Fighting a planning application

[vicky whitworth]

Hello, does anyone have any fantastic tactic/suggestions that might help we fight the following planning application?
We live in a conservation village in an AONB. In the centre of the village are two Grade II listed houses and some other old cottages (there are also some modern houses too). Opposite one of the Grade II houses and adjacent to the Grade II listed ex-pub is a small field which used to have a cottage on it (but this was removed in the late 50s/early 60s). Since then the field is used for sheep, and once a year for the village fete.

There is now an application to build a four-bed house on the field - and we suspect that a subsequent application will be made to also build a bungalow behind on the same field. The CO opposed the application, large numbers of resident wrote to object and the application has been 'under consideration' for nearly a year.

Since April the Council have been waiting for the applicant to submit plans on how they will deal with run-off water and soakaways. These plans have now been added as amendments and now the Council will make its decision. We believe that the Council has tipped them the wink that the plans will be approved once the drainage is sorted or why else would the applicant been encouraged to get the drainage plans together.

We object most strongly because the field is the last remaining open space in the village centre, it adds to the rural atmosphere and a modern building will spoil the historic centre and blight the Grade II listed buildings. What's the point of a conservation area and an AONB if this can go ahead? And what happened to The Big Society when so many local residents object? (OK, that bit was intended as a joke).

We have written and we have campaigned. Are there any other hot buttons we can use to fight this? Thank you.

 

[Penners]

I reckon your best advice is going to come from one of the forum's experts.

Gareth?

Gervase?

Anybody...?

 

[Pford75]

Vicky - I'm not an 'expert' on the planning laws/regulations but I have successfully lobbied for my own planning approval at previous properties (some in the face of opposition from local residents). I'm cautious about expressing my views, because you might not like what I have to say....

Seems that the 'site' in question is a brownfield site, having previously had residential property (albeit some time ago) on it. My view therefore, is that it would be difficult to argue that the land shouldn't be developed ever, or that any development will blight the village and the listed buildings (since obviously it was developed in the past and the village and properties weren't blighted).

With the greatest respect, the current application is for a single dwelling, so any suggestion about what 'may' follow is pure conjecture. Councils will have to judge this application on it's own merits on not attempt to judge a hypothetical future planning application. Many councils (I can't speak for yours) are under pressure to grant approval for the development of brownfield sites to prevent urban sprawl. I'm not sure what size the field is, but I would suggest that if it is big enough to host the village fete, then it is probably big enough to fit a 4 bedroom property without having to 'squeeze' it in.

You are right that it is possible/likely that the applicant has been guided that resolving drainage is a tipping point.....but isn't that sensible? Unless a council flatly rules out any development of a plot (unlikely given the history of this plot), surely it is better that they guide the applicants on what might be successful than have everyone go 'round in circles trying to second guess what is required.

You don't provide any details on the style/architecture of the property, but I have to believe that it is possible to construct a building which is sympathetic to it's surroundings - although I would agree with you that this doesn't happen as often as it should.

 

[robgil]

in all fairness , if the houses are within keeping then why not? does this field have a more important purpose than it being used for a place for people to live? surely a once a year fete isnt enough to deprive a (perhaps) local family a place to live in a village they may have grown up in?
also , who is going to live there? i bet they would feel most unwelcome if they knew half the village objects to them being there , are they local people , outsiders or developers?
ive seen villages with new builds in them all the time , it doesn't look as nice as an old village with out them but at the same time it shows the village is thriving and growing to accommodate the people who wish to live there.

 

[Gareth Hughes]

You need to have a look at the council's Local Plan. There should be a policy on "infill" development (or similar). In addition, if the field in question is within the "development boundary" (or similar term) of the village (if it has one - in some cases there won't be and it will be considered that no further building can take place), or if it has been allocated as an "important open space" within the village boundary.

Without knowing these sorts of details, it is difficult to give much more advice, except to say that there is generally a presumption in favour of development unless it would be contrary to national or local planning policy (and Mr Pickles' misguided attempts to be "populist" and dismiss such policies as "red tape", and to present scrapping them to be replaced by nothing as freeing up the planning process to be more responsive to "local interests" is going to backfire on a spectacular scale).

I think you might have to accept that some sort of house is going to be built there, in which case it would be best to try to get the most appropriate form of development for the site. Sticking to the view that no development will ever be appropriate may not be a route to a successful result.

 

[d49xc]

I have a couple of suggestions - but these tend to depend on how the land was used since the cottages were removed. and are aimed a frustrating the process rather than a killer blow. They may not be applicable to your case because the devil is always in the detail.

