We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since weoriginally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merelyheresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is fortheir disabled son).In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that theextension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with theneighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.As it stands at the moment our back garden loses light in lateafternoon/early evening because we are on the east side of asubstantial hill. The extension proposed will be 8.5m long (yes eightand a half metres) and the pitched roof will be 4.5m above the level ofour garden (our garden is slightly lower than the neighbours as we aredownhill from them).As such we are likely to lose the light much earlier than previouslyand also our already dingy dining room and kitchen will requireartificial 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 thecouncil, so impartiality is in question). And his 'report' which thecouncil have paid =A3500+VAT for essentially is a few pictures of thetatty 'lean-to' on the rear of our house commenting it is in poorrepair with no mention of the likely loss of light and almostinevitably value to our property.We can renovate or remove the lean-to but we cannot knock ourneighbours extension down to sell our house.We have no particular objection to the extension itself, we have beengood neighbours and know they have been waiting a long time for theextra space and facilities for their disabled son. However we do feelthat there should be some recompense for the potential loss in value toour property. I have written back to the surveyor and asked him toaddress 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 and...

We have been aware of the intention to build this extension since weoriginally moved into our house in 1998. At this time it was merelyheresay from the neighbours (the additional bathroom and bedroom is fortheir disabled son).In August 2003 we received provisional plans, and it appears that theextension is going to be huge, also to ensure it is in-keeping with theneighbourhood it will have a pitched roof.As it stands at the moment our back garden loses light in lateafternoon/early evening because we are on the east side of asubstantial hill. The extension proposed will be 8.5m long (yes eightand a half metres) and the pitched roof will be 4.5m above the level ofour garden (our garden is slightly lower than the neighbours as we aredownhill from them).As such we are likely to lose the light much earlier than previouslyand also our already dingy dining room and kitchen will requireartificial lighting on all but the brightest of days.We were given the opportunity to raise these issues with...

Council planning 8.5m extension to neighbour's house. Can we get recompense for any loss in property value?

Apr 06, 2005 21 Replies

Rate this thread:

fred 21 years ago

In article , Trojan Hussar writes

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.

Vote

Tony Bryer 21 years ago

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.

Vote

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required