Planning try to amend my roof design!

[MikeSharp01]

22 hours ago, Martin88 said:

our gardens are north facing so there conservatory gets suns in the morning (which I’m on the other side) so I don’t block the sun, they will lose a bit of sun in July and August at night time when the sun is setting in the west. 

If they have had the conservatory for 20 years then they will have a right to light, as I understand it, if there is an architect on the other side they will know this, perhaps thinking they can avoid issues by mentioning it now, or maybe even assume that you also know the implications. The planners don't need to enforce the right to light per se as it is a civil matter and you can either pay compensation for their loss - perhaps that is what they are hoping but you need to be sure of the facts. You have already looked at the 45 degree rule but have you applied it to the correct element and again IIRC it is not used to determine right to light calculations. Have a look here: http://www.123plans.co.uk/uploads/frontend/media/documents/rightstolight.pdf 

[joe90]

I found this bit interesting from @MikeSharp01 post.

 

..Rights to Light Calculations
A common myth is that rights to light can be assessed using this ‘45 degree rule’. The 45 degree rule is often used to assess planning applications but is not used in legal rights to light cases.
The so called ‘50:50 rule’ is generally accepted as the appropriate way to measure light levels for rights to light cases. The 50:50 rule involves calculating the percentage of a room’s area which can receive adequate light. The calculations are undertaken at a working plane 850mm above the floor. A point on the working plane is considered adequately lit if it can receive at least 0.2% of the total illumination received from the sky. An injury is generally deemed to be caused where the area of a room receiving light from at least 0.2% of the sky is reduced to less than 50% to 55%.

 

its the last sentence that I find difficult to fathom how to work out! ?.

Edited August 9, 2020 by joe90

[Temp]

My understanding is that its very rare for there to be an actual breach of the right to light rules.

 

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

A point on the working plane is considered adequately lit if it can receive at least 0.2% of the total illumination received from the sky. An injury is generally deemed to be caused where the area of a room receiving light from at least 0.2% of the sky is reduced to less than 50% to 55%.

 

https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB16863.pdf

 

ABSTRACT: Rights of Light surveyors accept that the light from 0.2% of the skydome provides 1 Lumen of light and that this is sufficient for ordinary needs.

 

That suggests to be that a breech would occur if the development caused more than half of the room to have less than 1 lumen of light.

 

 

[Mr Punter]

I would go back to the planners and say that you believe that the proposal meets the LA standards and that to alter it would compromise the internal space.

 

Even if you did a flat roof extension at 3m high their connie would still be affected, because they built it too close to the boundary.  They don't have sole rights on rear extensions.