In response to the earlier comment about future possibilities not being relevant: I have had success in the past with just this argument where I/others could show that the speculative builder did indeed have prior precedent of abusing the planning system on other properties in other areas - and was likely to do the same here: much more strict conditions were applied. Likewise on a different proposed semi/commercial/residential development where other sites built by the developer who "always came back for additional building at a later stage" in other parts of the country. As result the council required the developer to enter into a long term agreement precisely NOT to do this as a condition of planning being granted.

As regards this question.....
How was the annual fete held - with who's permission? If it was just 'held' on the open land with no specific permission and no one objected then a clear legal right of way/access has been created over the land by the fete and its visitors. Hence any house built on it would have to provide for the fete on the land - somehow I can't see anyone being willing to buy a house with those sort of duties attached: and by extension difficult to imagine anyone wanting to build one!
If however the land owner gave specific permission for each fete event the the above does not apply.

Regardless of the above...if for the last xx years people have excerised their dog/children on the land (and NOT been told to get off, or have had to cimb over barrriers to get onto to the land) then the same rights apply: they have a right of way across/over the land: rights of way so created cannot just be cancelled - and many have discovered to their cost when they buy a plot/house only to discover a right of way over it.
Generally you need to show multi-year constant and regular use by several individuals at large (not just all from one family!)
In this context try looking up Sunningwell parish council house of lords village green in google - it rather complex but relates to the registration of a 'spare' parcel of land as a village green as all had access to it: I think it was in 2000.

If the land is adjacent to a listed building I thought there were additional proceedures to be gone through: I'm not an expert on this sub-section of planning.

You need to think long term - I know of one planning dispute running for 15 years, endless applications, endless faults found in the application (bits curiously 'missing' sort of thing) land gets sold to next idiot who thinks the locals are country bumpkins who can be won over with some powerpoint presentations - cue next application - and so we go on and on. Eveyone local knows the correct solution but of course that would not give a big (ie huge) profit for the developers so they are resisting it........

Talk to the Conservation Officer. He/she may have ideas on how to frustrate the process.
Any rare/specimen trees - apply for a blanket tree preservation order on the land - that tends to send developers ape sh*t as recently the high court ruled that TPO's apply to all forms of trees ever tiny saplings (conservation areas instead have a lower limit on tree size elow which it is not a "tree" and you can cut it down - not so for TPO's)

Find some endangered wildlife on the land - I've found greatcrested newts are the best if there is some water around. This can fustrate the process for years requiring endless surveys from Natural England.......and best of all if any are found then the future houseowner will have to comply with the regulations related to great crested newts - for ever - which is a real pi**er for them.

Lots of individual letters do help - they take notice of these: provided they are not all copied from each other! One long petition signed by 100 people is frankly not worth the paper its written on.
Make sure the decision is made in open council rather than delegated to the planning dept (more cost to the council!)
Prior to the council's planning subcommittee meeting get a copy of the planning officers recomendations (it will be in favour if it is going to the full meeting) and see if you can pick holes in its decision process and then lobby the planning committee members

You need to be as obstructive as possible - then they will go away and build somewhere else.

PS I have a visceral hatred of my local planning dept - and I hope they hate me. I will pour over planning applications finding every last error. I will physically measure houses where there is an application to demolish and rebuild with a 30% increase limit in force - I have found several which were more than 30% (well well, what a surprise): much to the locals delight and the council's and applicant's fury.

If all else fails and permission is granted - apply for it to be 'called in' by the secretary of state on the grounds that it sets a 'precedent' depriving the village of a local open space or whatever you can think of. It is very rare for an application to be called in and the secretary of state take control away from the local council and re-consider: it has to have national significant or involve setting a precedent. (yup you've guessed I also been involved in once that was)

I have to say however that as there is evidence that there WAS a building on the land many years ago in this case you are on a 'sticky wicket', though I do recall some bizarre cases from Wales where if an old barn is completely razed/eliminated then a new house cannot be built on the footplan (because the property no longer "exists") but if it is kept alive as a total tumbled down wreck then one can - so in some cases the fact that a "property" once existed on the site is not carte blanche for granting planning.

 

[FamilyWiggs]

I have a visceral hatred of my local planning dept - and I hope they hate me. I will pour over planning applications finding every last error

Ummm... d49xc....at the risk of making myself unpopular, isn't "nit-picking" frustration of a legitmate planning process just the obverse of cavalier applicants not sticking to their side of the bargain? One can understand applicants taking a negative view of the process if they are met with NIMBY objections just for the sake of it...

