Planning permission refusal due to creation of 'formalised space'

[LJC1995]

We had work completed in our garden last summer and our neighbour contacted the council and complained that we had breached planning permission as we had raised the ground over 300mm and built a patio at the top of our garden. We put in an application and it was refused today, but I'm really confused by the outcome.

 

Bit of backstory: the houses are built on a hill, with our house built roughly 1metre higher than the neighbouring house and our garden also slopped upwards from our house to the back/top of the garden. This has meant that there has always been an element of overlooking into the neighbours property. Once you step out of our backdoor, there is roughly 3 metres of flat patio and then steps up to a sort of platform 1.4 metres high, which was a flat surface for roughly 2-3 metres and the garden then slopped up from there. One half of this platform was made up of old patio slabs and other half vegetable patches. Last summer we built a retaining wall on the layer to hold back the sloping land and then patio slabbed the area (as well as building a patio at the very top of the garden).

 

A planning enforcement officer attended the property and explained although some parts of this platform were slightly raised, we had actually decreased the height in some places lower than 30mm where we dug out to input the wall, so we needed to put in a planning application due to ‘engineering works’ carried out and then for the patio at the top. We discussed the likely outcome and he said as it's been lowered 300mm, chances are it will be approved. However he did say if they argue it's impacted the neighbours privacy, they will probably tell us to build a higher boundary fence and this would be fine as the gardens are fairly big and the sunlight impact would be on our side.

 

The retrospective application went in and we have been refused today and this is the reason given “The application has confirmed this land has not increased over 300mm and from images provided, the increase appears to be marginal. The boundary fence is set up and views to the rear of […] have not been significantly increased over the previous plateau. When assessing the views to […], it should be noted, views could be afforded from this tier prior to works being carried out. The works still afford views to the neighbouring property and garden and no mitigation measures have been proposed for this. Given that the space is a lot larger, it enables a formalised space which can hold more people and would be unneighbourly due to its proximity and height to the neighbouring property. The addition of a privacy screen along this plateau would likely create an overbearing structure for the neighbouring property”.

 

The patio at the top was accepted, so it's literally been refused on the above. I'm so confused as to what this means. They've agreed there are no issues with the height adjustment, but refused it because we've made a 'formalised space' by putting patio slabs on there. What part of the planning regs have we breached here? They're saying they won't accept a privacy screen between the gardens as it would be overbearing, so does this mean they want us to rip the slabs back up? Whether we sit on the space on patio slabs, or on mud isn't going to many a difference to overlooking. Anyone have any recommendations on how to respond?

Thanks

in advance 

 

 

 

[Mr Punter]

This does not sound like a formal refusal.  They normally quote which policies it would be contrary to.  You could appeal.

[joe90]

Yes I would ask them what planning policy was broken? So slabs not allowed but a lawn acceptable 🤷‍♂️

[SteamyTea]

Cover it in fake grass.

 

There is more than 0.3m variation in people's height.

Should that mean only pigmies like myself should be allowed in the garden.

[jack]

And they wonder why planners have a bad name.

 

How do "formalised space" and  "unneighbourly" map to the requirements of planning law?

Similarly, I don't see how "engineering works" have anything to do with the need for a planning application. You built a small(?) retaining wall (planning not needed), replaced the paving over a slightly larger area (no planning needed), and didn't raise the level (no planning needed).

 

I agree that it all sounds like complete nonsense, and I'm sorry you're having to deal with it.

 

Depending on your appetite for stress, I'd be tempted to write back and tell them that you look forward to them initiating enforcement action based on the actual planning laws of which you're alleged to be in breach.

[ProDave]

14 minutes ago, jack said:

Depending on your appetite for stress, I'd be tempted to write back and tell them that you look forward to them initiating enforcement action based on the actual planning laws of which you're alleged to be in breach.

.......  And if such enforcement action is taken you will be appealing the planning decision.

[SteamyTea]

5 minutes ago, ProDave said:

.......  And if such enforcement action is taken you will be appealing the planning decision.

Tell the neighbours, via a third party, that no action is being taken.

[LJC1995]

54 minutes ago, Mr Punter said:

This does not sound like a formal refusal.  They normally quote which policies it would be contrary to.  You could appeal.

They've said at the very bottom "this scheme is contrary to the adopted House Extensions and Domestic Outbuildings SPG", if that's a policy

 

[Conor]

It boils down to you converting an informal area, to a formal area, resulting in the increased likelyhood of people gathering there, and having an adverse effect on your neighbours amenity. They are treating it like a new balcony. Key take-home from this is "lack of mitigation measures". Can you put in a higher fence or plant dense hedging? I'd supply a drawing to show this when you appeal. 

[jack]

18 hours ago, Conor said:

Can you put in a higher fence or plant dense hedging? I'd supply a drawing to show this when you appeal. 

 

It's worse than that: the council at leasty implies that mitigation measures wouldn't be allowed:

 

20 hours ago, LJC1995 said:

The addition of a privacy screen along this plateau would likely create an overbearing structure for the neighbouring property”.

 

[ProDave]

18 hours ago, Conor said:

It boils down to you converting an informal area, to a formal area, resulting in the increased likelyhood of people gathering there, and having an adverse effect on your neighbours amenity.

If I was forced to remove this "formal area" and turn it back to grass, I would be making a point of using the grass area for exactly what I wanted to use the "formal area" for.

[LJC1995]

8 minutes ago, ProDave said:

If I was forced to remove this "formal area" and turn it back to grass, I would be making a point of using the grass area for exactly what I wanted to use the "formal area" for.

 

19 hours ago, SteamyTea said:

Cover it in fake grass.

 

There is more than 0.3m variation in people's height.

Should that mean only pigmies like myself should be allowed in the garden.

 

This is what is confusing me, even if we cover it in grass we'll still be able to sit on the area and use it so what is the problem with the patio slabs? Half of this platform was patioed prior to any work carried out and the other half was vegetable patches, so the area was in constant use anyway. 

 

I've spoke to an agent who has said he will submit a formal complaint as he can't see how we've breached any planning regs, but I've lost all confidence with the council now 

[joe90]

2 hours ago, LJC1995 said:

but I've lost all confidence with the council now 

Haven’t we all !!!!! It made me even more angry and intent on fighting them when my LPA rejected my application. Revenge was sweet when I won on appeal. You dont have to be confident with the council just prove them wrong 👍

[Pocster]

I remember my build was refused on many reasons ; but one being … “ the build would create a volume in the the void of the lane which is out of character “ 

wtf ! I think it’s called desperate BS 

Edited December 6 by Pocster

[SteamyTea]

1 hour ago, Pocster said:

the build would create a volume in the the void of the lane which is out of character

That why you have a dirty big hole in your back alley now.

If you can't go up, go deep down.

[Temp]

I hate to suggest l it but I think I would get a planning consultant involved.

 

It's possible you only needed the planning application to cover the retaining wall and those areas raised more than 150/300mm.

 

I'm not certain but they might argue planning isn't required to lower the top area as it's permitted development.