LG John

I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry here I'm in the process of writing up a refusal for a massive extension to a fairly modest house and one of the grounds of objection by a neighbour is that, "The plan shows that the eastern end of the proposed structure would approach to within a very short distance of the boundary wall between the two adjacent houses, and rising as it would to two storeys, would effectively block out light, air and vision presently available."- word for word by the way!

Leaving aside the poor grammar, etc I find myself perplexed as to what they are going on about regarding 'air' - ROTFLMAO

I think my report may say something along the lines of. "Through the application of the sunlight and daylight tests it is evident that the proposed extension would not cause a significantly harmful reduction in the sunlight or daylight received by neighbouring properties. Loss of a view is not material to the determination of a planning application. The proposed extension is unlikely to have a harmful impact on the amenity of the neighbouring property through suffocation of its occupants and raises no health and safety issues."

ProperCharlie

blocking out "air" is quite comonly cited as a problem - used to get it all the time when trying to determine tree preservation order issues. another one i heard is that "everyone is entitled to their airs"

not sure what it means - maybe there is an older use of the word air, that means something different to the way we understand it?

eClaire

<off topic>Oooooh, 7006 </off topic>

ProperCharlie

7006

maybe SB can put that into his next performance appraisal...

LG John

I can only assume its some reference to affects on wind speeds, etc

Felix.

My brothers neighbours complained that:

'should he build an extension on top of his garage then there would be a 30% increase in rain water pouring into our drain'

Neighbours from hell (or a different planet!)

P20SPD

iTrader: (1)

SB, our neighbours objection was nearly the same as that word for word, and the 1st application was refused, for those reasons. Wish you were our planning officer 2 years ago!

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Steve

He's refusing it m8

Spoon

Did he get to use hit 7001 though?

There's plenty of air circulating with a gap between houses. Slam them together and you will suffocate, kind of.

I was talking about this only the other day. My house has no buildings on either side.(left- 100'ish metres, right-1/4 mile).

In the winter the heating is on more and higher than my Mother-in-laws house which is bigger but in a built up area.

In the summer my house is a joy compared to hers where there seems no escape from the heat.

Friends houses that maybe are semi also appear warmer because they "share" space.

This may have been his thought? Quite reasonable in my mind.

ronny555

I had an objection last year on my planning application from America!!!

The neighbour had written to her ex-husband in America to ask him also to object to it.

The planning officier could not believe it.

Still got my permission.

LG John

Its being recommended for refusal because of overlooking, its a gross overdevelopment and is not of a scale or architectural form that respects the original house. Not because someone will lose a prevailing gust of wind

Spoon

It may well of been refused on the grounds you have stated but it never stopped you posting the fact that you were perplexed by the "air" issue, which I answered.

LG John

Really? Can you qualify or put a figure on the loss? How can we as planning authority possibly make informed and consistent decisions on such a matter with no scientific basis to measure it?

Spoon

You can't put a figure on his loss. That wasn't the point of the reply, merely an observation.

You have criteria to work from, simple.

If I had space originally I'd be píssed off that's all and probably want to move.

That's why I'm where I am now because it can't happen.

LG John

Me too but then that's just the NIMBY ism that's developed in this country and nearly all of us are guilty of it. Unfortunatly in my job I have to determine what is a real cause for concern and what is people just not wanting change, etc.

pugoetru

maybe they mean the wont be able to breath if the neibour farts

ProperCharlie

it transpires that "light and air" is a common expression in planning and development - it just hasn't reached the outpost of empire where SB lives:

EASEMENTS; IMPLICATION; LEASES: An easement for light and air cannot be created by implication, even in a lease relationship.



Levin v. 117 Limited Partnership, 738 N.Y.S.2d 50 (A.D. 1 Dept. 2002).



Defendant landlord sealed an airshaft in a multi-tenant building Tenant objected that this violated an implied easement of light and air that passed to the tenant as part of the lease.

and many other examples that a google will bring to you.

LG John

Interesting

LG John

The above doesn't seem to be a planning case though but rather tennancy? Air quality is of obvious importance to planning as is (potentially) large buildings but I'd be surprised if there was planning case law on affects of air or even microclimates caused by a household extension.

Spoon

Unfortunately it is more than people just not wanting change though especially if you bought a house with a reasonable space between your neighbours because that's what you wanted.

A detached house can be turned almost into a semi-detached house all but an inch gap.

The_Lizard

Do you have this situation over there - someone wants to build a new or much larger structure, but because of local regulations, only "modifications" to the original structure can be made.

This has led to situations I've seen where someone will demolish a modest home, but leave some tiny part standing - once, I swear, it was just two interior walls in the kitchen - and build some grandiose castle on the site. The new structure is, technically, still the same as the old one, so it does not need to comply with regulations applying to new structures.

This is called "grandfathering" over here, as in, a structure (or sometimes vehicle) is "gandfathered" and not required to comply because it was already in existence before the newer regulations were drafted.

LG John

Our policy requires any extension to be of a scale, form, positioning and of proportions that are in keeping with that of the original house. In this case the applicant would actually be better off demolishing the old house and starting fresh on the site as such an application would be determined relative to the streetscape only with no original building to consider.

The applications for extensions I've seen are unbelievable. Some are absolutely massive and many times they are 2, 3x the floor area of the original building. I find myself wondering how these people pay for such modifications. Remortgage I guess and I guess they will be in tears if the house market turns and interest rates happen to go up

The_Lizard

Here's a stunt seen in some of the wealthy suburbs around here: Buy a nice old home on a large lot. Donate the house to the fire department, so they can burn it as a practice fire. Then, build and sell half a dozen luxury homes crammed onto the lot, like a little micro-suburb all its own.

LG John

Cunning I recall a case where some local authority wouldn't allow new build housing in the countryside so the clever farmer built his house inside a large agricultural building and started to live in it hoping to get through 4 years so he could claim that enforcement action could be be taken. He got rumbled