Getting round the law

Posts: 1547
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2011 5:15 pm

Re: Getting round the law

Post by jonahinoz » Sun Oct 18, 2015 12:50 pm

It goes back to the argument over a right to a view. If you really want that view then you must own it....


That has long puzzled me ...

Nobody has a right to have a view ... but planning applications are refused due to "Loss of amenity" , where that amenity has been a view.


Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:41 pm

Re: Getting round the law

Post by jcpreston22 » Mon Nov 09, 2015 11:48 am


This thread looks like the right place for me to be. I find myself in a similar situation and wonder if anyone could advise me or refer me to an expert in this area?

I have had tall trees at the bottom of my garden screening an unsightly office building for 30 years. In 2009 a developer was given planning permission to build 14 houses in its place, one abutting my boundary. The houses are now sold and the new owner has objected to the height of the trees under the high hedges act and the council have served notice of an ASBO on me. The Council is now deciding if they will make me remove them. Removal of the screening will make my garden visible to 3 of the new homes and I will be able to see 7 of the new homes from my patio. What can I do?????

The following text is from the letter is sent to the council putting my side of the case. I have redacted personal information. My neighbour has also written.
I am writing regarding your letter dated 10th September, 2015. I am disappointed that the Council is acting on this complaint given the circumstances concerning the trees at the boundary of my property. I believe that if the Council upholds this complaint I will not be able to continue to reasonably enjoy my property and I will suffer a loss of amenity resulting in financial loss.

For background, my wife and I are retired now, the children have left home and we have downsized and live at the address above. We still own the property and have rented it out to supplement our income.

I am sure you know that ****** built a high density development of fourteen houses in the place where ************ and its surrounding car parks once stood. We bought ***************** as our family home in 1993 and the four trees in question were there and in excess of 8 metres at that time. The trees were planted strategically to screen the view of ****** from our property, which is on three levels rising up, going westwards towards *****, and in an elevated position in relation to the recently built property at *********. The privacy of our garden is one of the most attractive features and the view from our rear facing windows and rear patio is currently protected by these trees. Without the trees we have a clear view from our patio of the houses on ******* and *********which is in an elevated position and each of these properties would have a clear view of our patio, conservatory and rear elevation as well as *********.

When *********** made their planning application, we indeed felt fortunate that our trees provided this screening for without them our house is in sight from 4 gardens, at least 6 windows and 4 houses in the ****** development and of course our views would be significantly impacted. Without these trees, I believe the value of our property will be reduced. It is a matter of record that objections were raised to the planning application at the time by us and our neighbours as to the height, density, proximity and boundary screening of the proposed properties, including specifically, *********** at our boundary. In fact, the houses are 3 stories high and ground levels were set down to accommodate the planning height restrictions. I refer to objections raised to planning application ***** by myself on 19/1/12, ******** in emails to ****** dated 8/3/12, 9/3/12. We were led to believe that the planning proposal made was within the planning guidelines so we had no option but to accept the planning permission given. We have made the best of the situation since then. These four trees have significantly mitigated the impact of the development.

When I was approached by ***in May I was surprised by what he said. Amongst other things he said he worked for ***** and because ***** wasn’t selling he had bought it with discount from his employer in October 2013. My view is that It may have been less desirable than than the other homes in the development because of the small north facing garden and the proximity to our boundary on the west side and our neighbours boundary, on the north side resulting in the “hemmed in feeling” and lack of light in the garden and house. *** has subsequently recently been granted planning permission for a side extension for the kitchen and a rear extension taking more space in the garden presumably creating more shade. He does seem to be relying on the Council ruling in his favour on this complaint to raise the value of his house which I am sure will be at the expense of mine.

I would like to emphasise the following key points:

Our trees were in situ when ***** bought the property in October 2013. They provide privacy for us in our house and garden and for our neighbours at ****** - not just from ***** house but from the other three adjoining properties and the residence on *****.
**** property has a small garden which is north facing, is in a low lying position and surrounded on three sides by high fencing, on one side by the retaining system designed and installed by Berkeley Homes, and of course trees in the neighbouring gardens including ours. I think this is why the garden seems “hemmed in”. The house was bought by *** with full knowledge of this situation. You will also notice there are houses blocking light and sun on the east, south and west sides at different times throughout the day which naturally is made worse in the winter months.
The government calculator does not take the various levels and these existing obstacles into account. I have constructed a model of the site in software and modelled shadows at different times of the day and months through the year and the 2.5 meter fence alone provides significant shade in the early afternoon. Earlier in the day **** provides shade. Later in the day ***** restrict the sun. In short I don’t think the light and sun is made significantly worse by the trees and would not be improved by cutting them back i,e, the trees do not make the problem worse most of the time.
We did not object as vigorously as we might have at the time of the ********* planning application specifically because the trees, our screening, was in place.******* takes away at least as much light from our garden in the morning as our trees do in the afternoon.
I am also concerned that while the extensions are being built at ** the build will be in the root protection zone of my trees which may result in damage to the root system of the trees. This risks were raised at the time of the planning application. This has happened to my neighbours trees at ***** which forced them to remove them.

If the LA rules against me I will definitely appeal but I feel the case would be made better by a solicitor. Opinions???? How would I take it out of the Planning Authority hands and turn it into a Civil Matter for the courts???

Any advice will be appreciated


Posts: 6580
Joined: Sun Dec 09, 2012 11:13 pm
Number of Posts per Page: 100
Number of topics per page: 50

Re: Getting round the law

Post by MacadamB53 » Mon Nov 09, 2015 1:03 pm

Hi John,

This thread looks like the right place for me to be.

only if you're going to contribute for the benefit of the Original Poster, otherwise you're hikacking their thread for your own ends.

after reading your message it is obvious you need to start your own thread...

Kind regards, Mac

Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 4:41 pm

Re: Getting round the law

Post by jcpreston22 » Mon Nov 09, 2015 3:16 pm

Sorry ok

Post Reply