Opinions on Planning Proposal

[Ferdinand]

I would appreciate any comments on a PP in my area.

 

This is the one. Plans attached. App form at the link.

https://www2.ashfield.gov.uk/cfusion/Planning/plan_history.cfm?reference=V%2F2017%2F0562

 

My interest here is that I own a house next door. I have no objection to the replacement of a single detached bungalow (which was the proposal that had been talked about) by a pair of semis - that is quite suitable for the area. But I will insist that Planning Policy be followed.

At present I am a little surprised it was even validated:

 

1 - I cannot find the bit of the App form which says if it is Outline or Detailed. I can't decide which it is. Some stuff for detailed is missing eg tech spec of walls, dimensions.

2 - There are a couple of slightly fast ones being pulled - eg "previous use unknown" - even the sales particulars describe two butchers' shops. In fact there was also a small slaughterhouse (equipment still there but collapsed when I viewed it 2 years ago) - all there for a century. 

No "land which is known to be contaminated". IMO it needs a Phase 2 Soil Test from the slaughterhouse.

Surface water to be disposed of to existing sewer (!!)

I think the land area quoted is too high.

3 - Parking spaces and amenity space are both below that required by policy.

4 - I cannot tell whether the space indicated on the floor plans will fit within the block indicated on the site plan as there are no dimensions. The drawings say "do not scale", but relevant dimensions are not included to allow an evaluation to be made.

 

I would welcome any comments - I am not clear about the best way of objecting to a possibly oversized development for a site where the plans do not contain dimensions on closeness to the boundary or dimensions of the site.

 

PS Note the superb redaction by my LPA. Block out the name at the top. Leave the name where the bloke signed it at the bottom.

 

Cheers

 

Ferdinand

(I will probably ask the admins to remove this thread after a couple of days to avoid triggering Google on the particular P.App).

 

Block-Plans.pdf

Edited October 7, 2017 by Ferdinand

[ProDave]

Can you not tell if it's outline or full from the planning ref No? in your case there's a V in the number is that significant (up here they are either PIP , planning in principle, FUL for full and there's another one for approval of reserved matters)

 

Make your observations to the council exactly as you have highlighted here to try and prevent a "fast one"

 

I could not even see a site location plan or layout plan so has he submitted those?

[Ferdinand]

4 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Can you not tell if it's outline or full from the planning ref No? in your case there's a V in the number is that significant (up here they are either PIP , planning in principle, FUL for full and there's another one for approval of reserved matters)

 

Make your observations to the council exactly as you have highlighted here to try and prevent a "fast one"

 

I could not even see a site location plan or layout plan so has he submitted those?

 

Thank-you. Forgot about that.

 

"Planning Application - Ful".

 

I think I will make an appt to see the Planning Officer for 10 minutes and ask him how to frame an objection to each point, and why it was validated :-).  The likelihood is that he will not look at it in depth until the comment period finishes.

 

As it happens, I  know the applicant because I bought the house from him - nice guy, and I think he is just seeing what the Council will let him do.

 

Ferdinand

 

[Temp]

You can get a rough idea of the dimensions from the internal room dimensions but I agree there should be outside dimensions and height stated.

 

On the drainage consultation there is a note saying that the "applicant needs to confirm the proposals for the surface water drainage". Not sure if this is a sign the planners are on top of the issue or if it will just cause the water co to think it hasn't been decided yet. In some areas discharge to a sewer is allowed.

 

It says there will be two parking spaces per 2 bed house which seems reasonable to me. How many does local policy say there should be?

[ProDave]

I am pretty sure they will not approve an application until everything including drainage is detailed and approved. That letter was a nudge for the applicant to provide details.

[ProDave]

21 minutes ago, Temp said:

It says there will be two parking spaces per 2 bed house which seems reasonable to me. How many does local policy say there should be?

Except the drawings show 4 bedroom houses. How many spaces will that need per house?

[Temp]

1 minute ago, ProDave said:

Except the drawings show 4 bedroom houses. How many spaces will that need per house?

 

You're right. I didn't notice they were three storey houses.

[Plumbersmateuk]

6 minutes ago, ProDave said:

Except the drawings show 4 bedroom houses. How many spaces will that need per house?

My plans are for a 4 bed with integral garage and the council wants an additional 2 parking spaces, just for reference.

 

[bassanclan]

You don't usually include dimensions on a planning application drawing, they must be to scale, which is usually 1:50.

 

The "do not scale from this drawing" is to prevent a builder using it to build the property. The architect always wants to sell building regs drawings with proper measurement's etc.

 

You need to view the plans "on paper" at the council office with your scale ruler. Ideally before meeting the officer so you know what dimensions you might object to.

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, ProDave said:

Except the drawings show 4 bedroom houses. How many spaces will that need per house?

 

It goes from 2 to 3 with the addition of bedroom 4 :-). i'd guess if they have considered it that the plan is to negotiate back to 3.

 

F

Edited October 7, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, Plumbersmateuk said:

My plans are for a 4 bed with integral garage and the council wants an additional 2 parking spaces, just for reference.

