Neighbour has objected to our plans

[Robert Clark]

Hi Guys

 

Our new neighbour has objected to our plans.

 

The planning officer is visiting site today (unaccompanied)

 

Would appreciate any comments regarding the objection. However his suggestion to move the house further south is not an option as the view is in the north east corner of the plot.

 

Thanks

 

The planning ref is

WD/2019/0765/F

 

 

 

https://planning.wealden.gov.uk/disclaimer.aspx?returnURL=%2fplandisp.aspx%3frecno%3d145808

Edited September 12, 2019 by Robert Clark
Added link

[Jeremy Harris]

Unless the neighbour objection is supported by planning policy and guidance it will almost certainly just be ignored.  The only real issue with neighbour objections is that there maybe an automatic trigger level after a certain number have been received that then gets the application called in to the planning committee.  Here I think that level is eight objections during the consultation period.  FWIW, we started off with 14 objections to the previous application when we submitted ours, and all were read out at the PC planning stage.  Made not a jot of difference, and our application was approved.  As a councillor I get to read loads of objections to planning applications, and have yet to see any application where a neighbour objection has had any effect.

 

Edited to add:

 

Not seen the link when I started writing the above - the overlooking could be an issue - depends on the exact layout and perhaps what the local policy is on the distance between facing windows (here it's 20m, IIRC, less than that needs something like obscured glazing).

 

Reading the objection, the only valid point is the privacy one.  The possible nuisance from the garage is almost certainly not a significant planning issue, and anyway, pretty much all cars have to be low emissions now.

Edited September 12, 2019 by JSHarris
Added last paragraphs after seeing link

[Robert Clark]

10 minutes ago, the_r_sole said:

what distance have you got window to window in the new plans? That privacy one looks like it has potential for a spanner in the works - did you speak to them about your proposals before submission?

Sorry can’t access plans myself as I’m away

i did speak to him as soon as he moved in, (after application was made) but he didn’t voice any concerns until later.

[Robert Clark]

13 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Unless the neighbour objection is supported by planning policy and guidance it will almost certainly just be ignored.  The only real issue with neighbour objections is that there maybe an automatic trigger level after a certain number have been received that then gets the application called in to the planning committee.  Here I think that level is eight objections during the consultation period.  FWIW, we started off with 14 objections to the previous application when we submitted ours, and all were read out at the PC planning stage.  Made not a jot of difference, and our application was approved.  As a councillor I get to read loads of objections to planning applications, and have yet to see any application where a neighbour objection has had any effect.

 

Edited to add:

 

Not seen the link when I started writing the above - the overlooking could be an issue - depends on the exact layout and perhaps what the local policy is on the distance between facing windows (here it's 20m, IIRC, less than that needs something like obscured glazing).

 

All first floor widows on the north face which overlook could be either obscure or switched to a roof light 

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Robert Clark said:

 

All first floor widows on the north face which overlook could be either obscure or switched to a roof light 

 

Should be fine, then.  Also worth checking to see if there is a distance between facing windows specified in your local planning policy and guidance.  I know ours is 20m, as it came up during our consultation (a neighbour was concerned about overlooking their garden, but overlooking a garden isn't usually a planning consideration)

[Robert Clark]

20 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

Unless the neighbour objection is supported by planning policy and guidance it will almost certainly just be ignored.  The only real issue with neighbour objections is that there maybe an automatic trigger level after a certain number have been received that then gets the application called in to the planning committee.  Here I think that level is eight objections during the consultation period.  FWIW, we started off with 14 objections to the previous application when we submitted ours, and all were read out at the PC planning stage.  Made not a jot of difference, and our application was approved.  As a councillor I get to read loads of objections to planning applications, and have yet to see any application where a neighbour objection has had any effect.

 

Edited to add:

 

Not seen the link when I started writing the above - the overlooking could be an issue - depends on the exact layout and perhaps what the local policy is on the distance between facing windows (here it's 20m, IIRC, less than that needs something like obscured glazing).

 

Reading the objection, the only valid point is the privacy one.  The possible nuisance from the garage is almost certainly not a significant planning issue, and anyway, pretty much all cars have to be low emissions now.

