Rich Pen

The size of the houses,garden and of road parking is the size of the plot. Im hoping a daylight/ sunshine survey that shows the impact of shadowing to the neighbors is minimal thus addressing the reason mentioned in the refusal statement even though it says due to scale,dominance and overdevelopment. If the loss of amenity is disproven aa mentioned above then maybe there's a chance at appeal.

I agree but the planning department were totally onboard during the consultation period and commented that all those issues were not relevant.They recommended the committee approve the proposal.

This building is built on a backland / brown field site.Currently a pair of lock up garages.

Height of ground floor 3m plus height of screening wall 1.8m.Total 4.8 Main body of living space 6.2m and small section finishes on the boundary

Ok,thank you. If the DSIA shows that loss of amenity to the gardens is acceptable are the issues you mention still valid?

Toughbuttercup thanks for your comment.Could you please confirm what you mean.

It's a screening wall to stop overlooking to the north when on the balconies.

I intend to appeal on the grounds that a Daylight,sunshine,impact assessment would show that the loss of amenity to the neighbors garden would be within recommended national guidelines thus disproving the reason for the refusalThe error in the dimensions of the wall would have to be mentioned but not relied on.

There were about 22 objections and 10 supporters.So had to go to the committee. Reason for refusal is detailed in my original post.

My question is regarding misleading details being presented to the planning committee.

Maybe but the planning department stated in there appraisal that anyb loss of sunlight,daylight did not have a detrimental impact on the neighbors. I have since been in touch regarding having a DSIA done and there initial reaction is that it is well within national guidelines. Never the less that isn't the situation I am trying to address in my post

Our planning application recently went before the planning committee with recommendation for approval but was unanimously refused. Here is the refusal statement. It is considered that the proposed development by virtue of its scale, dominance and overdevelopment of the site would result in a loss of daylight and sunlight to the adjacent residential gardens to the north detrimentally impacting on the occupiers amenity, contrary to Policy DM25 and DM30 of the *******District Plan Part 2.” The boundary wall to the north and the one in question was presented to the committee in the councils written and verbal presentation as being 11m long and 6.2 meters high along its entire length. The fact is the wall is 11m long but only 2m of its length is 6.2m high and the remaing 9m is only 4.8m high. This crucial and misleading inaccuracies could of had a very detrimental influence on the committees decision to approve or refuse especially as the refusal was due to overshadowing of the neighbors garden. We have paid a considerable sum to a planning consultant from inception up to the refusal. The planning department posted there written appraisal that would be presented to the committee well in advance and the consultant and I had a long discussion on how positive it sounded.I the applicant did not notice the mistakes regarding the height of the wall but maybe the consultant should of. Or should my concerns be taken up with the planning department?Would there be any sort of redress? I mentioned my concerns to the consultant who in my view fobbed me off by saying the planning departments error could form part of my argument if I go to Appeal. I was well aware that the committee could make up there own mind but for the committee to be presented with the wrong information is surely unfair. Your comments would be most welcome.

Plan attatched.My plot is labelled G and shaded black.Nearest utility's to rear of G about 6 m.Yellow owned by owner of covenants. Utilitys also in front of council house ORANGE.I have right of way over yellow access road.

All of the other houses are privately owned and have robustly objected to the application.The council tenants or council have made no objections.Parish council voted to remain neutral.

Thanks for the reply.Good point regarding moling.I have right of way over the access road but it is also owned by the land owner from whom I require a easement and the distance to the utility's is about 30 m along the road.The owner of the road is so far unaware of my application. What your opinion regarding the council house?The garden has a wide grass area running from my boundary directly to the pavement containing all utility's about 15 m.