Public objections. Why?

[flanagaj]

4 minutes ago, joe90 said:

the LPA lambasted for not following their own policies 👍

They should be fined for wasting people's time and money

[Pocster]

16 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

That's a good point, I will request that they attend.

I think what you have to remember ( forgive negativity ) . LPA don’t want it to pass , locals ( or nowhere near ! ) don’t want it to pass . So when the council gets so much ‘refuse permission’ kick back it’s FAR less hassle to go that route . It took me 5 yrs to get planning . LPA were against it all the way . My 23 opposing neighbors ( aka (expletive deleted) ) worked together to form as many objections as possible . Again , remember , valid objections can override hundreds of other objections. Overwhelm the LPA and they’ll win . I went to a LPA meeting with 130 reasons to reject ( council and neighbors ) . Hours later that was whittled down to 3 valid I.e planning reasons .

Record all conversations is a MUST ( recording pen is good as you’ll be expected to turn your phone off ) . 

Edited Tuesday at 19:55 by Pocster

[joe90]

10 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

They should be fined for wasting people's time and money

I agree especially when she actually told me I would more than likely win at appeal 🤷‍♂️ . They can be “fined” (financial compensation) if they have lied or similar but they argued it was about interpretation of rules and policies. I did consider taking them on but frankly I was so relieved to get planning I just wanted to crack on and not spend /waste more time fighting them.

[DevilDamo]

9 hours ago, flanagaj said:

why do people put in public objections for a property that does not impact them in anyway.

Then Parish Council’s wouldn’t have any work to do at their monthly meetings 😉 

[DownSouth]

ignore me, just saw the comment

Edited Tuesday at 21:10 by DownSouth

[flanagaj]

Just out of curiosity, when you attend the Parish meeting to address the objections raised, can you subtly belittle these insignificant luddites, so that they know damn well never to even look in your direction when you finally move in?

[flanagaj]

Can I get people's thoughts on whether the response below from our Architect is adequate.  I am not sure whether any of the objections that were raised, can be countered using reference to planning policy, or whether it is not like law where you can reference case law when arguing a raised point.

The objections are on page 1 of the post history.  

 

Response to Mr ... Objection

 

1. Architectural Design and Context
   The proposed design has been developed with reference to the Hampshire barn vernacular, which is appropriate for the rural setting and enhances the character of the site. Existing properties along White Lane lack a cohesive architectural style. For example, Woodstock has evolved over time, resulting in a fragmented design, while Primrose Cottage is a modest bungalow constructed with low-quality materials in a DIY manner. Our proposal introduces a high-quality, cohesive design that respects the rural environment without replicating the inconsistencies of its neighbours.

 

2. Permitted Development Rights
   Concerns about potential future extensions over the garage under permitted development are noted. To address this, a planning condition could be imposed to remove permitted development rights, ensuring that any future changes would require planning oversight and maintain the character of the development.

 

3. Drawings and Context
   The drawings provided are accurate, to scale, and represent the closest built forms for context. It is unclear why they have been described as disingenuous, as they adhere to all planning requirements including scale. Furthermore, as noted above, Woodstock lacks a distinct architectural style, making it challenging to use as a reference for the new design.

 

4. Windows and Ridge Height
   The inclusion of a small number of first-floor windows has been carefully considered to avoid overlooking any neighbouring properties. The overall massing of the proposed dwelling is smaller than the previously approved scheme, and the building has been positioned further away from Primrose Cottage. Importantly, the ridge height remains unchanged from the approved application, as shown in the submitted drawings.

 

Response to Mrs .... Objection

 

1. Design Features and Materials
   While the new design differs from the previously approved scheme, it addresses several of the concerns raised in the earlier application, including:
   • First-floor windows will be constructed using hardwood, ensuring a high-quality and sympathetic finish.
   • The ridge height remains unchanged, as the property will be set into the site using the existing lower ground level to reduce its visual impact.
   • A traditional timber gate, set 5 metres back from the road, has been included for security purposes. However, we are happy to omit this feature if it cannot be supported.
   • The building incorporates high-quality materials, including timber cladding at first-floor level and heritage multi-brick at the ground floor, to achieve a Hampshire barn aesthetic. While extending the timber across the entire façade is an option, we believe this would detract from the overall design and is inconsistent with other properties on the lane that also use a mix of materials.
   • Additional hedging is being planted to enhance the landscape and compensate for any loss of existing vegetation.

 

2. Architectural Style and Landscape Integration
   The design adopts the Hampshire barn style, which is sympathetic to its rural surroundings. The use of heritage multi-brick and dark-stained oak cladding ensures that the building blends seamlessly into the landscape. Attempting to mimic the ad hoc design of Primrose Cottage or the overdeveloped nature of Woodstock would fail to meet the high design standards achieved by the current proposal.