 

Am I right to assume that the planning officer will sift the dross from any objections and refer back to us with valid ones?

[Jeremy Harris]

3 minutes ago, Robert Clark said:

 

Am I right to assume that the planning officer will sift the dross from any objections and refer back to us with valid ones?

 

 

Yes, planning officers are adept at just ignoring anything that isn't a valid planning consideration.  Parish councillors get to be pretty good at it too, except we have to often go face to face with parishioners who think they have the right to control what their neighbours  do.  Most are fairly unreasonable expectations, in my experience, not that I can ever tell them that...

 

Might be an idea to clarify your agreement to having obscured glass in the windows overlooking the adjacent house, if you're OK with that.  Probably worth checking the thread here where someone had a problem with getting low U value obscured glass 3G windows first, though.  We have one obscured glass 3G window and it's the same U value as the others, but at least one manufacturer has said that they cannot offer a Ug of better than 1.2 W/m².K (I think) if the centre pane is obscured.

[Mr Punter]

Don't make any concessions to the planners until they mention what their concerns are.  No point in obscure glazing if you don't need it.  Bear in mind that you may need escape windows in the bedrooms, so an obscured and fixed shut planning condition may not suit.

[ToughButterCup]

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

Unless the neighbour objection is supported by planning policy and guidance it will almost certainly just be ignored.

(and)

1 hour ago, JSHarris said:

[...]

Reading the objection, the only valid point may be the privacy one.  

 [...]

 

The only thing I would add to what J has said is to change is to may be - as changed above.

Why?

It depends on whether -locally-  there are strict criteria to follow - or whether the decision depends on the judgement of the Officer concerned. I suspect the latter is the case. 

 

Your application looks to me to be perfectly acceptable.  Stick to your guns.

[Ferdinand]

Remember that facing distances are between HABITABLE rooms .. not kitchen, bathroom, store, corridor etc.

 

And they are also adjusted for rooms at angles or offset.

 

I think you should be fine, but there will be a detailed rule somewhere.

[joe90]

My neighbour objected to our drive (amongst other things) and said headlights would shine into his house, the appeal officer stated the obvious, his house was over 100mtrs from my drive entrance, guess what, I won our appeal.

[Jeremy Harris]

I often think that some (most) people who object to planning applications don't do themselves any favours by raising issues that aren't planning considerations.  Reading lots of them, I often get the impression that most feel the need to raise as many points as possible, even if 99% of them are just going to be ignored by the planning officer.

 

If someone wants to make an effective objection they would be far more likely to have their objection looked at seriously if they took the time to see what aspects of planning policy and guidance an application might contravene, and focus wholly on those points, quoting the relevant documents to reinforce their case.

 

 

[AliG]

The objection to the garage is one of the more comical objections that I have read, people need to get a life.

 

The house is further away than the one you are knocking down and the windows facing the boundary are not habitable rooms. I cannot see any issue at all. Also I think the windows are at right angles to each other although it is hard to tell.

 

Why do they underline that the house is larger. What is the relevance? This is the kind of nonsense we got.

 

What is the relevance of being overlooked by the other neighbour, that is nothing to do with you.

 

The planners will likely ignore the objection.

 

Arguably their house is way too near the boundary and causing the issue. I believe the 20m type rules do not apply when the existing property is breaking the rules. So in Edinburgh  there is a 9m distance for habitable rooms to a boundary and 18m total. But I believe if the other house is less than 9 m from the boundary then that is their problem not yours.

 

Basically people want to build right up to the edge of their plot then think it effectively gives them ownership of part of yours.

[Ferdinand]

Our Appeal officer came onto my housing estate plot where people had complained about the "eyesore", and said "where are these houses - can't see them" and went away to think about something else.

 

On objections, I have made several objections at PP or Appeal level that have worked, and lost a couple.

[Robert Clark]

12 minutes ago, AliG said:

The objection to the garage is one of the more comical objections that I have read, people need to get a life.

 

The house is further away than the one you are knocking down and the windows facing the boundary are not habitable rooms. I cannot see any issue at all. Also I think the windows are at right angles to each other although it is hard to tell.

