flanagaj

Welcome. This is a great forum, and there are some very knowledgeable folk on here. Our search for a plot started 20 years ago, and during that time, I did the following. 1) Wrote more letters than I can count to landowners who had prospective plots (spotted during my cycling rides around Dorset). I think I received one email to say no. The rest just completely ignored me. 2) Paid £50 and signed up to the Dorset Self Build Register (£50 down the drain) 3) Used PlotBrowser - the FREE listing of house-building plots and self-build land to look at potential plots, but never had the cash in the bank to enable me to move quickly. Plots are so few and far between, and to give yourself a fighting chance, you need to have the money in the bank, and ready to go. Seeing a plot, and then trying to get financing arranged takes weeks if not months. Most people will not wait, and there will always be someone who has the cash in the bank. In the end we got so fed up, that we sold our house and moved into rented (also tried that tactic in 2014), and we found our plot on Rightmove, but we stopped looking just in Dorset, and expanded our search area to Hampshire and Wiltshire. It is a frustrating task, especially, if you don't have huge amounts of cash sitting in the bank, but that being said, you might be fortunate to have a £1,000,000 for a plot. In which case, your task will be much easier. Good luck.

I was wondering whether this could be ammunition at appeal.

So the public consultation period on our associated planning application expired on 7th Jan, but another NIMBY luddite on the lane submitted an objection today, and the council have uploaded it to the planning portal. Are they not in breach of their own regulation in allowing these submissions? I'm most likely going to end up with a restraining order, as I'm seething at these 🤬 for their objections.

But said reports keep people employed.

I think that is where we messed up this time. They have an in house Planning Consultant, but he only seemed to get involved at PP submission time, to draft the design and access statement, but that wasn't very good, and it didn't even contain photos of the mixed bag of properties along the lane.

I spoke with the Architects, and they suggested we left things as they were. TBH, confidence regarding us getting PP is at an all time low. On the day of the Case Officer's site visit, he sent her an email addressing the letters of objection. At the bottom of the email he added a paragraph relating to possible compromises. I was thoroughly annoyed that he'd basically shown his card hand, before the Case Officer had enough made any comment. At no point too, along the whole journey have they ever made reference to the local planning policy documents, and whether we have any hope in getting what we want. You definitely get what you pay for, but if we get refused, I'll be binning them off. Question is, do we hand the reason for refusal to a decent Planning Consultant or do we just find an Architect who specialises in AONB applications.

They don't want to see windows above the hedge, but in the next breath one of them objects to the large gate, and wants it removed. Won't they see the house then 🤔 Their objections are full of contradictions and inconsistencies when compared to the original application.

That is actually a good idea. The planning application did show the reduced massing, so I was hoping that would suffice.

I'm contemplating offering it to the traveller community for 12 months. In no made rush to get building, and it would be great to see their faces with caravans on the site and a Cob grazing on the road verge.

Not looking good. What a bunch of **** "ORIGINAL PLANNING APPLICATION 23/00259/FUL Proposal "replacement of existing cattery buildings with a single dwelling and detached garage". In our comments on the above planning application we noted the "we have two considerations for any proposed developments in White Lane: the first is the visual and environmental impact and the second is with regards traffic generation, highway safety and parking". Regarding the former consideration, we concluded that... "whilst the single storey bungalow will be slightly higher than the cattery (the buildings it would be replacing), its position, the slope of the ground and the height of the hedge along the boundary with the road will minimize its visibility for the public." Taking into account the above, and other comments in our submission, we made it clear that we were in support of the ORIGINAL proposal... which was subsequently approved by BDC. HOWEVER, the ALTERNATIVE DESIGN TO THE DWELLING AND GARAGE now proposed by the new owners of the land presents a substantial and material change to which we can NOT support. The change from a single-storey dwelling to a two-storey building, and one that is so close to the lane will be extremely imposing and will be totally out of character with the rural surroundings and the neighbouring buildings in the Lane. Despite the proposal for the new dwelling to be partially sunk and with a standard hedge on the roadside, the building will present an overpowering presence for anybody 2 passing by. My understanding is that the Council has recently refused planning applications for anything other than single-storey buildings in White Lane i.e. Patchbourne House, Primrose Cottage and the original planning application 23/00259/FUL. I do not see how the Council could permit a two-storey development on this site, when all previous applications in its vicinity have been limited to a single-storey dwelling. In addition, to our objections to the impact of the two-storey development from White Lane, there is also the objection to its visual and environmental impact on the view from the farmland rising at the back which is an AONB! The property would be unable to erect any screening or hedging sufficient to even partially mitigate the building's visual impact as there is no space between the rear of the building and the boundary of the property. In conclusion: we OPPOSE the 'alternative design' on grounds of its visual effect on the lane, on the rural area and on AONB that it is sited in" Given the building is basically sitting in the same place as the granted one. I am also keen to understand how the council (if this bit is true), can refuse anything other than single storey dwellings. The lane has a mix of single and two storey dwellings, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a house built on the lane for decades.