 

3. Future Extensions
   The client has no intention of extending the property in the future. Any such extensions would require planning permission, and a condition can be included to remove permitted development rights, ensuring that the building’s form and scale will remain as proposed.

 

4. Proximity to Primrose Cottage and Visual Impact
   The proposed design is positioned further away from Primrose Cottage than the previously approved scheme:
   • The ridge height is located an additional 8 metres away from the property.
   • The garage is positioned an additional 4.5 metres away and features a flat roof, which is less imposing on the outlook from Primrose Cottage.
     These changes ensure that the visual impact on Primrose Cottage is reduced compared to the previously approved scheme. Even if future development over the garage were proposed, it would remain further away from Primrose Cottage than the earlier application.

 

Conclusion

The proposed design has been carefully developed to address concerns raised in the earlier application while providing a high-quality, purpose-built family home that integrates with its rural surroundings. Although the design differs from the previous scheme, it has been designed to address some of the earlier concerns whilst standing on its own merit and respecting the character of White Lane and the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

We are happy to discuss any further adjustments or conditions to address the concerns raised, including restrictions on permitted development rights. Thank you for your time and consideration, and please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further clarification.

[joe90]

47 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

Can I get people's thoughts

Yes the above (IMO) is concise and addresses the points adequately. Others may disagree but in my eyes you are compromising. Does primrose cottage have permitted development rights?

[flanagaj]

Just now, joe90 said:

Yes the above (IMO) is concise and addresses the points adequately. Others may disagree but in my eyes you are compromising. Does primrose cottage have permitted development rights?

Ok, thanks.   Not sure if they have PD rights.

[joe90]

9 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

Ok, thanks.   Not sure if they have PD rights.

Just asking as if you’re not allowed to extend with PD then why should they? Have a look at the planning portal.

Edited Wednesday at 20:17 by joe90

[G and J]

3 hours ago, flanagaj said:

Primrose Cottage is a modest bungalow constructed with low-quality materials in a DIY manner.

 

You may wish to say this anyway, but our local authority said something along these lines about our neighbours property as a response to our pre app, which our architect then reflected back in our application. Did absolutely nothing to endear us to our new neighbours (to say the least) and took a goodly amount of unpicking relationship wise.

[flanagaj]

3 minutes ago, G and J said:

 

You may wish to say this anyway, but our local authority said something along these lines about our neighbours property as a response to our pre app, which our architect then reflected back in our application. Did absolutely nothing to endear us to our new neighbours (to say the least) and took a goodly amount of unpicking relationship wise.

The relationship is truly hosed, especially, after our neighbour was the one who was nice as pie before we handed over the money to purchase the plot, and then submits an objection.  

[Pocster]

9 hours ago, flanagaj said:

The relationship is truly hosed, especially, after our neighbour was the one who was nice as pie before we handed over the money to purchase the plot, and then submits an objection.  

They be (expletive deleted)ers

[ToughButterCup]

On 07/01/2025 at 10:48, flanagaj said:

... why do people put in public objections for a property that does not impact them in anyway.  ...

 

Because they can.

In the same way as Elon Musk can do what he does.  He does so because he can: and will soon realise that one day - because he abuses that right - will be roundly ignored.

 

It's the quality of what anyone has to say that matters. Immaterial Objections ( technical term in the Planning context) cannot be taken into consideration. Because if they are, and they lead to a rejection of a Planning Application, they form grounds for Appeal.

 

It's hurtful, its nasty. Its normal. You are not alone.

[flanagaj]

Not looking good.  What a bunch of ****

"ORIGINAL PLANNING APPLICATION 23/00259/FUL Proposal "replacement of existing cattery buildings with a single dwelling and detached garage". In our comments on the above planning application we noted the "we have two considerations for any proposed developments in White Lane: the first is the visual and environmental impact and the second is with regards traffic generation, highway safety and parking". Regarding the former consideration, we concluded that... "whilst the single storey bungalow will be slightly higher than the cattery (the buildings it would be replacing), its position, the slope of the ground and the height of the hedge along the boundary with the road will minimize its visibility for the public." Taking into account the above, and other comments in our submission, we made it clear that we were in support of the ORIGINAL proposal... which was subsequently approved by BDC. HOWEVER, the ALTERNATIVE DESIGN TO THE DWELLING AND GARAGE now proposed by the new owners of the land presents a substantial and material change to which we can NOT support. The change from a single-storey dwelling to a two-storey building, and one that is so close to the lane will be extremely imposing and will be totally out of character with the rural surroundings and the neighbouring buildings in the Lane. Despite the proposal for the new dwelling to be partially sunk and with a standard hedge on the roadside, the building will present an overpowering presence for anybody 2 passing by. My understanding is that the Council has recently refused planning applications for anything other than single-storey buildings in White Lane i.e. Patchbourne House, Primrose Cottage and the original planning application 23/00259/FUL. I do not see how the Council could permit a two-storey development on this site, when all previous applications in its vicinity have been limited to a single-storey dwelling. In addition, to our objections to the impact of the two-storey development from White Lane, there is also the objection to its visual and environmental impact on the view from the farmland rising at the back which is an AONB! The property would be unable to erect any screening or hedging sufficient to even partially mitigate the building's visual impact as there is no space between the rear of the building and the boundary of the property. In conclusion: we OPPOSE the 'alternative design' on grounds of its visual effect on the lane, on the rural area and on AONB that it is sited in"

