MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
I thought I'd read that 'in fill'/back garden development was no longer allowed?
Someone opposite us has applied for planning permission to take the ends off two back gardens and build a house.
I'm looking for some grounds (other than the rubbish design they've come up with) to object and wondered if anyone had specific chapter and verse on legislation/guidlines that I can use.
This is in Hove if the LA is relevant to the process.
Cheers
I thought the rules had been relaxed to encourage it?
You need to look at their local plan/development framework to see what their take on whether development like this is allowed.
http://www.brighton-hove.gov.uk/index.cfm?request=b1000164
Found this;
[i]IMPORTANT: Due to changes to PPS3 Housing (June 2010), development taking place in private residential garden land now constitutes ‘greenfield’ site status.[/i]
the applicant is saying they will demolish an existing garage and build though which makes me wonder if they want the site treated as a brownfield site, rather than greenfield?
As above, the council will have a written policy. If it falls inside they will allow, outside it'll be refused. As ever it is open to interpretation, though. There has been one refused at the end of our road. Might be worth reading the reasons. You can see how the reasons for refusal are referenced to the guidelines.
We had a similar application up the road from us, but in 1 garden only, removal of garage and build house instead. It was turned down because of access for building work (not enough width according to the county highways dept for easy access by the trucks), lack of affordable housing plan, development on greenfield area and lack of investigation into protected wildlife (ie bats are known in the area and they had not had the garage checked!).
Speaking with the planning officer involved, they are very helpful normally and might be able to give you a few ideas for reasons to object. One of my neighbours organised a petition around the road to object to it, whether this had any sway on the planning authority, who knows! The more people that object, the more they take notice I suppose.......
If you really want to throw the spanner in the works, go for bats. Planning bods will require a series of surveys, possible mitigation strategies and works. As well as restriction to the timetable of construction.
The change in planning policy simply changes emphasis on permitted development rights. They can still get permission on greenfield, but it's much harder.
On another tack, are bats really that rare?
they seem to be the bane of every building project and pretty much every house I've ever lived in has had them?
Like newts they're not necessarily "rare" in some locations, but they are "rare" in Europe. We've got more Great Crested Newts than you can shake a stickleback at, but **** with them and all manner of grey-suited hell will rain down on you.
Same with bats. Plenty of pipestrelles around here in Worcestershire, but now they have a cushtie 400 sq ft bat loft in my roof and 4x £100 bat boxes on the walls outside.
Fortunatley I had a sympathetic ecologist I was working with (you need someone who's licenced to interfere with bats) who was quite flexible in how we went about mitigating works for the little critters.