Gaye Powell - October '05
We could not agree more!! we live in Caradon cornwall and have been objecting (four times now) to a proposed 4 storey development less than 12.5 meters away facing our living room entrance and bedroom. our property is on a sloping site so the top floor of our house would be level with the basement - the result - 90% loss of sunlight, overbearing and overshadowing, loss of privacy - the planning officer has repeatedly stated that any effect upon us will be insignificant despite at least 14 planning reports in the past 18 months stating that distances of between 20-26 meters are required to prevent all these issues, national guidelines state that for sloping sites the minimum distance should 28meters!!!. why does it not apply to this one? each time the applicant has thought it would get turned down at district council (the last time following a site visit) it has been withdrawn and then some cosmetic changes to windows made and then resubmitted but same height and mass - we are facing the same thing again this month.

The Public Voice

"Planning decisions involving new developments are an immediate issue for my husband and me at the moment.  We have lived in Portstewart for 23 years.  Our house is a semi-detached thirties building looking directly across the golf course to the sea.  The people who own the adjoining semi plan to demolish it and erect two modern townhouses in its place. The Owners and are only resident at holiday times and occasional weekends.  They are not part of our local community.

My husband and I put together a very detailed letter of objection to the proposal, which we related directly to the most recent planning policy documents.  We believe we have a very clear case to back a planning refusal for this proposal.  Over twenty other local people wrote letters of objection.
On Monday we were horrified to hear that the local planning office was recommending approval for the proposal. The reason for not refusing the application is that a refusal would be overturned by Belfast.

As objectors we have no right of appeal, and the value of our home and the effect of this development are not planning issues.  We are extremely upset and frustrated that such a planning application could be passed, and it seems that we are absolutely powerless to do anything about it.
I have written to the divisional planning officer asking him to explain to me why our very valid objections, based on planning's own policy documents have not been sufficient to have this proposal refused.  My letter was referred back to one of the planners who made the original decision.  Where is the objectivity in this?  What on earth does the right to comment mean when objectors' views are not even considered?
Should this redevelopment of the adjoining semi take place it will open the way for every semi on this road to be similarly destroyed."

Mr and Mrs Glover

"Caught the radio programme this morning - fraid dont like your style way too tacky and sensational.  But nice to see apartments get a digging. yeah some nice stuff sure, but most apt developers get away with murder.  Hope you're gonna also get stuck into greenfield building aka SPRAWL - one serious problem and nobody says a word about it. crazy. the little guys do apartments but the big guys do sprawl, and we wouldn't wanna rub them up the wrong way sure would we??"

Tom

"I own a half acre site in a rural district near Millisle,County Down. Since 1976,I have tried on three occasions to obtain outline planning permission for this site. All applications and subsequent appeals were turned down on the grounds that no ribbon development or isolated dwellings were allowed in the countryside.
Less than half a mile along the same road are numerous dwellings which add to ribbon development or which are isolated dwellings. Indeed an adjoining site was given permission shortly after my last application was turned down.I just cannot understand what can explain this inequality."

Mary Bamberry

"Dear Sirs,
Re: Room with a View programme Thursday 5th September.
Stephen Nolan's interviews with the two Divisional Planning Managers during Thursday's programme confirmed what many Local Residents' Groups like my own in Greenisland have long felt about some of Northern Ireland's Planners ­­- that they do not follow the policies set out in the Planning Service's own documents. Sometimes one wonders if they have even read them.

To take the Ballygalley shop example. This has been a successful commercial site for 80 years; it provides local employment and fulfils all the criteria of "shared places" accessible to all members of the community, and a "focal point" as listed under the headings of "fostering community cohesion" and "fostering community interaction" in Paragraphs SRC 3.1 and 3.2 of the current Regional Development Strategy for Northern Ireland 2025.

This document, the highest in the planning policy hierarchy, commits Planning Service to foster such patterns of development and focal points, not to eliminate them.
However it sounded as if the Ballymena Planners have no objection to the site's change of use from commercial into residential, apart perhaps from the height of the proposed new block.
If I, living in a residential area, wanted to turn my front room into a commercial chippie I wonder would the Planners be so obliging on the change of use?

Then the Coleraine Divisional Manager trying to justify the extended 4-storey terrace he agreed to at Cushendun, by saying that we would all get used to it in time and might even come round to liking it, completely missed the point.
There are at least two Planning Policy Statements, PPS 6 on Planning, Archaeology and the Built Heritage, and PPS 7 on Quality Residential Developments, both of which go on at very great length about the need for new developments to be sympathetic in scale, proportions etc with any existing adjacent buildings. Even the most basic Planning Policy Statement of the lot, PPS 1 on General Principles, has something to say in its Paragraph 19, viz: 'The Department will reject poor designs .... for example those clearly out of scale or incompatible with their surroundings.'

How could any 4-storey terrace, however beautiful, qualify as being in scale with closely adjacent 2-storey buildings anywhere, let alone in a conservation area?
And did the Coleraine Divisional Planners also agree to the monster advertisement hoarding at its approach, in defiance of PPS 7 Policy BH13, on the Control of Advertisements in a Conservation Area, which specifically excludes large ones?

Robin Cameron