Planning permission; neighbour thinks side dorma for stairs will block light

[R8SSO]

So my neighbour just knocked and said they have concerns with our planning request for a loft conversion. Fair play for giving us the heads up, we have both just been in our homes a few months (new builds on a small piece of land) and we'd like to convert the loft before the brick work/tiles discolour and it looks out of place.

They already have the loft space converted and one of their rooms has a west facing window which looks out onto the side of our house (2m gap). We are planning on putting a small side dorma on for the stairs up to the loft and they think this will block light into their only window.

I'm a bit green with planning permission processes so how do things progress from here? They contest the plans, I don't want to change them as a different staircase means losing a room or ensuite.

Who decides whether it goes ahead or not? Will disputes incur more costs?

I don't think the dorma in the valley of where two of my roof ridges meet will cause much obstruction but then I'm biased! :) The husband next door is town planner so probably knows how best to block this.

Do these situations ever end nicely?! I'd rather not fallout with the neighbours within weeks of moving in!

You can get pre-application advice from a planning officer before you put in your planning application. Otherwise if you are unwilling to adapt your plans, submit them and the planning committee will decide, taking into account your neighbour's objection. They may visit to establish for themselves. You can appeal if you get turned down; often appeals are successful especially if anyone else has done what you are planning.

We had the same from our neighbour when we wanted an extention.
I rang the planing dept and was told she had no right to light and if they decided it was fine they would give permission.
I asked him to call in on her when they came.
He did and told her that he was granting permission.
When it was finished we bought her flowers and chocs for inconvenience and she said it made her side look so much neater and was really pleased!

Their objection would only be upheld if it is on specific grounds. Would you dormer directly overlook any of their windows or garden? Could you have velux instead? Tricky for them to argue if they have already done something similar. Worst case your plans get revised, maybe ask your architect what the fallback might be.

A town planner! He will have friends He may just be bluffing though. Good luck.

The side dorma would have a window but it would be lv3/4/5 frosted glass. It's not a dorma for a room, it's for a landing so the stairs have the correct headroom. I don't think being overlooked is the problem, they seem to think the dorma itself would block light even though it's below the current roof ridge.

Right to light is not necessarilly a planning matter, but a civil matter. So you could get planning but she could then get an injunction to prevent you building. Howver the loss of light (not sunlight) needs to be material. From memory 30%. And the rights only accrue over 20 years. If her home was built less than 20 years ago she has no rights.

If there is likely to be an infringement of her rights and you want to go ahead you could use a specialist light person. There is a formula so he could indicate how much she would get from a court.

Both houses built in 2017 so deffo not more than 20 yrs ago!

The neighbour pretty much said today the room should of had a velux in the roof (south facing) rather than a west facing window as it gets hardly any light now. I wonder how much a velux installation would cost compared to a light specialist...

No need for a light specialist if they have not accrued a right to light. They have no claim. Your concern is then whether planning are likely to consider your plans ‘overbearing’ or if they breach planning policy. Ask them! Then if you are likely to get planning, decide if you want to go ahead or whether you want to adapt your plans to keep neighbours happy.

Thanks needmoresleep; and everyone else who replied. Plans have already been submitted so I guess I just wait and see. My architect is on holiday till next Wednesday so might give the planning office a call tomorrow.

Changes to the staircase so I no longer have the side dormer they object to would mean losing an ensuite bathroom or bedroom which isn’t something I want to do. Maybe some chocolates to smooth things over! 😐

Just because they might object, it doesn't mean they are right. Is their window, 2m away, part of their loft conversion? Did they need pp? Your window ( I assume you mean dormer window) could have obscure glass for privacy. How a dormer window blocks light is a mystery. Loft conversions don’t need pp.

Don’t ring the planning officer! What can you possibly ask? They will follow their policies and the guy next door will not get his way if he is wrong. If your architect thinks it’s ok, then run with it for the moment. If you need to change the plans, do it when you need to.

Bubbles, it is usually wise to consult the planning department before submitting plans. OP now says she has submitted plans and is using an architect. In which case we can assume he has either consulted or is familiar with local and national planning policy.

Chocs probably won’t do it. Build it and make peace after. They may well discover it is not as bad as they feared. Make sure though that your builders are considerate and keep to local guidelines on working hours.

New houses often have no Permitted Development rights, hence would need pp for loft conversion and dormer.

" it is usually wise to consult the planning department before submitting plans. OP now says she has submitted plans and is using an architect."

Most authorities now charge for pre-application consultation, so much of the advantage of doing this has now gone on simple projects.

"New houses often have no Permitted Development rights, hence would need pp for loft conversion and dormer."

That's not true, and would actually be against national Planning Policy if they did. Blanket removal of PD rights is contrary to the six tests set out in Circular 11/95. It should not happen, and if anyone has had the misfortune to have had an incompetent Planning Officer impose such a condition upon them, contact me - it's usually a simple process to get it removed.

OP: To answer your specific question on who decides, on minor proposals like this it will probably be the individual Planning Officer (albeit with their decision being signed off by a senior member of the team) at what is called 'Officer Delegated' level.

More complex or contentious applications are referred to the Planning Committee, made up of local Councillors. Whether something is referred to the Committee or not should depend on what is called the 'Scheme of Officer Delegation', which is a written document that each Council has (and they vary slightly from Authority to Authority) that sets out what circumstances and decisions can be dealt with by paid Officers of the Council, and which need to be referred to elected members.

If your neighbour is genuinely a Planner, then he may very well be able to influence the decision... even if he works for a different Authority, Planners tend to move in very small circles and he will doubtless know individuals involved. It would be unprofessional of him to do so, of course, but equally it would be very naive to think that it doesn't happen.

