We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since we
originally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merely
heresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is for
their disabled son).

In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that the
extension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with the
neighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.

As it stands at the moment our back garden loses light in late
afternoon/early evening because we are on the east side of a
substantial hill. The extension proposed will be 8.5m long (yes eight
and a half metres) and the pitched roof will be 4.5m above the level of
our garden (our garden is slightly lower than the neighbours as we are
downhill from them).

As such we are likely to lose the light much earlier than previously
and also our already dingy dining room and kitchen will require
artificial lighting on all but the brightest of days.

We were given the opportunity to raise these issues with a surveyor
(who has subsequently turned out to be the surveyor also used by the
council, so impartiality is in question). And his 'report' which the
council have paid =A3500+VAT for essentially is a few pictures of the
tatty 'lean-to' on the rear of our house commenting it is in poor
repair with no mention of the likely loss of light and almost
inevitably value to our property.

We can renovate or remove the lean-to but we cannot knock our
neighbours extension down to sell our house.

We have no particular objection to the extension itself, we have been
good neighbours and know they have been waiting a long time for the
extra space and facilities for their disabled son. However we do feel
that there should be some recompense for the potential loss in value to
our property. I have written back to the surveyor and asked him to
address the issues he was originally asked to look into.

Has anyone experienced a similar situation to this?

I have scanned the proposed plans and uploaded the two images to
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Extension.bmp and
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Elevations.bmp respectively.
These are big images (5000x2500 ish) but they are only about 700kb
each.

Regards,
Trojan.

"Trojan Hussar" wrote in message
ups.com...
We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since we
originally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merely
heresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is for
their disabled son).

In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that the
extension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with the
neighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.

As it stands at the moment our back garden loses light in late
afternoon/early evening because we are on the east side of a
substantial hill. The extension proposed will be 8.5m long (yes eight
and a half metres) and the pitched roof will be 4.5m above the level of
our garden (our garden is slightly lower than the neighbours as we are
downhill from them).

As such we are likely to lose the light much earlier than previously
and also our already dingy dining room and kitchen will require
artificial lighting on all but the brightest of days.

We were given the opportunity to raise these issues with a surveyor
(who has subsequently turned out to be the surveyor also used by the
council, so impartiality is in question). And his 'report' which the
council have paid £500+VAT for essentially is a few pictures of the
tatty 'lean-to' on the rear of our house commenting it is in poor
repair with no mention of the likely loss of light and almost
inevitably value to our property.

We can renovate or remove the lean-to but we cannot knock our
neighbours extension down to sell our house.

We have no particular objection to the extension itself, we have been
good neighbours and know they have been waiting a long time for the
extra space and facilities for their disabled son. However we do feel
that there should be some recompense for the potential loss in value to
our property. I have written back to the surveyor and asked him to
address the issues he was originally asked to look into.

Has anyone experienced a similar situation to this?

I have scanned the proposed plans and uploaded the two images to
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Extension.bmp and
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Elevations.bmp respectively.
These are big images (5000x2500 ish) but they are only about 700kb
each.

Regards,
Trojan.

You do not have any right to natual light in the garden.

Trojan Hussar wrote:

We have no particular objection to the extension itself, we have been
good neighbours and know they have been waiting a long time for the
extra space and facilities for their disabled son. However we do feel
that there should be some recompense for the potential loss in value to
our property. I have written back to the surveyor and asked him to
address the issues he was originally asked to look into.

I very much doubt you will be able to get any compensation in this
situation. Even assuming you could, who would you expect to pay it? I
would not have thought that entering into litigation with the neighbours
was going to do anyone any favours.

It is also questionable that it will have any effect on the property
value. I appreciate that it will "feel" devalued to you (initially at
least) since you had the pleasure of experiencing it with more light
etc. But in absolute terms it is unlikely to actually lower the price
any. After all you still bought the place even though you knew that the
building was likely.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

If the work has been given planning permission and the correct procedures
have been followed then it is unlikly that your property has suffered any
actual reduction in open market value. You may not like it and feel that it
is worth less but that is not the legal issue. It was your responsibility to
make proper enquiries before you purchased rather than rely on hearsay. I
very much doubt you have any claim.