 

 

Just a check - is your garage big enough to count as a parking space?

 

Our Council requires a garage to be 3.3m x 6m to do that.

[Plumbersmateuk]

9 minutes ago, Ferdinand said:

Just a check - is your garage big enough to count as a parking space?

 

Our Council requires a garage to be 3.3m x 6m to do that.

Yes, it is virtually a 2 car garage but I wanted to have the sevices, MVHR etc in their as well.

Edited October 7, 2017 by Plumbersmateuk
Added Image

[jack]

1 hour ago, Ferdinand said:

It goes from 2 to 3 with the addition of bedroom 4 :-). i'd guess if they have considered it that the plan is to negotiate back to 3.

 

Since bedrooms 3 and 4 are only 2.3 metres wide (and some of that width is presumably not full height), I suspect he's playing the "ask for more and negotiate back to less" approach to planning.

 

Also, the western one seems very big for the area of land allocated to it. Do you know whether the 50% curtilage rule applies in this situation? It might just squeak by even if it does apply, but worth checking.

 

I don't know the rules about leaving a property in a forward gear - does that apply here, given that effectively they're building new houses and defining new plots?

[Ferdinand]

1 hour ago, jack said:

 

Since bedrooms 3 and 4 are only 2.3 metres wide (and some of that width is presumably not full height), I suspect he's playing the "ask for more and negotiate back to less" approach to planning.

 

Also, the western one seems very big for the area of land allocated to it. Do you know whether the 50% curtilage rule applies in this situation? It might just squeak by even if it does apply, but worth checking.

 

I don't know the rules about leaving a property in a forward gear - does that apply here, given that effectively they're building new houses and defining new plots?

 

I do not think that even that will trigger the 50% threshold, however our Council have quite significant requirements for amenity space which do seem to be triggered:

 

 

F

 

[MikeSharp01]

There is a location plan on the main drawings, 400m2 is the total land area so they will need almost half of that as amenity space. I make the houses 7 x 8 meters (external - guess) = 56m2 x 2 =112 + 180 = 392 so a few m2 under the available area. Someone did their homework or are very lucky!

[AliG]

I'd want a block plan showing the area of the houses and the area of the land and the recommended area. I wouldn't be surprised if they were misstated to make it seem like the house uses less of the land than they do. I think this kind of plan is necessary. You might want to compare the area to what was shown in the sales particulars.

 

The parking plan and the block plan are different. I think the parking plan needs the distance to the pavement on it, I would not be surprised if parked cars in front of the houses overhang the pavement. I would think there is a 6m minimum or something like that.

 

The height needs to be shown. I would also want to see this in context of the other houses at either side.

 

I was asked for the first and second thing by planning for my house.

[Ferdinand]

3 hours ago, MikeSharp01 said:

There is a location plan on the main drawings, 400m2 is the total land area so they will need almost half of that as amenity space. I make the houses 7 x 8 meters (external - guess) = 56m2 x 2 =112 + 180 = 392 so a few m2 under the available area. Someone did their homework or are very lucky!

 

I think there is a typo - that 392 is 292 but it is still incredibly tight. Parking is explicitly excluded = 6 spaces at 6x3m min = 108 sqm. Also there are bin and bike stores which will not count, and paths and narrow spaces are unlikely to count, and it is "private amenity space"- which I think excludes front gardens without high fences.

 

A tough ask on a tight site, and it is a material consideration given "significant weight".

 

Interestingly I can find no minimum size defined for "parking space", but they would probably use the same dimensions as a garage.

 

1 hour ago, AliG said:

I'd want a block plan showing the area of the houses and the area of the land and the recommended area. I wouldn't be surprised if they were misstated to make it seem like the house uses less of the land than they do. I think this kind of plan is necessary. You might want to compare the area to what was shown in the sales particulars.

 

The parking plan and the block plan are different. I think the parking plan needs the distance to the pavement on it, I would not be surprised if parked cars in front of the houses overhang the pavement. I would think there is a 6m minimum or something like that.

 

The height needs to be shown. I would also want to see this in context of the other houses at either side.

 

Yep - there is a valdiation requirement on the "Full and Major Applications validation checklist (validation web page, doc itself) which says that "critical dimensions must be shown on block plans".

 

I think critical will mean (when someone thinks about it) "every dimension we think necessary on this occasion to make an informed decision on all applicable aspects of our planning policies". It is a marvellous weasel word Humpty-Dumpty word planning term.

 

I have attached a PDF copy of the Validation Requirements for Full and Major Planning Applications, which is a bit of a stonker of a document, as the original is a docx file. It is a very illuminating document, and one that I have not really engaged with previously. It almost looks like a doc that was not intended to escape, but kudos to Ashfield for putting it on the website - they have a policy now of trying to save staff time by making it wasy for people to make their own assessments.

