Planning Objections

[dirtychinchilla]

Unlucky for living in an area with rubbish planning officers then.

Isn't that everywhere?

 

[jpaul]

localish architect built an overboarded house which was initially a nice auburn/brownish colour, vertical planks, and after 6 years this now looks like a grey block-house,
they can't be short of a bob , attached stables, too, but my prospective input on a near neighbour doing similar would be adverse.
I've never investigated cost saving from the building style, but would like to know lifetime 15/20 year cost.

 

[bigmike20vt]

but surely that comes down to poor maintenance. houses are built either partially of wood or with wooden cladding all over the world, many of which last 100 years+ its also more sustainable and a bit of a carbon sink.

imo increasing renewables like wood in properties and reducing concrete / brick is a good thing.

 

[DXP55]

hopefully it doesn't come to that, but good to know.

Cheers @dlockers
second image to keep you happy:

As soon as I saw that I thought "Water Tower"

 

[SpeedFreak]

looks lovely. Colour me jealous. 20 solar panels as well... is that to scale or just a generic "will have solar panels". because that must be a massive sized house to fit 20 panels on one side of the roof!. I hope you get it. we had planning for 2 extensions on our pad and both times it was nail biting but all came good in the end.

to scale

 

[bigmike20vt]

to scale

sweet!.

house warming at SpeedFreaks in 12 months then

 

[sovietspybob]

We had a couple of objections when we built ours, i think its important to get the planning officer on side from the start.

We met with the planning officer and our architect at our plot before we did anything and he was very nice and told us what we could and couldn't do so the architect drew that up and all was good.

One of the guys who objected lived several hundred metres away on a different road and can't even see house unless he somehow has xray vision and can see through the 2 other properties between us and him... some people just hate any form of change or are just jealous that others can have nice things.

Just got to hope your planning officer is decent and actually just follows the rules as people whinging they don't like the colour or whatever isn't a planning issue unless you're in some beauty spot or somewhere heavily listed.

 

[SeatIbiza]

Ignore the nimby types, they've got nothing else better to do than complain. 99% (at least) of them will have absolutely no standing in terms of planning rules and will totally be bemusing personal opinions of someone who has googled planning regs and interpreted them in a way they deem suits their rhetoric. Nobody has a right to a view for example, although there are rights to light, but seems you don't affect anyone's light.

OP - looks like a decent build - are you self-building?

 

[Deep]

I got really annoyed at my neighbours and it basically ruined all our relationships. Some of the comments made me quite angry as well
One of my direct neighbours actually asked neighbours further down the road to complain to the council! I had people 4 doors away complaining about my development.

This is a neighbour four doors down

1. Severely reduced daylight to neighbouring properties impacting both inside the properties on both ground and upper levels and well as the garden. The properties that back on to the Kingston By pass are already light deprived by large trees at the end of the gardens.
2. None of the properties that back on to the Kingston Bypass 'on the straight' part of XXX have double height rear extensions. Going ahead with this proposal would be out of sync with neighbouring properties and would be over developed for the road. Approving a double height rear extension would set a precedent for other properties to be over developed and suffer light deprivation and reduced quality of life.

In addition to the above, the impact of such a significant development will affect xxxx residents with increased volume of traffic and construction vehicles. We are already impacted withthe number of cars parking in XXXX to commute to London and use local shops/services. Increased vans and construction vehicles are hazardous particularly with large numbers of young families and elderly residents. Also, XXXX is a main route for children walking to Hinchley Wood Primary School and more vehicles parking on the road and pavements will compromise their safety.

To add to this, this neighbour did not object to ANY other planning application on my road

Our property (#xx) would suffer a significant loss of daylight to the rear/garden and this would also result in a significantly obstructed view from our garden - so I can only imagine the properties even closer would be much more adversely impacted.

This house is two doors away and it's physically impossible for me to block their light
Now the next one really got to me, it had that kinda racist undertone.

The plan proposes to double the size of XXX from 130 to 260 square metres, a development which is totally out of keeping with neighbouring properties. The most recent Elmbridge Planning Consultation for new homes has a clear focus on 3-4 bedroomed homes. This proposed over development is for a 5 bedroomed house and does not consider the parking for 5+cars given that there may be 10 people in residence.

My direct neighbour knows I live alone and have 1 car but yet they moan about this. They have a 4 bed house and park on the street so it's OK for them but not for me. Thankfully they've sold up and I'm glad.

