How to approach the neighbours?

[jack]

3 minutes ago, AliG said:

I wanted to talk to my neighbours as I don't like conflict.

 

My architect was absolutely adamant that to engage with them would only start negotiations on how they thought my house should look and would allow them to argue about things that they think are irrelevant but planners would throw out as non material objections. And they could be two faced and object anyway.

 

It is unlikely that anything the neighbours say will make a difference so it may be easier just to apply and forget about them.

 

 

You're in exactly the same position we were, even down to your architect's advice.  Your architect isn't located in a small market town on the Surrey/Hampshire borders is he? 

 

We took to the view that we were going to be here for a long time, so we needed to get to know the neighbours anyway. We were therefore careful not to just be turning on the charm for the purpose of getting planning - our plans for the house came up now and then in conversation, but only when it was a natural part of whatever was being talked about.  The elderly couple who were in bungalow before us had been here for something like 50 years, so lots of people in the neighbourhood knew them.  It was really interesting learning about the history of the house and the people who lived here for so long.

 

And then we bulldozed it.

[Ferdinand]

I think Persimmon will cave in that issue, because reuse and deepening of graves of that age is entirely routine, and the CofE has its own planning system for ecclesiastical matters. The alternative to their proposal is essentially cost free, so they only have goodwill to bargain with plus the loss of any development value to the extra bit of land which will be in the viability spreadsheet and vulnerable to having its value reduced by the church implementing Plan B if they drag their feet.

 

In fact you cannot in law lease a grave for more than iirc 100 years. That is certainly the case for ashes in a columbarium as the chap with the Long Barrow in Wiltshire found out.

 

http://www.thelongbarrow.com/about-the-long-barrow

 

Persimmon are really leveraging on modern squeamishness about dealing with death.

 

F

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

39 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

Dunno... will be interesting to see. But the same tactic (applied less heavy-handedly) worked for me on another site in Worcestershire - though that was a cemetery rather than a church graveyard.

 

One of the problems is that population growth means that whilst, yes, older graves can be re-used easily enough, there aren't enough older graves to be recycled to keep pace with demand for more than a short period of time.

 

It's interesting how far ranging the implications of development can be, at times, isn't it?!

 

It is actually more interesting than that.

 

There are other factors at work, eg:

 

1 - urbanisation is now 85-90% my estimate. In 1930-1950 it may have been more like 60% So in many places the rural population will be much less than before, which is why graves often more haven't had to be reused  That is despite an increase of maybe 40% in the pop since the mid century.

 

I Cannot prove it but the rural population of eg Norfolk may still be less than it was in say 1400. An extreme case but an interesting subject.

 

2 - now only fewer people are buried. THink about all those crems built in the baby boom era, and most churchyards now have an ashes' area. ALso of course we have all those green funerals etc.

 

3 - much of the population growth is in non Christian religions, where arrangements may be different - though Planning may be affected on occasion.

 

4 - and of course the CofE has itself declined in percentage of population as adherents, though there is still a lot of folk loyalty.

 

5 - and there is a statutory right to close graveyards and hand them over to the Local Authority. Always tempting at Health and Safety review time for small congregations.

 

A REALLY interesting story I ran across the other day was when the Channel Tunnel people dug up medieval graves with JCBs in St Pancras.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/2516907.stm

 

Interesting diversion:

 

http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160906-plague-pits-the-london-underground-and-crossrail

 

Ferdinand. 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2016 by Ferdinand

[Gimp]

13 hours ago, Sensus said:

 

... but this is perhaps academic; if I've explained my views well enough, hopefully you'll at least admit that my alternative opinion is valid even if you don't share it yourself. In which case, why should people who hold your view (objectors) be allowed to hold sway over people who hold my view (the applicant), or vice versa?

 

If you want to build quality vernacular design, that's fine by me, so long as you don't complain if I want to build quality contemporary design!