 

Why do they underline that the house is larger. What is the relevance? This is the kind of nonsense we got.

 

What is the relevance of being overlooked by the other neighbour, that is nothing to do with you.

 

The planners will likely ignore the objection.

 

Arguably their house is way too near the boundary and causing the issue. I believe the 20m type rules do not apply when the existing property is breaking the rules. So in Edinburgh  there is a 9m distance for habitable rooms to a boundary and 18m total. But I believe if the other house is less than 9 m from the boundary then that is their problem not yours.

 

Basically people want to build right up to the edge of their plot then think it effectively gives them ownership of part of yours.

 

Our windows on our northern boundary are at 90 degrees to their bedroom widows on their eastern face  

[Jeremy Harris]

I've just dealt with an application that has created a lot of objections.  Having spent half the afternoon reading them, most are just a rant, without any valid supporting evidence.  The daft thing is that there are some key points that would be valid things to object about, if only the objectors had the wit to use them. 

 

1 minute ago, Robert Clark said:

 

Our windows on our northern boundary are at 90 degrees to their bedroom widows on their eastern face  

 

 

In that case I doubt they will be a problem.  Sit tight for the time being and see what pans out.  I know it's a bit stressful; I well remember checking the planning website several times a day during the consultation period for our application, just hoping that we wouldn't get enough objections to trigger it being called in.

[MikeSharp01]

3 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Sit tight for the time being and see what pans out.

Sound advice - it is out of your control to all intents and purposes, you will have to await the outcome and the time will be better spent not worrying about it.

[ragg987]

7 hours ago, the_r_sole said:

but also if you introduce overlooking to a private garden area where there was none previously, that can also work against you

When we replaced our bungalow with a double storey we created sight lines into both neighbours' gardens on either side. This was not mentioned by anyone, either architect or neighbours or planning. So maybe you were unlucky? Or I was lucky?

 

3 hours ago, Robert Clark said:

Our windows on our northern boundary are at 90 degrees to their bedroom widows on their eastern face  

In that case you may well be fine. Sit tight is good advise.

[joe90]

We also replaced a bungalow with two story cottage and planners kept saying it was “imposing” as both our neighbours (100 meters away) were bungalows, ha, I measured next door (room In roof) and it was 1200mm higher than they had planning for but it was years ago and I was not fussed, also I designed ours as a hip roof to reduce “mass” (and wind noise on the gable), they soon shut up and the appeal officer also pointed it out to them ?

[Ferdinand]

2 minutes ago, Sensus said:

Don't just sit back and ignore it, waiting for a decision... as soon as the statutory consultation period is up (Planners seldom even begin looking at an application until they have had all the statutory consultee comments back), then contact the Planner and ask them for their thoughts. It is much better to try to address these, either within the current application process or by withdrawing and resubmitting a revised design, rather than adding a refusal to the site's Planning history.

 

That is a good point. From the other side when I am planning to object to something, I engage the Planner early verbally with the violations of Planning Policy - as I know that ours do not look at anything in detail until the deadline for comment has gone.

 

That way the Planner is hopefully primed to notice things that may be missed, and I may even get away without having formally to object (and so potentially to put a bomb under the relationship).

 

Equally they have to listen to representations after the deadline, so if I am doing a PP I will engage periodically or continuously up until 2 days before decision date personally or via my consultant.

 

Things do not always work out. I had one horrible experience when they put a time limit on a change of use, and issued a decision notice without even mentioning it to us. Had to renegotiate a complex lease to include break causes based on not getting a COU extension in 4 and 8 years.

 

Ferdinand

 

[Robert Clark]

Quick update

 

Just had response from parish council - Approve !

[Moonshine]

On 13/09/2019 at 10:00, Sensus said:

Privacy/overlooking of neighbouring private garden areas is also a cause for concern (hence the rule-of-thumb stand-off distances to boundaries), not just relationship between windows. Balconies and raised terraces or decking ring particular alarm bells for any planner, and will certainly attract scrutiny.

