single storey extension to block of flats

[twibs]

Looking for guidance and assistance in getting the following rejected.

Currently live on the ground floor in a block of 18 flats, 6 per floor 3 storeys high.
Just had notification from planning that the new freeholder has had discussions to build 2 further storeys, which has been then reduced to a further single storey of 6 x 1 bed flats.
including removing garden area to create 6 new parking spaces.

The application is online and notification letters received today by some residents.

Anyone able to assist please in how to compose a letter or who to instruct to object ??

Thanks in advance

[Equus]

The law says that Planning Authorities must determine applications in accordance with their 'Local Plan' unless there are substantial reasons to deviate from it.

This means that any refusal must be directly linked to one or more written policies in the the Local Plan. Have a look at the wording of some recent refusals on your Council's website, and you'll see what I mean.

Start by looking at the 'development management policies' in your LPA's Local Plan (the Local Plan is made up of a number of documents and how they are presented online varies from authoirty to authority, which isn't helpful; if you're struggling to find the development management policies, start by looking for something called the 'Core Strategy') , and try to justify why the development fails to meet them. They are often backed up by a second tier of information, known as 'Supplementary Planning Guidance', so look at that, too (there will often be a document called a 'residential design guide', or something similar, that sets out how they want to see housing designed, including stuff like amenity space, parking, refuse provision, etc.).

Objections about stuff that is not considered 'material' in planning terms will be igored, and this (largely) includes the disruption caused while the building works are in progress, and the effect on the value of your property. One glaringly obvious impact from what you've mentioned is 'loss of amenity' to other residents resulting from the loss of the garden to car parking. You might also wish to look at whether the refuse facilities will be able to cope, and the impacts of overshadowing or overbearing on neighbouring properties.

Equally, be aware that if the proposal accords with Policy, then it is right and proper that it should be approved, whether you like it or not. Take a stern, dispassionate look at the reasons you want to object, and consider whether you're just being a NIMBY.

I always have to caveat this sort of advice, these days, because the standard of LPA Planning Officers has deteriorated to the point where most of them can't find their arse with both hands, but the Case Officer should be familiar with their own policies and therefore should (theoretically) only need a mild nudge in the right direction, but unfortunately you can no longer count on that. In theory however, your objection should make very little difference one way or the other - no more than a few percent either way, if there is an aspect of the design that is marginal.

If you want to pay someone to represent you, then you need to look for an MRTPI Chartered Planning Consultant. Not a Solicitor (I've seen some truly dreadful representations by solicitors, recently - unless they specialise in Planning Law, they really don't know much about it), and not anyone just calling themselves a Planning Consultant without accreditation (it's not a protected title, so I could set my dog up in business as a Planning Consultant... though to be fair he'd probably do a better job of it than many LPA Planning Officers, these days).

[twibs]

Thank you for the detailed reply Equus. Appreciated.

[Jeremy-75qq8]

I thought there were some specific planning changes to make adding a single floor to flats " easy"

[Equus]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

I thought there were some specific planning changes to make adding a single floor to flats " easy"

There were: Schedule 2, Part 20, Class A of the GPDO.

But as with most of the legislation brought in by Boris' Clown Circus, it has proved next to useless in practice, both:

a) because it is subject to a fairly extensive list of limiting criteria, and more importantly;

b) it is subject to Prior Approval requirements that are not far off being just as comprehensive as the list of material considerations that would apply to a 'normal' planning application.

Edited by Equus on Saturday 6th April 12:57

[twibs]

the freeholder originally had discussions with planning around adding two additional storeys and has now entered plans for a single storey.

Originally he wanted to get rid of both front and rear gardens which everyone uses, to use for carparking.
ground floor would then change from room with a view over the gardens and valley to view of a carpark.

[nuyorican]

Where do you park out of interest?

[Equus]

I suppose the question Jeremy would ask is whether it has been submitted as a Planning application or a 'Prior Approval' application, though from your perspective, the question is more or less academic

twibs said:

...ground floor would then change from room with a view over the gardens and valley to view of a carpark.

Unfortunately, one of the best established rules of Planning is that you don't have rights to a view. Privacy: yes. Loss of amenity: yes. Overshadowing or overbearing: yes. Retention of an existing view: no.

Neither is any impact on the value of your property resulting from the loss of a view (...or any other reason, for that matter) a material consideration for Planning.

[twibs]

currently out of 18 flats, 15 have garages. Remainder park on main road that is already heavily used by others.
Although only about half the garages are used for daily cars.

in the lease it has clauses saying the lawns must remain as lawns and change of use isn't allowed.

would it be worth me posting a link to the planning portal application that has been submitted ?