The relationship is truly hosed, especially, after our neighbour was the one who was nice as pie before we handed over the money to purchase the plot, and then submits an objection.

Ok, thanks. Not sure if they have PD rights.

Can I get people's thoughts on whether the response below from our Architect is adequate. I am not sure whether any of the objections that were raised, can be countered using reference to planning policy, or whether it is not like law where you can reference case law when arguing a raised point. The objections are on page 1 of the post history. Response to Mr ... Objection Architectural Design and Context The proposed design has been developed with reference to the Hampshire barn vernacular, which is appropriate for the rural setting and enhances the character of the site. Existing properties along White Lane lack a cohesive architectural style. For example, Woodstock has evolved over time, resulting in a fragmented design, while Primrose Cottage is a modest bungalow constructed with low-quality materials in a DIY manner. Our proposal introduces a high-quality, cohesive design that respects the rural environment without replicating the inconsistencies of its neighbours. Permitted Development Rights Concerns about potential future extensions over the garage under permitted development are noted. To address this, a planning condition could be imposed to remove permitted development rights, ensuring that any future changes would require planning oversight and maintain the character of the development. Drawings and Context The drawings provided are accurate, to scale, and represent the closest built forms for context. It is unclear why they have been described as disingenuous, as they adhere to all planning requirements including scale. Furthermore, as noted above, Woodstock lacks a distinct architectural style, making it challenging to use as a reference for the new design. Windows and Ridge Height The inclusion of a small number of first-floor windows has been carefully considered to avoid overlooking any neighbouring properties. The overall massing of the proposed dwelling is smaller than the previously approved scheme, and the building has been positioned further away from Primrose Cottage. Importantly, the ridge height remains unchanged from the approved application, as shown in the submitted drawings. Response to Mrs .... Objection Design Features and Materials While the new design differs from the previously approved scheme, it addresses several of the concerns raised in the earlier application, including: First-floor windows will be constructed using hardwood, ensuring a high-quality and sympathetic finish. The ridge height remains unchanged, as the property will be set into the site using the existing lower ground level to reduce its visual impact. A traditional timber gate, set 5 metres back from the road, has been included for security purposes. However, we are happy to omit this feature if it cannot be supported. The building incorporates high-quality materials, including timber cladding at first-floor level and heritage multi-brick at the ground floor, to achieve a Hampshire barn aesthetic. While extending the timber across the entire façade is an option, we believe this would detract from the overall design and is inconsistent with other properties on the lane that also use a mix of materials. Additional hedging is being planted to enhance the landscape and compensate for any loss of existing vegetation. Architectural Style and Landscape Integration The design adopts the Hampshire barn style, which is sympathetic to its rural surroundings. The use of heritage multi-brick and dark-stained oak cladding ensures that the building blends seamlessly into the landscape. Attempting to mimic the ad hoc design of Primrose Cottage or the overdeveloped nature of Woodstock would fail to meet the high design standards achieved by the current proposal. Future Extensions The client has no intention of extending the property in the future. Any such extensions would require planning permission, and a condition can be included to remove permitted development rights, ensuring that the building’s form and scale will remain as proposed. Proximity to Primrose Cottage and Visual Impact The proposed design is positioned further away from Primrose Cottage than the previously approved scheme: The ridge height is located an additional 8 metres away from the property. The garage is positioned an additional 4.5 metres away and features a flat roof, which is less imposing on the outlook from Primrose Cottage. These changes ensure that the visual impact on Primrose Cottage is reduced compared to the previously approved scheme. Even if future development over the garage were proposed, it would remain further away from Primrose Cottage than the earlier application. Conclusion The proposed design has been carefully developed to address concerns raised in the earlier application while providing a high-quality, purpose-built family home that integrates with its rural surroundings. Although the design differs from the previous scheme, it has been designed to address some of the earlier concerns whilst standing on its own merit and respecting the character of White Lane and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. We are happy to discuss any further adjustments or conditions to address the concerns raised, including restrictions on permitted development rights. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further clarification.

