Jump to content

Bobba
 Share

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, eddoakley said:

What about the people who bought there just because they felt strongly about liveried vehicles or commercial vehicles? Do their opinions not matter because someone's situation changed? Should they just have to accept that the reason they bought their house is now dismissed because a neighbour got a new job?

A bit like buying a house near a farm and then complaining about the animal smells and noises or that people shoot there. That was there before the new person moved there so accept it. The rules about vehicles (or in the OP's case planning) were already in place and apply to everyone. Why do you think some people should just be allowed to ignore them?

False equivalence.   The no liveried vehicles thing in new builds is invariably there to increase the perceived kerb-appeal by the house builder.  Very rarely enforced and a problem very few people actually complain about.  I suggest the people complaining in @grrclark 's neighbourhood are the type of people who would complain about the number of Sundays in the month, rather than actually having a genuine problem with it. 

As for people moving next door to a farm, well, all I can do is paraphrase Ron White, "You'd better make sure you marry someone intelligent, because ugly can be fixed, but you can't fix stupid"

Neither of the 2 examples you cite have anything to do with the planning process.

Anyway, I think the OP gave the impression of being rather more confrontational than he actually was.  But still, unless I've mis-read this situation completely, nothing a trellis/fence panel or 2 wouldn't fix, surely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, mel b3 said:

Purely out of curiosity,  what can anyone do about a works van or caravan parked on your own drive ?, even if it says in the deeds that you can't do it ?.

Not a clue in truth and I suspect not much unless someone wishes to pursue it through a civil court.

1 hour ago, eddoakley said:

I'd look at this differently.

If you buy a house that has clauses/covenants outlining things that you can and can't do then why should you be allowed to do those things? 

What about the people who bought there just because they felt strongly about liveried vehicles or commercial vehicles? Do their opinions not matter because someone's situation changed? Should they just have to accept that the reason they bought their house is now dismissed because a neighbour got a new job?

A bit like buying a house near a farm and then complaining about the animal smells and noises or that people shoot there. That was there before the new person moved there so accept it. The rules about vehicles (or in the OP's case planning) were already in place and apply to everyone. Why do you think some people should just be allowed to ignore them?

Where does it stop if the deck/patio in this case is allowed to go ahead unchecked? 

Extension? New drive? Loft conversion? Extra storey added to the house? Another house built in the garden?

The rules are there for everybody. Sometimes they are a PITA but they protect everyone in the long run.

 

Edd

Your points are fair, but i think it is easy to get caught up in the extremes of an argument.

In the case of the OP and from his description of the layout it seems to me the the neighbours elevated deck is elevated on the far side of where the two properties join as the hill slopes downhill from the OP.  The actual height of the deck is at the same level as the OPs patio.  The OPs complaint was about preserving the "sanctuary of their patio" and someone looking into their garden.  I don't think that someone being able to use their garden at the same level as their semi-detahced neighbours garden is unreasonable in any way.

If my reading of the OPs description is wrong and they are building an elevated platform that is considerably higher than the OPs garden then that is a different thing.

In the example I gave of some of my precious neighbours it is worth putting into context.  For some of the people who ended up with liveried/comercial vehicles they had lived there from the time the houses were built, their circumstance changed and they ended up with, in one case a car festooned with lurid green logos of SSE, and two other households had transit vans.  It wasn't new people moving in and deciding to disrupt the sanctity of the street by running a haulage yard, it was the normal ups and down of life that happen to everyone.

The disappointment for me was how some people are particularly unappreciative of real life and went out their way to be disruptive and went out their way to try and sabotage planning permission by objecting out of spite.  In one example one of the neighbours was going door to door to get people to sign a letter of complaint about the neighbour opposite them building a sunroom at the back of their property.  They couldn't even see the sunroom, but they saw the notice in the paper and tried to petition other people to complain and stop the build, the reason for that was because one of the kids in the house opposite got a job that came with a van and he had the temerity to park it in his own driveway.

I do get that we need rules to prevent abuse, however I also think it is encumbent on all of us to have a degree of flexibility and understanding towards others.  People also try to abuse the rules to suit their own selfish interest, as in the case of my example above, and that is wrong too.

I'll go back to where i started off with my first comment on the thread, I think it is disappointing that the starting position people have is what can i do to stop someone else.

Live and let live within the bounds of being reasonable.

1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said:

False equivalence.   The no liveried vehicles thing in new builds is invariably there to increase the perceived kerb-appeal by the house builder.  Very rarely enforced and a problem very few people actually complain about.  I suggest the people complaining in @grrclark 's neighbourhood are the type of people who would complain about the number of Sundays in the month, rather than actually having a genuine problem with it.   Yep, typical nimbyism and sadly they exist everywhere.

As for people moving next door to a farm, well, all I can do is paraphrase Ron White, "You'd better make sure you marry someone intelligent, because ugly can be fixed, but you can't fix stupid"

Neither of the 2 examples you cite have anything to do with the planning process.

Anyway, I think the OP gave the impression of being rather more confrontational than he actually was.  But still, unless I've mis-read this situation completely, nothing a trellis/fence panel or 2 wouldn't fix, surely? Agreed, a quick courteous conversation and if you are particularly precious about someone seeing into your garden stick up your own trellis.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mel b3 said:

Purely out of curiosity,  what can anyone do about a works van or caravan parked on your own drive ?, even if it says in the deeds that you can't do it ?.

I don't think I have ever heard of anyone enforcing a covenant, they are usually put on by the original builder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, harrycatcat1 said:

I don't think I have ever heard of anyone enforcing a covenant, they are usually put on by the original builder.

I bought a new build in 2005 that had been built where a 1960’s house originally stood and before that houses going back years. All of the original covenants were still in place going back to the early 1900’s restricting us from stabling horses or keeping pigs. Considering it was in the centre of a town I had no intention of either! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, udderlyoffroad said:

Anyway, I think the OP gave the impression of being rather more confrontational than he actually was.  But still, unless I've mis-read this situation completely, nothing a trellis/fence panel or 2 wouldn't fix, surely?

This is the bit I'm stuck on. From the sounds of it the boundary fence is significantly shorter than the standard 1.8. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 22/07/2020 at 16:33, MirokuMK70 said:

If the boundary is the legally the op's - put up a new fence to prevent overlooking. If the boundary is your neighbours ask them to do it as a condition of you not opposing the plan. If they won't, put up your own fence an inch your side of the boundary line.

Not forgetting you need planning permission to put up a fence over 2 metres high.

An amicable solution is always the best - a little bit of give and take because you've got to get on with your neighbours or you'll soon be looking to move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...