CONSERVATORY/BOUNDARY/RIGHT OF WAY

Section62

Jeepers_Creepers said:

...escalate it up the chain, talk to your local councillor (esp if they are on the planning dept), and generally make a bludy nuisance of yourself to those who want a quiet life.

Actually, the opposite to the BiB is better. If there is more than one ward member it is best to contact one who isn't a member of the planning committee in relation to individual/ward planning matters.  Planning Committee members have to be extremely careful regarding impartiality and having any involvement in planning issues outside their formal committee role.  They will/should refer the matter on to a non-committee member wherever possible.

If, for any reason, the conservatory saga were to result in an application to be decided by the committee, the member would have to declare their involvement and possibly need to remove themselves from the meeting for that item.  Which is a tactical disadvantage to the OP.

Hence better to contact a non-committee ward councillor if one is available.

Also, it isn't a good idea to be a "bludy nuisance" in this situation.  There is a slender chance the OP has been wronged by an irrational decision.  There's a simple and straightforward complaints route to test whether he can get some compensation for loss of amenity.  There's no need to be a nuisance (of any kind) to achieve that - and if anything the more of a nuisance you make of yourself the less likely you are to get the required level of sympathy from the ombudsman.

E.g. It is fairly standard for councils to defend against a maladministration complaint by trying to show the complaint is vexatious - so shutting off that potential avenue of defence is important.  The best way of doing that is to be as professional in complaining as possible.  This is the same reason why I suggested keeping a tight focus (on the overdevelopment comments) in the complaint, rather than making it a wide-ranging one - the latter also often being a characteristic of vexatious complaints.

Jeepers_Creepers said:

It is surely unreasonable to allow further over-development just because they got away with previous!

Have to be careful with the "got away with" viewpoint. If it was permitted development then they were entitled to build what they have and it isn't something they got away with.  That point relates to the earlier discussion about permitted development and what I said in this (edited) post -

I said:

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.

The problem with PD is that even with the 50% rule, it is possible for something to still be overdevelopment in a specific case.

And the comments the planners made about the height of the building under PD (aka "but look how much worse it could be") neglected the issue of whether the scale of the building (existing and proposed) was also overdevelopment of the site.

Without seeing (the asked for) photos or a plan of the gardens I wasn't able to comment on whether it was actually overdevelopment, but given the latest snippet from the council it seems much more likely that the size of the proposed conservatory is outside PD, and therefore the council should have been able to use the planning consent process to limit the size of the replacement building to one which didn't exacerbate the overdevelopment problem.

Why the council didn't feel the need to limit the building size is what KEMYST needs to explore via the complaints system.

KEMYST

my wife and I have had a long chat this morning. I can see that we are perhaps looking too much at this problem. So, we will swallow the overuse of the right of way because I can`t see a `mid` solution to it without going to Court.
I will pursue the PD regarding the irrationality of their decision through the complaints procedure .

The final problem is the gate. Unless anyone on here can tell me the opposite, I am pretty certain that they cannot remove the gate without our permission - but apparently they must remove the gate to have the construction built. Would it be unreasonable for me to have a gate and wooden panel installed in front of the current gate? After all, if I do that , then I am only mirroring what they have done. Then they can remove the gate and I don`t have to look at white plastic for the rest of my life. 

KEMYST

There is no way the RoW can be moved. It would mean a massive disruption to their garden. They would hve to excavate build steps etc.

Section62

KEMYST said:

There is no way the RoW can be moved. It would mean a massive disruption to their garden. They would hve to excavate build steps etc.

I still can't be sure without pictures or a plan, but the difference in level looks like it could be dealt with by three, perhaps four, steps.

So (say) approx 1 sqm of garden lost for the steps, plus whatever alterations needed to connect the steps to a path to the conservatory door.

That doesn't feel like 'massive disruption', certainly not in the context of having their conservatory demolished and rebuilt somewhat larger.


From the builder's perspective it will be enormous hassle doing the whole job through that existing opening, so I'm surprised they haven't already approached you about adding a alternative/second access point through the wall/fence.  If it was my project it would have been one of the first things I'd do.

Soot2006

Slinky said:

The OP never answered my question about whether the existing gate opens outwards over their land already. Can't see that this is much different to an outward opening door. OP cannot realistically do anything that obstructs this area whether it's a gate or a door.

But the existing gate belongs to the OP, so it should open onto their land.

KEMYST

The existing gate is ours and opens out onto our land. The neighbours contend that the gate is on their land (it has been in its current position for 30years with no complaints even from the current neighbours when they bought the house in 2019) but they seek to unilaterally remove it without permission. By `remove` I mean to cut the gate posts)

So am I being unreason able to do what I said in the photo above??

Norman_Castle

You can fit your own self supporting gate on your own land. The gate is shown in an earlier picture and I wondered why it hadn't been replaced with a different gate to hide the access. You could put a facing on the current gate.

Who does the low garden wall and fence belong to?

Section62

KEMYST said:

So am I being unreason able to do what I said in the photo above??

If they change to an outward-opening door then your (replacement) gate would physically prevent their door opening.

Putting the legal rights and wrongs of the gate position and door opening direction to one side - if there was a fire in their home and the only means of escape was via that door - which couldn't be opened due to your gate blocking it - then you might find yourself under investigation by the police for possible culpability in any death(s) or serious injuries resulting from the fire/smoke.

Winding back from that point - should the neighbours/conservatory company/planners create(/allow) a situation in which a means of escape from the property is physically blocked by a gate under someone else's control?  Would their culpability be sufficient to exonerate you?

I don't have an answer to those questions, but it is something you need to consider.  Anyone who has followed the aftermath of the Grenfell fire will be aware of how far and wide the finger of blame has been pointing.

KEMYST

The fence is theirs. The wall, as far as I know, is shared. I cannot consider putting a face on the gate until I know for sure that they cannot remove it. I wish we had done what you suggested. LOL I was trying to be reasonable to them

We would like to, as far as possible make a feature that end of the patio....that is a nice wooden panel on the left had side and a good quality wooden (oak) door with a latch in line with the new door on the conservatory

Slinky

Is that a bench seat to the left of the gate? You could point out to them that everytime they open the door into your garden, whenever you're sitting there you'll be able to have a nosy into their conservatory, so from a privacy point of view, they're as well keeping it opening internally.

Another thought, what sort of door do they intend? If it's got any glazing there will be privacy issues for you.