Small double storey next to a Listed Building

[kelvace]

Hi all

I am proposing a small double storey extension next to a listed building. It's been a bit of a saga going on since December last year. Here is a brief history:

1. We put in for permission. The owner of the neighbouring property that is Listed objected saying that it would block light through a PVCu French door that would be facing my proposed extension;

2. Local planners disagreed saying they thought that the overshadowing issue was immaterial. Said they would approve if we could get the conservation officer on board;

3. Local conservation officer objected to our development saying it was too close and not subservient to the neighbouring listed building. We then agreed to change the design such that it was moved a further 1300 away from the listed building. Conservation officer is now supportive of the our development;

4. The local planners are now saying that the they consider the overshadowing to be a material issue despite the proposed building being 1300 further away from the listed building. The conservation officer is still happy with our proposal.

Here is my question. The French doors that they are claiming will be overshadowed do not have listed buildings consent (LBC). In fact, none of the neighbouring windows on the elevation facing my proposed development have LBC. Can it be right that they refuse my development because of a constraint caused by an illegal feature on the neighbouring building (i.e. Light through French doors that have been installed illegally without LBC)?

We also suggested to the council a light survey. I've run some rough calculations that suggest out development is well within accepted limits. They are ok with thing but with a sting in the tail; we would have to pay for a survey ourselves and the pay separately for the council to repeat the survey! It then becomes prohibitively expensive for a small extension.

Any views on the lack of neighbours LBC would be appreciated.

Thanks

 

[Nakajo]

Oh, this is the kind of mess I love to sink my teeth into. In this circumstance, I think I would just put forward the best case you can, with your own diagrams showing overshadowing/light impact, and then expect to go to appeal. Perhaps you can encourage your neighbour to write a letter of support.

I would also want to know what policy they think is undermined by virtue of your neighbour's listed status.

 

[kelvace]

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately the neighbour is ignoring their LBC issues and categorically don't want us to get permission (they are moving in 6 months - retiring to the sun - and don't want building working going on when trying to sell their house). So chances of encouraging them to send a letter of support are basically zero. I am going to pen a letter to the planners though outlining the dilemma with this development, argue that the light impact is de minimas, and perhaps point out that they would be refusing permission based upon the existence of a feature on our neighbour's property that is there illegally; seems unfair that by them flouting the law that we are now constrained despite going through the correct process.

 

[bernardgreen]

If the neighbour changed / installed the French windows without getting LBC then he has committed a criminal offence.

https://historicengland.org.uk/advice/hpg/uwandhc/offences/

This could be used as leverage to get them to cease objecting to your extension.

He may have difficulty selling if the Conservation Officer is inclined to press the matter.

""So owners must appeal or comply with listed building enforcement notices even if the works were carried out by a previous owner or they risk committing a criminal offence.""

 

[Nakajo]

If they are in dispute with a neighbour, and if the issue of criminality is raised in connection with works done, they might find it very, very difficult to sell their house.

 

[kelvace]

Thanks again for the replies. As much as I would like to use the LBC point as "leverage" to get the neighbours to withdraw their objection, my feeling is that going down that route could backfire.

I have penned a letter to the council pointing out that by refusing my application based upon alleged overshadowing of a feature on a neighbouring house that is there illegally (because of the lack of LBC), they could effectively be giving an advantage to perpetrators of works that don't have LBC as the objectors are being allowed to stop my proposal based upon something resulting from their illegal activity. That advantage, no matter how small, makes a mockery of the laws that are in place to protect heritage assets.

Hopefully that will at least make the council think a bit deeper about what they are about to do.

 

[Nakajo]

Print this out and post it through their door: http://www.eastbourneherald.co.uk/n...ations-to-her-listed-hellingly-home-1-7944908

 

[chappers]

If they are in dispute with a neighbour, and if the issue of criminality is raised in connection with works done, they might find it very, very difficult to sell their house.

