Planning guidelines in a conservation area.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The next house along our road..200meters away so not quite 'neighbours', which is a small 3 bedroom bungalow with an attached double garage, has been bought by a property developer,(for £326k) who has submitted plans.. that at a quick glance look modest, but on closer inspection and calculation are massive. Planning has not yet been granted.

plans here

?theSeqNo=51570&theApnkey=81023&theModule=1(Those will probably wrap..sorry don't know how to do tinyurl)

The first question is this. We are in a conservation area, and a line of leylandii screening this house from our view were felled yesterday.

Is this not in itself a violation of planning law?

Now the submitted plans include making the existing garage into a sunroom, building a new and larger one up against the boundary, removing the whole roof and replacing it to create a second storey, and the addition of a boot room and a new extension, to turn what was 'advertised' as a 3 bedroom bungalow into a 4 bedroom modern house.

Secondly, a couple of hours with the plans and a calculator have supplied the following results.

The *total* footprint is increased by 75% if the new garage is taken into account.

If neither garage is taken into account, the increase in 'habitable' footprint is 54%.

If you bend the thing to include the original garage, but *exclude* the new garage, the increase in foot print is 41%.

I thought permitted guidelines were 15% only?

The roof ridge on on elevation has increased by 15.4% and on the other by 18%. This is probably within guidelines..comments?

However the real vastness of the development comes when you look at the increase in habitable area.

That has gone from 136.5 sq meters to 436 sq meters - over three times the area!! 319% increase!!

Now I admire the architects use of space and the developers chutzpah, but we are a bit concerned over the replacement of what was once an almost affordable retirement house by a massive suburban style family house, particularly since the new owner appears to be a spinster..?

I was held absolutely to a 15% increase in total floor area when I rebuilt this house and a very low ridge line.

In addition we THINK the trees were planted at the behest of the previous owners of my property as a screen..and are somewhere in th original plans..can we at last insist that similar are replanted?

The only contact with the new 'owner' is along the lines of 'its mine, I can do what I want, and the plans are submitted'.

Dos anyone know what the current guidelines are for conservation area development? I know that only issues that are contra the guidelines actually work. Appeals to sanity, common sense and so on don't.

[Adrian]

The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:

Umm, why - exactly - is that a big problem?

If it's going to impose on your light/view etc - that's a problem. But the distance and the old leylandii screen probably mean it won't.

If it's going to materially deteriorate the character of the conservation area - that's a problem. Will it? Doesn't look like the existing bungalow's a thing of great beauty, whilst the plans stick reasonably closely to the general style.

Other than that, it's going to be down to the specific conservation area's requirements and guidelines as to what is and isn't allowed.

You must be the only person in the country who WANTS Leylandiiiiii?

Indeed he does have a right to submit whatever plans he wants to. He could submit plans for a world-record-beating skyscraper office block if he wants to. Doesn't meant that he can "do what he wants" if it doesn't fit with what the planners want him to do...

You can certainly object, but you really need to have solid grounds if you want to get anywhere with it. At the moment, it just sounds like you're a bit jealous, tbh.

[Clive George]

For somebody who claims to have made their money in IT, you can be remarkably dumb sometimes. Go to tinyurl.com and follow the instructions...

[Owain]

Unless the placement of the trees was required by planning, or the trees have a tree preservation order, probably not.

That is 'permitted development' for which pp is not required (except in conservation areas)

There are unlikely to be 'guidelines' for ridge height but there should be planning guidelines for whether two storey or conversion to two storey development is encouraged.

Only relevant if you can claim the development is out of scale to the neighbourhood.

You should ask under what regulations or guidelines this was the case, and you can cite this as a precedent.

Not unless they are *required* to be there; they may simply be in the plans as a statement of the existing site conditions.

You should ask your planning officer for details of the conservation area guidelines, policies, development advice notes, and local area planning guidelines. All available under FOIA, and all locally specific.

Owain

[Tony Bryer]

In a conservation area any tree with a trunk diameter of 75mm at 1.5m about ground level is protected and you cannot do work to it without first getting LA clearance.

"If you wish to carry out work on a tree in a conservation area you need to give six weeks written notification of intent to carry out the works. This allows time for a tree officer to visit the site and make an assessment of whether the work is appropriate. Pruning a tree without giving six weeks notice can lead to prosecution and a fine of up to £2,500. Destroying a tree without giving six weeks notice can lead to a fine of up to £20,000."

[Tim Lamb]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

Umm. Oh dear! Unfortunately change happens.

There used to be a planning guidance note (11?) which restricted rural developments to no more than 40% greater than the original. Basically to prevent gamekeepers cottages turning into mansions.

This is certainly still applied here in the greenbelt. Cambridge has an

*area of restraint* to the East but ISTR you are in West Suffolk. Your local planning authority will have a *local plan* normally found on their website.

You need to point up any areas where the developer proposes to step over the marks.

I don't think so. You might want to check and see if there are any restrictive covenants in the deeds. Land registry £3.00 or so, but this only works if the property has been registered.

I don't think garages count towards the 40%.

This might be the important figure.

None unless you are close to an airfield.

