Small double storey next to a Listed Building

[wessex101]

Its 7 metres away and the planners are still getting worried about overshadowing? Either there is something about the site or there must be another agenda at work here. From your description I am starting to suspect the latter. You don't mention what your designer is doing, he really needs to pull his finger out and come up with a strategy to tackle this.

If all else fails take the rejection and go to appeal. Mind you by then the neighbour probably would have sold and the objections will melt away.

 

[kelvace]

I know - it's ridiculous. To be fair to my designer he is doing all be can, but the planners are not budging or giving any detail on why they consider overshadowing to be an issue. The planners response is that they may allow use to get a light survey done (but having to pay twice, as the council would need to commission its own survey) which given the size of the extension would be prohibitively expensive. Plus our fear given the history of our case is that if the survey is favourable, all it takes is one disclaimer and the council will latch onto that and still reject. I would then be in a situation of being more £££ down and either forced to walk away or spend more for an appeal. Our designers view is to push away with our final arguments, get a rejection, and then appeal. Although he did caution is that appeals can be quite random and depend on the officer doing the review.

 

[Nakajo]

Personally, I really wouldn't bother with the light survey - a simple section should suffice. While it's not guaranteed, I'd prefer to pursue the Appeal route.

 

[kelvace]

I tend to agree. I'm going to run with my final arguments and then either appeal or sell the place. Shame because it's a nice area. There you go.

Thanks again for the comments

 

[wessex101]

There are usually things you can do to enhance your argument, as Nakajo suggested a section/elevation showing the extension in context with the neighbour to emphasis the separation. Clearly mark on the drawings the unauthorised doors and windows to the neighbouring property. You can usually play around with the roof configuration change gable to a hip or cropped hip, lower the ridge, lower the eaves etc. etc.

You have to present your case to refute all potential objections and emphasis all the positives. I can't help feeling your designer is not really earning his fee.

 

[garyo]

Google the 25 degree rule too - it's commonly used rule of thumb. You could submit cross sections showing the 25 and 45 degree lines.

 

[kelvace]

Thanks for your replies.

I have sent a letter to the council stressing the the PVCu French door that they claim will be overshadowed by my proposal does not have LBC. They claim it is still a material planning consideration because (a) the listing makes reference to '2 modern doors and windows of various types', and (b) therefore there was an opening in the flank where the French doors are since at least 1971. Given this, they will not make the owner fill in the opening.

I have reverted as follows:
(A) the listing does mention the modern doors. But it does not state where the modern doors are. Additionally the listing covers 3 properties, not just the objectors property. So it is not clear whether the listing refers to the French doors in question or doors elsewhere in the row of houses. The planner is therefore making a convenient assumption that is no backed by the evidence they refer to;

(B) the investigation into the lack of LBC on the neighbouring property is still ongoing and I find it strange that the planner is saying that they will not make the owner fill in the opening before the investigation has concluded. Particularly because the reasons they cite are flawed.