Neighbour is objecting to our plans.

starbaby2003

Hi All,
Our neighbour is objecting to our plans based on it taking morning light from their kitchen. The part they are objecting to is planning exempt. We are extending our kitchen but building up too. This is what we actually need the planning for.
Q)1 Can he appeal to an Bord Pleanála if his objections are ignored.
Q2) if he wins his objection, can we resubmit our plans without this part of the extension and build it anyway?

Our architect and builder have both said he has no case and you can build it without planning but I’m not sure if this would just cause legal wranglings.

Calahonda52

Its not clear whats what here but have a gander at this right to light document
https://www.scsi.ie/documents/get_lob?id=973&field=file

starbaby2003

Thanks, I had looked at that and I couldn’t make head nor tail or it. The people in the know assure me he has no case but .... I’m more concerned that they will pursue it and we won’t be able to start building until it is resolved. I’m not clear if anyone can appeal to an Bord Pleanála or do they need permission to.

Calahonda52

IIRC they must first object to a planning application and only them can they go to ABP so if there is no planning app..

However if they have deep pockets i suppose they could seek some sort of judicial review.

Can you explain what you mean by this piece does need PP and this piece does not.

If you build the non-PP piece first, it will need to be included in the PP piece, whereas if you build it first....

Gumbo

Can you post a picture of your plans to take a look. Taking out the personal info of course.

There is a BRE daylight guideline document that you can use to carry out a simple test to determine if the extension will block their daylight or not. I always do these on 2 storey extension. It’s this test that runs out full width 2 storey extensions in most urban cases.

Let them object, that’s their legal right to. If they object but the planner still grants, yes they can appeal the decision to ABP delaying the build by many months.

Building the exempted bit. That can be done. But then you can’t build the other bit without getting planning either way but it’s a bit hard to work out exactly what you mean here without elevations or plans.

starbaby2003

The pictures are attached. The problem is with the roof height. We need that height though in order to ensure the kitchen gets enough light.

starbaby2003

Calahonda52 wrote: »

IIRC they must first object to a planning application and only them can they go to ABP so if there is no planning app..

However if they have deep pockets i suppose they could seek some sort of judicial review.

Can you explain what you mean by this piece does need PP and this piece does not.

If you build the non-PP piece first, it will need to be included in the PP piece, whereas if you build it first....

I attached a screenshot. Their problem is with our kitchen extension which is exempt but has been included as part of the overall plans. I’m concerned that they won’t take no for an answer.

Gumbo

starbaby2003 wrote: »

The pictures are attached. The problem is with the roof height. We need that height though in order to ensure the kitchen gets enough light.

Ok. My opinion.
They have no basis for their complaint.
Technically you should have left out the exempted development as by applying for planning for it, you are now at the mercy of the planners involving a condition that limits its width, height etc that would otherwise not have been there otherwise.

You also cannot build an exempted development to the rear in the future as technically it won’t be as per the lodged planning.

Now that’s the scary bit done. Realistically, I’ve very rarely seen a planner impose any condition like this. It should be granted without any restraints. The big problem here is if the neighbor goes to ABP then you cannot build anything to the rear until they make a decision.

The shaded area which indicates the first floor extension looks to be in line with the neighbours rear wall, does that mean they have got permission for a first floor extension previously?

Calahonda52

Re: Our neighbour is objecting to our plans based on it taking morning light from their kitchen

The last time I looked the sun rose in the East,
iff the north orientation is correct on the drawing then they get no morning light anyway.
is the window in question in the wall // to the boundary wall or is it in the wall facing the garden.

Sesame

starbaby2003 wrote: »

The pictures are attached. The problem is with the roof height. We need that height though in order to ensure the kitchen gets enough light.

To give your kitchen enough light you want to deny them their light. Jesus,that's fairly lousy.

Can't you compromise and leave them with their light and build your bigger kitchen. Talk to them about what your plan is and what would be acceptable to them. You never know,they may be reasonable if you are. Don't forget,you'll be living beside them. Good neighbours are worth a lot.

Calahonda52

Sesame wrote: »

To give your kitchen enough light you want to deny them their light. Jesus, that's fairly lousy.

.

without knowing a lot more info, the above totally uncalled for.

listermint

Looks like both kitchens get no morning light . What specifically is the complaint where is the light loss.

starbaby2003

Sesame wrote: »

To give your kitchen enough light you want to deny them their light. Jesus,that's fairly lousy.

Can't you compromise and leave them with their light and build your bigger kitchen. Talk to them about what your plan is and what would be acceptable to them. You never know,they may be reasonable if you are. Don't forget,you'll be living beside them. Good neighbours are worth a lot.