Peter Crosland

In article . com,
Trojan Hussar writes



Has anyone experienced a similar situation to this?

Yes

You have no right to light and loss of value to your house will not be
recompensed. Your only course of action is to object citing all the
reasons you can, the things you have mentioned will not stop the
development individually but you may be able to build up a picture that
will sway the committee but even if you get a refusal the applicant can
take it to appeal and at the moment Prescotts planning inspectorate is
letting just about everything through :-(

Learn to live with it or move.

--
David

"Trojan Hussar" wrote in message
ups.com...
We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since we
originally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merely
heresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is for
their disabled son).

In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that the
extension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with the
neighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.


Why not just put in for a similar sized extension to your own place quoting
next door as a precedent ?

at the moment Prescotts planning inspectorate is
letting just about everything through :-(

And the statistics to prove this are where exactly?

Peter Crosland

"Trojan Hussar" wrote in message
ups.com...
We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since we
originally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merely
heresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is for
their disabled son).

In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that the
extension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with the
neighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.

As it stands at the moment our back garden loses light in late
afternoon/early evening because we are on the east side of a
substantial hill. The extension proposed will be 8.5m long (yes eight
and a half metres) and the pitched roof will be 4.5m above the level of
our garden (our garden is slightly lower than the neighbours as we are
downhill from them).

As such we are likely to lose the light much earlier than previously
and also our already dingy dining room and kitchen will require
artificial lighting on all but the brightest of days.

We were given the opportunity to raise these issues with a surveyor
(who has subsequently turned out to be the surveyor also used by the
council, so impartiality is in question). And his 'report' which the
council have paid £500+VAT for essentially is a few pictures of the
tatty 'lean-to' on the rear of our house commenting it is in poor
repair with no mention of the likely loss of light and almost
inevitably value to our property.

We can renovate or remove the lean-to but we cannot knock our
neighbours extension down to sell our house.

We have no particular objection to the extension itself, we have been
good neighbours and know they have been waiting a long time for the
extra space and facilities for their disabled son. However we do feel
that there should be some recompense for the potential loss in value to
our property. I have written back to the surveyor and asked him to
address the issues he was originally asked to look into.

Has anyone experienced a similar situation to this?

I have scanned the proposed plans and uploaded the two images to
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Extension.bmp and
http://www.vitae-services.co.uk/images/Elevations.bmp respectively.
These are big images (5000x2500 ish) but they are only about 700kb
each.

Plans are very rough and ready - I am in a similar situation as your
neighbour but for my father who suffers with senile dementia - we have only
been allowed to build 3 metres single story and 2 metres 2 story on the
boundary and everything else is subject to the 45 degree rule meaning we
could only go 5.5 metres back single story and 3.5 metres back 2 story (3
metres from one boundary & 1.2 metres from the other)
Our council would not have passed your 'problem'
You should study the details of the party wall act

at least it is only single story albeit of very poor design- that skylight
thing looks awful

Regards Jeff

In article , Peter
Crosland writes
at the moment Prescotts planning inspectorate is
letting just about everything through :-(

And the statistics to prove this are where exactly?

Peter Crosland


Look at the planning inspectorate website, you have to search through
the individual cases to see which ones have been permitted, I have a
complaint going through them at the moment which is why I got interested
in how many were being passed at appeal level, do you know different?
We have had a couple of absolutely scandalous developments passed
locally which were opposed by everyone except the planning inspector and
the developers
--
David

Whilst it would appear I have no 'Right to Light' in the garden. This
does however raise the issue that my dining room and kitchen which are
already poorly lit will experience a loss of light. In view of the size
of the extension I strongly believe that the kitchen area will require
almost permanent artificial light with the possible exception of the
brightest sunny days.

My suspicion however is that when the previous owners but a lean-to on
the rear of the house they intentionally obstructed the light to the
original windows, and as the new windows have not had "20 years of
uninterrupted enjoyment (of light)" they don't qualify.

The existing wall which is not a boundary wall and was built by the
previous owners of our property entirely in our property and we had to
paint this wall white in order to get sufficient light into the rear of
our property. The new wall will be 'in-keeping' with the original house
and will be a magnolia render which is unlikely to be as effective as
our original white wall.