I would suggest that ok unless the extremes were encountered from either end, either a ridiculously phoney traditional build that looks like its come straight out of disney land or a gut wrenching modernist box of the utmost vulgarity. The community shouldn't really have to put up with someone's all too apparent design faux pas. In generally now I think its better that planning are a bit more looser than say 20 years ago when then went into ridiculous detail from what I hear. I haven't seen any of your builds so I can't really say if your modern designs are ok or otherwise. Take Grand Designs for example some of the modern designs they have had on their have been truly awful. Sometimes out and about you see work done by builders where design is lacking, i.e extensions that have just been slapped on without tying up to the original build, out of alignment and it is apparent someone without much training or aesthetic thought has come up with the design build. Other times it can be the clients that are quite clueless and something odd appears. I'm just saying that if everyone stuck up something without the proper thought going into it the places around us would look an unsightly mess.  

[jack]

29 minutes ago, Gimp said:

I would suggest that ok unless the extremes were encountered from either end, either a ridiculously phoney traditional build that looks like its come straight out of disney land or a gut wrenching modernist box of the utmost vulgarity. The community shouldn't really have to put up with someone's all too apparent design faux pas. 

 

I don't subscribe to relativism, but "gut wrenching modernist box of the utmost vulgarity" seems  subjective to me.  I like (some) modernist boxes.  I think some are vulgar.  I think some people manage to build horrendous houses despite sticking pretty closely to the design palette of what's already in place around them. 

 

I'd rather have the full spectrum of reactions: houses I love, houses I loathe, and everything in between.  Basically, I'd be happy to have more houses built that I hate if gives me the opportunity to feel joy about some of the others!

[jack]

8 minutes ago, Sensus said:

 

Sorry if that sounds harsh, but the problem with allowing members of the general public influence design in any active and meaningful way is that:

a) Most of them are clueless and;

b) None of them want to see development, so will resist it by any spurious means available to them.

 

It's also a fact, at least in my experience, that older people have more time on their hands and/or are more willing to stick their noses in.  A gross generalisation, of course, but looking at the history of planning in my immediate neighbourhood before we submitted our own planning application, it was striking how few objections came from those below around 50.  

There's a generational aspect to this, of course.  Unsurprisingly, older people tend to have different tastes to younger people.  That said, I do delight in telling those in the 60-80 age range who complain about our "modern" house that the Barcelona Pavilion was built before they were born! 

 

If you need evidence of cluelessness and nimbyism, just look at the quality of planning objections that tend to be received from the general public

[Temp]

I would go and see them to say hello. Make sure they know that you are building the house to live in yourself and that you're not a developer. Ask about schools, village life, pub etc etc. so they know you intend becoming part of the local community. Find out a bit about them and what they do for a living. Tell them you will try to keep any noise and disruption down to a minimum etc.

 

I would mention that you plan to change the design and reassure them you don't plan to build anything ugly or out of keeping (unless you do!).  To some extent you can joke that the design won't be entirely down to you as the planners have so much say these days. I blamed the planners for a change that I secretly wanted and got away with it.

 

You will probably have to go down the pre-application advice route with the planners. Most likely the planners will want to see some initial drawings and these will get iterated and changed a few times. I would NOT involve the neighbours in this discussion phase at all. Don't send them copies of any drawings.

 

Once you get to the stage where you are ready to submit the formal application then I WOULD go see the neighbours. Take a set of drawings with you. Do it in person. I think this is better than letting them find out your application has gone in and having to get their own drawings.

 

Our architect created a "street scene" drawing and some pen an ink/watercolour sketches that showed what the house would look like from the road. This included trees and hedges that obscure part of the house and gave a much better impression than the raw elevations. We left the neighbour with the best of these sketches not the elevation drawings.

 

[PeterW]

I've got the rendering of the house design we inherited with the plot and tbh it looks pretty hideous ..! it's also slightly worrying that the image rendering doesn't match the plans yet it's all on the single A1 plans that are approved so it will be interesting to see what the "correct" plan is !

 

I will resubmit a set of new plans for the NMAs and redraw the old ones too - minus the dodgy image !

[PeterW]

Still begs the question which takes precedence as there is no scale on the page and all are "approved"  ..!

[PeterW]

Which is where my head is at so that is useful ...! 

 

I've also applied the 6 rules to the non-material amendment submission - but that is for another thread !