure about the standards locally, you might get caught before the time to move on to another area before it is too late?

Edit: Couldn't remember the phrase my Dad coined at the end, added it now "We had the best house in the worst street, estate agents tell me that is the nightmare sale".

Edit 2 - Just seen Langwath up the threat - ha, not so far away, you don't remember a girl from nearby called Rebeca C whom went to Cambridge in 1991 do you. If so tell her she broke my heart but I've still got her Stone Roses LP which she'd hidden "our" polaroids in!!!!! (Aaaaahhhhh why do polaroids fade to blank over 30 yrs.....).

Edited by StanleyT on Sunday 5th May 18:55

Just re-read your post and one thing that jumped out at me is how 'originality' 'period' call it what you like does seem to go in cycles. We installed a wrought Victorian iron fire surround for one of the bedrooms a few years back, £350. The neighbour commented '30 years ago you'd have been paying them to take that away' and he's probably correct.

That door of your olds is probably now on ebay for £1000!

[Equus]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

It would be nice though if there were minimum standards in place so people weren't allowed to completely butcher their house.

There are. They just don't happen to conform to your personal preferences.

There has to be a balance between personal freedom to do what you want with your own property, and controls which limit adverse impact on others.

Your problem is that you don't like where that line is drawn.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Equus said:

There are. They just don't happen to conform to your personal preferences.

There has to be a balance between personal freedom to do what you want with your own property, and controls which limit adverse impact on others.

Your problem is that you don't like where that line is drawn.

The neighbour and I are in agreement that if he needs permission for a front extension then the last owner should have needed permission to wreck the front facade of his house. I'm inclined to agree. As for things like the number of porches up the road setting precedents I say that should be nonsense. If I tore through the village at 70mph that wouldn't, rightfully, set a precedence for others to do so.

But, you may be right. Our standards are high. S's in particular, she got that from her mum. If their Henley house ever goes up for sale it will be worthy of a place on the Property P0rn thread.

Anyways. We'll be chatting to him tomorrow, and we should be accepting his compromise. We not a huge fan of it, but it will workable for us (away from boundary, fence at existing line, screenable)

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 20:29

[Equus]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

The neighbour and I are in agreement that if he needs permission for a front extension then the last owner should have needed permission to wreck the front facade of his house. I'm inclined to agree.

But the Planning rules say differently. Perhaps you and you neighbour should lobby the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I wouldn't fancy your chances much.

Otherwise, we're just talking round in circles. As much as you may not like it, the Planning legislation says differently. Live with it.

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

As for things like the number of porches up the road setting precedents I say that should be nonsense. If I tore through the village at 70mph that wouldn't, rightfully, set a precedence for others to do so.

There are any number of flaws with that argument, but the main one is that speed limits are a clear and easily measurable criteria; Planning impact is not. When it comes to adverse impact on the character of an area (which is the only valid grounds for objection that I can see in this instance), how else can you measure it but relative to what's already there? If what is already there is crap, then it is unfair to impose an excessively high standard on further development.

Yes, there is the risk of gradual erosion of standards, but that's why we have Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and AONB's - so that you can identify where there is character worth preserving, and impose special controls to prevent the rot going any further.

And before getting too preachy on that score, bear in mind that quite a lot of what you've done to the house yourself would be deemed unacceptable by a professional Conservation Officer, if it fell within their control.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Equus said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

The neighbour and I are in agreement that if he needs permission for a front extension then the last owner should have needed permission to wreck the front facade of his house. I'm inclined to agree.

But the Planning rules say differently. Perhaps you and you neighbour should lobby the Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government, but I wouldn't fancy your chances much.

Otherwise, we're just talking round in circles. As much as you may not like it, the Planning legislation says differently. Live with it.

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

As for things like the number of porches up the road setting precedents I say that should be nonsense. If I tore through the village at 70mph that wouldn't, rightfully, set a precedence for others to do so.

There are any number of flaws with that argument, but the main one is that speed limits are a clear and easily measurable criteria; Planning impact is not. When it comes to adverse impact on the character of an area (which is the only valid grounds for objection that I can see in this instance), how else can you measure it but relative to what's already there? If what is already there is crap, then it is unfair to impose an excessively high standard on further development.

Yes, there is the risk of gradual erosion of standards, but that's why we have Listed Buildings, Conservation Areas and AONB's - so that you can identify where there is character worth preserving, and impose special controls to prevent the rot going any further.

And before getting too preachy on that score, bear in mind that quite a lot of what you've done to the house yourself would be deemed unacceptable by a professional Conservation Officer, if it fell within their control.

Indeed, we are talking ideal world stuff. And that's what we all want, stuff ideal to how we see it should be. It's not just us going through this. S's olds place is just outside Henley, not in it, in a little hamlet, 12 properties IIRC. It's quaint, Christmas cardy, and very pretty. A (visible) neighbour of theirs has just gone and done some real Footballers Wives mods to their house, a glass box on the back, blue lights, all in full view. It's really upset them, it's so out of keeping, but sod all they can do. And that's next to a £million house not an £80k one.

