ChatterBank1 min ago
Help Please Regarding Objecting To Planning Permission...
Hi All
Just this morning we received a lovely letter from our local council stating that planning permission had been applied for to increase our flats by one floor!
There are two blocks of 12 flats on ground, first and second floors. They want to add a third floor with three flats to each block.
Shocked doesn't really cover it, however, to my request. Has anyone objected to this type of thing before?
I have some ideas, the usual - parking, noise, dust, subsidence (one block had this and was remedied - but worried building would cause problems), what happens with aerials, water tanks on roof etc.
Any other ideas please?
Thank you all in advance.
Just this morning we received a lovely letter from our local council stating that planning permission had been applied for to increase our flats by one floor!
There are two blocks of 12 flats on ground, first and second floors. They want to add a third floor with three flats to each block.
Shocked doesn't really cover it, however, to my request. Has anyone objected to this type of thing before?
I have some ideas, the usual - parking, noise, dust, subsidence (one block had this and was remedied - but worried building would cause problems), what happens with aerials, water tanks on roof etc.
Any other ideas please?
Thank you all in advance.
Answers
1 to 5 of 5
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Chickadee. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Planning can be refused if enough valid objections are made. Have a look at this list and use it for yiur letter. Many things that concern you will not come under planning. A although a worry, dust and noise from the building works for example will not be grounds to refuse as the builders can be told to keep those to a minimum and they are short term.
This list is the type of thing that will be taken into account.
• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]
• Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)
• Visual impact of the development
• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
• The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners
• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]
• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]
• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].
This list is the type of thing that will be taken into account.
• Adverse effect on the residential amenity of neighbours, by reason of (among other factors) noise*, disturbance*, overlooking, loss of privacy, overshadowing, etc. [*but note that this does not include noise or disturbance arising from the actual execution of the works, which will not be taken into account]
• Unacceptably high density / overdevelopment of the site, especially if it involves loss of garden land or the open aspect of the neighbourhood (so-called ‘garden grabbing’)
• Visual impact of the development
• Effect of the development on the character of the neighbourhood
• Design (including bulk and massing, detailing and materials, if these form part of the application)
• The proposed development is over-bearing, out-of-scale or out of character in terms of its appearance compared with existing development in the vicinity
• The loss of existing views from neighbouring properties would adversely affect the residential amenity of neighbouring owners
• [If in a Conservation Area, adverse effect of the development on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area]
• [If near a Listed Building, adverse effect of the development on the setting of the Listed Building.]
• The development would adversely affect highway safety or the convenience of road users [but only if there is technical evidence to back up such a claim].
I should go for over crowiding and density especially. Leave aside the concern about the aerials and water tanks etc the architects will have no problem with those sorts of things, its the fundemental greed of trying to squeeze another bunch of dwellings into an already busy block isn't it?
I knw how you must feel about it, and wish you luck in your fight. Get all the neighbours involved won't you?
I knw how you must feel about it, and wish you luck in your fight. Get all the neighbours involved won't you?
So there are 36 flats in each block, and this increases by three to 39.
Most of the reasons you mention in your post are not matters on which to object, because they have to be sorted as part of the detailed design. I include subsidence, aerials and water tanks in this camp.
Potential reasons of greater validity include:
overall height, would this extra story make this block taller than anything else around.
Parking, this is a consideration that has to be detailed before planners will decide, so look carefully at what arrangements are being proposed. If you already all use on street parking and this is perpetually difficult for existing residents, planners won't be happy so use this as an objection.
Do you have access to the existing roof for amenity purpose? If this would be lost, use that as an objection.
The length of time the project will take and disruption to existing lives. You cannot successfully object purely on noise and dust grounds because the build is just a transitional phase. However if this is proposed to go on for a long time, you might be successful on those grounds. These sorts of refusals have become more common in London, where neighbours blighted by such projects similar to yours or those that involve excavating huge basements are now being refused. One flats extension upwards was refused in E London because because the proposed building project work was scheduled as 44 weeks long.
Look at the detail in the Design and Access submission within the planning application to try to determine how the project will be delivered with minimal disruption plus it's length.
I disagree that density is a useful objection ground. Many city centre areas are subject to housing densities in excess of 2000 units per hectare nowadays.
Most of the reasons you mention in your post are not matters on which to object, because they have to be sorted as part of the detailed design. I include subsidence, aerials and water tanks in this camp.
Potential reasons of greater validity include:
overall height, would this extra story make this block taller than anything else around.
Parking, this is a consideration that has to be detailed before planners will decide, so look carefully at what arrangements are being proposed. If you already all use on street parking and this is perpetually difficult for existing residents, planners won't be happy so use this as an objection.
Do you have access to the existing roof for amenity purpose? If this would be lost, use that as an objection.
The length of time the project will take and disruption to existing lives. You cannot successfully object purely on noise and dust grounds because the build is just a transitional phase. However if this is proposed to go on for a long time, you might be successful on those grounds. These sorts of refusals have become more common in London, where neighbours blighted by such projects similar to yours or those that involve excavating huge basements are now being refused. One flats extension upwards was refused in E London because because the proposed building project work was scheduled as 44 weeks long.
Look at the detail in the Design and Access submission within the planning application to try to determine how the project will be delivered with minimal disruption plus it's length.
I disagree that density is a useful objection ground. Many city centre areas are subject to housing densities in excess of 2000 units per hectare nowadays.
1 to 5 of 5
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.