Fighting outline planning permission application

djcomps

Hello,

The situation is this:

The house behind our property has applied for outline planning permission (PP) to build another house on their garden land (which is big, the garden not the house). We want to fight this, as do all of the people who have adjoining boundaries. Previously an application for PP (for 4 houses on the same land) was unanimously rejected for reasons of access and overdevelopment.

What I would like to know is:
1, if outline permission is granted for 1 house, can this later be changed to more houses without going through the same process? The reason I ask this is because the proposed access this time looks as though it has been designed with trying to get more houses on the plot later.

2, The property owners claim they have developed their garden as a wildlife haven over the last 30 years, are there any regulations re: wildlife/plants/trees which could enhance our position in trying to get the PP rejected? Can a protection order be sought for any particular type of tree in their garden, and if so, are we as neighbours able to do so?

3, I know that "Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing (PPS3)" talks about:

Matters to consider when assessing design quality include the extent to which the proposed development:

provides for the retention or re-establishment of the biodiversity within residential environments.

And also:
The priority for development should be previously developed land, in particular vacant and derelict sites and buildings.

This states that garden land is not brownfield. In other words trying to fight garden grabbing (which we believe is what is happening here). Is this actually taken notice of by planning committees?

4, Is there any other legislation which will help to strengthen our position?

Many thanks for your time reading this.

Dan

planning_officer

You need to look at the precise reasons why the previous application was refused - 'overdevelopment' is a rather generic term that doesn't have a very precise meaning - there must have been precise elements of the design or layout of the houses that were objectionable before, so you need to compare the current scheme for one house to see if those objections still apply.

In answer to your questions:
1. No, if planning permission was granted for one house, it doesn't mean they can change it to several houses - that would take a new planning application. Even if permission is granted for one house, it does not make more houses any more acceptable at all - as you say, access and highway issues would be assessed at the time of applying for more houses.

2. There are statutory protections for various species, like bats, badgers and great crested newts, so even if planning permission is granted, it doesn't overide the protection that these species have under separate legislation. If any of those species are present, it is worth pointing that out to the Local Planning Authority. If you think any trees are worthy of a Tree Preservation Order, then write to the Council to request they are considered for protection - they would need to be large good quality trees though and have some public amenity benefit (i.e. visible in the surroundings).

3. PPS3 was revised in June this year to remove garden land from the definition of previously developed land. Most people think that means that houses cannot be built in gardens now, but that's not the case. It doesn't rule out such developements, but it does weaken the developer's arguments, as they cannot argue it is previously developed land. In effect, it increases the importance of a new development respecting the character of the locality, as there's no presumption that this site is even suitable for housing at all.

4. The best research you can do is to look at the Local Plan or Local Development Framework for your local authority - it will contain policies on new housing, so you can see if the proposal complies with the relevant criteria. The Planning Officer dealing with the case will do this anyway, so arguably your best bet would be to object on any planning grounds you think are relevant (i.e. how will it affect you), the main ones of which will include:
- impact on character of locality and surrounding pattern of development;
- impact on neighbours - visual impact, overlooking, loss of light etc;
- access, highway and parking issues;
- impact on wildlife and trees.

anselld

I would suggest as well as objecting in writing you should request a deputation. This will ensure that the case is heard at planning committee rather than delegated to planners. I have seen cases rejected at committee despite being recommended for approval by the planners.

Also, try to enlist support for your position from local Councillors; it seems to carry more weight if they object too.

djcomps

The three councillors listed on the application are the same as last time; we presume they will maintain their stance from before due to the road that the proposed development going out on being notoriously bad.

Below are the reasons the last application was refused:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of the positioning of the access and potential vehicle movements, would result in an unacceptable impact upon highway safety and give rise to highway flow problems. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies E8 and H3 of the Fenland District Wide Local Plan 1993.

2. The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the site and consequently the residential amenities of both the existing and proposed dwellings and highway safety around the site will be unacceptably compromised. Consequently the proposal is contrary to the provisions of of Policy E8 and H3 of the Fenland District Wide Local Plan 1993.

Looking at proposed access to the site this doesnt seem to have been addressed and it seems (although this will need to be checked) that to gain safe access, or similar, that boundary features (walls/shrubbery) of a couple of neighbouring properties to the south will interfere with visibility. Last time the developer was told that if it was approved a covenant to preserve visibility would have to be agreed with those properties. Fingers crossed on this being true again.