If the initial decision goes against you, then there is the possibility of an Appeal, which is handled by the Appeals Inspectorate, based in Cardiff, who are not going to be influenced by local friendships - but there would be additional professional costs involved with this (probably circa £750-£1,000 for a 'written representations' appeal process).

There are standard methodologies available to calculate whether the impact of development is acceptable. Your Architect should know about these, if he or she is competent: the document that sets out these methodologies, and which is accepted by all Planning Authorities in the UK, is 'Site Planning for Daylight and Sunlight', published by the Building Research Establishment.

Several of my friends are planners who work for consultancies and not local government. They do not know local planners. They are better placed to interpret policies though. However, a local architect is best placed to design according to what is likely to get pp based on national and local policies. So, hopefully, that is what they have done!

We have found, down the years, that the number of objections in contentious cases means the Planning Authoirity may take the design to committee for a decision. Councillors then get to say something. They feel they are then working for their constituents!

However if they decline to give pp when their own polices and national policies indicated that they should have given pp, and the planning officer recommended the scheme for pp, they can, ultimately, be done for costs. It does not always focus the mind, but it can.

Here, a loft conversion would never get to committee and would be delegated. It is hardly contentious to a whole neighbourhood. A replacement house near me, in the green belt and AONB, was delegated and remained delegated through various design amendments over 1 year. Quite a lot of objections but because they were all vexatious, and total rubbish, it remained delegated and was approved.

So, OP do not worry at this stage. If a planning authority takes note of a neighbour because of who they are, rather than the policies which govern pp, then you will win at appeal. Planning Inspectors do not like authorites who do not judge applications on their merits and go against their own planning policies which the LA has agreed.

Sensus - thanks for all that info, very helpful.

BubblesBuddy - thanks for your reply too, reassuring to know that policies should dictate the outcome not who you know! (also, vexatious is a great word!)

In addition to the information above. I've just realised while looking at the online planning applications that in Aug 2017 while we were buying the houses an amended application was submitted for next door for the minor moving of windows and also a staircase to the "attic storage". So the loft rooms aren't bedrooms as she referred to them, they are just attic storage.

I'm assuming this would make a difference to a planning inspector as it would be the impact of light to a storage room not a child's bedroom...

Might be worth pointing out the attic storage (and not bedroom) PP if she comes back, or the application is refused. Might embarrass the planner if he was using storage as a bed room.

"I'm assuming this would make a difference to a planning inspector as it would be the impact of light to a storage room not a child's bedroom..."

It depends. There's a clear dividing line under Building Regulations between what is considered acceptable as a habitable room, and what is considered merely a storage loft, but the two systems (Planning and B.Regs) are not joined up in any way, so you can't rely on a B.Regs definition or standard to justify a Planning decision. To a planner, if a room has a window, and it's not a stairwell or fitted out as a kitchen or bathroom, then it's potentially a habitable room and could be used for any appropriate function.

The whole light thing is probably a red herring, though - you'd have to do something horrendous to block enough light from the window for it to become a serious Planning issue. The bigger problems will usually be privacy, if the window will allow you to look into your neighbour's property, and the aesthetics of the design.

The problem with @BubblesBuddy's comments - as I've raised before - is that some of these matters are subjective. It is simply impossible to write policy, or even SPD, that takes account of every variation of every situation in black-and-white, so Planning law accepts that there is room for an Officer's personal judgement to be exercised.

There isn't anything as blatant as a clear breach of policy, but I know for a fact that where the work influences a Planner, they can go to their friend, colleague or ex-colleague who is the Case Officer on the application and simply say 'this application affects me, I'm not keen on it, could you give it close scrutiny, please?". A nod is as good as a wink...

It can work both ways, of course. I've just designed an extension for our Planning Director, who still works part time as a Senior Team Leader for the Authority she lives in, and her team actually covers her own area. She's already made clear that anyone who resists the application in her department will find that their life will become not worth living... she's joking, naturally (and being an employee of the Council means that under their scheme of officer delegation, the application will automatically go to Committee, not be decided by an officer), but I'm still not expecting a particularly rough ride on that application.

Well I just checked this evening and he's went all out with his public comment on the planning application, as I expected he would being a Town Planner! You'd think we were building the Great Wall of China outside his house the way he's embellished the situation.

Development Control Policy DC04 Protecting Existing Amenity and DC03 Managing Development Density.

The DC04 from what i can gather seems to be about impact and damage to the outlook and light from the attic window. The window currently looks out to a sloped tiled roof approx 3 meters away; post development it would look out to a flat tiled dormer 2+ meters away.

The window is facing 250 degrees on the compass, 270 being due west so it's not exactly a sun trap.

There's a lot of paragraphs attacking the plans and that they don't give enough consideration for light, no daylight / sunglight report, no reference to their window, north reference is inaccurate, no alternative proposals were included... I can't help but feel this is all smoke and mirrors to try and solidify his objection.

So, what do I do now? Do I reply back and try and address some of his points or will I do more harm than good?

I'm a town planner. it doesn't mean I have any more or less right to anything than anyone else . to say he'll have friends is not always true (I know no one in any of the LAs round here).

Ask your planning officer if it is likely you would need to amend your plans or if the complaint is weak.

Your neighbour sounds like a NIMBY but it's not up to him to suggest alternatives

"Do I reply back and try and address some of his points or will I do more harm than good?"

It depends what his points are and how valid they are.

I've not seen your drawings, or read the policies referred to (if you want to PM me details of the application, I would be happy to do so), but trying to use a policy on 'managing development density' sounds like grasping at straws.

As I've said previously, there are standard methodologies available for calculating impact on daylighting, so as much as it's a pain in the backside (and an additional cost) for you, his arguments that you've not used them to demonstrate the acceptability of the proposal may have some validity... the easy answer there is to do the assessments he's asking for.