Planning crops up after moving in - help

hammy1988

It's being sorted don't worry. I don't need the help anymore, wish I could delete the thread haha.

mije1983

Would be good if you come back with an update when it's all sorted.

Davesnave

hammy1988 wrote: »

Just was asking for anyone's advice if they had been through similar? certainly not interested in opinions, just someone who's actually experienced similar and could have given me a pointer on what the steps in place to object this sort of thing would be.

Sometimes, it's possible to gain mass-support against a project, but from your description, it sounds like a maximum of 6 property owners will object to this. Very many more, while sympathising, won't really care.

So, it's probably best to think in terms of your own objection.

Martin Goodall writes a great planning blog, so rather than re-invent the wheel, here's his list of valid objections:
To summarise, the following are the grounds on which planning permission is most likely to be refused :

• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account, except possibly in relation to conditions that may be imposed on the planning permission,dealing with hours and methods of working, etc. during the development]

Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called !garden grabbing!!!8217;)

• Visual impact of the development

• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood

• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)

• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity

*The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]

• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]

• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].

*This is the one controversial statement here. Martin Goodall says:

"One point which is controversial is the relevance in planning terms of the loss of a view. It is often said that !!!8220;there is no right to a view!!!8221;. Whilst this is correct in strictly legal terms, it does not mean that the loss of a view is necessarily irrelevant to planning. The enjoyment of a view could be an important part of the residential amenity of a neighbouring property, and its loss might therefore have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of that property."

Full details here:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html

Doozergirl

Davesnave wrote: »

Sometimes, it's possible to gain mass-support against a project, but from your description, it sounds like a maximum of 6 property owners will object to this. Very many more, while sympathising, won't really care.

So, it's probably best to think in terms of your own objection.

Martin Goodall writes a great planning blog, so rather than re-invent the wheel, here's his list of valid objections:
To summarise, the following are the grounds on which planning permission is most likely to be refused :

• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account, except possibly in relation to conditions that may be imposed on the planning permission,dealing with hours and methods of working, etc. during the development]

Unacceptably high density / over-development of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called !garden grabbing!!!8217;)

• Visual impact of the development

• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood

• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)

• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity

*The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners

• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]

• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]

• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].

*This is the one controversial statement here. Martin Goodall says:

"One point which is controversial is the relevance in planning terms of the loss of a view. It is often said that !!!8220;there is no right to a view!!!8221;. Whilst this is correct in strictly legal terms, it does not mean that the loss of a view is necessarily irrelevant to planning. The enjoyment of a view could be an important part of the residential amenity of a neighbouring property, and its loss might therefore have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of that property."

Full details here:
http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html

The OP could do what my next door neighbour did and copy and paste that entire extract, complete with asterisks, and send it to the Planning Officer as their objection :rotfl:

Aylesbury_Duck

hammy1988 wrote: »

It's being sorted don't worry. I don't need the help anymore, wish I could delete the thread haha.

Toys out the pram now.

Ask Nanny and Grandad if they'll get the thread deleted for you.

Doozergirl

hammy1988 wrote: »

Yes I found out on Facebook first, but one of the benefits of it being a small town is that everyone knows everyone. My Nan and Grandad are best friends with someone on the planning department so I've been going down that route today thankfully!

Ah, the old people on the planning committee. Upstanding members of the community with [STRIKE]nithing better to do[/STRIKE]great integrity

[Deleted User]

maybe your garden is north facing so you won`t get shade from this new building, that is an upside. Maybe it is a sports facility that you can use, another upside, maybe it will host late parties like village halls, not an upside. There could be cars, there could be tennis courts. You, op, really should have done your own due diligence and why now upset all the locals, who have already been upset by your own development. I suggest that you go with the flow and be grateful that it isn`t a block of 50 town houses, like a friend had to obstruct her view. I would not be seen to be objecting too hard, you will attract bile and venom

EachPenny

mije1983 wrote: »

My 'opinion' is that if it...

is an established sports community and leisure ground that has been in this area for decades

then it's likely being developed due to a need in the community. The parish council wouldn't spend money on it for the sake of it.

Therefore if it is benfitting hundreds (you don't say how large this small town is) then that outweighs the negative on 6 properties. So unless you can come up with a lawfully valid objection then I fear you are not going to get it stopped, regardless of how close friends your grandparents are with one of the committee.

About the best chance of getting a facility like this stopped would be the potential negative impact on any Green Belt or open space land. In this case the playing fields will be more or less surrounded by new housing development, so an argument about preserving open space would be ludicrous.

The size of the town and the number of people potentially benefiting from the new facility would be counted in the tens of thousands (not hundreds). The funding is in place, much of it being planning obligations from the surrounding housing estates.

My opinion is the chances of the development being stopped are close to zero. The best that might be achieved is getting the roof level lowered a bit. If I were the OP I would focus my attention on the latter, or preferably moving house very quickly.