object to permitted development?

[gdawg]

Hi
Or neighbour has been granted permitted development, the plans are for building a dorm in the loft at the rear, we are a row of bungalows, so we would be over looked. Crucially, our deeds state that these properties cannot be built onto, and permitted development rules state that it cannot be granted to buildings built prior to 1948, ours are built in 1935, any advice as to where we stand and can object is greatly received.

 

[robinbanks]

granted permitted development

This isn't a thing. Can you more accurately describe what your neighbour has acquired? I suspect it's either a confirmation that their proposed scheme is within the limits of permitted development, or it's a grant of full planning. There is no "grant of PD"; central government already did that

we are a row of bungalows, so we would be over looked

same is true of nearly every house in the nation; the upstairs windows look into the neighbouring gardens

permitted development rules state that it cannot be granted to buildings built prior to 1948

i think you're confused here. If an older-than-1948 building has PD rights, they apply to how it was in 1948.

If it a 10m wide house in 1930 and was given a 5m side extension in 1947, then come 1948 the whole 15m thing is considered "the house" on 1948 and can potentially be extended again under PD rules by adding another 7.5m side extension.

If the large extension was added in 1949 however, it is the 10m house that stood in 1948, and as it already has a 5m side extension, no further extension under PD is possible (a PD extension would be 5m)

 

[mrrusty]

I agree. You're on a loser. They most likely have a lawful development certificate that the work is PD. The 1948 date also applies to the changes allowing additional storeys to buildings introduced recently, but a bungalow with a dormer is thought of as a 1 1/2 storey building or chalet bungalow and my view is that a dormer doesn't fall within the "additional storey" extension to PD rights - prob why confirmation that PD extension is OK.

Now they have official PD confirmation, the council will not change their mind easily or they could be open to claims for compensation; it would have to be a very clear cut breach of PD rules taken to the ombudsman rather than any sort of subjective interpretation, and I don't believe you will be successful in challenging this.

Anything written in the title restricting development will be a covenant between whoever wrote the covenant when the house was built and the owner occupier of the building. It can only be enforced by the original beneficiary of the covenant and since this was written in 1935, highly unlikely anyone will be around to try and enforce. You as a neighbour, even if you have the same covenant in your title, have no mechanism as a 3rd party to enforce a covenant written in someone else's title.

 

[gdawg]

This isn't a thing. Can you more accurately describe what your neighbour has acquired? I suspect it's either a confirmation that their proposed scheme is within the limits of permitted development, or it's a grant of full planning. There is no "grant of PD"; central government already did that

same is true of nearly every house in the nation; the upstairs windows look into the neighbouring gardens

i think you're confused here. If an older-than-1948 building has PD rights, they apply to how it was in 1948.

If it a 10m wide house in 1930 and was given a 5m side extension in 1947, then come 1948 the whole 15m thing is considered "the house" on 1948 and can potentially be extended again under PD rules by adding another 7.5m side extension.

If the large extension was added in 1949 however, it is the 10m house that stood in 1948, and as it already has a 5m side extension, no further extension under PD is possible (a PD extension would be 5m)

i hear you, thank you. As i thought, we dont have a leg to stand on...

 

[gdawg]

I agree. You're on a loser. They most likely have a lawful development certificate that the work is PD. The 1948 date also applies to the changes allowing additional storeys to buildings introduced recently, but a bungalow with a dormer is thought of as a 1 1/2 storey building or chalet bungalow and my view is that a dormer doesn't fall within the "additional storey" extension to PD rights - prob why confirmation that PD extension is OK.

Now they have official PD confirmation, the council will not change their mind easily or they could be open to claims for compensation; it would have to be a very clear cut breach of PD rules taken to the ombudsman rather than any sort of subjective interpretation, and I don't believe you will be successful in challenging this.

Anything written in the title restricting development will be a covenant between whoever wrote the covenant when the house was built and the owner occupier of the building. It can only be enforced by the original beneficiary of the covenant and since this was written in 1935, highly unlikely anyone will be around to try and enforce. You as a neighbour, even if you have the same covenant in your title, have no mechanism as a 3rd party to enforce a covenant written in someone else's title.

