Extensions policy is biased against neighbouring homes
FOR some years now it has seemed to me that, with regard to planned extensions to existing houses in Charnwood, the planning system is biased against those living in neighbouring properties.
For instance, the only notification that the neighbours receive is a single letter giving the minimum possible information - no plans or anything in detail. You then find yourself having to spend your valuable time trying to find what’s going on.
The relevant council website, while not totally useless, could be a lot more helpful in this respect, especially for ‘amateur’ users.
This suspected ‘anti-neighbour’ bias was recently confirmed to me most vividly by the discovery that it’s official Government policy! Charnwood planning is now working to Document CS 25 ‘Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development’. This means that Charnwood planning is legally required to be biased in favour of any planned extensions or new-builds submitted to it.
How does this affect the ordinary person? It means that if you have a selfish neighbour who doesn’t care about blocking out your daylight, he can rely on Charnwood planning to quash any objections that you might make.
Whatever happened to the traditional British concept of fairness?
To be fair, there are planning issues under which you can present your objections, but if you examine them carefully these are just a pretence. For example:
1. Overbearing impact from development - If the planned extension is too big, you are entitled to object.
However, there are no specific written criteria, and so the final decision is Charnwood planning’s. As they have to be biased against you, your objection is pointless.
2. Loss of daylight/sunlight - Even in the 21st Century, Charnwood planning do no computer simulations or any other detailed calculations of how extensions will affect neighbours’ daylight. All they do is measure the horizontal angle from the back of your property to the back of the planned extension, and if it is less than 45 degrees it is okay. They don’t care if the height of the extension blocks out most of your current daylight and sunlight.
I think that this is a shockingly unfair way to operate.
I honestly don’t know where the Westminster politicians get their daft ideas from. I
t’s bound to result in a planning free-for-all for selfish and greedy people who don’t care about their neighbours. It will also create a number of official Houses of Multiple Occupation and similar, and there’s not a thing the neighbours will be able to do about it!
Incidentally, the word ‘ sustainable’ in the title is a typical politician’s ‘weasel world’ - it sounds good, but in reality is meaningless. A cynic would say that it means ‘whatever the applicant can get away with!’
Just a few years ago the politicians said that they would ‘streamline the planning system’ and ‘get rid of red tape’.
I now realise that what they really meant was ‘not give careful and fair consideration’ and ‘ignore the rights of ordinary people’.
Name and address supplied.