Jump to content

Distance between neighbouring property, help!!


DanielAllen

Recommended Posts

So we've had planning denied on a couple of points but one of which being the council states the space around dwellings means the house needs to be 22m from my grandparents bungalow (The plans show it at 17m). They're gifting us the land so they are obviously fine with it.

What I don't get though is we're already demolishing and replacing a dwelling that is currently closer to my grandparents than what we're actually building on the land (14m from their bungalow).

Surely this should be taken into account? 

I'm losing the will to live with our planning officer!! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have some friends who couldn't get planning permission to demolish and rebuild but ended up using PD rights on the old building to get something bigger in the end anyway. Tell your grandparents to get tax advice. 

Edited by Jilly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Post the plans.  It is all to do with distance between facing windows (usually)

 

It is becuase they're facing windows she's saying. As you can what is there currently which until my Aunty passed away a couple of years ago was lived in with rates being paid on it is even closer to my grandparents bungalow than the proposed house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

Could obscuring glass satisfy the planner? What rooms having windows facing you parents? You could fit standard windows with stick on obscuring film and then find it doesn't last very long.

 

Should have looked at your plans first. No windows on the elevation facing your parents. Is the planner OK about the distance to the building to the West? I presume it's a building.

 

It could be about right to daylight? If so the orientation of the duo pitch roof could be rotated by 90 degrees to put an eave on the North elevation and from a daylight perspective that lowers the roof

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minimum separation distances usually is a guidance issue rather than absolute policy.

If it was policy there would be no wriggle room on other cases and given your circumstances you have a reasonable case for an exception to the guidance.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

 

Should have looked at your plans first. No windows on the elevation facing your parents. Is the planner OK about the distance to the building to the West? I presume it's a building.

 

It could be about right to daylight? If so the orientation of the duo pitch roof could be rotated by 90 degrees to put an eave on the North elevation and from a daylight perspective that lowers the roof

 

Never mentioned anything about the building to the west other than the whole garden can't be at first floor lever like we wanted. It'll have to be split level so we aren't overlooking their garden. 

The officer did say it was overbearing and we're happy to reduce the overall height if need be but we obviously can't move the house back or it will then be an issue for the westerly property

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MortarThePoint said:

 

Should have looked at your plans first. No windows on the elevation facing your parents. Is the planner OK about the distance to the building to the West? I presume it's a building.

 

It could be about right to daylight? If so the orientation of the duo pitch roof could be rotated by 90 degrees to put an eave on the North elevation and from a daylight perspective that lowers the roof

My grandparents house is the bungalow not the new-ish build so our frontal Windows face their bungalow. The conservatory is classed as the back of their dwelling

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, joe90 said:

Join the club ?

I'll probably get in trouble for inciting violence, but I couldn't help thinking of that scene in Lock, stock and two smoking barrels when they discover a traffic warden in the back of their getaway vehicle and all give him a few punches for the sake of it, and thinking that when they do the sequel, they should have a similar scene with a planning officer.

 

Also, I don't know how to add a footer to my posts, but I adopt @MortarThePoint's footer. (The above is a joke and if you are reading this and your are a planning officer, I really didn't mean to offend you.)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Johnnyt said:

Minimum separation distances usually is a guidance issue rather than absolute policy.

If it was policy there would be no wriggle room on other cases and given your circumstances you have a reasonable case for an exception to the guidance.

 

 

 

That's what we were hoping but she doesn't seem to give any wiggle room at all and any points I've raised so far that are obviously in our favour she just ignores and doesn't even answer   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then you have an issue with consistency, there must be numerous cases where it has been allowed.

A trawl through your LPA's portal finding such cases may prove helpful and point out the inconsistencies and quote relevant case law

In planning law, there is a “principle of consistency” in decision-taking: see North
Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, Johnnyt said:

Then you have an issue with consistency, there must be numerous cases where it has been allowed.

A trawl through your LPA's portal finding such cases may prove helpful and point out the inconsistencies and quote relevant case law

In planning law, there is a “principle of consistency” in decision-taking: see North
Wiltshire District Council v Secretary of State for the Environment (1993) 65 P & CR

I agree, but just be warned that if the LPA are clever/difficult they might do what they did to us when we tried to argue that point (and quoted that same case). They distinguished the precedent that we were referring to by saying that it (actually our direct neighbour's house) was set in a slightly different position to our house and so it wasn't inconsistent to make a different decision in our application to in our neighbour's application because the considerations where slightly different in the two houses. Bloody ridiculous in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DanielAllen said:

What I don't get though is we're already demolishing and replacing a dwelling that is currently closer to my grandparents than what we're actually building on the land (14m from their bungalow).

So what is this dwelling? Pictures, plans?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you saying that ramshackle collection of "sheds" that look to be built on the back of the garage has been lived in as a dwelling until a couple of years ago?

 

Was the planning application therefore considered as a "replacement dwelling"?

 

The obvious thing to me would be only have high level or obscured windows facing the bungalow and put larger windows looking out to the side over the adjoining field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, DanielAllen said:

What I don't get though is we're already demolishing and replacing a dwelling 

 

Does that dwelling have planning permission, for a fixed dwellinghouse, not a caravan?

 

Could you leave some walls in place so that what you wish to do is an "extension" rather than a demolish & rebuild, or are the existing walls (attached to the caravan) not structural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, IanR said:

 

Does that dwelling have planning permission, for a fixed dwellinghouse, not a caravan?

 

Could you leave some walls in place so that what you wish to do is an "extension" rather than a demolish & rebuild, or are the existing walls (attached to the caravan) not structural.

That's a good point about it being a "caravan"

 

Apply for a certificate of lawful development for a residential caravan, and I believe then you can then  replace it with any other caravan without further permission or even building regs.

 

I am not suggesting you buy another caravan, but that you build a new well insulated building that is capable of being moved and fits the definition of a "caravan" and for that it does NOT need to be on wheels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ProDave said:

So are you saying that ramshackle collection of "sheds" that look to be built on the back of the garage has been lived in as a dwelling until a couple of years ago?

 

Was the planning application therefore considered as a "replacement dwelling"?

 

The obvious thing to me would be only have high level or obscured windows facing the bungalow and put larger windows looking out to the side over the adjoining field.

 

Yes with rates paid! My family on that side has never had much money so they made do. My aunt lived in it until 2016 I think it was!

 

The existing use was cited as "C3 Dwelling House; existing derelict/disused caravan house" on our application. The description is "Proposed New Detached Self-Build Dwelling House"

 

Her main issue seems to be the distance between the properties, she's never mentioned about obscuring the windows to overcome this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, IanR said:

 

Does that dwelling have planning permission, for a fixed dwellinghouse, not a caravan?

 

Could you leave some walls in place so that what you wish to do is an "extension" rather than a demolish & rebuild, or are the existing walls (attached to the caravan) not structural.

 

They aren't structural unfortunately and the caravan dwelling is over 60 years old now, some facings and the roof has been changed but nothing we could do with it to make the application just an extension

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...