Planning objection possible?

[mcg_]

Equus said:

So... purely out of interest, I've just looked this one up.

A few points that might be of interest to the OP:

• This is a Reserved Matters application on an already approved Outline. This means that for a large number of issues, the horse has already bolted. I haven't read it in detail, but there is an already signed and sealed S106 legal agreement in place covering delivery of the access, public open space, etc.
• The critical bit of land he's concerned about for the footpath access appears to be owned neither by himself nor the developer, but (subject to confirmation - though I am certain the developer will have already checked this out themselves) looks very much as though it's part of the adopted Highways verge. It's certainly not included in the application red line boundary, therefore the LPA will not consider it as part of the application (indeed, it would be unlawful for them to do so).
• The back gardens of the houses do not back onto his garden and they do not come up to his fence. There is a buffer zone, approximately 5m. deep, between his existing boundary and the proposed new garden boundaries, marked as 'existing woodland retained' on the soft landscaping plan. I assume this to be the belt of trees running up the eastern side on the image of his plot shown above. The plot boundary he has shown in red above is incorrect: the angle between his southern and eastern boundaries is slightly acute, not slightly obtuse, as he has drawn it. The proposed post and wire mesh fence lies to the east of this retained tree buffer.
• The OP must have upset someone already, because there's a cluster of affordable housing next door to his house.

So basically, it's fine really? (apart from the obvious annoyance of the development)

[boyse7en]

Equus said:

So... purely out of interest, I've just looked this one up.

A few points that might be of interest to the OP:

• This is a Reserved Matters application on an already approved Outline. This means that for a large number of issues, the horse has already bolted. I haven't read it in detail, but there is an already signed and sealed S106 legal agreement in place covering delivery of the access, public open space, etc.
• The critical bit of land he's concerned about for the footpath access appears to be owned neither by himself nor the developer, but (subject to confirmation - though I am certain the developer will have already checked this out themselves) looks very much as though it's part of the adopted Highways verge. It's certainly not included in the application red line boundary, therefore the LPA will not consider it as part of the application (indeed, it would be unlawful for them to do so).
• The back gardens of the houses do not back onto his garden and they do not come up to his fence. There is a buffer zone, approximately 5m. deep, between his existing boundary and the proposed new garden boundaries, marked as 'existing woodland retained' on the soft landscaping plan. I assume this to be the belt of trees running up the eastern side on the image of his plot shown above. The plot boundary he has shown in red above is incorrect: the angle between his southern and eastern boundaries is slightly acute, not slightly obtuse, as he has drawn it. The proposed post and wire mesh fence lies to the east of this retained tree buffer.
• The OP must have upset someone already, because there's a cluster of affordable housing next door to his house.

Yes, outline planning permission has already been granted some time ago, including the road through the park. However, the council also said it will not sell the park but couldn't refuse the planning application to put a road across it.

The gate definitely exits onto the shared driveway, not a verge on the road. It was owned by the neighboring farm, but i don't know the details of exactly what they have sold to whom.

The image shown of my property is from Google Earth, and all the trees you can see in it are in my garden, there are no trees or "existing woodland" in the developers field - it is just grass.

I'm aware of the affordable housing... i don't suppose there is much i can do about that. I haven't upset anyone as we have had absolutely no contact with the developer at all, and have only had a letter from Planning advising us that permission is being sought and that we can send in representations.

[The ArtfulBodger]

boyse7en said:

Yes, outline planning permission has already been granted some time ago, including the road through the park. However, the council also said it will not sell the park but couldn't refuse the planning application to put a road across it.

The gate definitely exits onto the shared driveway, not a verge on the road. It was owned by the neighboring farm, but i don't know the details of exactly what they have sold to whom.

The image shown of my property is from Google Earth, and all the trees you can see in it are in my garden, there are no trees or "existing woodland" in the developers field - it is just grass.

I'm aware of the affordable housing... i don't suppose there is much i can do about that. I haven't upset anyone as we have had absolutely no contact with the developer at all, and have only had a letter from Planning advising us that permission is being sought and that we can send in representations.

Equus may have made the comment slightly tongue in cheek but it is a valid point, John Prescott’s pet project is a blight on pretty much all private homeowners - be that on new build estates or new developments within established housing.

Put simply it just does not work, no matter how many try to better themselves some scum will always be scum and will slowly but surely drag an area down with them. We’re it me I’d be selling ASAP if there is affordable housing backing onto your house.

