Deciding on your Grounds for Objecting.

So, you have just learned that a developer wants to pull down your neighbour’s home and build a block of flats? Maybe it’s something smaller but just as disturbing like your neighbour's plans for an extension. Whatever the situation the first thing you need to do is go and look at the Drawings that will have submitted along with the Planning Application. 

These are available for you to view at:

• BFBC Planning Department, Times Square, High Street, Bracknell. 

• On-line at BFBC Public Access for Planning <click here>

Many people think 'spoiled view' or 'reduction in property value', and 'noise, dirt and disturbance during construction', are among their best reasons for objecting.  WRONG!  In deciding whether to Approve or Refuse a Planning Application the Planning Officer cannot accept any of these reasons as valid planning objections, no matter how true they may be. This is the same throughout the UK and is not unique to Bracknell. 

Valid Objections

However, there are many valid objections that may well apply in your situation. Below we have compiled a listing of reasons given by BFBC Planning Department in REFUSING recent Planning Applications. Most applications are refused for only one or two reasons (not the whole list!).

Read below and consider the type of objections that may apply in your particular situation:

• The proposed development by reason of its size, depth, width, height and massing would have an unacceptably adverse impact on the amenities of the properties immediately adjacent to the site and the surrounding area by reason of overlooking, loss of privacy and visually overbearing impact.
  
  

• The site access proposals are not in accordance with acceptable standards and would lead to potential safety hazards.
  
  

• The proposals for internal circulation within the site are unacceptable and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicular movements thereby creating a safety hazard
  
  

• The proposed extension, by reason of its size and siting, would have an adverse impact on the scale and character of the dwelling.
  
  

• The proposed extension, by reason of it’s size and siting, represents and un-neighbourly form of development that would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties by reason of an overbearing effect.
  
  

• The proposed extension by reason of it’s siting, would result in an unacceptable loss of privacy, adversely affecting the amenities enjoyed by the occupier of the adjacent dwelling house.
  
  

• The proposed extension would be out of keeping with the design and character of a pair of semi-detached cottages.
  
  

• The proposed extension, by reason of it’s scale and bulk, would be out of keeping with the design and character of the existing dwelling, and would have an adverse effect on the visual amenity of the area as a whole.
  
  

• The proposal reduces the amount of legitimate car parking on the site to an unacceptable level.
  
  

• The proposal could lead to vehicles overhanging the adopted highway verge/road to the detriment of other road users.
  
  

• The proposed extensions, by reason of their size, siting and design would represent an unneighbourly form of development, detrimental to the amenities of the occupiers of adjoining residential property, particularly by reason of the overbearing effect.
  
  

• The site is located in a predominantly residential area where occupiers could reasonably expect a level of amenity concurrent with the property. The use of the property as a XXXXXXXXXX introduces a diverse element that by reason of the use is likely to result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbour’s residential amenity.
  
  

• The Layout and Siting, both in itself and relation to adjoining buildings, spaces and views, is inappropriate and unsympathetic to the appearance and character of the local environment.
  
  

• Insufficient parking space will adversely affect the amenity of surrounding properties through roadside parking on this narrow lane/busy junction etc.
  
  

• The mass, bulk and proximity of the rear elevation would present an overbearing and intrusive element to those neighbours at the rear of the property.
  
  

• The proposed parking for the development resulting in overspill parking in XXXX Road, on a bend in the road, which reduces the available road width to the detriment of road safety.
  
  

• In the light of available information and the representations from English Nature, the Local Planning Authority is unable to satisfy itself the proposal (in combination with other projects) would not have an adverse effect on the integrity of the Thames Basin Heaths special protection area. (NOTE: this can apply to larger developments and new blocks of flats in Binfield)
  
  

• The close proximity of a two storey house with the incorporation of the mature Oak trees into the garden area create a cramped building to tree relationship which is likely to place detrimental long term pruning pressures on both specimens arising from concerns by future occupants over issues including the size of the trees, safety and overshadowing.  Because the likely adverse effect would detract from the prominent visual quality of these trees the proposed development does not comply with Bracknell Forest Borough Local Plan policy EN1.
  
  

• The erection of a two-storey end of terrace house in advance of the building line of neighbouring properties is out of character with the layout of development in the area and thereby detrimental to residential amenities.
  
  

• The formation of an on-site hard standing area with a dropped cross over for six vehicles spaces is out of keeping with the established character of the surrounding area which mostly consists of traditional front gardens with grassed area.
  
  

• The proposal by reason of the overall floor area created and in the absence of any very special circumstances would lead to an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt, detrimental to its open, rural and undeveloped character.
  
  

• The proposal by reason of its siting would lead to a fragmented form of development along the frontage of XXXX Lane out of keeping with and detrimental to the character and appearance of the area and would be harmful to the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.
  
  

• The proposal represents an inappropriate form of development within the Green Belt and in the absence of any special circumstances would by its inappropriateness have a harmful impact on the open, rural and undeveloped character of the Green Belt.
  

Read below to find more.......

The above are recent examples of the reasons given by BFBC for refusing many different types of planning applications. You can use “Weekly Lists” on the BFBC Public Access for Planning web site to view all REFUSED Planning Applications. Go there and look for those Applications with a description similar to the application you are fighting, and then use “View Associated Documents” to find out the reasons BFBC have given for REFUSAL. The same reasons may well apply in your situation.

Click here to go to the BFBC Planning Website.

<CLICK to go BACK>

Binfield Village Protection Society © 2010