Where does the 45 degree rule come into play here, as this extension
would clearly be within that 'zone' even from the kitchen window
furthest from the party wall.

Regards,
Trojan Hussar

In article .com,
Trojan Hussar writes
Whilst it would appear I have no 'Right to Light' in the garden. This
does however raise the issue that my dining room and kitchen which are
already poorly lit will experience a loss of light. In view of the size
of the extension I strongly believe that the kitchen area will require
almost permanent artificial light with the possible exception of the
brightest sunny days.

My suspicion however is that when the previous owners but a lean-to on
the rear of the house they intentionally obstructed the light to the
original windows, and as the new windows have not had "20 years of
uninterrupted enjoyment (of light)" they don't qualify.

The existing wall which is not a boundary wall and was built by the
previous owners of our property entirely in our property and we had to
paint this wall white in order to get sufficient light into the rear of
our property. The new wall will be 'in-keeping' with the original house
and will be a magnolia render which is unlikely to be as effective as
our original white wall.

Where does the 45 degree rule come into play here, as this extension
would clearly be within that 'zone' even from the kitchen window
furthest from the party wall.

Regards,
Trojan Hussar

You have no right to light, it is as simple as that, AIUI there are a
*few* buildings in London that have a law protecting their light but
that is all.
--
David

And the statistics to prove this are where exactly?

Look at the planning inspectorate website, you have to search through
the individual cases to see which ones have been permitted, I have a
complaint going through them at the moment which is why I got interested
in how many were being passed at appeal level, do you know different?
We have had a couple of absolutely scandalous developments passed
locally which were opposed by everyone except the planning inspector and
the developers


Obviously I don't know about the individual case you refer to. However, to
substantiate your statement one has to look at it on a vaild statistical
basis i.e what percentage of appeals were successful in one period compared
with another. The last time I looked at this locally it did not alter much
from year to year. What many people don't comprehend is that inspectors have
to make a judgement based on planning law rather than bowing to local
opinion. It is not unusual for a council's paid planning staff to recomend
approval and have this ignored by the council members.

Peter Crosland

"Peter Crosland" wrote in message
...
And the statistics to prove this are where exactly?

Look at the planning inspectorate website, you have to search through
the individual cases to see which ones have been permitted, I have a
complaint going through them at the moment which is why I got interested
in how many were being passed at appeal level, do you know different?
We have had a couple of absolutely scandalous developments passed
locally which were opposed by everyone except the planning inspector and
the developers


Obviously I don't know about the individual case you refer to. However, to
substantiate your statement one has to look at it on a vaild statistical
basis i.e what percentage of appeals were successful in one period
compared
with another. The last time I looked at this locally it did not alter much
from year to year. What many people don't comprehend is that inspectors
have
to make a judgement based on planning law rather than bowing to local
opinion.

They have quotas of new housing to provide, so will steamroll all sorts
through to meet targets. If they knew their job well, they would steer the
developer to a certain type of house and development. A development that is
acceptable to most on conception. Unfortunately they don't do this. They
tend to allow the developers to submit ridiculous schemes and that take time
and effort to squash, then it all starts all over again. All avoidable if
they were professional enough and though about existing residents, who are a
nuisance as far as they are concerned.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article , Peter
Crosland writes
And the statistics to prove this are where exactly?

Look at the planning inspectorate website, you have to search through
the individual cases to see which ones have been permitted, I have a
complaint going through them at the moment which is why I got interested
in how many were being passed at appeal level, do you know different?
We have had a couple of absolutely scandalous developments passed
locally which were opposed by everyone except the planning inspector and
the developers


Obviously I don't know about the individual case you refer to. However, to
substantiate your statement one has to look at it on a vaild statistical
basis i.e what percentage of appeals were successful in one period compared
with another. The last time I looked at this locally it did not alter much
from year to year. What many people don't comprehend is that inspectors have
to make a judgement based on planning law rather than bowing to local
opinion. It is not unusual for a council's paid planning staff to recomend
approval and have this ignored by the council members.