Also if any potential buyers solicitor does their job properly, as they should be checking that all works comply as the responsibility passes from one proprietor to another.
Also didn't think the CO could get involved if a build was outside the curtilage of the listed property, provided the proposed development wasn't itself in a conservation area

 

[kelvace]

That's a good point, and I should have mentioned it: we are in a conservation area. But to be clear, the conservation officer is supportive of our proposal in the context of the conservation area and the neighbouring listed building. It is the local planners that want to refuse it irrespective of the CO's opinion.

What is frustrating is (1) the CO is ok with our proposal, (2) the planners originally said that the hurdle to get over was the CO and that the other objections were not material, (3) our proposal is small (would be permitted development if not in a conservation area), and (4) the part of the neighbouring listed building that is aledgedly overshadowed has been built illegally but is being effectively treated as legal for the purposes of assessing our proposal.

My feeling is that from the beginning the planners didn't want to approve our proposal. Initially the hurdle was the CO (who was originally against the the proposal but with some changes was supportive). Then the overshadowing became an issue (even though the amended scheme was moved further away from the neighbour and reduced in size). I then argued that based on some basic calculations that our proposal was well within accepted ranges with regards to light. They then suggested a light survey which I said I might consider. They then came back and said that we would have to pay twice for a light survey; once for my own surveyor and then for a council surveyor to repeat the calculations. It just seems that at every stage they are hoping for a consultee to give them a excuse to refuse (in this case the CO), and when this doesn't happen they are finding other issues that were initially deemed immaterial. When I offer ways to rebuff these new issues they are putting me in a situation where I have to pay through the nose to prove it. And all for a tiny development!

One last point; the planners have misrepresented our case in the online records. For example, somebody called the council last week to check on the progress of our proposal and this was logged as an objection but with no details (meaning that our case shows 3 public objections rather than 2). Also, the second letter from the CO supporting our application is not shown against our case despite being sent over a month ago; the only CO letter showing is the initial one that expressed concerns about our proposal. All very annoying.

Thanks again all for your comments and suggestions so far.

 

[bernardgreen]

Probably not relevant to this particular case but a long drawn out battle with a planning committee ended suddenly with the applicant being granted permission. About the time the planning committee changed its mind a conflict of interest came to light. One of the planning committee members was related to the main objector but had not disclosed this vested interest and had continued to object to the proposal when protocol required him to leave the room when that application was being discussed.

 

[richardrich79]

I know from experience that trying to sell a listed buildings that have undergone any alterations since the original listing is a nightmare, so you neighbours may have problems selling anyway.

 

[kelvace]

I agree that the lack of LBC will make it difficult for them to sell (I actually renovated a listed building a while back - all above-board).

Unfortunately though, them getting their comeuppance in the future does not ease the process of getting my proposal accepted.

 

[bernardgreen]

I know from experience that trying to sell a listed buildings that have undergone any alterations since the original listing is a nightmare,

But can be a dream for the buyer prepared to restore / renovate who can get it for 70% of the asking price.

 

[wessex101]

I can't help feeling the french doors and windows without LBC is a red herring. Clearly the conservation officer is aware and is not taking enforcement action which would suggest he is not concerned about them and probably would have granted LBC if the neighbour had bothered to apply.

Your designer needs to address the specific objections raised such as over shadowing etc. You say you moved the extension 1300mm further away from the neighbour but how far actually is it? What does your designer say? They should be coming up with a strategy as they should know the site and the local planning policies.

 

[kelvace]

Unfortunately there are no design change sthat can be made. In absolute terms, the double storey is about 7m away from the French doors. That is as far as we can go. The only other option for is it to move (growing family and all that).

Regarding the LBC status of the French doors, on his site visit the CO said he was "quite annoyed" by the PVCu windows including the French doors, but basically said that he would need someone to push the issue to take action (think it's all about resources). He so asked whether there was evidence that the windows were changed after the listing. So he was bothered. Supporting this, he came across as a 'windows guy' in that he focused on he design of the windows in our proposed development despite our house not being listed.

Just to be clear, the windows were not just replaced on the Listed Building. Doors were removed to make way for windows, plus there are lots of other works beyond the windows that have been done without LBC.

It may be a red herring, but given that the windows are visible from the road, and our original scheme was criticised for being partially visible from the road, I would hope that the PVCu windows and French doors would be viewed by the CO as being just as detrimental.