Hi, thanks for making an assumption.
Just so we are clear

We called into them prior to submitting the plans. They said they were unhappy. We reached out to our architect and a builder to get their opinions. We then also got a QS’s opinion. Provided them with the changes drawings showing there would be very little change to them if we went with their proposal but a vast change to our light and costs.

These neighbours have build a MASSIVE extension ( twice the size of ours at least) but left that area, maybe for a patio. If you saw a full picture you would see that. So please don’t make assumptions about us or about our ‘great’ neighbours.

Ladybird99

I had a similar problem five years ago but I didn't need planning though. The neighbours main objection was loss of light and the view. I tried being nice and consulting them fully at the start but they complained about everything they could(mostly nonsensical) and refused permission to build on the party wall so I built it going down the garden rather than across the width of the house which probably backfired on them. Everyone I was working with said the same thing, there was nothing the neighbour could do about the build, there was no right to light in planning law. When the structure was just about finished I had a surprise visit from the local council as a complaint had been lodged. The council wrote a couple of weeks later back and said they did not find any issues with the build and closed the complaint. The neighbour is still not really speaking to me though unless he wants something of course.

starbaby2003

Gumbo wrote: »

Ok. My opinion.
They have no basis for their complaint.
Technically you should have left out the exempted development as by applying for planning for it, you are now at the mercy of the planners involving a condition that limits its width, height etc that would otherwise not have been there otherwise.

You also cannot build an exempted development to the rear in the future as technically it won’t be as per the lodged planning.

Now that’s the scary bit done. Realistically, I’ve very rarely seen a planner impose any condition like this. It should be granted without any restraints. The big problem here is if the neighbor goes to ABP then you cannot build anything to the rear until they make a decision.

The shaded area which indicates the first floor extension looks to be in line with the neighbours rear wall, does that mean they have got permission for a first floor extension previously?

Yes, these are dormer bungalows ( semi detached) and we are one of the few original houses. Our plans would be in line with or less extensive than all other extensions on the road. This is my fear, that we will be held up and miss our window to get it done. Also I can see it causing resentment on both sides.

starbaby2003

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Re: Our neighbour is objecting to our plans based on it taking morning light from their kitchen

The last time I looked the sun rose in the East,
iff the north orientation is correct on the drawing then they get no morning light anyway.
is the window in question in the wall // to the boundary wall or is it in the wall facing the garden.

The back gardens face westerly. Maybe they meant their evening sun

iwillhtfu

Calahonda52 wrote: »

Re: Our neighbour is objecting to our plans based on it taking morning light from their kitchen

The last time I looked the sun rose in the East,
iff the north orientation is correct on the drawing then they get no morning light anyway.
is the window in question in the wall // to the boundary wall or is it in the wall facing the garden.

They'll get the evening light though and looking at the orientation of their building that corner could be a nice little sun trap so I can see the neighbours point.

starbaby2003

Ladybird99 wrote: »

I had a similar problem five years ago but I didn't need planning though. The neighbours main objection was loss of light and the view. I tried being nice and consulting them fully at the start but they complained about everything they could(mostly nonsensical) and refused permission to build on the party wall so I built it going down the garden rather than across the width of the house which probably backfired on them. Everyone I was working with said the same thing, there was nothing the neighbour could do about the build, there was no right to light in planning law. When the structure was just about finished I had a surprise visit from the local council as a complaint had been lodged. The council wrote a couple of weeks later back and said they did not find any issues with the build and closed the complaint. The neighbour is still not really speaking to me though unless he wants something of course.

I think this might have been part of our initial mistake. We tried to be too accommodating. It backfired spectacularly as we lost four months getting second and third opinions only to end up in the same position. I’m glad you got there in the end!

starbaby2003

iwillhtfu wrote: »

They'll get the evening light though and looking at the orientation of their building that corner could be a nice little sun trap so I can see the neighbours point.

They’ll still get it, our current set up is like that and we get sun all evening on the patio.

Gumbo

Sesame wrote: »

To give your kitchen enough light you want to deny them their light. Jesus,that's fairly lousy.

Can't you compromise and leave them with their light and build your bigger kitchen. Talk to them about what your plan is and what would be acceptable to them. You never know,they may be reasonable if you are. Don't forget,you'll be living beside them. Good neighbours are worth a lot.

I see this opinion all the time from people not actually building. Worse case is that you alter your design to sui the neighbors then a few years later the neighbors or next owners carry out the same extension you originally wanted.