And finally

5. I also have a concern relating to point 3.18 of the Design and Access Statement: "The alternative for the applicant would be a Permitted Development scheme. The PD scheme that would be most cost effective for the applicant is set out below. Whilst a Certificate of Lawfulness has not been sought for this fallback position, the scheme has been checked against the Ministry of Housing Communities & Local Government Permitted Development Rights for Householders -Technical Guidance, which officers will be familiar with. As such there is no need or requirement to seek a Certificate of Lawfulness in this instance. "This comes across as somewhat threatening and appears to read as 'if the planning permission is not granted then the occupier of XXXX will have a legal right to go ahead with a maximum size build under Permitted Development'. If this is the case, this would appear to negate the purpose of the planning process we are currently working through.

I had to do three applications till I was successful and I had the most complaints than anybody else on the entire road (of around 100 houses). A guy on another road nearby knocked down the entire house and built an eye sore of a property had less complaints than I did.

I live in a middle class white area and the NIMBYism is out of control, I'm not one to label stuff racist but you do notice that some neighbours do treat you differently than others. Being a 6ft 6 Indian probably isn't something they're used to

 

[gc123]

let them complain and keep a record. we did and got the last laugh when they sold up and were advised they had to disclose any disputes or problems with nieghbours. i believe they had to drop there price twice just to sell

 

[dirtychinchilla]

address

I think you've left your address in your last quote

 

[200sols]

localish architect built an overboarded house which was initially a nice auburn/brownish colour, vertical planks, and after 6 years this now looks like a grey block-house,
they can't be short of a bob , attached stables, too, but my prospective input on a near neighbour doing similar would be adverse.
I've never investigated cost saving from the building style, but would like to know lifetime 15/20 year cost.

Cedar? It ages that way.

 

[Deep]

I think you've left your address in your last quote

Good spot! Thank you very much!

 

[SpeedFreak]

Ignore the nimby types, they've got nothing else better to do than complain. 99% (at least) of them will have absolutely no standing in terms of planning rules and will totally be bemusing personal opinions of someone who has googled planning regs and interpreted them in a way they deem suits their rhetoric. Nobody has a right to a view for example, although there are rights to light, but seems you don't affect anyone's light.

OP - looks like a decent build - are you self-building?

We will contract in a builder for the primary structure and I will manage the finishing.

Another objection. Snipit:

Because of the height and shape, it would dominate the road and corner area and spoil the open view aesthetic to that whole area.

The plot is currently surrounded by 60m of leylandii that are 5m high. You can't see into the plot from the road, so I have no idea what "open aesthetic" this person is referring to lol.

 

[a1ex2001]

People write most ridiculous nonsense people on our street objected to a new build because it would cause parking problems despite having off street parking for three cars …. The basis of there argument another house in the street were the owners chose not to park on their drive!

 

[cuke2u]

Better off ignoring all the comments and not take them too personally, any planning officer worth their salt will only be interested that the application adheres to the planing regulations.
Trouble is, these days and as a certain other OC thread proves, put a keyboard in front of anyone and they become an opinionated self righteous warrior with a personal agenda.

 

[SpeedFreak]

Time for comments is now closed. 8 objections

This is one:

1. The application values the country feel and appeal of (the road) in keeping with the heritage of the area. Significant amount of vegetation has already been removed from the site and squeezing in a second property devalues the grounds for the application.

2. The junction is currently unsafe and danger to life. Due to the popularity of (the road), it busy with walkers and particularly families. With lack of pavements, the only choice is to walk on the road into oncoming traffic around a blind bend. Establishing a large house with additional gateway's will only compound a dangerous situation.

3. The height of the new house is over bearing and not in keeping with the neighbourhood. I myself have lost sunlight in my garden due to a new build that is significantly greater than adjacent houses. Others should not have to suffer the same.

I already have a driveway on that side which will serve the new property. I have been using both driveways to the house so it's not really clear why there is an issue.


Another one:

I feel the building will be overbearing for the corner plot especially building it so close to the narrow lane. This makes it not in keeping with adjacent properties. We are concerned that construction works will be extremely disruptive and will not follow the permitted work hours as has been the case with other recent developments in the lane causing nuisance to residents.

It's not clear if the trees are staying which would be preferable for privacy purposes given the number of properties affected.

I think this person values brambles, dead trees and overgrown leylandii which I have removed or thinned out. What other builders who don't adhere to planning conditions has to do with my application I'm not quite sure lol.

I'll drop a few more in shortly.

Just to note, you can't win. People complain that we are thinning out the trees that make the corner blind and at the same time complain about the corner being blind and creating a risk.

 

[ristac]

Make sure you attend when they discuss the planning, they should dismiss all opinion ones and stick to facts

 

[dirtychinchilla]

gateway's

If I were the planning officer, I'd reject their objection just for this error. And then I'd bin all the rest of the objections with glaring spelling and grammar errors, which would probably leave them with only one or two.

 

[jpaul]

can't you eloquently supply written rejection/criticism of the objections before any meeting too.

aren't there planning rules too for proximity and height of buildings/walls to public roads/lanes.