Peter Crosland

Our local cases prompted me into looking at the planning inspectorate to
see if things had changed, at the same time I found out that the
inspectorate is now way behind in dealing with cases, now put this
together with the Deputy Prime Minister wanting to increase the numbers
of houses being built by raising the density of development and you come
up with a scenario where the pressure may be on for the inspectors to
let more appeals through. This is the conclusion I came to anyway so I
started looking at the recent appeals to see how many are
approved/refused which is why I made the statement The planning Portal
is a useful site with lots of appeal cases on it.
BTW the local cases were refused by the planning department *and* the
committee before being successful at appeal. The inspectors reports
supporting their decision have been shown to be nonsense and in one case
where the buildings are now complete, the reasons for the original
refusals have been shown to wholly correct.

--
David

BTW the local cases were refused by the planning department *and* the
committee before being successful at appeal. The inspectors reports
supporting their decision have been shown to be nonsense and in one case
where the buildings are now complete, the reasons for the original
refusals have been shown to wholly correct.

Noted. I would certainly not think the planning system is perfect but it
does seem better than some others I have seen. What does make a mockery of
it is when the inspectors decision is then overidden by the Minister for
purely political reasons. Hopefully a complete overhaul will happen after
the election.

In article ,
Peter Crosland wrote:
Noted. I would certainly not think the planning system is perfect
but it does seem better than some others I have seen. What does
make a mockery of it is when the inspectors decision is then
overidden by the Minister for purely political reasons. Hopefully
a complete overhaul will happen after the election.

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

"... If the shadow minister’s speech represents the Conservative
Party’s “new vision”, then housebuilders can only hope Blair or Brown
occupies No.10 Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to
rely on civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and
planning ministry telling the new Tory ministers their policies are
hopelessly incomplete, contradictory and would have disastrous
consequences for the economy, the housing market and the British
people’s aspirations to home ownership"

The harsh reality is that if you left planning policies to local
councils then the NIMBY brigade would dominate. What happens here
time and again is that a massive protest is mounted against something
which is allowed on appeal and afterwards you wonder what the fuss
was about - life as we know it has not ended and the car park of the
Sainsburys/Tesco/Wickes etc that 'no one' wanted is strangely full.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Trojan Hussar writes
Whilst it would appear I have no 'Right to Light' in the garden. This
does however raise the issue that my dining room and kitchen which are
already poorly lit will experience a loss of light. In view of the size
of the extension I strongly believe that the kitchen area will require
almost permanent artificial light with the possible exception of the
brightest sunny days.

My suspicion however is that when the previous owners but a lean-to on
the rear of the house they intentionally obstructed the light to the
original windows, and as the new windows have not had "20 years of
uninterrupted enjoyment (of light)" they don't qualify.

The existing wall which is not a boundary wall and was built by the
previous owners of our property entirely in our property and we had to
paint this wall white in order to get sufficient light into the rear of
our property. The new wall will be 'in-keeping' with the original house
and will be a magnolia render which is unlikely to be as effective as
our original white wall.

Where does the 45 degree rule come into play here, as this extension
would clearly be within that 'zone' even from the kitchen window
furthest from the party wall.

Regards,
Trojan Hussar

You have no right to light, it is as simple as that, AIUI there are a
*few* buildings in London that have a law protecting their light but
that is all.

You have a right to light, Ancient Lights, but no direct sunlight. In other
more civilised countries you have a right to direct sunlight. So, if you
built solar panels on the side of your house and they provided all your
heating for over 10 years, someone has the right to block the sun and stop
it operating.

People would buy land adjacent to their homes to ensure adequate sunlight,
which turned into ransom strips, which Canada outlaws.



_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
In article ,
Peter Crosland wrote:
Noted. I would certainly not think the planning system is perfect
but it does seem better than some others I have seen. What does
make a mockery of it is when the inspectors decision is then
overidden by the Minister for purely political reasons. Hopefully
a complete overhaul will happen after the election.

http://www.house-builder.co.uk/artic...em.php?id=1390

"... If the shadow ministers speech represents the Conservative
Partys €œnew vision€?, then housebuilders can only hope Blair or Brown
occupies No.10 Downing Street after the next election.