So in a word , the covenant isn't worth the paper its written on..
Appreciate the replies, as you may have guessed, i have no clue in this scenario.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In my experience it's very much a misplaced perception that people stand in their dormer windows and gaze into the neigbours gardens. Our house is on a valley we're overlooked by about a thousand people.

 

[gdawg]

Oh well, we have a shared drive so i could just not allow scaffolding to be built on my side or workers vehicles to use the drive, but this seems a bit last resort and pathetic?

 

[gdawg]

In my experience it's very much a misplaced perception that people stand in their dormer windows and gaze into the neigbours gardens. Our house is on the side of a valley we're overlooked by about a thousand people.

i understand, its just seems this has all been done on the sly, had no communication form the neighbour regarding the plan to build at all

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes it is a bit pathetic and they may just end up building the bits that you can see but they can't to a lessor standard (visually) that you'll end up staring at forever more.

 

[Notch7]

Crucially, our deeds state that these properties cannot be built onto

So in theory the neighbour has a restrictive covenant in place: a binding condition written into the properties deeds
but I’m not sure how or if it can be enforced.

Restrictive covenants are outside the scope of the planning rules, so aren’t taken into consideration for PD or full planning: unless I think if it’s lodged with the planning records for the property. My guess is enforcement would require private legal action.

maybe ask a solicitor

Restrictive Covenants - The Complete Guide (Property Solvers Homeowner's Hub)

Property Solvers Homeowner Hub's detailed guide to Restrictive Covenants delves into everything from its meaning and enforceability through to negotiation, challenging these types of covenants, legal (+ other) costs, indemnity insurance and much more...

www.propertysolvers.co.uk

 

[mrrusty]

the covenant isn't worth the paper its written on..

they very often aren't. Landowners tend to put them in when they sell land and still have an interest in the value of the development. After a few generational changes they lose any teeth they originally had.

Yes it is a bit pathetic and they may just end up building the bits that you can see but they can't to a lessor standard (visually) that you'll end up staring at forever more.

Totally agree. When you think of all the ways a neighbour can be a PITA, encouraging it isn't a great idea. In fact, I think I would be cooperating, making brews etc. in my experience it tends to pay off.

 

[mrrusty]

My guess is enforcement would require private legal action.

It would, but as I posted above and is confirmed in the link....

Who Enforces Restrictive Covenants?​

It is the beneficiary – also known as the covenantee – that has the right to enforce the restrictive covenant. This can either be a private individual, company or trust. A beneficiary under a will or a trustee in bankruptcy also has such rights.

...The only person who can enforce a covenant is the original beneficiary of the covenant or any legal successor. A 3rd party, like a neighbour, or even a local authority has no right to enforce a covenant on a title they are not directly associated with.

 

[gdawg]

In my experience it's very much a misplaced perception that people stand in their dormer windows and gaze into the neigbours gardens. Our house is on a valley we're overlooked by about a thousand people.

I should of pointed out that all the the properties on our road and behind are all bungalows and currently no one can see into anyone's gardens or properties, well not now once this neighbors building work is done.

 

[gdawg]

It would, but as I posted above and is confirmed in the link....

...The only person who can enforce a covenant is the original beneficiary of the covenant or any legal successor. A 3rd party, like a neighbour, or even a local authority has no right to enforce a covenant on a title they are not directly associated with.

So if.. and a big if, we make contact original beneficiary and explain the situation, it them and only them who any clout to object the PD?

 

[johnny2007]

What's this obsession with being overlooked?
All terraced houses are overlooked by upstairs windows, same for probably 90% of properties.
What do you intend to do in your garden?
Swingers parties?
Porn movies set?
Unauthorised cemetery?
We have 4 foot walls and the gardens look a lot bigger than they are.
Also it encourages conversation between neighbours which can only be a good thing.