Hi all, I am looking for any advice on any similar experiences.
I live in the end terrace townhouse (3 storeys) and have a detached house neighbour with approx. 1m separation. We had submitted a planning application for a two storey rear extension, 3.0m length but with the first floor set in by 600mm from both sides. The first floor extension would have been a modern design but we received many objections from neighbours regarding the first floor. Everyone verbally agreed single storey extension fine but not two storeys. We therefore retracted the planning application before the determination date to pursue the single storey.
We therefore re-applied through 42 day notification prior notice for a 3.5m single storey extension, eaves height being 2.9m but with parapet walls taking it to approx. 3.2m. Side flank walls would be finished in white render to match existing. There will be approx. 1m of wall appearing above the existing fencing on both sides.
We were assigned same case officer as the previous planning application. It was extremely difficult to contact her or ever get hold of her. After meeting every neighbour and discussing, we even made commitments to lessen the visual impact with greenery on the flank walls, artificial green roof. The immediate adjoining neighbours expressed they were surprised how high 3.0m was and asked why it could not be lower in height? Cue doing a mock up exercise with timber frame in the garden to show the height of the roof and also demonstrate over shadowing was minimal to garden and no impact on their habitable ground floor rooms. Discussions seemed positive and the terrace neighbour seemed more worried about party wall agreements.
Just few days before the deadline, one of the terraced neighbours wrote e-mail to say they would object because they did not want to set future precedent for extensions either side of them - one being the neighbour sandwiched between us and the other being the opposite end terrace. After the deadline, my adjoining terrace neighbour also emailed to say they objected because they were just too concerned with the works. Tracking the application online, the date for neighbourhood consultation expired. Still could not get hold of planning officer so managed to track down case file and went in to town hall to see. Their objections summarised:
o Feeling of blocked in
o Visual impact
o Overbearing- very small plots
o Drainage problems
o Maintain existing Juliette balcony - to remain in keeping
o Flat roof not to be used for standing or sun-deck
o Permitted development rights removed
On the delegation report, the objections meant local planning authority required to assess impact of proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. They mentioned they could require the developer to submit further info regarding the development to determine application (but they did not contact me or could I contact them!).
Report clarified removal of permitted development was only in respect of parking spaces/garages/turning spaces.
So report said:
The application site was previously visited by the case officer and any objections or other representations are taken into account in the assessment of the proposal. Objections have been received from nearby occupiers including from adjoining property.
Neighbouring habitable room and will have a significant impact on the amenities of the adjoining property in terms of loss of outlook and visual amenity.
The rear gardens face in an easterly direction and in this terrace (which is fairly typical of the surrounding development) are c 11m deep. A proposed rearward projection of 3.5m will result in c 7.5m depth of garden to remain.
The gardens are of restricted size with the width of the plots in this location in the region of 5m.
It is noted that adjoining neighbour sits to the south of the application site however given the depth of projection proposed and the c 3.2m height of development along the boundary it is considered that the proposal is likely to result in an overbearing form of development.
Detached neighbour is situated to the north of the proposed development. The depth of the garden at No 2 is c 10m and the rear building line is off-set to that of the application site. The impacts therefore are likely to result in overshadowing and loss of prospect even allowing for the small degree of separation.
It is considered that the development would seriously prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings by reason of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of prospect and therefore prior approval should not be granted in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015.
Decision
Application Refused
Appeal or not?
I live in the end terrace townhouse (3 storeys) and have a detached house neighbour with approx. 1m separation. We had submitted a planning application for a two storey rear extension, 3.0m length but with the first floor set in by 600mm from both sides. The first floor extension would have been a modern design but we received many objections from neighbours regarding the first floor. Everyone verbally agreed single storey extension fine but not two storeys. We therefore retracted the planning application before the determination date to pursue the single storey.
We therefore re-applied through 42 day notification prior notice for a 3.5m single storey extension, eaves height being 2.9m but with parapet walls taking it to approx. 3.2m. Side flank walls would be finished in white render to match existing. There will be approx. 1m of wall appearing above the existing fencing on both sides.
We were assigned same case officer as the previous planning application. It was extremely difficult to contact her or ever get hold of her. After meeting every neighbour and discussing, we even made commitments to lessen the visual impact with greenery on the flank walls, artificial green roof. The immediate adjoining neighbours expressed they were surprised how high 3.0m was and asked why it could not be lower in height? Cue doing a mock up exercise with timber frame in the garden to show the height of the roof and also demonstrate over shadowing was minimal to garden and no impact on their habitable ground floor rooms. Discussions seemed positive and the terrace neighbour seemed more worried about party wall agreements.
Just few days before the deadline, one of the terraced neighbours wrote e-mail to say they would object because they did not want to set future precedent for extensions either side of them - one being the neighbour sandwiched between us and the other being the opposite end terrace. After the deadline, my adjoining terrace neighbour also emailed to say they objected because they were just too concerned with the works. Tracking the application online, the date for neighbourhood consultation expired. Still could not get hold of planning officer so managed to track down case file and went in to town hall to see. Their objections summarised:
o Feeling of blocked in
o Visual impact
o Overbearing- very small plots
o Drainage problems
o Maintain existing Juliette balcony - to remain in keeping
o Flat roof not to be used for standing or sun-deck
o Permitted development rights removed
On the delegation report, the objections meant local planning authority required to assess impact of proposed development on the amenity of any adjoining premises. They mentioned they could require the developer to submit further info regarding the development to determine application (but they did not contact me or could I contact them!).
Report clarified removal of permitted development was only in respect of parking spaces/garages/turning spaces.
So report said:
The application site was previously visited by the case officer and any objections or other representations are taken into account in the assessment of the proposal. Objections have been received from nearby occupiers including from adjoining property.
Neighbouring habitable room and will have a significant impact on the amenities of the adjoining property in terms of loss of outlook and visual amenity.
The rear gardens face in an easterly direction and in this terrace (which is fairly typical of the surrounding development) are c 11m deep. A proposed rearward projection of 3.5m will result in c 7.5m depth of garden to remain.
The gardens are of restricted size with the width of the plots in this location in the region of 5m.
It is noted that adjoining neighbour sits to the south of the application site however given the depth of projection proposed and the c 3.2m height of development along the boundary it is considered that the proposal is likely to result in an overbearing form of development.
Detached neighbour is situated to the north of the proposed development. The depth of the garden at No 2 is c 10m and the rear building line is off-set to that of the application site. The impacts therefore are likely to result in overshadowing and loss of prospect even allowing for the small degree of separation.
It is considered that the development would seriously prejudice the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining dwellings by reason of overshadowing, visual impact and loss of prospect and therefore prior approval should not be granted in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England) Order 2015.
Decision
Application Refused
Appeal or not?
