or is my neighbour?

[ClimbingFrameWars]

We have lived in our house for 3 years now, and have always got on ok with the neighbours - not best friends, but know them to chat to, children have been to play there a couple of times, theirs have come here a couple of times, etc. All well and good.

We are wanting to build a new climbing frame/swing set for the children. We have got an independent company in to design and build as our dd has SN, and is already a bit too big for easily available commercial ones, and we want this to last her a while - she loves being outdoors and playing, and this is not going to change through her teenage years and beyond.

Our neighbour on the side where the frame is planned to go is upset. The frame height etc are all within legal parameters for height and distance from boundary etc. currently, we have a hideous concrete block wall along that side of the garden, at a height of nearly 2.5m on our side. Their garden is higher than ours, such tht their small children (6 ish) can easily stand head height above the wall on the path on their side.

Their garden is enclosed on all 3 sides (both sides and the bottom of the garden) by this wall. They also have trees (on the other side belonging to their neighbours) on one side and at the bottom (belonging to them, obv) which are a good 4ft higher than the wall, at least. Neighbour is upset because if we build te frame where we want it, it will disturb their view across our garden and out onto the fields behind our bottom fence (and their bottom wall + trees).

We don't want to start a neighbour dispute, but surely this is taking entitled to a new level? They could, if they so wanted, get rid of the trees which actually block their view to the fields from their own garden, and lower/take out their wall? Surely they don't have a valid objection to is building the climbing frame where we want to and blocking their view across our garden?

Our other options are to build it across the bottom of our garden, this blocking our own view across the fields, or we could build it along the other side - neighbour not overly enthusiastic, but not bothered either - but this would leave us with the unsightly wall (which we are happy to hide) as well as giving us problems wrt fence maintenance (fence on other side belongs to us), and just isn't where we want it in the (not over large) garden.

Oh, and I'm sure I said somewhere ^ up there that there was a load of work/clearing being done on our jungle garden. Two skip fills of general rubble from removal of walled beds so far, and a load of scrub plants and the mahoosive ivy which was doing its best to pull down our garage. And more to do.

Do you think she might be concerned that she longer has the privacy afforded to her by the buildings, and that all the children using the frame will congregate under the roofed structure, which is now beside her wall and overlooking her garden.

I know it's horrible for you - but this is one of those threads where I'd love to hear the other side's take on things

The roofed bit would also have been walled in on her side - we had honestly been considerate with the original design (aside from the fact we are having a frame at all, which is completely non-negotiable).

Redesign in underway, though. And will still be considerate. We really don't want to have a long running feud. But we will be having a climbing frame in our garden (now without platform for the slide), and it will be visible from her garden. These are things we won't change.

And we won't be consulting her on the redesign, despite her huff earlier on. I will not be dictate to as to which bits of my garden I can use.

I'm amazed that a low platform which enables as disabled child to access a slide in their own back garden could really breach any regulations.

OP, you're being far more accommodating than I think I would be in the same circumstances.

technically any platform over 30cm needs planning permission. As I said before, you'd have to be incredibly churlish to complain about a waist high platform for a slide. But technically she could, and, given her overall behaviour, would. So a redesign it is.

You sound unreasonable to me. I mean you aren't prepared to keep a falling down and dangerous structure in your garden to add privacy to nextdoors and you intend to add play equipment for your kids to play on (and any visiting neighbour kids). Anyone would think it was your property or something

Yeah, we're total bastards, jerry. Imagine trying to keep children safe and happy, huh? Some people

Temporary platforms don't need planning though like scaffold towers.

Could the climbing frame platform be built using scaffold type joints so technically its not permanent but your DD still has the stability she needs?

ClimbingFrameWars,
Get your neighbour to come on here and put her point of view across.
There are always two sides to a story - it would be interesting to see both sides.

Agree water - my spidey senses are tingling here, there is definitely another side to this story!

(I know this will be disregarded)

Honestly, it has all happend as reported.

Neighbour has changed her objection from one thing to another (some of which we have sympathy with, some we don't. None of which we can actually help, as we didn't design the houses/gardens in the frankly bizarre configurations they are in). And is now in a huff because we won't consult with her on the redesign.

She was shown the original design out of courtesy, when we let her know that works were going to take place. Both the original design, and the current thoughts on redesign comply with planning regs, aside from the issue of the platform, which is recognised issue with the planning laws as they currently stand. Even the smallest of tp climbing frames/swing/slide combos fall foul of this particular clause. It is not ever an issue, unless you have someone actively pursuing making a complaint.

We want/need (given dd1's needs) a climbing frame/swing/slide in our garden. And we need it to last her a good while (as all parents want, when investing in these things), but unlike most families shopping for a climbing frame, we are not starting out with a 3/4 year old and wanting 8-10 years put of it, but starting with an 11 year old and wanting good lifespan, meaning that yes, it is a bit bigger than a lot of frames.. But not impossibly big, and still within planning limits (aside from the platform thing).

It is not our problem that anything we put in our garden will be within sight lines from their garden (said in non-nearly tone, I am not being huffy!). And I do not accept that us putting our frame where we want it, and blocking the view across our airspace (when the view from their own garden is blocked by their own design) is a valid objection. But that is the main objection, and given she feels this way, it gives her the opportunity, with the original design, to complain about a technicality. So we will redesign.

It may take a bit longer, but dd1 will get the climbing frame she craves, and which will give her access to and ability to play in our garden once more.

Grr, that's a non-narky tone.

