CONSERVATORY/BOUNDARY/RIGHT OF WAY

Section62

In addition, when considering the suitability of any development ,we ,as planning officers will also be mindful of what could be carried out under permitted development rights both in terms of an extension or an outbuilding, and a consideration of this “ fall-back” position is something that all officers take account of . For example the tolerances for an outbuilding that could have been built directly behind your property right up to the boundary allow for a building to height of 2.5m to be built without the need for planning permission , which is greater than the eaves height(2.4m) of the approved conservatory.

I was going to ask about permitted development after you'd clarified the planning consent/application situation.

Although your photo doesn't show the full extent of the gardens, one of the PD limitations relates to the percentage of the 'original' garden which is being built over.

Unless the gardens continue for quite some distance off to the right of the picture, the extended conservatory (and shed?) must represent somewhere around 50% (possibly more) of the 'original' garden.

If it does exceed 50%, then permitted development wouldn't apply.

Therefore the quoted text above lacks the context that this "fall-back" position doesn't apply if someone is covering >50% of the 'original' garden with buildings.  This 'rule' partly reflects the fact that such development would have a greater impact on the neighbours than a similarly-sized building constructed on a much larger plot.

Although the planners aren't incorrect in what they say, it isn't especially helpful to justify a planning decision on the basis of the "but look how much worse it could be" argument.


If the planning process is still ongoing, one additional thing to question is how the roof of the new conservatory will be drained. For your protection you need the roof areas to have guttering which leads to surface water drains, not discharge onto the ground or into soakaways. (see numerous threads on this forum about flooding/damp problems from neighbouring property.)

Extending the conservatory means an increase in impermeable surface (although arguably a minor one), but nevertheless the owner should be expected to deal appropriately with the additional discharge, not dump it onto your property.

KEMYST

I`ve just got off the phone and a planning consultant will pop in for free on Tuesday. To be honest it looks like we are bu****d on this point. I though PD`s were supposed to be finicky...oh well.... 

Abbafan1972

Looking at the picture - I take it the garden with the umbrella is theirs? It looks like they have already encroached on your land?  Why do they have right of way over your patio - it looks a right mess now, if I'm honest 

Doozergirl

KEMYST said:

I`ve just got off the phone and a planning consultant will pop in for free on Tuesday. To be honest it looks like we are bu****d on this point. I though PD`s were supposed to be finicky...oh well.... 

They're right though.  Section62 says they shouldn't use 'look how much worse it could be' as an excuse, but if it's true that they could be rejected under PP but go ahead and build something far worse under permitted development - people can and they do.  

We are (almost) all entitled to build onto our houses under permitted development rights.  You have the same rights.  It's
not about being finicky, it's about being fair.

The default position is that no single storey extension can fall foul of the 45 degree rule because it's single storey.  It either doesn't affect your privacy or it's very easy for you to make mitigations with planting etc.  

I'm not sure why this consultant is popping out to you.  They have permission, there is nothing you can do about the permission.   You do have the door issue, but that isn't a planning issue, it's one of plainly standing up for yourself.  

Moving the ROW does look like a sensible option.  The door is ridiculous.  I'd say it should be done at their cost, but I'd say it's already devaluing your property as it is, so some cost to minimise the disruption of the positioning might be a decent investment.  

It doesn't matter that there's a window over the fence when there's an actual door into your back garden.  

KEMYST

Thanks for your reply Doozegirl. I take your point. To be fair to us, we were told a like-for-like conservatory was being erected. The matter of the door and gate were were just dropped casually into conversation a few weeks ago.

Our patio is only 8ft max and so the RoW cannot be moved. We might erect a gate just on our property but inside the definite boundary.

Lol I don`t want to argue with you, I can only tell you that when I sent the planning dept. my complaint about the single storey thing. I sent them a diagram from another local authority and they referred to the rule `applying to 2 storeys. In fact they use the words `normally` and `usually` a lot when justifying the agreement with this request for planning. I managed to copy it.

You refer to various guidance however such guidance is not prescriptive even for those authorities who have it in the form of Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance .The 45 degree guideline , is normally applied to 2 storey extensions, as is the case of Neath/Port Talbot , that you quote, who’s guidance  applies it in relation to semi-detached or detached dwellings rather than the single storey form of development  approved  in this case.

Section62

KEMYST said:

Our patio is only 8ft max and so the RoW cannot be moved. We might erect a gate just on our property but inside the definite boundary.

The 8ft is from the house to the boundary wall/fence behind?

The suggestion I made was to move the RoW access point away somewhere to right  (out of shot in the photo) to reduce the distance the RoW has to cross your patio, and so the access point is a simple gate in the wall/fence, rather than a more complicated (weather-proofed) external door on the conservatory.