Just out of curiosity, when you attend the Parish meeting to address the objections raised, can you subtly belittle these insignificant luddites, so that they know damn well never to even look in your direction when you finally move in?

They should be fined for wasting people's time and money

That's a good point, I will request that they attend.

The Case Officer is doing a site visit on Friday. I wonder if the Planning Consultant should attend as well. He hasn't mentioned he is going to meet. Both objections are really along the same lines. You will see first floor windows above the hedge line on the lane. The lane in question has a sloping field in front, so nothing looks at the property, apart from people walking past. The argument that the property will be seen for miles around it rather moot, as the ridge height is no different than the previous granted dwelling. There is also no vantage point in the area where the dwelling will be really visible. I think it's simply, a couple of luddites who don't want to see a more modern building, and want to see a crappy bungalow hidden from view.

1) There are no two houses the same. A right mixed back of brick, clad and render 2) Some are bungalow and some are houses 3) Our proposed ridge height is no different to the bungalow next door. We have dropped the house down so as to be able to keep the ridge height the same I am going to stop stewing, and just wait until the LPA has given their view.

I had a feeling that the lane was clique. It's very interesting that not a single objection was raised, and only positive comments to the previous granted planning application were submitted, and yet, when the new comer submits an application, it's inundated with objections by the very same people.

It's amazing how some object, even though the proposed development if approved would most likely lift the value of the lane, and in doing so raise the value of their property.

The architectural practice we are using have an in house planning consultant. But I do wonder whether we would be better off using a specialist planning consultancy firm. I'd rather have then worry about lorries falling into the lake, than stating the proposed development is an eyesore. The cheek of it!

Unfortunately, the plot is on the edge of the AONB, and whilst it will show windows above the hedge line and you could argue change the area, the properties on the lane are a random bag. I have posted the current comments below. And this one is from the people we purchased the plot from! We have even kept the ridge height the same, and move the proposed bungalow 5 metres further away from their boundary. As to an eyesore, I can only think they are luddites who don't like change. Stance: Customer objects to the Planning Application Comment Reasons: Comment:The current planning application ref: 23/00259/FUL submitted by us, Mr & Mrs P A Pardoe, and approved by Basingstoke & Deane Planning Department and the Council on 28th July 2023. This planning application was amended and modified by us to meet and comply with the 'objections and concerns' of the Planning Department. These alterations to our original submission included; 1) The removal of windows facing the north of the property. 2) The removal of UPVC windows replaced with hardwood windows 3) The requirement that the roof height be no higher than that of Primrose cottage, in order to minimise the visual impact from the road. 4) The removal of gates onto the road as no gates were permitted. 5) The removal of the brick facade replaced with timber cladding, covering the entire building. 6) The requirement to include new hedging to compensate for the removal of existing hedges. Without these alterations, we were informed that the planning application would not have been approved. We are therefore concerned that the amended planning application, submitted by the new owners, includes many of the elements that we were required to amend or remove entirely. We are also objecting on the grounds that, whilst the construction of the bungalow in the approved planning application, is built in a style and materials that are sympathetic to the rural nature of the neighbouring buildings, the style and construction of the amended proposal is totally out of character, and being two storey and so close to the road would be an imposing eyesore. Being in an AONB its visual impact from the fields and countryside behind is significant and this can not be mitigated by hedging as there is insufficient space behind the back of the house and the boundary. We are also concerned that the flat roof of the garage of the proposed building will, in the future, be used under permitted development to add a further extension to the upstairs of the building. If this was to happen it would have a significant impact on the view and how imposing the building is to Primrose cottage I'm not hopeful.

I suspect I am not alone here, but why do people put in public objections for a property that does not impact them in anyway. We have just received our first public objection (currently, cannot read the comment) from someone who lives 200 metres down the lane, and only comes past our plot when they walk their dog up the no through lane. So it can only be a "I don't like it as it changes the appearance of the lane", when in fact, it's that he wants to walk his dog along the lane without anyone being able to look out a window and see him. Just reinforces my view, that there are some very sad and bitter individuals out there!

I had a feeling it was "one rule for thee and another for me"

Twiddling my thumbs waiting for LPA to decide the fate of our planning application, and already decided it's going to be a no. Given the proposed bungalow had a larger footprint, and obviously a higher CO2 cost, do those factors get used at appeal, or do emissions only apply to the applicant and not the LPA?