Gutted a new house is being built directly facing my back garden?

[mentalhealth323]

I know this is a first world problem and the whole process I’ve deliberately not been a biased nimby.

Progress must happen, people need houses and don’t ever buy a house for the view (if you don’t own it).

I bloody well love my house, it’s nothing fancy, I’m not the greatest area but the back garden is long and very private. The USP for the house was the garden (ex council post war house) and the element of privacy.

Being able to go into the garden in a towel to grab clean washing, gardening in a bikini, work out without having to worry that I can only manage one push up…. Drink wine for five nights straight listening to my guilty playlist.

It looks like it’s going to be finalised (there’s already construction workers placing flags outside) and there’s going to be a huge three storey house built 10ms away from my garden fence directly opposite my house. Their fence will be on my boundary. There’s no way of blocking them from having the perfect view of 100% of my garden.

I didn’t contest the planning permission as they’re building facilities/didn’t want to be a nimby - it’s also a nationwide new build company and the council was very much on board… didn’t think we’d have a leg to stand on. I’ve known for the plans for a couple of weeks and I’m absolutely gutted/can’t shake it off.

I sympathize. Having a really private garden is so, so worth having. We have a lot of development near us, and, so far, haven't had anything major at the back of our house/garden. They're all huge monstrosities too, with no gardens (to speak of) and have patios and floodlights at the back. Noisy and annoying, but at least they don't actually overlook us. The day that happens, is the day I move.

@Mintlegs

You are not being unreasonable, we are so overpopulated.

The birth rate across the world is plummeting though so it will all sort itself out by the time our grandchildren are old.

www.bbc.com/news/health-53409521.amp

@SamphiretheStickerist & as I said it's all about profit so things won't change. Too many are happy at the status quo.

Off topic slightly. But in the Ealing Travelodge in West London, the council - and the neighbourhood the windows looked over - only agreed for the Travelodge to be built there, if the windows were frosted on the side overlooking peoples homes.

I have been in one such room and it's a bit claustrophobic, (even though it's still bright in the rooms,) But it was the only way the Travelodge could build it there.

Maybe (as has been said,) you could ask the people building it to change the plans, so that only frosted windows overlook your home.

It's not "being a NIMBy" to engage with the planning and design process and try to ensure that your privacy is respected as much as possible in the design. It's only nimby if you just want the whole thing refused and refuse to engage in any meaningful conversation on compromise.
As it is, sounds like you threw away your chance to influence the design to help protect your privacy, so whilst i empathise with your feeling, I don't have much sympathy when you had an opportunity to be involved

Maybe (as has been said,) you could ask the people building it to change the plans, so that only frosted windows overlook your home.

OP didn't engage in the original process. Is she going to pay for the amendment application fee and architects time for new drawings etc?

YABU. The planning objection process is there for this reason. Even if you thought it would be unsuccessful you had nothing to lose and everything to gain by submitting an objection.

We absolutely are not. Only 6% of land in the UK is built on.

This is such a shit argument. Leaving aside the vast amounts that we can't actually build on for various reasons (mountains, bogs etc) it is utterly pointless. How much is ok then 50%? 60%? 90%? it's fucking meaningless and stupid.

Get a fence and planning permission to build a higher fence if need be I think you can have 9ft before needing permission. State your privacy being a reason a three storey house is gonna have a preset good view of everything in your home. Failing that some conifers along the bottom boundary will help. I live in an end terrace and my back garden backs onto someone else’s but there’s trees and privet right along as well as a fence I had built for my childrens safety. My mums neighbour had some huge conifers taken down recently and it’s so different looking where they used to be. YANBU to be a bit peeved that such a big house means they will be able to peer down into your garden and take away your privacy of your garden. A gazebo at the bottom will also extend the fence so anybody looking from above will get just the top of that in their view.

We bought a house with a view but in one direction (beyond our garden) are 7 trees with TPOs, in the other direction is conservation land and to the side of us is a nature reserve. It wouldn’t be impossible to get planning but very very unlikely. Anyway, I digress. It really sucks but I’d continue using my garden the way I always have done if I were you, naked sunbathing and all. It’s your garden. My mum had trees on her hedge boundary (including two ancient oaks) cut down by the neighbour, and when she looked into it it turns out the hedge (and trees) belong to her. She’s so sad because she’ll never get the privacy back.

@Sandinmyknickers

Maybe (as has been said,) you could ask the people building it to change the plans, so that only frosted windows overlook your home.