Thanks

Edited by twibs on Saturday 6th April 18:05

[Jeremy-75qq8]

It does always strike me that loss of view should be loss of amenity ( I know it isn't ).

Life is not fair, but a view is material in the desirability / price of many properties and for another to destroy it seems unjust.

It then of course gets complex. There's an empty front line sea view plot in front of your second line house that currently has a view. Is it then fair that mr front line can't build a house ?!

There might be some way of describing the above type of situation but then you get into defining a view and its quality.

I suspect for the op the first place to look is his lease. Does this give rights over the common areas ? If so then the landlord can get permission but in practice can't build the car park until all leaseholders agree - and unless they are financially compensated and their lenders agree ( only worries about value ) that wont happen.

[twibs]

deleted

hopefully this works.

Edited by twibs on Monday 8th April 19:58

[Jobbo]

Planning isn’t the only ground on which you could object - there may be rights or other clauses in your lease which would prevent or otherwise make the addition of another floor difficult. Even seemingly irrelevant stuff like service charge provisions may be drafted in a way that means they don’t work properly if another storey is added.

A couple of developer clients of mine have looked at a number of possible blocks to add a storey on top and have almost always found it doesn’t work - either due to legal impediments or financially. One who got planning for an extra storey on a block they already owned ended up not doing the work because the structural reinforcement and access issues meant build costs were sufficiently high for it to be only marginally profitable.

[DaveA8]

This is proof that having a flat in a block where there is an external freeholder is just a complete no no. In the late 80’s I was renting in north London and they did it.
The pressure for housing due to unfettered immigration has really had far reaching and unfortunate consequences

[DonkeyApple]

DaveA8 said:

The pressure for housing due to unfettered immigration has really had far reaching and unfortunate consequences

Nothing to do with the Boomer spike having extended lifespans over previous generations? Nothing to do with the rise in number of families split over two households? Nothing to do with more of younger generations living alone? Nothing to do with massive over lending in property? Nothing to do with households no longer wanting to move their elderly parents in? Nothing to do with local authorities for decades taking the cash rather than enforcing the delivery of new affordable homes? Nothing to do with an insufficient number of new homes being built? Nothing to do with property subdivision being prevented? It's all due to the immigrants we have brought in to help fill the working age population deficit and to do the jobs we don't want to do like looking after elderly parents or cleaning up prolapses on hospital floors?

Re the OPs conundrum, the extra floor of 6 small dwellings probably isn't the largest of the issues. They can be used to reduce the service charge and as the cheap seats will be on the roof their noise will be minimised. And you may be able to negotiate a payment by the freeholder into the sinking fund which was what a block in London near me haggled and got and which has been used to subsidise all their SC costs for the last few years. On the surface, the real blow is the proposal to decimate the ground floor outdoor space for some ghastly parking.

It's the loss of that natural shared space which would be the biggest issue to me as well as potentially impacting values. Looking out of windows down to a car park is a work activity not a domestic one.

My initial thought would be to have the rooftop, executive, penthouse suites, aka stboxes for the skint as the concession to them not having private parking, although the new parking spaces may be used as bribes to fob off some existing residents (splitter scum ). Have they already run with the 'EV charging' wheeze?

Do you have any local public transport? Can you create a sensible argument that the new properties ought to be marketed to people without cars who are good, kind people as opposed to evil, kitten killing filth with private motor vehicles?

If you look through previous information from the local authority do they favour the environmental aspects of free drainage, the cleaner air from land being planted v paved and policies to encourage the dropping of car ownership and reduction of car usage? Can you create a reasoned argument using their own needs and wants to not have the whole outside tarmaced like it's a council tenement?

[DaveA8]

DonkeyApple said:

DaveA8 said:

The pressure for housing due to unfettered immigration has really had far reaching and unfortunate consequences

Nothing to do with the Boomer spike having extended lifespans over previous generations? Nothing to do with the rise in number of families split over two households? Nothing to do with more of younger generations living alone? Nothing to do with massive over lending in property? Nothing to do with households no longer wanting to move their elderly parents in? Nothing to do with local authorities for decades taking the cash rather than enforcing the delivery of new affordable homes? Nothing to do with an insufficient number of new homes being built? Nothing to do with property subdivision being prevented? It's all due to the immigrants we have brought in to help fill the working age population deficit and to do the jobs we don't want to do like looking after elderly parents or cleaning up prolapses on hospital floors?

Re the OPs conundrum, the extra floor of 6 small dwellings probably isn't the largest of the issues. They can be used to reduce the service charge and as the cheap seats will be on the roof their noise will be minimised. And you may be able to negotiate a payment by the freeholder into the sinking fund which was what a block in London near me haggled and got and which has been used to subsidise all their SC costs for the last few years. On the surface, the real blow is the proposal to decimate the ground floor outdoor space for some ghastly parking.