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Sunday 5th May 20:48

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

The conversation has been had, saying we will not submit any objection to it on the basis that it is pushed back to the white pipe, and that the plans he submitted are revised to state as much. We can then fence on the cut concrete line and screen it. I won't say happy days, but happier.

[alfie2244]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

The conversation has been had, saying we will not submit any objection to it on the basis that it is pushed back to the white pipe, and that the plans he submitted are revised to state as much. We can then fence on the cut concrete line and screen it. I won't say happy days, but happier.

Just watch out for a potential boundary problem if and when you sell

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

alfie2244 said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

The conversation has been had, saying we will not submit any objection to it on the basis that it is pushed back to the white pipe, and that the plans he submitted are revised to state as much. We can then fence on the cut concrete line and screen it. I won't say happy days, but happier.

Just watch out for a potential boundary problem if and when you sell

If it arose it will be no biggy to move a fence 10 inches.

[Gazz28]

Hi, firstly any structure that is greater that 3sqmts and or taller than 2mts requires planning permission. Furthermore because he is altering the front facade of the house he will again need planning permission. If he is within 2mts of your boundary he will again need planning permission. You say ‘extension’ if built of a solid construction and classed as a living space again planning permission is needed and in this instance building regs as well. So he can’t ‘just’ build it as he thinks he can!

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Gazz28 said:

Hi, firstly any structure that is greater that 3sqmts and or taller than 2mts requires planning permission. Furthermore because he is altering the front facade of the house he will again need planning permission. If he is within 2mts of your boundary he will again need planning permission. You say ‘extension’ if built of a solid construction and classed as a living space again planning permission is needed and in this instance building regs as well. So he can’t ‘just’ build it as he thinks he can!

That's pretty much what we understood, others on this thread disagree. Anyways, plannings now in, so it's a waiting game. Not up on the portal yet mind?

[Equus]

Gazz28 said:

Hi, firstly any structure that is greater that 3sqmts and or taller than 3mts requires planning permission. Furthermore because he is altering the front facade of the house he will again need planning permission. If he is within 2mts of yourany boundary of the curtilage of the plot and the highway then he will again need planning permission. You say ‘extension’ if built of a solid construction and classed as a living space again planning permission is needed and in this instance building regs as well. So he can’t ‘just’ build it as he thinks he can!

EFA.

You were probably safe to assume that after 26 pages, we'd got PD pretty much covered....but quite an achievement to get so many factual errors in such a short piece of text, none the less - well done!

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Oh, and it is taller than 2 metres, so that's another reason he is requiring planning.

[Equus]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Oh, and it is taller than 2 metres, so that's another reason he is requiring planning.

As above: he's allowed up to 3m. (that's a thumb, and a thumb, and a finger, for those of you with difficulty counting) for a porch, if the floor area does not exceed 3m2.

2 metres would be a fairly useless limit, given that the standard height for a door frame is more than that.

[dickymint]

Post content deleted as I was too slow typing it

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

Equus said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Oh, and it is taller than 2 metres, so that's another reason he is requiring planning.

As above: he's allowed up to 3m. (that's a thumb, and a thumb, and a finger, for those of you with difficulty counting) for a porch, if the floor area does not exceed 3m2.

2 metres would be a fairly useless limit, given that the standard height for a door frame is more than that.

Ah OK, I skimmed past that detail. Sarah had understood the height required planning, and whilst the porch proposal is tall, I would have thought 3m would cover it.

[The Moose]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

The conversation has been had, saying we will not submit any objection to it on the basis that it is pushed back to the white pipe, and that the plans he submitted are revised to state as much. We can then fence on the cut concrete line and screen it. I won't say happy days, but happier.

Will this be a new, period fence

[85Carrera]

The Moose said:

Will this be a new, period fence

I have no doubt that the OP will get regular compliments about the fence because it will look so good

[dickymint]

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Ah OK, I skimmed past that detail. Sarah had understood the height required planning, and whilst the porch proposal is tall, I would have thought 3m would cover it.

Not having a go Ferm but that really does show the ‘confirmation bias’ that has gone on with this issue. You wanted 2 metres to be correct because it suits your needs.

So do we know the width and depth of this porch yet? As so far this seems to be the only reason it needs planning.

[Fermit and Sexy Sarah]

dickymint said:

Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:

Ah OK, I skimmed past that detail. Sarah had understood the height required planning, and whilst the porch proposal is tall, I would have thought 3m would cover it.

Not having a go Ferm but that really does show the ‘confirmation bias’ that has gone on with this issue. You wanted 2 metres to be correct because it suits your needs.

So do we know the width and depth of this porch yet? As so far this seems to be the only reason it needs planning.

Such suspicion. We thought it was 2 meters, and I now recall it was the neighbour not us who stated that detail, HE thought he needed permission.

It is 1.3 metres out from his house. We don't know the width as we've only been given a visual, it's to meet his window.

Edited by Fermit and Sexy Sarah on Tuesday 7th May 19:03