 

Ferdinand

 

ashfield-district-council-2017-validation-list-full-and-major.pdf

Edited October 7, 2017 by Ferdinand

[MikeSharp01]

13 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

I think there is a typo - that 392 is 292

Yep - my bad - 292. Off day yesterday, have rechecked everything else I did yesterday and it looks like the only one though. Given all the above I guess you do have some levers you can pull, should you wish to, in your response to the application.

 

[Ferdinand]

@MikeSharp01

 

Yes I think there is enough to be reasonably sure of stopping it. I want the site developed, however, but less intensively.

 

I have decided that my approach will be:

 

1 - a) Write to the Council pointing out that the PApp should not have been validated, to see if they can un-validate it. (Expecting a refusal to that and a suggestion that I submit an objection).

 

and b) Write to the Applicant asking that it be withdrawn and replaced with something more acceptable, otherwise I will formally object in 7 days time. It is part of a larger site, and we discussed his plans for one detached bungalow on it before I bought mine from him :-). That is what I would like to see.

 

2 - Formally object with both barrels if it is not withdrawn.

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

Actually he does seem to be being naughty.

 

The extra bit of side-garden attached to the plot seems to be appearing in a previous Planning app in 2016 as the Approved garden of a flat conversion he did in one of the other properties. Unless some deal or minor amendment is not on the website. Putting it in here leaves the flat with no external space whatsoever.

 

Ooooer.

 

Slight complication. Another chunk of the garden for that previous flat also appears to be in the garden he sold to me! 

 

Lordy. 

 

However PP does not override land ownership so that bit is mine now .

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ferdinand

[ProDave]

You seem to have plenty of evidence that he is trying to over develop the plot. Present all that evidence in your objection and ask for the scheme to be rejected, or scaled down and re applied.,

[Ferdinand]

17 minutes ago, ProDave said:

You seem to have plenty of evidence that he is trying to over develop the plot. Present all that evidence in your objection and ask for the scheme to be rejected, or scaled down and re applied.,

 

I also have an easement I negotiated for pipes and wires needed for the future which I think goes under the corner of the proposed newbuild. Obviously that is not a material planning matter.

 

Enough discussion - I will frame something this afternoon, and post here.

 

Edited October 8, 2017 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

So much for wrapping this up quickly.

 

Curiouser and curiouser. 

 

It turns out that this proposal (Ashfield V/2017/0562) incorporates into its proposed garden/amenity/parking space two areas of land which were dedicated to parking and amenity for a different dwelling under a previous Planning Application (Ashfield V/2016/0140) by the same Applicant. If the later proposal is approved and built it will remove *all* the amenity space and the only parking space dedicated to one house created under the earlier proposal.

 

The earlier proposal is now around 65% through. No 46 is now occupied, and no 50A is nearly finished. The earlier proposal is excellent.

 

My judgement is that the amenity and parking space for No 50B under 2016/0140 comprise 15-20% of the area included in the later Planning Application 2017/0562. See my notes below and comments at the bottom.

 

Compare. This is Google Streetview of the location:

 

 

 

This is the proposed block plan from 2017/0562 - excerpted from the PDF I posted:

 

 

While this is the Approved Block and Location Plan from 2016/0140, with annotations:

 

The two areas of this Approved Plan highlighted with red circles - garden and parking space - are part of the new garden plot in  2017/0562. The green lines indicate what has been or may be done - a couple of doors and the fence between 48 and 50b now existing in a different place. This latter was caused by the existing door to 48 going into the other house's garden under the approved plan.

 

That all suggests that the Approved scheme was not thought through in enough detail, and perhaps they should have waited and done a single Planning App. But money and time etc.

 

The rub is that reallocating the garden of 50b like that is unacceptable, but overlapping of Planning Applications is allowed and normal as thee can be different development proposals in the same space.

 

If the later PP is granted this issue will not crystallise until it is being built and either 50b has no garden and parking space, or the new semis will have compromised plots and even less parking. By that time it will be built, so it will not be expedient for the Council to enforce, so we will get overdevelopment and a best-in-the-circs solution, which will be a tactical bodge. And the Council will walk away hoping no one notices, because they will genuinely not be able to do anything at that point.

 

How to object? I think this aspect of the objection has to be based on the latter scheme not being achievable as proposed, because the previous scheme will be completed. Although even that may be questionable since there is no requirement on an Applicant to complete a scheme.

 

Really quite naughty, but this type of thing happens all the time if no one notices. He would build both, put the fence half way along, leave 50b with no parking space, sell them all, and zippety-doodah ...

 

Ferdinand

 

Edited October 9, 2017 by Ferdinand

[MikeSharp01]

Looks like you are going to really poop his party on this one if you can find the sweet spot.

 

[ProDave]

It surely is as simple as pointing out part of the land has already been allocated to the earlier scheme, so this current proposal is in error as it is trying to use land that is no longer available. As such they should reject the current proposal as it would not have sufficient amenity space, or advise the client to withdraw and submit a modified plan.

 

You need to clearly raise this point, otherwise I bet it will be passed on what the plans show and the overlap will go un noticed and he will have pulled his fast one.