OK - so, if you were us, looking at this from a neutral viewpoint, what would you say were the real issues? You seem to have had a good relationship with her up until very recently, so - hand on heart, with your objective hat on - what's really going on in her head?

Climbing, have you been in her house/garden and tried to see how it will look from her point of view? Put yourself in her shoes.
Maybe it's not just about 'the view', maybe this structure will afect light and shade in her garden as well. It could also affect their privacy.
(it sounds as there's maore going on)
Not that it will make any difference as it looks like you are going ahead anyway.

I think she is upset that this is something she cannot control. I know a climbing frame is not everyone's cup of tea, but then I don't much like the incredibly powerful blue light they have been shining in their garden overnight to attract moths as an experiment (an uplighter) which has been disrupting my sleep for the last couple of weeks. But it's their garden, and they are doing their thing. Like we want to in ours.

I cannot accept her horror of it being in her sight line (well, I can accept it, in a "have you seen that monstrosity the neighbours have put up, dear?" kind of way, but cannot accept she thinks this gives her any right to object formally, or a right to influence our plans). I don't accept that te new roofed structure, in more or less the same place as the old roofed structure (our crappy shed) will be an eyesore. And her point about obscuring sunlight is just plain wrong (given that the sun is not likely to deviate from its path ).

So I have no clue, tbh.

A I said earlier, I thought we'd have more bother with the neighbours on the other side when we cleared what was (on our side) the most ridiculous tangle of shrubs, trees, thickets etc (due to no maintenance by previous owners) but were, on their side, probably a lot better cared for. They popped over earlier to ask about one tree we have left, and if we would mind lowering it a bit. We weren't going to, but have no huge objection to doing so. Problem solved. In turn, they offered for us to be able to cut back more than we had planned to one of their trees at the side of our drive. Offer gratefully accepted. Job done, everyone happy. (Anecdote related to hopefully show we are not stubborn arses who will only do things our way).

I can only anticipate that the real fun will start once we start doing building works on our house (adjoined via the garages, ours will require extensive remodelling) next year! I can foresee lots of objections at the planning stages...

Water, it won't affect light/shade given how the sun rises/falls. And distance from boundary also means that any potential shadow would fall on their pathway, bt it wot anyway, iyswim.

Privacy is just something she will have to put up with, tbh. It would be a bit rich for her to complain, given we have no privacy from her garden at all. And honestly, our design had taken this into account as much as possible, with orientation of swings, which way the platform opened out, etc. we are not actively trying to upset our neighbours!

We will be going awas with something, yes. Dd1 has a limited enough range of play options. And this will make a huge difference to her quality of life and enjoyment of the garden/outdoors. But we have gone back to the drawing board, as the original design filed her with such horror.

Anythg we build will be visible to her. And of course it will be tall - it's a climbing frame! (But not taller than allowed). But we are trying to accommodate and compromise. I just won't be consulting her, and I won't let her dictate the overall design.

*we will be going ahead

You could tell them you've compromised by changing the building materials, at great expense to yourselves, to wood (assuming it's wood you're using). Then smile very very sweetly as though you've genuinely done them a massive favour.

If they complain, do as pp have suggested and remind them that they could easily improve their own view by tree pruning/removing. Again, smile sweetly.

Up thread the OP said light wasn't the issue. What it looks like is the NDN has has an arrangement that favours them, i.e. privacy for themselves, while enjoying the benefits of overlooking the OP's garden. Now their view is not so good. That's what comes of living on a hill.

My garden and house overlooks to the rear, so I am busy planting screening shrubs and trees that will be mature when the houses at the back are sold and demolished. The inevitable loss of trees on their side means I would be overlooking them, which I'd rather not do.

The OP's NDN just wants to continue to enjoy her advantage, while not doing the obvious thing which is to alter part of of their garden.

I can't believe how unreasonable your neighbour is being. She always has the option to do things o her garden to so she doesn't have to look at your climbing frame and gets her view back by pruning her trees.

I think you're being very patient!

Hopefully your nndn (nice next door neighbour) will point out to her how selfish she being about a play area for a child who needs it.

Personnelly I would include as many tall shrubs/trees planted down the ugly wall side and will block her view completely.

Have you invited next doors kids to use the frame? The treehouse in my garden has an entirely unreasonable view of my neighbour's house and garden. But as it's mostly her sons and their friends using it, she has never complained!

Make the point that you have altered the plans, you are sorry it inconveniences her, she'll get over it.

Plans are altered, as detailed above. And yes, her children will be more than welcome to play on the frame. I expect it will become a bit of a magnet for lots of the children in the street (and happy for it to be).

We have found a way around the slide issue, so that's ok ( keen to have one, as it's one of the few bits ds will be able to access - he's only 2!) so that's good. And we are looking at incorporating some of the other bits which have to be changed due to loss of slide platform into a trim trail around the other edges of the garden. So all is not lost at all - timings might end up being a bore as it was scheduled for completion this week to coincide with summer holidays, but otherwise all will be good. It's all been a headache I could do without, though.

Yanbu.
Luckily our neighbours haven't complained as when you are on the platform the view of their garden is immense and kitchen.
We were denied permission for an arbour due to loss of an oblique view when there straight view was straight onto a field, as we need a shed we removed said arbour.
So views even though they have no legal standing planers do use it as a reason.
Hope you're dc gets it soon

You could plant a tree there and it wouldn't count a jot what they wanted- this can't possibly restrict their view too much if some only just pokes above their wall -as well it won't be right up against the wall so it shouldn't be awful.