It's the loss of that natural shared space which would be the biggest issue to me as well as potentially impacting values. Looking out of windows down to a car park is a work activity not a domestic one.

My initial thought would be to have the rooftop, executive, penthouse suites, aka stboxes for the skint as the concession to them not having private parking, although the new parking spaces may be used as bribes to fob off some existing residents (splitter scum ). Have they already run with the 'EV charging' wheeze?

Do you have any local public transport? Can you create a sensible argument that the new properties ought to be marketed to people without cars who are good, kind people as opposed to evil, kitten killing filth with private motor vehicles?

If you look through previous information from the local authority do they favour the environmental aspects of free drainage, the cleaner air from land being planted v paved and policies to encourage the dropping of car ownership and reduction of car usage? Can you create a reasoned argument using their own needs and wants to not have the whole outside tarmaced like it's a council tenement? [/

I was going to do a long diatribe and roast about you but I realised it would be pearls before swine.
On the other hand I could nominate you for PistonHeads award for waffler or the year 2024 as most of what you write especially where the financial markets are concerned appears as if it’s borrowed from a very basic wiki page

Edited by DaveA8 on Sunday 7th April 11:22

[DonkeyApple]

DaveA8 said:

DonkeyApple said:

DaveA8 said:

The pressure for housing due to unfettered immigration has really had far reaching and unfortunate consequences

Nothing to do with the Boomer spike having extended lifespans over previous generations? Nothing to do with the rise in number of families split over two households? Nothing to do with more of younger generations living alone? Nothing to do with massive over lending in property? Nothing to do with households no longer wanting to move their elderly parents in? Nothing to do with local authorities for decades taking the cash rather than enforcing the delivery of new affordable homes? Nothing to do with an insufficient number of new homes being built? Nothing to do with property subdivision being prevented? It's all due to the immigrants we have brought in to help fill the working age population deficit and to do the jobs we don't want to do like looking after elderly parents or cleaning up prolapses on hospital floors?

Re the OPs conundrum, the extra floor of 6 small dwellings probably isn't the largest of the issues. They can be used to reduce the service charge and as the cheap seats will be on the roof their noise will be minimised. And you may be able to negotiate a payment by the freeholder into the sinking fund which was what a block in London near me haggled and got and which has been used to subsidise all their SC costs for the last few years. On the surface, the real blow is the proposal to decimate the ground floor outdoor space for some ghastly parking.

It's the loss of that natural shared space which would be the biggest issue to me as well as potentially impacting values. Looking out of windows down to a car park is a work activity not a domestic one.

My initial thought would be to have the rooftop, executive, penthouse suites, aka stboxes for the skint as the concession to them not having private parking, although the new parking spaces may be used as bribes to fob off some existing residents (splitter scum ). Have they already run with the 'EV charging' wheeze?

Do you have any local public transport? Can you create a sensible argument that the new properties ought to be marketed to people without cars who are good, kind people as opposed to evil, kitten killing filth with private motor vehicles?

If you look through previous information from the local authority do they favour the environmental aspects of free drainage, the cleaner air from land being planted v paved and policies to encourage the dropping of car ownership and reduction of car usage? Can you create a reasoned argument using their own needs and wants to not have the whole outside tarmaced like it's a council tenement? [/

I was going to do a long diatribe and roast about you but I realised it would be pearls before swine.
On the other hand I could nominate you for PistonHeads award for waffler or the year 2024 as most of what you write especially where the financial markets are concerned appears as if it’s borrowed from a very basic wiki page

Edited by DaveA8 on Sunday 7th April 11:22

Plus, I'm not an immigrant so it can't be my fault.

[Equus]

DonkeyApple said:

Do you have any local public transport? Can you create a sensible argument that the new properties ought to be marketed to people without cars...

This is not within the LPA's gift: it would be seen as neither reasonable nor enforceable to impose such a requirement as a Planning Condition (and any Condition has to be both, by law)..

If the location is considered sufficiently sustainable to support it, you might pursue an argument that the apartments could be permitted without parking spaces, but you cannot then limit their occupation to non-car owners.

The spaces and their attendant hard surfacing will almost certainly need to be permeable (or otherwise 'sustainably' drained) in any event, and this can be controlled by Condition, so any envrionmental argument against their implementation is likely to be weak.

[twibs]

Thanks all, allowed me to focus on where to start.
Equus, what about conditions within the lease where it states all lawned /garden areas must be kept the same. No change of use allowed ?

Plus all drive areas must be kept clear, no parking.

Any merit in that ??

[Equus]

twibs said:

Equus, what about conditions within the lease

Not relevant to Planning.

[twibs]

ok... relevant anywhere ? or blind alley