Information on plans

Section62

Slithery said:

HRH_MUngo said:

I would object to the garage at the front as it is too overbearing to you and detrimental to the street scene.

Why do you say that having not seen the street in question?
In the OP it's stated that several properties on the same street already have garages fronting the road.

I think it would depend a lot on where the garages are relative to the houses - a detached garage with some distance between it and the house can look less oppressive than what is effectively a 6x6m front extension to the house.

I'm intrigued by the plan as to what is currently on the front of the neighbour's house where the garage is going - at 6m tall it would surely at least partially obstruct any first floor windows on that side of the front wall.

Personally I would put "detrimental to the street scene" into any objection to something proposed at the front of a dwelling.  It is completely subjective whether or not there is detriment, and if the planning officer is minded to agree, an objection from a resident about the detrimental impact on the street scene is useful to support their own subjective opinion.

@morgan98 - you said that the wall of the garage will replace most of the fence along the boundary line.  Is the fence exactly on the boundary?  If they build the outside face of the garage wall on the boundary line then it is almost inevitable that part of the garage roof will overhang your property.  The amount will depend to an extent on the direction the roof is pitched.  You can object (separately) to them building on/over your land which may have an impact on the planning process if either (a) the garage can't be built as designed, or (b) changes to the design to make it buildable would mean it has a greater detrimental effect on the streetscene.  For example a concealed box gutter could sidestep the overhang issue, but would give the garage a very different appearance.

morgan98

@ Section62
To paint a picture, there is currently an small ground floor room with a small room above but no 1st floor windows on that side which would overlook the new garage. The ground floor room is being made into a lounge with a larger window being installed which would face the end of the garage (or the left hand side if you were to look at the doors) with a small garden in between - although it would be quite a dark space so a little odd.

A very good point regarding the garage gutter. We had a similar issue in our previous house. However it looks like the plans accommodate this. That being said, it depends if the builders read them properly.

[Deleted User]

What kind of garage is 6m high? Might be worth just asking if they could switch to a flat roof instead, if the height is an issue.

Shame that car ports are not really allowed in the UK, that would have been a good alternative that lets light through but keeps their car dry, if that's what they want.

Titus_Wadd

[Deleted User] said:

What kind of garage is 6m high? Might be worth just asking if they could switch to a flat roof instead, if the height is an issue.

Shame that car ports are not really allowed in the UK, that would have been a good alternative that lets light through but keeps their car dry, if that's what they want.

There's no harm in suggesting alternatives in your planning comment.  If you can encourage a few other neighbours to comment it will add weight to your opposition (we can't start a petition or make a joint submission to our LPA, but they will accept a submission for a residents' association if there is one).

Carports are a thing here where I live (Sussex); our neighbour has just applied to build 4 houses, with car ports.  The problem with a car port is that it's useless for storage; is the applicant really going to park a car in it.  The plot planned near us has little parking space so the reason behind offering to build car ports, over garages, is that it tells the LPA that it will only be used for parking, slightly strengthening their case.  From experience of this builder, he will build the houses then try to vary the car port permission to build a garage.  I've discussed this with planning and sadly they just look at any "minor" changes in a rather blinkered way; rather than pointing out that they told the builder a car port is a better solution than a garage at the outset, they then review the smaller subsequent tweaks in isolation: one car port will be replaced with a garage.  Once one garage is permitted they apply for all 3 remailing car ports to be altered and the cite the first one as a precedent! 

Lil old me saying to the council "I told you so!" when there are 4 garages and cars kept on the street is a bit of a hollow victory. (I have quite a low opinion of our LPA and yours might be better)

Adam16

Your best option is an objection on Rights to Light. 

Get a surveyor involved. Its going to cost you a couple of grand for a report, but its a legal reason for the development to not be permitted. 

ComicGeek

Adam16 said:

Your best option is an objection on Rights to Light. 

Get a surveyor involved. Its going to cost you a couple of grand for a report, but its a legal reason for the development to not be permitted. 

No, the development will never be refused in terms of rights to light, that is not a planning issue.