 

What are those rules of thumb in relation to first floor habitable windows and boundaries?

PD seems to imply this is 7m.

Is there any other guidance?

[Jeremy Harris]

1 minute ago, Robert Clark said:

Quick update

 

Just had response from parish council - Approve !

 

 Good news.    In the grand scheme of things the PC don't usually have much clout, unless there is an agreed Neighbourhood Plan in place (and even then that doesn't carry as much weight as the government intended when they introduced them), but if the PC have the friendly ear of the local County, or Unitary Authority, Councillor then they can request that the application be called in, which then means going to the planning committee, rather than being decided under delegated authority by the planning officer.  Planning committees can be a bit of a crap shoot, in my experience, as inevitably personal views held by Councillors come into play (even though they shouldn't, really).

 

The consultees that often seem to have a fair bit of clout are ones like highways, conservation and sometimes the fire officer, or even the Environment Agency.  In our case most of the issues we spent a lot of time on were raised by the Environment Agency (flood risk), the Conservation Officer (pretty much anything and everything she could think of), highways (easy, just concerns over visibility really) and the fire officer (made recommendations for sprinklers but they weren't mandatory and so didn't get included as a condition).  Worth reading these sort of consultee responses carefully as they are published, because it seems that they often end up as conditions, and some can cause later problems.  For example, the EA mandated levels above Ordnance Datum for our finished floor level, parking area element of the drive and garage floor.  Highways mandated a maximum gradient for two sections of the drive.  It turned out that these two conditions were mutually exclusive - to get the gradients stipulated by highways the levels needed to be lower than those stipulated by the EA.  We resolved it fater getting consent (because I didn't spot the problem earlier), but with hindsight it would have been easier to have resolved this conflict with the EA and highways.  We may even have got the EA to allow us to make the levels a bit lower than the current 1.5m above the 1 in 100 year flood risk level, which would have made a useful difference to the usable area of the plot.

[Moonshine]

15 hours ago, Sensus said:

On new build (partly to allow the flexibility for future extensions under PD), the rule of thumb would normally be 10.5m from a primary elevation to a boundary, whether at ground or first floor.

 

But once again I would stress that this is just a rule of thumb, these days... they're not allowed to impose rigid limits under local policy, and are obliged to take each case on its merits.

 

You may find other guidance in the form of an SPD (supplementary planning document) for the individual local authority, but not all include even guidance on stand-off distances, post-PPG3.

 

Our proposals are that the closest rear facade is 7.75m from the rear boundary, and steps back to 9m to a taller section of the proposed house.

 

The only habitable room / clear glazing on the first floor of the proposed house is on the rear facade which is 9m from the boundary, all other windows at first floor at the rear are bathrooms with obscured glazing.

 

There are no habitable rooms / clear glazing on the facade facing of the existing single storey house to the rear, facing the new house, so min distance distance of 22m between habitable rooms isn't needed which is mentioned in the LPA SPD.

 

I can't see anything in the LPA SPD, so it think that its going to be on the 'case by case' basis that if that one first floor window located 9m from the boundary causes an issue of overlooking to a garden area.

 

That said, looking at google maps, i can see loads of detached houses (old and new build) in the local area that have a at least one habitable room first floor window 9-10m from the rear boundary, and ground floor window <7m from the rear boundary.

 

I also think that it will be a factor how that particular neighbour responds during the consultation.

 

Edited September 25, 2019 by Moonshine

[epsilonGreedy]

17 hours ago, JSHarris said:

Good news.    In the grand scheme of things the PC don't usually have much clout...

 

 

Agreed. I saw this in action locally when following a planning application nearby.

 

The planning office is entitled to ignore the Parish Council but cannot override the opinion of the Ward Councillor. In the situation I followed the full time pros in the planning office wanted to approve. The PC and Ward Councillor objected. It was the opinion of the Ward Councillor that mandated a referral of the application to the planning committee.

 

At the committee hearing the chairman of the committee voiced disapproval directed at the pro planner that such an easy case to approve had been brought to committee. The pro planner responded by saying the planning office wanted to approve without referral but the objection of the Ward Councillor forced the matter to committee.