If I object to planning permission application do I risk neighbour selling to developer?

[pacific407]

Would be grateful for help from anyone that knows more than me about planning permission!

We have recently bought a house. There is a plot of land right at the bottom of our garden. The owner of that land has had planning permission turned down (including after appeal) to build a house on the plot. Reasons included limited access and proximity to nature reserve.

I’ve heard on the grapevine that they are thinking of reapplying. Apparently the owner has been putting other neighbours under pressure not to object as otherwise they’ll sell the plot to a developer.

Question is, if the owner gets knocked back for planning permission again, how likely is it that a developer will be interested in the plot? I’d be inclined to object to any new application but would think again if the alternative is a developer squeezing 4 houses onto the same spot!

Seems to me that a developer wouldn’t bother if 2x application for a single house refused. But perhaps they have their ways of pushing things through? Any thoughts gratefully received!

Was just coming on to say what Hovverry has already stated, so shall just echo instead

How is the land currently accessed? If the owner has a house that also backs on to it he very well could sell his own property as well as the plot, his house be demolished and access granted that way. Therefore it is not a straightforward no, because I suspect at present that option may not have been presented as a planning application.

The only angle I could think of was that some developers are happy to land bank plots (at the right price) which have previously been refused PP in the knowledge that strategic plans change.

Hovverry is right , people are often surprised by how very few actual grounds to refuse planning permission

It may also depend upon if your village has a quota of housing stock that needs to be filled .
The land owner may have put in planning that was unacceptable in the first instance ( sometimes a tactic used ) but a more modest planning submission and / or use of a good planning consultant could get different results

@TwittleBee are you Twittlebee the stolen woodland thread? Did you get your wood back???

Sorry for hijacking your thread OP 🙈

Haha yes @Perching that is me and the saga of trying to get the wood back is still going on

There are various policies you could look at here OP.

What does the local plan say about development? This would have been drawn up by the Parish Council. Some councils have done one but others haven’t bothered. If there is one, what does it say about housing development and back garden development? Have they identified areas for development and do they need/want social housing?

The planning policies for the wider area also need to be considered. The reasons given for planning rejection are key here. They will not be any different for a developer. By the way, some builders are also developers. Developing plots is no way limited to over 50 homes for “developers”. As if. Most village developments are smaller than this and plenty of small development companies are involved. They would develop 2 properties if it made £££!

There is also the very big question of access. DH works as a transport consultant to developers. Council Highway departments are very concerned about safety of all highway users. Unsafe access to a new property is a big issue and for 4 it’s a lot more traffic movements. So more properties is unlikely.

I am surprised about the nature reserve issue. I’m not heard of this in terms of restricting development on a garden plot. When you say it’s failed at appeal, what did the inspector say? It’s unlikely a developer or more houses will get anywhere.

It’s very wrong to suggest back handers too. My DH is a highly qualified consistent to Major house builders. The truth of the matter is that the big house builders get the best people to advise them. Often councillors are poor and object to developments that are in the local plan. If they agree to an application it has to meet the agreed policies but some are grey areas. A good consultant will make a difference. Overall local policies are what matters.

@SeasonFinale the owner used to own a house with a significant amount of land, including this particular plot, but sold everything except this random plot which I think he retained because he wanted to build his son a house on it.

@PresentingPercy Thank you so much for this, it's really helpful (and apologies for the delay in replying - I don't think I got the notification of the most recent responses to the thread).

So basically reasons for refusal were: a) access (a fairly narrow lane, with no real prospect of it being widened from what I can see, and slightly hidden from the perspective of the highway), b) local area already has sufficient housing stock for 5 years (I gather that's the relevant period when determining need, in this area at least) and c) nature reserve. More specifically, RSPB reserve. The railway line which runs along the plot at the bottom is basically the boundary of the reserve.

I'm not sure whether it can be termed a garden plot, as it is naturally separated from the relevant house by a footpath. The house just used to sit in a huge plot of land (tens of acres) and all of the land bar this rump that sits at the bottom of my garden has been sold off over the years.

I have a feeling a decent planning consultant might be able to appeal this. It depends on traffic reports though regarding the access. If it’s to one house, width doesn’t matter. Vision on exit does. That could be a sticking point. One more house with a railway line between it and a rspb site is an odd one! The housing stock one is rarely used for a single house. So no more single houses anywhere in the whole council area? I think that’s unlikely and not reasonable. I think a strong planning consultant could have a go at this.

Without knowing the details, it's difficult to say, but I suspect that the reasons for refusal relate more to a lack of information showing that the access can be used safely (transport reports are costly), and that the proposal will not be harmful to the nature reserve (possibly by way of including measures to make the plot more favourable to birds) (ecology reports are costly). A more experienced developer will have the knowledge necessary to employ the correct people, and the money.

The 5 year housing land supply will be there to show that the Council have no reason to approve housing proposals that do not meet their other policies.

If you want to post the actual wording for the refusal reasons, it might give a better idea of what the Council were objecting to.

Thr fact a single house isn’t permitted doesn’t mean four can’t be, because a developer will have much more money to Chuck at it, they can do many things, from moving the access point, either back or widening it, or further away, and they can do things to protect the nature reserve.

So I’d not assume it’s a total no go. Generally these guys know what they are doing

You cannot widen access if you don’t own either side of the access. Developments might want to purchase more land but neighbours might not agree! One car width for one house is no big deal. The vision at the exit onto the road might be.

A nature reserve with a railway next to it is already compromised. Any planning consultant would argue a single house makes no difference whatsoever. However if it’s AONB or there are other constraints this might restrict a new dwelling.