The message from John Rumm contains these words:
I read off line and my posts appear in a thread but it is never obvious which post is replying to which unless there is some context and the poster is quoted. Indeed some replies are to posts I never see and most of those are not due to my kill file but the vagaries of Usenet.
A very good reply. I agree with you entirely.
I'm waiting for a decision myself from the local Council. The new owners of the adjoining terraced house (ground floor + 2) have made an application for the "full works": basement flat; extension up to, and including first floor; dormer windows, front and back. The house is at the apex (narrow end) of a long, thin wedge. Anyway, I've objected on a number of points, including the matter of my age and health. One important point, is that I object very strongly about property investors who do things for _maximum_ financial profit, _without_ the slightest knowledge and/or care on whether what they do affects others negatively (it often does).
The phrase "easily _pushed_ to three dwellings" makes me think that it's possibly such a case. But then, I did say "possibly", only.
Sylvain.
Unfortunately I don't believe the planners can take account of your age and health. Overlooking windows, etc are a good grouds for objection.
I agree. There are so many developers doing this around where I live. The 'owner' of the land under development often has never lived in the property.
Owners are realizing that they can get more for their house when selling if they have even outline planning permission for anything.
Mark
To explain further: I've been living in my present premises since 1971; so I'm a long established resident. I'm retired, so am not away from home during the day. I'm 70, and suffer from anxiety and depression; which is aggravated by (extended) loud noise. I've no relatives or friends to go to for some respite from the noise. I take a medication which works well, under normal circmstances only. I've informed the Council (among other matters), that an extended period of noise would probably be injurious to my health. Finally, I've been informed (indirectly) that a person in similar circumstances would/should be provided with alternative accomodation. P.S. I'm not including,of course, the normal refurbishment of the house for resale purposes.
Sylvain.
A valid point, as is the case with myself: which I also mentioned to the Council.
Sylvain.
Not a valid planning consideration.
(So am I, actually.) Only a valid planning consideration to the extent that planning permission can be subject to restricted hours of construction work.
Not a valid planning consideration. Any remedy you have is against the landowner/developer under laws of nuisance.
Owain
The message from "Sylvain VAN DER WALDE" contains these words:
I don't think that's an allowable fact in their decision making process.
Some years ago I led a campaign to stop the pub that backed onto our garden being turned into a stripjoint. I didn't actually mind it being a stripjoint, but I didn't want the traffic and disruption all night that a 140 person capacity place would have created.
Loads of people objected, and the council were very supportive, but pointed out that of all the objection we could raise, the only valid one was disturbance and parking. Moral indignation, "Won't somebody think of the children" etc. would have been a complete waste of breath as they weren't allowed to consider such things in the planning application context.
So we got 'em on parking. They tried to say that they expected most customers to come by public transport (no, really, and expected them to all go home nicely by infrequent nightbus) and didn't take kindly to us suggesting that they'd need to provide parking for 100 or so cars assuming perhaps 1.4 people per car. The developers then said they wouldn't expect the full capacity to every be used and that there would rarely be more than 30 people in the building - so we moved that the maximum capacity be reduced to 35 people.
They got as far as the steps of the magistrates before backing down.
All true but, in effect, limited to the planning officers who make the recommendations, who are professionals and who, as suggested, will only take into account things covered by the planning regulations and then only once (ie 150 people writing in about parking is no different to 1 writing in).
On the other hand, the people who actually grant or refuse permissions after such recommendations are the locally elected councillors of the planning committee who may, perish the thought, have a reputation for self serving dishonesty (being politicians). It is always worth telling them of the moral outrage of lots of voters as it may sway them. Of course, if they were swayed against a proposal on non-planning grounds, an appeal would likely be granted.
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 13:56:52 +0100, "Bob Mannix" had this to say:
Not always true. Many LAs (mine included) devolve responsibility for minor planning applications to their departmental staff. The only time a councillor might see such an application is in the case of an appeal.
That's better than nothing.
Alright.
By the house owner. I certainly wouldn't expect this from the Council. BTW, I live alone; which you may or may not already have assumed.
Sylvain.
Very interesting and encouraging. Without your strong action/s you would have had nothing. Congratulations. In my own case, I was the only one who objected to the planning application (as far as I know) out of four households (flats).
Sylvain.
Ask for a brothel instead. The parking problem is almost non-existent - nearby at least!
However, it may not be as restricted as you'd like. Such provision is usually only put in place for large sites which otherwise might be working almost 24/7 at times and have significant movement of heavy platnt. You'd be unlikely to get tighter hours than 8am-6pm 6 days per week, for example, and might not get anything for a domestic development. There is also accoustic perimiter cladding that can be put around sites to reduce noise emissions, but enforcing that might be a matter of goodwill or nuisance laws, not planning.
Only if they're making your house uninhabitable. The same Human Rights legislation which protects your right to "quiet enjoyment" of your property also protects their right to enjoy their property by developing it, even if they don't do so very quietly.
If your and their property share a party wall (or they are building right up to the boundary in some cases) then there are procedures under the Party Wall Act which they must follow.
Neither assumed nor relevant.
Owain
The message from "Bob Eager" contains these words:
Heaven knows what's there now - we moved away five years ago.
Anyone know what's happened to The Sun behind the Treaty Centre in Hounslow?
On Mon, 19 Jun 2006 16:20:55 +0100, Guy King wrote (in article ):
Set behind Terminal 5?
The message from Andy Hall contains these words:
Buried under would be better.
I expect to get 8am-6pm, _5_ days per week. These were the times used by the workforce doing similar renovation work 2 houses away, for several months. Of course, they may have been at it longer when painting, etc...
That legislation, in the first instance, is a waste of time. It has never protected my right to "quiet enjoyment". I've had to manage the matter myself many times, these past few years. In the second instance, I will do my utmost to contain any excesses, regardless of their "Human Rights". Human rights and political correctness are carried to extremes here. This country is in a mess, as far as law and order is concerned. Don't get me wrong; I'm still content to live here.
Yes, I'm aware of this. I'm a leaseholder, and I have informed the estate manager, who will look after this side of things when the time comes.
Sylvain.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.