house being built, can I appose?

AlexMac

Numbers count if you wish to object. If a certain number of written 'objections' are received by the consultaion deadline, the proposal will have to go before a committee of elected Couincillors. (I think it may be as few as 8, but ring the Planning Officer mentioned on the letter to check). Even if he is on the Planning Committtee your neighbour cannot vote as he has to 'declare an interest'. If no objections are received the council officials can approve it without referring to local Councillors.

Only a few immediate neighbours will have received the letter, so make sure that you wind up other neighbours - say 10-20 either side or those in the sightlines of this proposal, or those who will be impacted by increased traffic, parking, pressure on schools, etc if a precendent is set and more houses follow. Don't hold back- you don't have time; speak to them, leaving them a copy, in writing, of your personal reasons for objecting, but all the other issues that you cite so well above, maybe as a template if they wish to object in their own name. Stress that this will set a precedent and ultimately change the neighbourhhood. Keep it non-emotional and do some web research on valid reasons for objecting; start with the Government (gov.uk) websites and the 'planning portal' Your council may have guidance notes too.

Don't do a petition; individuals count (a petition will only count as one objection). Find out how to comment online (sometimes via the planning portal or via the council website) and inform your neighbours who may find this easier than sending a letter. The noise and disruption during construction is not, in itself, a valid reason for objecting, but that will help wind your neighbours up to act by objecting

As a next step...
You and other neighbours are allowed to attend the Committee where this will be decided, and may speak, if you ask in advance. Keep it short, factual and unemotional. Again, numbers count although there may be time and number limits

And don't think this is a waste of time or rude- after all, your neighbour didn't have the common sense or decency to consult you, informally in advance? (but object, even if he did). In one very recent case, locally, a proposal was made for (what I considered a reasonable and sympathetic) conversion of some garages to a small house. The planning officer was agreeable as it was identical to an approval which had been granted next door, so they recommmended it proceed and it looked inevitable. But, the people most affected wound up their neighbours, an amazing 20 objections went in (some making the same points as you do, about density, over-intensive use of the site, garden-grabbing, over-height, over-looking, loss of light, loss of rural views, impact on the landscape, danger of over-development in all the neighbouring gardens if a precedent is set, ultimate pressure on roads, schools and local facilities, others pointing out that it breached council guidance including, others about loss of trees, paving over green space thus preventing rainfall penetration into the aquifers and increasing water flow into the sewers... etc) -
And it was refused against the odds!

Go for it

Lister_2

Of possible interest to you. Similar case:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/2124593_garden_grabbing_homes_plan_rejected_for_third_time

Richard_Webster

Look at your Land Registry entries (https://www.landregistry.gov.uk) and see if rights of light have been removed. If not and the light is blocked by the house then even if they get planning permission you could still apply to the courts for an injunction to stop building. Get your solicitor to check this for you.

Myown

Thank you for your replies

Ive looked at the drawings and the site plans again. The house drawing is situated between my adjoining neighbour and his neighbour. On the plans the house is situated between my house and my adjoining neighbour, so straight away that's wrong.

In the notes it states that prior to the application it was his intention to build two three bed roomed houses, it was decided that he would have more chance of building if it was one house 'Due to his lack of privacy, being to near his home' :cool:

There are comments 'only' about houses on the opposite side of the road, which are brick built, ours are concrete, no mention of that or that this mans home is also concrete, but the new house would be in keeping with the red brick houses (as if all houses are red brick)
It states about the rear of the property and the side, surround area to the rear and side. All photos show this. These are very deceiving facts as no photo's or description of how close our homes are inline with his proposed development. You can see out line plans but it does not show clearly how close we are, but visually with photo's you could.

This morning I found out that there are four of us that are going to oppose, this new build does not affect any one else as behind his property it is open land.
Another amazing thing is that one of the neighbours opposing is an Architect :T, he has found there are many faults including it is being built too close to our homes

namecheck

Myown wrote: »

Another amazing thing is that one of the neighbours opposing is an Architect :T, he has found there are many faults including it is being built too close to our homes

Useful person to have on side. But hope you can add to the four objectors. Unfortunately, many people can't be bothered unless something affects them directly.

greenface

I think IMO people need not bother unless that effects them directly. makes thing messy and more diluted if Mr & Mrs x from the next street on the opposite side are objecting as there dog uses this bit of land for walks on a saturday , Keep it straight and to the point

Sooki

There has just been a discussion on the morning news about 'right to light' apparently it is not part of the planning decision but has to be taken into consideration if the affected party makes it an issue. Apparently at the moment It can also be done retrospectively so you can also get a building taken down after its been built. Why it isn't part of the planning process is just plain wrong IMHO .

greenface

It used to be from memory and also included in what was the "Laylandii Law" The ight to light being reduced by a % with the growth rate of x cm per year . ( they could make you move trees that will cause trouble in the future )

planning_officer

Johnandabby wrote: »

Yes, but there is also a mechanism for purchasing someones right to light, so there's no guarantee that this can be protected. There are however prescribed methodologies for assessing reduction in daylight and sunlight to an existing property, and definitions of what is considered acceptable. As a rule, up to 20% reduction is considered 'acceptable' in planning terms.

Just to correct this - the 20% reduction only applies if the light reaching a particular window is already substandard. An acceptable standard is 27% (of 40% which is the maximum light a window can receive). If a window already receives less than 27% light, then a reduction of 20% is usually acceptable in planning terms. Otherwise, any reduction is normally acceptable, down to the minimum level of 27%. So if a window receives maximum light (40%, then a reduction down to 27% is acceptable. However, if an existing window only receives 20% of available light, then only a 20% reduction is acceptable (i.e. a resultant figure of 16%).

Hope that's clear as day, and not clear as mud...!

This all derives from the 'BRE: Site Layout Planning for Daylight and Sunlight' guidance. This is also completely separate to a 'right to light', which is a legal issue and not a planning matter.