Not all planning applications are de facto evil - sensitive and appropriate development, especially on brownfield sites is essential to maintain thriving local communities, and to avoid the need to swallow up yet more acres of green belt.

With regards this application, I know Vicky's village and am vaguely aware of this plot I think. It is a particularly picturesque village and this piece of land is the only remaining piece of open land in the centre of the village. However, it is also in the area where many of the newer houses have been built and so a nice sympathetic house would not be a disaster and probably preferable to alternative development on the edge of the village.

A tricky decision - sorry Vicky not to be fulsome in support!

 

[d49xc]

I would submit my and others nitpicking is within the law - ie forcing them to observe some of the more obscure aspects (lets not mention bats) - while they in "ignoring" for example the 30% increase limit on volume for a demolish/rebuild job as I previously mentioned - and hoping no one would notice - are breaking it.

In practice the dice is loaded against objectors:
The developer can plan in secret for months and get everything ready in advance. The objector(s) then only (in theory) get three weeks to get their act together before a decision is made.
If the developer looses the planning application they can appeal. If the objectors loose - they have no further avenue to appeal - short of a judicial review of the councils proceedures - but not the decision itself. I'm actually surprised no one with a deep pocket has taken this dissimilar appeal avenue aspect to the High Court on the basis of the Human rights leglislation: I would myself if I had wads to spare.
So part of this nipicking is attempts by the objectors to delay proceedures to give them more time to marshall forces, consult planning experts etc.

Much of my dislike of planners would vanish if indeed these properties were "in keeping"/appropiate. But they are not and I really cannot fathom the developers. All they need to do is buy a run down property, put in a sensible planning app, not taking the P**, build it without annoying everyone by churning up the verges etc, take the profit and run: everyone would be happy. But they wont! They seem determined to annoy everybody and make life as difficult for themselves as possible while claiming that "all I want is a house for my wife and my family" - yeah I'll bet - they move on as soon as it's built with the same sob story on the next council.
We had one plot where the gypos moved in - did the developer move them on - dream on - gypos annoying the neighbours who were objecting to his "reasonable plans" was just want the developer wanted - maybe the neighbours would become more "cooperative" - err... no they did not.
The latest horror is next to a Grade II listed thatched house of cruck construction; nearby are other of victorian and later constructions all redbrick types as I recall. Opposite it on a narrow country lane was a non descript house probably 1950's. The application was for a rebuild of this 1950's property and the new house was to be....wait for it.... a square white cube with slightly sloping flat roof plus plently of plate glass and concrete render..... ye gods. Yes the planners let that one through and it's built:
It nice to know they do have some limits though - they did balk at the proposal which resembed the Tower of Babel.

Our local councillors vote against these gross horrors and get outvoted by the rest of the committee and we can't vote out the planning dept: so the only option left is to make it a difficult as possible for the developers by frustrating them at every opportunity, then shock horror we might actually get reasonable houses built by people who actually want to live in them not design 'statements' whose roof leak.

rant over!

 

[Flyfisher]

You could try 'discovering' Great Crested Newts on the proposed site. I'm sure it must be possible to hire such creatures from somewhere because, despite their apparent rarity, they seem to crop up quite a lot all around the country.

Alternatively, the presence of Stone Curlews can cause significant problems for housing developments. Indeed I believe there is a national policy about not disturbing the habitats of these rare birds. I do know that the Norfolk Brecklands are a well-established area for Stone Curlews and there are various planning restrictions in place because of them.

OK, that's all a bit tongue-in-cheek, but I think it highlights the various pressures in our ever-increasingly crowded island. I also have some sympathy with Robgils point about housing for local people as village populations grow, although I would agree that a single and probably fairly up-market house may do little to help this - but that doesn't make the problem any less relevant.

Our first house was a 70s-built terrace house on a small development of about 40 mixed houses in a small village in Hertfordshire. It would nowadays be called a commuter village because of its proximity and excellent rail-links to London. Soon after moving in, we were invited to join the "<village_name> sociey", which had the express aim of preserving the rural character and tranquility of the village and it's many centuries of history. Fair enough, perhaps, but It transpired that all the leading lights of this village society actually lived in the new development of 70s houses.

It was a lovely village (and still is) but we were only able to buy our first home there because of the relatively cheap new houses that had been built on one edge of the village. Having just managed to climb aboard the housing ladder, I felt decidedly uncomfortable about helping to 'pull up the gangplank' and denying other young families the opportunity to also live in such a nice location. We didn't join up.