But should the Conservatives manage to oust Labour, we will have to
rely on civil servants at the Treasury and the new housing and
planning ministry telling the new Tory ministers their policies are
hopelessly incomplete, contradictory and would have disastrous
consequences for the economy, the housing market and the British
peoples aspirations to home ownership"

The harsh reality is that if you left planning policies to local
councils then the NIMBY brigade would dominate. What happens here
time and again is that a massive protest is mounted against something
which is allowed on appeal and afterwards you wonder what the fuss
was about - life as we know it has not ended and the car park of the
Sainsburys/Tesco/Wickes etc that 'no one' wanted is strangely full.

But aren't local people/councils the best to judge what is right or
wrong for an area as long as the reasons cited are sound planning
reasons and not NIMBYism, in one particular case we were outwitted by a
sharp planning consultant who acted on behalf of the developer and swung
the case as far as the inspector was concerned, the decision was
effectively 'bought'.
--
David

In article , wrote:
But aren't local people/councils the best to judge what is right
or wrong for an area as long as the reasons cited are sound
planning reasons and not NIMBYism,

The second tends to be dressed up as the first. And 'local people'
tend to be a vociferous minority who are far from representative
when they claim that 'no one wants ....'. Personally I (unlike most
Conservatives when considering this subject) tend to free market
views: the fact that a developer wants to knock down two houses and
build 8 flats probably indicates that there are a lot of people who
do want said flats. Most of the stuff that the conservationists now
try to preserve was built in an era when developers could build what
they wanted and delivered what would make them a profit. And because
there wasn't a planning system induced artificial shortage quality
was better.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]

In article , Tony Bryer
writes
In article , wrote:
But aren't local people/councils the best to judge what is right
or wrong for an area as long as the reasons cited are sound
planning reasons and not NIMBYism,

The second tends to be dressed up as the first. And 'local people'
tend to be a vociferous minority who are far from representative
when they claim that 'no one wants ....'. Personally I (unlike most
Conservatives when considering this subject) tend to free market
views: the fact that a developer wants to knock down two houses and
build 8 flats probably indicates that there are a lot of people who
do want said flats. Most of the stuff that the conservationists now
try to preserve was built in an era when developers could build what
they wanted and delivered what would make them a profit. And because
there wasn't a planning system induced artificial shortage quality
was better.

I disagree with the first sentence though Tony, having attended a fair
number of planning committee meetings I think you can spot the NIMBY's a
mile off. I'm all for development and wish more land could be released
for building rather than increasing the density of housing on the
available land. I could sit down this evening and draw up a sensible
development plan for my village which would suit the majority and give a
decent 'shape' to the village, I don't like all the infill development
as open spaces can be as important to the character of an area as the
buildings. I wouldn't trust a developer as far as I could throw them,
they always build what's best for them and then convince the buying
populace that that's best for them also
--
David

In article .com
, Trojan Hussar writes
Whilst it would appear I have no 'Right to Light' in the garden. This
does however raise the issue that my dining room and kitchen which are
already poorly lit will experience a loss of light. In view of the size
of the extension I strongly believe that the kitchen area will require
almost permanent artificial light with the possible exception of the
brightest sunny days.

I think there are Building Research Establishment guidelines for daylight
impact which you might want to google for. In Scotland you can request a
Daylight Impact Analysis so you may be able to request the same in your
area. Without such an analysis being requested and the results failing the
guidelines you won't have a leg to stand on, subjective analysis is just no
good. Also, I don't think the demands are that onerous so you probably
won't get far in any case, sorry.
--
fred

In article , Fred wrote:
I think there are Building Research Establishment guidelines for
daylight impact which you might want to google for. In Scotland
you can request a Daylight Impact Analysis so you may be able to
request the same in your area. Without such an analysis being
requested and the results failing the guidelines you won't have a
leg to stand on, subjective analysis is just no good. Also, I
don't think the demands are that onerous so you probably won't get
far in any case, sorry.

There are consultants who will do this for you (at a price of
course) with the benefit that they are providing hard numbers ("this
room currently enjoys 3.3 hours of sunshine; if the proposal is
built this will reduce to 1.2 hours") and planners will take their
reports more seriously than your vague assertion that it will cause
overshadowing. But, as you imply, the report may end up proving that
the modest requirements of the LPA are not being contravened.

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk
Free SEDBUK boiler database browser http://www.sda.co.uk/qsedbuk.htm
[Latest version QSEDBUK 1.10 released 4 April 2005]