OP didn't engage in the original process. Is she going to pay for the amendment application fee and architects time for new drawings etc?

Fair comment.

Same! Only I've got a huge development being built on the green space at the end of my garden 😢 They are at such a stage now, where I can no longer get changed in my bedroom without closing the curtains...as the builders have a birds eye view of my nakedness 🤦‍♀️🤣😨

@daimbarsatemydogsbone

We absolutely are not. Only 6% of land in the UK is built on.

This is such a shit argument. Leaving aside the vast amounts that we can't actually build on for various reasons (mountains, bogs etc) it is utterly pointless. How much is ok then 50%? 60%? 90%? it's fucking meaningless and stupid.

I agree. If you’re going to quote percentages, of the remaining 94%, 29% is pastures, 27% where crops are planted, 24% is natural land (beaches, national parks or moors) and 11% is wetlands. That’s without including green space and domestic gardens. Most countries only build on a tiny percentage of their land. Why should the UK be any different?

They are building 4 detached houses in the garden of a semi-detached that backs onto our back garden. It's ridiculous. The access, believe it or not is shared with a bus stop and a Vape shop! We objected several times.

Luckily we've ended up with the house nearest us overlooking our garage (and the poor neighbours house) rather than ours too much. The house nearest has been sold for a silly amount even though it has a postage stamp garden and they have a lovely Vape Shop as a neighbour! On top of that they've been cheaply built with timber frames, no sign of any brickwork at all and two nearest houses are soo close together they can only get one narrow set of scafolding between them.

It's not nice to have something taken away, for sure. But don't let it stop you living your life. No one is that interested in you (unless you are having orgies out there)! My garden is only 15m long and there's a three storey block of flats behind. I'm sure they could look straight in to my living space if so inclined (my ground floor is a wall of glass with no curtains). Doesn't stop me from doing anything.

Developers should build houses forst and foremost where there are facilities. Brown sites and infills.

I totally agree with this.

Where I live, a developer got permission to build 400+ flats and houses on a run-down industrial estate 15-20 years ago. The site has been sold on at least once, maybe more, but there is still no sign of building work starting.

One of the conditions of the planning permission is that the development will include a new health centre, to serve the whole town, but there's no sign of that starting, either, or the road improvements that were also specified.

It's madness not to develop it, but the whole site has been empty for years now, and there's no sign of anything happening. With one bed flats now going for £280k, I can't understand why they aren't cracking on with it.

Also it's so bad for the environment and flooding

We keep being told to become carbon neutral so this isn't helping at all

I feel for you; that is disheartening to say the least. Privacy is so hard to come by.

Can you ask that the upper windows be frosted or something to preserve your privacy? I thought that was a requirement in some cases.

When we were thinking of buying our house ten years ago we looked into the local council's plans for the area. The fact that the field behind us is a wildlife conservation area and the field beside us is designated as public amenity land were huge selling points. It is still possible that we might have something put on some of that land some time in the future, but there won't be anything in the near future.

Developers should build houses forst and foremost where there are facilities. Brown sites and infills.

They kind of do here, but not correctly. Like one new housing scheme they are planning on building is right next to another housing scheme they just finished building. Another 200 homes to add on to the other 400-500. They've said that this new housing benefits from a local primary school. Said school is full already from the current housing estate, so where are these new kids going to be sitting, outside? There's also still no new gp for the first housing lot, despite saying there will be. But this council doesn't really give a shit about providing actual facilities, it's more about how much money they can bring in from developers, and 'losing' said money.

To be fair, NHS services are nothing to do with the Council.

The problem is that there is no statutory requirement for developers to contribute anything to the local infrastructure or services - nothing at all. They might have to stick a traffic island in as part of the planning conditions (and then duly ignore it for as long as they please), but in terms of paying for extensions to schools or health services, or the staff to run them, or improvements to roads, etc - nada.

Don't forget that Councils can reject planning applications until the cows come home - up here, the developers just appeal the decision and the Govt appointed Reporters just wave them through. I imagine the appeal process is similar in other parts of the UK - they favour the developers massively.

Plant leylandii (leyland cypress) at the end of your garden - it’ll give you complete screening and they grow like wildfire, just be sure you can afford to get a gardener in to give them an annual trim.

The opwners just got all their mates from all over the UK to post in support

This happens all the time - and needs to stop.

Happened to me. Had to move. In fact, we completed today!