Having said all that, economics has done the bidding of the village society anyway. The houses we once lived in remain among the cheapest in the village but even with today's low mortgage rates, two graduates just starting out now on average salaries in the computing industry would not be able to afford the same house that were able to buy back in the early 80s.

I don't suppose any of that helps in this particular case, but the constant, almost automatic, objection to any changes in our built environment is not, I think, very fair on future generations. Far better, I think, to face up to these challenges and help to ensure that new houses are of the highest possible quality and blend as seamlessly as possible into the surrounding landscape, rather than always try to kick the problem into the next parish or county.

I suspect this may not be a popular view, but we all live in houses that were new one upon a time - they may even have been regarded as blots on the landscape at the time.

 

[Moo]

we all live in houses that were new one upon a time - they may even have been regarded as blots on the landscape at the time.

which was possibly the case with the

... other of victorian and later constructions all redbrick types ...

that were built near that Grade II listed thatched house of cruck construction.

 

[Pford75]

while claiming that "all I want is a house for my wife and my family" - yeah I'll bet - they move on as soon as it's built with the same sob story on the next council.

Is it any wonder, when throughout the development process they have been subjected to such hostility and opposition to any form of construction? Personally, I can't understand the objection to the 'white cube'...I'd rather have something of modern design than a poor attempt at 'mock Tudor'

 

[Schoolmarm]

I have found what I believe to be your village. I was a bit surprised to see that there are loads of green spaces.

I don't think the loss of it will be a good reason to put forward.

However, your parish council seems to be very concerned about surface water run off and disposal. Can you find fault with the drainage plans being put forward by the applicant?

 

[robgil]

why try and find fault in the planning? the build will go ahead by the sounds of things so why purposefully go out of your way to try and make some one else's life more difficult than it already is? if you find fault with the planning they will just rectify it and all you are really doing is making your self out to be a bit of a Roy Cropper in front of your new neighbours.
thankfully i can say that people in the village i live in all stick up for one and other and shopping in your neighbour because his house is a few inches taller than planned would generally be seen as not a very nice thing to do.
i know if i was on the receiving end of a good shopping in id , well , id , id wait till dark then come round and throw a load of rubbish in your garden.. :lol:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

However, your parish council seems to be very concerned about surface water run off and disposal. Can you find fault with the drainage plans being put forward by the applicant?

I think from previous postings, Vicky is the village drains expert. I wonder if her previous work on a survey had anything to do with the shortcomings of this application.

Moo made the same point I was going to - the building of "Victorian and later" houses near thatched timber houses would have been as misplaced at the time as perhaps the white cube seems to be today against the same Victorian treasures. Times change and new buildings need to be built to house people.

 

[Schoolmarm]

I don't have strong feelings either way for the build and design, was just thinking out loud really. :roll: :lol: :lol:

 

[Flyfisher]

However, your parish council seems to be very concerned about surface water run off and disposal. Can you find fault with the drainage plans being put forward by the applicant?

Will surface water run-off from a single house actually be a problem in practice? If the house is built with an adequate soakaway, all the water collected from the roof will only be diverted a few metres into the soakaway, so there need not be any additional loading on the local surface water drainage system. Such a scheme is also advantageous to the new house owners as it means their water rates will be lower as they won't have to pay surface water drainage fees.

I can understand the local council being concerned about surface water run-off, and rightly so, but I'd be very surprised if it ended up being a valid reason for rejecting the planning application. Modifying it, perhaps, but not ultimately preventing it.

 

[Schoolmarm]

:lol: :lol: :lol: I agree.

That particular parish council was concerned that the water currently being taken away in drains from existing houses was being discharged without permission onto someone elses land.

They were trying to prevent more houses adding to that burden. So yes a soakaway would be acceptable and they suggested it for someone else who wanted to extend.

So I shouldn't have suggested it. Sorry Vicky.

 

[vicky whitworth]

Wow! Well thank you for all this. You have made me take a rain check but, I'm afraid, I do have strong views on this. I'm not opposed to all development. In fact I am one of the few people here who supports the building of low-cost properties so that local families can continue to live in the village. The applicant for this site has another in the village with permission to build 7 low-cost cottages on it but he's trying to get the plans amended to lose the low-cost and build four large detached houses instead. We already have at least five large detached houses for sale in the village, some of which have been on the market for years.
Happy to have development but wish it could be somewhere else in the village less historic.

On a more cheery subject I'm really pleased that after three years of fighting to get a new drainage system installed to stop the new school building flooding my home and that of neighbours the work was completed last week - we are now operational.

But thank you again for your comments. Vicky