Neighbours planning application

Giraffeseeker

Just home from a few days away and I have a planning application notice though the post.

I am in a 3 bed semi and have a very narrow side passageway (less than a metre) down the side of my house. The neighbouring detached house has about 3 metres on the side.

The plans are for a 2 story extension right up to the boundary, leaving just my narrow passageway between the houses. I have 4 windows to the side - one in my hallway which is the only natural light to the hall/stairs/landing area, one to the dining room (not so much of an issue as there is a second large window in that room), one to my son's boxroom and one to the bathroom (there is a 2nd very tiny window in the bathroom to the front).

I am most concerned about my son's bedroom - it is the 3rd bedroom so quite small and will get no light at all and look out 1 metre onto a blank wall - he won't see anything else - and my hallway which is already quite dark without the light being blocked from the only window.

I quite like my neighbours but we are not friends so I will object if I think it will make a difference. Do I have a valid complaint?

Gordon_Hose

If you think it is important then yes, it's a valid complaint.

You do have a right to natural light: http://www.rics.org/uk/knowledge/more-services/consumer-guides/rights-to-light/

I_have_spoken

You'd best go onto your Council's web site and look at their own guides, 'right to light' is not in itself a valid objection to planning but the "45 degree rule" would be used.

Also building that close, if planning was granted I'd expect they'll need to serve a Party Wall notice on you which some people use to thwart development

Mother's house is plunged into darkness as new three-storey homes are built all around her property

Giraffeseeker

I_have_spoken wrote: »

You'd best go onto your Council's web site and look at their own guides, 'right to light' is not in itself a valid objection to planning.

On the back of the letter is a list of "planning issues" which states "loss of daylight/sunlight" as one, so I guess it is taken into account. "Loss of views" is listed as a "non-planning issue" but that's not relevant, they are not windows we look out of but are important for natural light. It will be like living in a terrace if this goes ahead.

Gordon_Hose

You need to object on that basis then.

And, there's nothing wrong with living in a terrace! I have plenty of light and views over an orchard

Giraffeseeker

I_have_spoken wrote: »

You'd best go onto your Council's web site and look at their own guides, 'right to light' is not in itself a valid objection to planning but the "45 degree rule" would be used.

Also building that close, if planning was granted I'd expect they'll need to serve a Party Wall notice on you which some people use to thwart development

Mother's house is plunged into darkness as new three-storey homes are built all around her property

What's the 45 degree rule please?

The woman in the daily mail story didn't actually file an objection at planning application stage by the looks of it.

teneighty

The right to light in itself is not a planning issue but the loss of light to those rooms is a massive loss of amenity which is a very important planning issue.


I would go through the councils planning website and try to find similar applications that have been rejected. Take the reasons that the planning dept. have cited on the refusal notice and adapt those to your case. It will probably take a long time sifting through all the applications but it will be worth it. I would expect the planners would make them set the extension back from the boundary by about 3 feet but probably not stop it altogether. Make sure you submit your objection within the deadline.


By the way, it might be worth discussing it with the neighbours first to express your concerns as objections to a planning application rarely go down well.

Giraffeseeker

Gordon_Hose wrote: »

You need to object on that basis then.

And, there's nothing wrong with living in a terrace! I have plenty of light and views over an orchard

Nothing wrong with terraces but I paid for a semi! Plus in a terrace my son's window would have been on the back wall, not the side. Maybe the neighbours will pay to move it (it would be better on the other wall!) and double glaze it while they are at it

Gordon_Hose

tintingirl wrote: »

Nothing wrong with terraces but I paid for a semi! Plus in a terrace my son's window would have been on the back wall, not the side. Maybe the neighbours will pay to move it (it would be better on the other wall!) and double glaze it while they are at it

I'm in a semi... well, "end terrace" :cool:

Giraffeseeker

teneighty wrote: »

The right to light in itself is not a planning issue but the loss of light to those rooms is a massive loss of amenity which is a very important planning issue.


I would go through the councils planning website and try to find similar applications that have been rejected. Take the reasons that the planning dept. have cited on the refusal notice and adapt those to your case. It will probably take a long time sifting through all the applications but it will be worth it. I would expect the planners would make them set the extension back from the boundary by about 3 feet but probably not stop it altogether. Make sure you submit your objection within the deadline.


By the way, it might be worth discussing it with the neighbours first to express your concerns as objections to a planning application rarely go down well.

That's a good idea to look at other rejected applications, thanks. 3 feet back would be an improvement. I did think I might pop round next door to check I have interpreted the plans correctly. BUT I am very surprised they haven't been to speak to me, they have done about other work they have had done even when it hasn't directly affected me and the plans seem to have been drawn up in March, so ages ago. Makes me think they might have anticipated my concerns.

Avoriaz

When we built a side extension to a detached house in 1993 we were allowed to go to the boundary on the ground floor only. The upstairs had to be at least one metre from the boundary.

This was to avoid a "terracing" effect in a road of detached houses.

I don't know if that rule was our LA only or was universal and still applies today.