Thanks for the responses. Reading my local development framework and local plan now

djcomps

Sorry meant to ask what is this deputation as have never heard of it? Is there particular wording that should be used to request one, or simply I would propose a deputation...? Thanks

RLH33

I have never heard it called a deputation before but basically you need to write requesting that the decision on the application is made by the appropriate Committee.

It depends on the particular authority's delegation powers but most Councils now try to limit as far as possible the amount of applications going to Committee meaning the vast majority are decided by the Planning Officers themselves. In light of this I would contact your local Councillor to get them involved with your fight and get them to request that the application is decided by Committee - the request should then carry more weight.

Shimrod

djcomps wrote: »

Sorry meant to ask what is this deputation as have never heard of it? Is there particular wording that should be used to request one, or simply I would propose a deputation...? Thanks

The phrase used by our council is 'calling it in'.

You have every sympathy from me, I am going through a similar thing myself, with neighbours wanting to build several houses in their garden.

It is possible to get tree preservation orders applied to trees. One of the other (objecting) neighbours raised this with the council, and there was a TPO on several trees in the garden the following day. It is possible for them to be overturned, or even side-stepped (by the developer planting new trees) but it is worth a go as it will not cost you anything.

The council ecologist also made several points which I have included below - they may help you find grounds for objection depending on your own council's policy on these matters.

• According to the Lancashire Urban Biodiversity Action Plan, gardens and backyards provide a significant resource for wildlife within Lancashire. Infill development within settlement boundaries has been identified as a factor in the loss/ decline of the extent of gardens and backyards and their quality in terms of habitat for biodiversity. The applicant will therefore need to demonstrate that these proposals will not erode the extent and quality of urban biodiversity.
• Hedgehogs are a UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority species/Species of Principal Importance, and could potentially be present within the application area. Planning Authorities should ensure that these species are protected from the adverse impacts of development (PPS9). The applicant should submit proposals to ensure that impacts on these species and their habitat are avoided or adequately mitigated.

There's also a comment on TPO, and the particular planning policies referenced are :

• The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (as amended).

• The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (as amended).

• The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006.

• Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation.

• Government Circular: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligations and Their Impact within the Planning System (DEFRA 01/2005, ODPM 06/2005).

• North West of England Plan Regional Spatial Strategy to 2021, Policies EM1 and DP7.

• Environmental Protection / Nature Conservation policies of the Local Plan.

Good Luck!

djcomps

Thanks for those additional points. I'll get on to both of them tomorrow. Shimrod, hope all is successful in your battle!

anselld

djcomps wrote: »

Sorry meant to ask what is this deputation as have never heard of it? Is there particular wording that should be used to request one, or simply I would propose a deputation...? Thanks

Sounds like it varies locally, but you can request to attend and represent your argument in person at the comittee meeting.

planning_officer

djcomps wrote: »

Below are the reasons the last application was refused:
1. The proposed development, by virtue of the positioning of the access and potential vehicle movements, would result in an unacceptable impact upon highway safety and give rise to highway flow problems. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies E8 and H3 of the Fenland District Wide Local Plan 1993.

2. The proposed development constitutes overdevelopment of the site and consequently the residential amenities of both the existing and proposed dwellings and highway safety around the site will be unacceptably compromised. Consequently the proposal is contrary to the provisions of of Policy E8 and H3 of the Fenland District Wide Local Plan 1993.

If the access issue hasn't been addressed, then it sounds like the first reason for refusal of the last application would still apply - although there may be the possibility that as one house does not cause an access to be used so intensively as several houses (to state the obvious!), then it may not be so much of a concern. It really depends on whether the Highway Authority (usually the County Council) object or not.

Quite frankly, the second reason for refusal is very poorly worded - an Appeal Inspector would have a field day pulling that one apart!! When the Council refer to 'overdevelopment' leading to an adverse impact on neighbour amenities, it's really not clear if they're actually objecting to the design and layout of the houses, the number of houses, or just to the impact on neighbours and not at all to the number of houses, and if they are objecting to neighbour amenity, what is the impact in that respect - overbearing, overlooking, loss of light...?

That aside, when was the previous application, as if the Local Plan was adopted in 1993 it may be a few years ago now?

If you wish to object to this development, I would concentrate on the planning issues I mentioned in my earlier post, plus anything you can glean from your Local Plan!