This extension would be considered exempted development otherwise so doesn’t require planning.

gourcuff

not true to say there is no such thing as right to light

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/right-to-light-at-centre-of-aparthotel-dispute-between-two-companies-1.4058059#:~:text=A%20dispute%20about%20a%20proposed,light%E2%80%9D%20would%20be%20adversely%20affected.

sydthebeat

gourcuff wrote: »

not true to say there is no such thing as right to light

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/right-to-light-at-centre-of-aparthotel-dispute-between-two-companies-1.4058059#:~:text=A%20dispute%20about%20a%20proposed,light%E2%80%9D%20would%20be%20adversely%20affected.

Technically what was said was correct.

There is no "right to light" in planning law.
In that, even if permission is granted, a neighbour can still use loss of light as a way to stop the development in a process outside of the planning process

However permission can be refused due to the impact of a proposed development on existing buildings, and there are ways to measure the loss of light impact.

starbaby2003

gourcuff wrote: »

not true to say there is no such thing as right to light

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/right-to-light-at-centre-of-aparthotel-dispute-between-two-companies-1.4058059#:~:text=A%20dispute%20about%20a%20proposed,light%E2%80%9D%20would%20be%20adversely%20affected.

I understand the easement of light is a legal issue and not a planning one and as such needs to be brought before the courts and not as a planning objection.

TheBoyConor

Your project is either exempt or it isn't. It isn't really to be looked at in terms of this bit is exempt but the roof is higher than 4m (or whatever the threshold) and therefore the bit over 4m needs planning.

If any aspect of the proposed extension exceeds any of the thresholds listed in the regs, then the extension as a whole needs planning, not just that portion of it that is above the threshold.
It is important appreciate this. Otherwise you'd have people building things up to the expemtion threshold and then applying for an extra meter of wall, an extra 5m sq of floor or the topmost 1.3m of the roof.


He can appeal to ABP, same as any other planning application.

If the appeal is upheld and you are refused permission then you have 2 options.
1. make a new application that adequately addresses the issues that resulted in the refusal
2. build an exepmted development. No planning permission necessary then, regardless of the previous application.

TheBoyConor

starbaby2003 wrote: »

I understand the easement of light is a legal issue and not a planning one and as such needs to be brought before the courts and not as a planning objection.

Does that mean that an objection based on loss of light, in iteself, would not be reason enough for the Planning Authority to refuse permission or impose a condition specifically relating to light.

Would I be right in thinking then that an objector would have to set out their case as to how the loss of light would impact them and their property negatively, and then the Planning Authority might refuse or impose conditions based on that negative imact of the loss of light, rather than the loss of light in iteslf?

Or can planning authorities have any influence there at all? Would they be powerless? Would the objector have to go to court to get an injuction against the commecement of the job? Is that even possible , to get an injuction against commencement of a development that has planning permission?
It seems a bit contradictory that a lawful development that has satisfied all regulatory requirements could be stopped by a court injunciton.

tscul32

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Your project is either exempt or it isn't. It isn't really to be looked at in terms of this bit is exempt but the roof is higher than 4m (or whatever the threshold) and therefore the bit over 4m needs planning.

I got the impression that there are 2 parts to the op's plan, A bit out the back and a separate bit at the side. The bit out the back is what the neighbour is objecting to but if they did just the back, without the separate side bit, there would be no planning required. So maybe technically they could just do the back (no planning to object to) and then next year get planning for the side and do that bit then, again with no objection because the neighbour has no problem with the side bit.

Gumbo

tscul32 wrote: »

I got the impression that there are 2 parts to the op's plan, A bit out the back and a separate bit at the side. The bit out the back is what the neighbour is objecting to but if they did just the back, without the separate side bit, there would be no planning required. So maybe technically they could just do the back (no planning to object to) and then next year get planning for the side and do that bit then, again with no objection because the neighbour has no problem with the side bit.

That was my reading of it too.

TheBoyConor

Oh. Is it?
It is hard to tell without some sort of sketch.

Calahonda52

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Oh. Is it?
It is hard to tell without some sort of sketch.

what about the image attached in post 6

Gumbo

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Oh. Is it?
It is hard to tell without some sort of sketch.

The OP posted a sketch/image early on in the thread.

TheBoyConor

i missed it. sorry about that. i see it now and understand

starbaby2003

Hi All, Just an update on this, permission was granted no issues. Thanks all !

Gumbo

starbaby2003 wrote: »

Hi All, Just an update on this, permission was granted no issues. Thanks all !

Now for the 4 week nail biting period to make sure they don’t appeal to ABP.