If you wanted to post a picture showing the rest of your garden we could give you suggestions how the RoW could be modified to both your and the neighbour's benefit.

Doozergirl

KEMYST said:

Thanks for your reply Doozegirl. I take your point. To be fair to us, we were told a like-for-like conservatory was being erected. The matter of the door and gate were were just dropped casually into conversation a few weeks ago.

Our patio is only 8ft max and so the RoW cannot be moved. We might erect a gate just on our property but inside the definite boundary.

Lol I don`t want to argue with you, I can only tell you that when I sent the planning dept. my complaint about the single storey thing. I sent them a diagram from another local authority and they referred to the rule `applying to 2 storeys. In fact they use the words `normally` and `usually` a lot when justifying the agreement with this request for planning. I managed to copy it.

You refer to various guidance however such guidance is not prescriptive even for those authorities who have it in the form of Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance .The 45 degree guideline , is normally applied to 2 storey extensions, as is the case of Neath/Port Talbot , that you quote, who’s guidance  applies it in relation to semi-detached or detached dwellings rather than the single storey form of development  approved  in this case.

It's semantics.  It is applied to two storeys.  

Planning officers are the most wishy washy people when you talk to them because they don't want conflict but spend a lot of time talking to angry people. 

Fact is, permission has been granted, so your beef is with the doors.  I've mentioned it before.  I'm not one for confrontation but nobody would be in any doubt that it was a HARD NO.  They have no right and they won't be gaining one.  

Section62

Doozergirl said:

They're right though.  Section62 says they shouldn't use 'look how much worse it could be' as an excuse, but if it's true that they could be rejected under PP but go ahead and build something far worse under permitted development - people can and they do.  

I agree with the rest of your post, but just for clarity, so the OP (or others) don't get the wrong idea, I wouldn't say the 'look how much worse it could be' is an excuse.

It's just that it isn't a positive justification for approving the application being considered on its own merits. There are cases where the 'better than the other' is a relevant planning consideration, but the point I was making is it isn't helpful to routinely give a response to objectors that effectively amounts to "suck it up and think yourself lucky it isn't worse".

It creates the impression the planning system is weaker than it is and leaves people wondering what the point of objecting is.

As an example (which also happens in real life) that approach leads to decisions such as accepting 100 new homes being built on flood plain because 'look how much worse it could be - the developer originally wanted to build 200'.

The question should be whether the application for 100 new homes makes sense and is justified, not that it is just better than a 200 home plan.

Likewise, 'is this conservatory overbearing and over development of the site?', rather than 'this is better than a theoretical conservatory which the applicant doesn't actually want to build'.

Not a biggie, but a pet peeve of mine that sometimes planners inadvertently give the impression they are very much on the side of the developer.

KEMYST

This is very strange (perhaps)

I have had a send `consideration` from another second planning officer! Obviously coming to the same conclusions!

In terms of the assessment of the application, the officer that dealt with the application (name given?) took account of the existing situation on site and the impact of the proposed conservatory on the occupiers of your property and other neighbouring properties.  You refer to the 45 degree line and the fact that the proposal intercepts this line.  However, it is common for extensions to intercept the 45 degree line.  You may not be aware that it is possible to build a single storey extension which extends 4 metres from the rear elevation of a property without the need for planning permission.   In most cases where houses are attached (e.g. terrace  or semi-detached properties) this results in interference with the 45 degree line.  Therefore, just because an extension may intercept the 45 degree line, this does not mean that the development is unacceptable.  The primary question when considering the 45 degree line is whether a proposed development would interfere with light and if so, whether any loss of light would result in an unacceptable adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers.  In this instance, the development was not considered to have a harmful impact on light to an unacceptable degree.   In reaching this decision, several factors were taken into account.  Consideration was given to the fact that there was an existing conservatory at the property which extended out from the rear elevation of the property to a similar extent as the proposed conservatory.  Although the proposed conservatory was higher than the existing conservatory, it was not considered that this would result in a significant impact on the enjoyment of your property, partly helped by the amount of glazing.  In terms of the section of the proposed extension situated opposite the rear elevation of your property this was considered to be of a limited scale such that it would not appear overbearing or result in loss of light to an unacceptable degree.  Although the internal floor level in the conservatory was raised relative to the existing conservatory, the existing fencing was considered to provide sufficient screening to ensure that privacy was not unacceptably compromised.  Overall, the development was considered acceptable and permission was therefore granted on this basis.

 Maybe the second conclusion was an admin error Or....

 

Doozergirl

That makes perfect sense as well. 

It's two different takes on the same thing.  One a bit lazier than the other, as the second has taken time to explain the context.