Given the building is basically sitting in the same place as the granted one.  I am also keen to understand how the council (if this bit is true), can refuse anything other than single storey dwellings.  The lane has a mix of single and two storey dwellings, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a house built on the lane for decades.  

 

[Pocster]

17 minutes ago, flanagaj said:

Not looking good.  What a bunch of ****

"ORIGINAL PLANNING APPLICATION 23/00259/FUL Proposal "replacement of existing cattery buildings with a single dwelling and detached garage". In our comments on the above planning application we noted the "we have two considerations for any proposed developments in White Lane: the first is the visual and environmental impact and the second is with regards traffic generation, highway safety and parking". Regarding the former consideration, we concluded that... "whilst the single storey bungalow will be slightly higher than the cattery (the buildings it would be replacing), its position, the slope of the ground and the height of the hedge along the boundary with the road will minimize its visibility for the public." Taking into account the above, and other comments in our submission, we made it clear that we were in support of the ORIGINAL proposal... which was subsequently approved by BDC. HOWEVER, the ALTERNATIVE DESIGN TO THE DWELLING AND GARAGE now proposed by the new owners of the land presents a substantial and material change to which we can NOT support. The change from a single-storey dwelling to a two-storey building, and one that is so close to the lane will be extremely imposing and will be totally out of character with the rural surroundings and the neighbouring buildings in the Lane. Despite the proposal for the new dwelling to be partially sunk and with a standard hedge on the roadside, the building will present an overpowering presence for anybody 2 passing by. My understanding is that the Council has recently refused planning applications for anything other than single-storey buildings in White Lane i.e. Patchbourne House, Primrose Cottage and the original planning application 23/00259/FUL. I do not see how the Council could permit a two-storey development on this site, when all previous applications in its vicinity have been limited to a single-storey dwelling. In addition, to our objections to the impact of the two-storey development from White Lane, there is also the objection to its visual and environmental impact on the view from the farmland rising at the back which is an AONB! The property would be unable to erect any screening or hedging sufficient to even partially mitigate the building's visual impact as there is no space between the rear of the building and the boundary of the property. In conclusion: we OPPOSE the 'alternative design' on grounds of its visual effect on the lane, on the rural area and on AONB that it is sited in"

Given the building is basically sitting in the same place as the granted one.  I am also keen to understand how the council (if this bit is true), can refuse anything other than single storey dwellings.  The lane has a mix of single and two storey dwellings, and AFAIK, there hasn't been a house built on the lane for decades.  

 

🤣

been there ; same situation. You go underground my friend ….

[flanagaj]

9 minutes ago, Pocster said:

🤣

been there ; same situation. You go underground my friend ….

I'm contemplating offering it to the traveller community for 12 months.  In no made rush to get building, and it would be great to see their faces with caravans on the site and a Cob grazing on the road verge.

[Russell griffiths]

Have you thought about getting two scale models made up, or two computer generated images exactly to scale. 
 

[flanagaj]

14 minutes ago, Russell griffiths said:

Have you thought about getting two scale models made up, or two computer generated images exactly to scale. 
 

That is actually a good idea.  The planning application did show the reduced massing, so I was hoping that would suffice.

 

[Russell griffiths]

I actually made two scale models, including all the new hedges and other planting. 
I don’t know if it made that much difference but I did it because a member on here had done it a year previously. 
I knocked down a 60m timber building and replaced it with 220m!!

 

when you have this meeting could you ask for time to prepare two scale computer generated cgi’s, full colour with all the landscaping in them. 
 

From a slightly funny angle which is how my brain works. 
they keep mentioning this bloody hedge and the view from the road. 
what is to stop you cutting the bloody thing down, they will see the house then. 
Maybe keep that as a bit of ammunition