Rights to light is a separate form of easement which requires the affected landowner to obtain an injunction to prevent/amend any scheme being built to protect this. However, not a planning issue, and these rights may not have been established yet by the OP.

Impact on daylight and sunlight (using the Littlefair approach) would be a valid reason for refusal. However, the impact on a habitable room not yet created (the OP's proposed garage conversion) would not be included within this assessment unless a planning submission had already been submitted on this.

Adam16

ComicGeek said:

Adam16 said:

Your best option is an objection on Rights to Light. 

Get a surveyor involved. Its going to cost you a couple of grand for a report, but its a legal reason for the development to not be permitted. 

No, the development will never be refused in terms of rights to light, that is not a planning issue.

Rights to light is a separate form of easement which requires the affected landowner to obtain an injunction to prevent/amend any scheme being built to protect this. However, not a planning issue, and these rights may not have been established yet by the OP.

Impact on daylight and sunlight (using the Littlefair approach) would be a valid reason for refusal. However, the impact on a habitable room not yet created (the OP's proposed garage conversion) would not be included within this assessment unless a planning submission had already been submitted on this.

OP, get a rights of light surveyor involved and meanwhile object to the application on other grounds also.

Being a large scale developer (850 units this year) i know all too well how rights to light can delay or stop a development in its tracks.

morgan98

Adam16 said:

ComicGeek said:

Adam16 said:

Your best option is an objection on Rights to Light. 

Get a surveyor involved. Its going to cost you a couple of grand for a report, but its a legal reason for the development to not be permitted. 

No, the development will never be refused in terms of rights to light, that is not a planning issue.

Rights to light is a separate form of easement which requires the affected landowner to obtain an injunction to prevent/amend any scheme being built to protect this. However, not a planning issue, and these rights may not have been established yet by the OP.

Impact on daylight and sunlight (using the Littlefair approach) would be a valid reason for refusal. However, the impact on a habitable room not yet created (the OP's proposed garage conversion) would not be included within this assessment unless a planning submission had already been submitted on this.

OP, get a rights of light surveyor involved and meanwhile object to the application on other grounds also.

Being a large scale developer (850 units this year) i know all too well how rights to light can delay or stop a development in its tracks.

Thanks - does this need to be done before the objection as I only have a week with a massive public holiday in the middle, or can it be done after the objection?
Thanks

user1977

morgan98 said:

Adam16 said:

ComicGeek said:

Adam16 said:

Your best option is an objection on Rights to Light. 

Get a surveyor involved. Its going to cost you a couple of grand for a report, but its a legal reason for the development to not be permitted. 

No, the development will never be refused in terms of rights to light, that is not a planning issue.

Rights to light is a separate form of easement which requires the affected landowner to obtain an injunction to prevent/amend any scheme being built to protect this. However, not a planning issue, and these rights may not have been established yet by the OP.

Impact on daylight and sunlight (using the Littlefair approach) would be a valid reason for refusal. However, the impact on a habitable room not yet created (the OP's proposed garage conversion) would not be included within this assessment unless a planning submission had already been submitted on this.

OP, get a rights of light surveyor involved and meanwhile object to the application on other grounds also.

Being a large scale developer (850 units this year) i know all too well how rights to light can delay or stop a development in its tracks.

Thanks - does this need to be done before the objection as I only have a week with a massive public holiday in the middle, or can it be done after the objection?
Thanks

Rights to light are completely separate from planning.

jonnydeppiwish!

So looking at the plan, it’s highly likely that if the neighbour wanted to build the garage on the other side of the driveway, it would be rejected for reasons of highway safety, therefore they have to place it on the other side.

As for objections, you can object due to loss of light and over bearing but you will have to look at the angles of the roof to your front windows. This is the 45 degree rule but it would need to be from a main living room - utility rooms etc would not count.

As for wanting a flat roof over a pitched roof, that would look bloody awful. I think your aim would be for the neighbour to reduce the height by 2m.

Perhaps the architect has put in 6m as they know they may have to reduce the height to get PP?