Someone locally built a £5 million mansion by putting the two extra storeys below ground. He has since gone bust owing the contractors huge sums but no help to you.

Were they a condition of planning?

Don't go to war. I have been there and it is a very debilitating activity.

Look up the local plan.

regards

[The Natural Philosopher]

I have discovered that its NOT a conservation area. Its about 400 meters outside it.

But I do think that th scale is wrong. yes. Conversion from a three bed retirement bungalow to a 4 bed family house on a smallish plot is a bit exccessive i feel.

Good. This is helpful.

Thy aren in anyones plans of th existing application. They have ceased to exist. The planning application left the bit about 'will trees need to come down' entirely blank.

Ok, Owain, thats been bloody helpful. On the blower to chat to the planning officer on Monday.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The local plan says nothing.

What bugs me is that I was really told to get my roofline down, use traditional materials, and on no account would thy let me have more than

15% increase in footprint on a 1.5 acre plot. This damned thing is going to 40% on 1/4 acre stuck right next to another house!! And I just know it will be done as cheaply as possible..serial developer..tax evades by 'living in' each one for 9 months and then flogs it..

[Tim Lamb]

In message , The Natural Philosopher writes

Being positive... if she gets away with it, planning are going to find it difficult to resist further improvements to your home.

I am very surprised at the lack of a local plan.

Both St. Albans and South Cambs. have detailed plans which seem to be reviewed every 20 years or so. Usually wrapped up in phrases like

*resist further expansion/avoid over development* etc. but meant to guide the planning officers advice.

I haven't looked at the application but usually it is known if the final decision is to be left to the planning officer or taken to a planning committee made up from local councillors. The law has changed but I guess discreet lobbying of concerned councillors can be managed.

regards

[tony sayer]

You could also got to the garden centre to get a load of Leylandii too...

They do have their uses;))..

[Owain]

But the development would be visually intrusive viewed from a conservation area?

Going from bungalow to full 2 storey + roof height is probably more likely to alert the planners. There may be a strong argument for adopting a chalet bungalow style build.

Owain

[Owain]

wish I'd known that when Mr Fawlty next door hired O'Reilly Tree Surgeon to take down a tree just their side of the boundary.

It did need pruning, but to call it butchery would be to insult the highly skilled processors of Economy Poulty...

Owain

[<me9]

Does that still apply? When I first looked at the new rules I couldn't find any mention of 15% which I have already exceeded (with PP, it's a pity PP doesn't reset the 15%, I'll have to apply, if it still holds if I build a conservatory).

[dennis]

What bugs you is that the rules may have been relaxed and you feel like you missed out.

[The Natural Philosopher]

The second storey is in the new 'loft space..they have only raised the roofline 1.5 meters at most sadly..

As I said, 50% more foot print, 20% more roof line but 320% more room space!!

[Owain]

Sounds an efficient way of doing it.

Owain

[tony sayer]

Is this really the end of the world for you?. At 200 odd yards away is that -really- a problem?..

Surely id the planners stipulated height restrictions for you won't they do the same for the other lot?...

[The Natural Philosopher]

Wll, I took what has bn said, and concoctd a ltetter to the council.

The gist of it was this.

1/. The scale of the development, if taken as a precedent along the whole (pretty much single track) road would lead to extreme stress on th road, and possibly the water and electricity supplies.

2/. It represented a devlopment scale that had been specifically prohibited by earlier planning decisions in the same area.

3/. The scope of the development - a fairly naff 70's bungalow to a 4 bedroom two storey house, was not an 'extension' and, if the trees had not been removed two days ago, would almost certainly have required complete underpinning of the foundations of the old house, and that have would probably be an issue now the trees HAVE been removed (heav as its wet soggy clay). In fact considering the scale, the development should probably have been demolition and rebuild. The fact that this had not been applied for suggested that the owner, a serial developer/occupier (for tax avoidance reasons) would likely as not be doing the whole project on the cheap as the only way to recover the investment would likely be to flout building regulations and use ultra cheap materials..which was not on keeping with the rest of the locality.

4/. since the felling of the trees had exposed 4 houses to view, that were not seen before, could we have then put back please, in due course.

5/. the applicant had refrained from answering the question 'do trees need to be removed' on the application..

6/. The loss of an affordable retirment bungalow was a net loss to the community, as they are scarcer than 4 bedroom houss.

7/. that no notice of planning application had been sent to us as neighbours, nor posted at the front of the property.

You might think so, I couldn't possibly comment..round here certain builders and developers seem to get away with murder, wheres if you don't have the right ear, you get hammered..

I'm just hoping that this becomes a hot potato that dare not get passed 'on the nod' by one or two greased palms..

[tony sayer]

Would that really count for much?..

So theres some policy then?..

What's the limit for that, isn't it adjacent properties?..

Course that'd never happen would it;!..

Might then be an idea to see if any of the local papers might take in "interest" so its well publicised;)...

[Roger]

The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words:

hoe many times has she done that?

The exemption is from Capital Gains Tax but if she is doing it for the profit she is trading and liable to income tax on the profit.

has a discussion on it.

Be a bastard and drop a note to your local Tax Inspector (if you still have one). :-)