11 years ago We moved into a new build village that had some affordable housing at what we thought would be distance far enough away not to matter.

I was wrong, we no longer live there and made damn sure we moved to somewhere that was utterly impossible for a development like that to follow us!

Good luck with it all, but my advice would be to move, the stress and cost of moving is nothing compared to the stress and potential cost of living nearby to people you’d rather not have as your neighbours.

[boyse7en]

That's the plan they have submitted. The trees are drawn badly, as there is no tree on the south side of my house, and the tree in the NE corner is shown as in my neighbor's garden when it is actually in mine.

I'm not sure what they mean by "existing woodland" as there is no woodland. It is grass (a bit overgrown since they moved the horses out, but it is definitely grass)

The plots 103, 104 and 105 are all higher than my house - the bottom of their gardens are at more or less the same height as my bedroom window (which will face them), so they will overlook all my garden and the back of my house. Plus i assume that the "existing woodland" buffer area will be open to every dog walker in the area to wander through.

[Equus]

boyse7en said:

Yes, outline planning permission has already been granted some time ago, including the road through the park. However, the council also said it will not sell the park but couldn't refuse the planning application to put a road across it.

As I said, I haven't read it in detail, but I would anticipate that this is well and truly covered by the S106 legal agreement. It's pretty much inconceivable that the developer would have pursued the application if it wasn't already buttoned down, in legal terms.

boyse7en said:

The gate definitely exits onto the shared driveway, not a verge on the road. It was owned by the neighboring farm, but i don't know the details of exactly what they have sold to whom.

Well, it is shown as unregistered land on the LR portal, which makes no sense if it was not in Highways ownership and control - it would have been transferred along with the neighbouring land (which is registered).

The ArtfulBodger said:

Equus may have made the comment slightly tongue in cheek ...

Only very slightly.

Back when I was designing housing layouts on a daily basis, I always made sure to cluster the affordable around the most obnoxious neighbours who attended the pre-application consultation meetings, and well away from those who had been more reasonable.

boyse7en said:

...I assume that the "existing woodland" buffer area will be open to every dog walker in the area to wander through.

There's a gate on the end, so I think you'll find that it's only ever used for maintenance or by the kids from the affordable housing to get into your back garden when they want to break in and nick stuff.

[The ArtfulBodger]

Equus said:

boyse7en said:

Yes, outline planning permission has already been granted some time ago, including the road through the park. However, the council also said it will not sell the park but couldn't refuse the planning application to put a road across it.

As I said, I haven't read it in detail, but I would anticipate that this is well and truly covered by the S106 legal agreement. It's pretty much inconceivable that the developer would have pursued the application if it wasn't already buttoned down, in legal terms.

boyse7en said:

The gate definitely exits onto the shared driveway, not a verge on the road. It was owned by the neighboring farm, but i don't know the details of exactly what they have sold to whom.

Well, it is shown as unregistered land on the LR portal, which makes no sense if it was not in Highways ownership and control - it would have been transferred along with the neighbouring land (which is registered).

The ArtfulBodger said:

Equus may have made the comment slightly tongue in cheek ...

Only very slightly.

Back when I was designing housing layouts on a daily basis, I always made sure to cluster the affordable around the most obnoxious neighbours who attended the pre-application consultation meetings, and well away from those who had been more reasonable.

boyse7en said:

...I assume that the "existing woodland" buffer area will be open to every dog walker in the area to wander through.

There's a gate on the end, so I think you'll find that it's only ever used for maintenance or by the kids from the affordable housing to get into your back garden when they want to break in and nick stuff.

I can understand the logic behind that! And to be fair I’d do the same in that position!!

With regard my experience with affordable housing on new developments - Ours was a clean sheet new village so no nimbyism applied. we went over and over the development layout and made sure we picked a corner plot at what seemed a decent distance away from the affordable housing, what we didn’t factor in was the scum would have an impact on us as you had to drive past to get to our place - think dumped washing machines, cars on ramps, bins incorrectly filled so left for weeks on end full to the brim as the bin men wouldn’t empty them etc etc.

Loud stereos also don’t care how far away you are, neither do noisy heaps of crap cars and motorbikes, screaming kids, barking dogs, arguments in full cry, territorial p!ssings and subsequent fall outs.

Never ever again!