Neighbouring Property

[Theblip]

If you’ve lived in a nice place with nice views for some time, then a neighbour - despite your official objection - gets permission to build a gigantic extension which overlooks your property, blocks your view, and devalues your property, is there anything you can do re seeking compensation from them or the council?

[Theblip]

Arrods, was that before or after building work began?

[Arrods]

It was before.

However, although I'm no legal expert, there are circumstances where something built in breach of a neighbour's right of light can be ordered to be demolished. The courts are reluctant to go that far, but the law does provide for it.

[Atheist]

The granting of planning permission does not override any other legal rights. Also the existence of other legal rights does not mean that planning permission should therefore be refused. If someone thinks that they have a legal right to stop implementation of an approved proposal, then they are free to pursue that course. Normally it is only celebs and pop stars who go down that route.

[The Builder]

Arrods, I think you may be confusing "right to light" which is a technical consideration that can be enforced, with a "right to a view", which doesn't normally apply in Planning cases.

[woofgang]

looks like unless you have a recorded easement, you have no right to light...https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/391683/44872_HC_796_Law_Commission_356_WEB.pdf

[Atheist]

It seems that Arrods threatened to take legal action against his/her neighbour, which frightened them off and persuaded them to move house rather than implement the approved development. Nice result for him/her, not so nice for the neighbour who had gone through the normal channels and was then frightened away by threat of legal action which had nothing to do with the planning system. Sharp elbows and a healthy bank balance come in very handy.

[Arrods]

I think that if anyone had to face the light block that we would have suffered from, they would have ben just as concerned as us. We did employ a professional to assess the loss of light to our habitable rooms and he said that it was one of the worst he had seen. It was unfortunate that the local authority employee who came to consider our objection had only been in the job for a few weeks.

There was no way we would have taken out an injunction. We couldn't have afforded it in the first place and we would have run the risk of losing the case and paying their costs.

[Atheist]

The planning permission goes with the land, not the applicant. A new owner might be inclined to implement the approved scheme, providing the approval is still within its validity period. Don't relax until the permission has expired. Even then they could re-apply and it would be difficult for a LPA to refuse a recently approved scheme.

[Atheist]

Going back to the OP. You can't get compensation from the LPA for the financial loss you may suffer as a result of a planning decision. Nor are you required to cough up any financial gain you may enjoy as a result of a planning decision. It could have been otherwise, and has been considered over the years, but was never put into practice. Would you like to be 'taxed' if your house value increased as a result of an extension?
I won't go into the issue of S106 agreements unless someone brings it up.

[Arrods]

Not sure whether you were referring to our situation Atheist but fortunately the permission has indeed expired. We never really wondered why the previous owner needed to extend given it’s a massive 4 bedroom property.

[Atheist]

Arrods, maybe he needed more bedrooms! The motivation for most planning applications is to make money, not to get a bit more space for the family. It's all a result of the shocking fact that inflation (normally considered a bad thing) is considered a good thing if it applies to property. Hence, the govt gains votes by chucking money at property owners without being seen to be blatantly bribing the electorate. People who can't afford to own property are bribed to keep their heads down by being fed 'bread and circuses' (nutritional and intellectual pabulum in the form of macs and strictlys).

[AuntPollyGrey]

OP is there any reason you have not answered my question at 11.39?

[Bazile]

APG - I'm curious as to the answer as well

[Theblip]

Mainly a gross invasion of privacy, which it will undoubtedly be. Our objection was ignored. No other properties objected, but none of them will be affected to anywhere near the same extent

[Atheist]

Theblip. Have you read the planning officer's report on the application? Was there any mention of loss of privacy? How was that issue addressed?
In your view, what caused the loss of privacy? Was it the introduction of windows overlooking previously private parts of your property?

[Peter Pedant]

read as much as you like
your boat has sailed

[Atheist]

PP, I'm just curious. I've got a teacher's instinct to explain a little and check to see how much is going in. And an answer to my post might be helpful to theblip - probably not, but you never know. If he's faced with a future application it's best that he has an idea of what planning does and takes into consideration.

[bednobs]

Light is usually considered in the application. When we applied for pp our architect carried out a light survey which was favourable. However the neighbours complained it wasnt impartial so we had to spend an extra 2k getting another survey which of course said exactly the same thing (cheers mates). The only thing that gives me any pleasure is knowing they'll also spend a load on another consultant when it gets resubmittef

[Atheist]

bednobs, was your application refused? If so, what reason was given? I would expect the LPA to do their own light analysis

[bednobs]

we withdrew it, as the council informed us it wouldn't pass
It has been re-submitted with amendments