Objection Letter to The Council Bodies

Below are some references marked to pertinent law suits regarding planning that are being determined in the Court of Appeal and High Court on such correspondent problematic concerns of the applicant's petition. Following are such specific objections-

Objections related to amenity space might occur in this case and it may also impact the design capacity of the bungalow. However, there is already loss of open space in the bungalow; hence this is a major privacy issue for the party. At the same time, no space will be left for managing other activities such as parking, gardening and etc. Apparently, the first floor and second floor will be having different windows which could also bring issues related to lighting and shading. Hence, it can be said that new windows in the building can affect many things of the neighbour’s house.

The direction of sunlight keeps on changing; hence this is a major factor for the neighbour to object. For every house, it is crucial to have appropriate provision for sunlight and neighbours have to consider the same (Zampas and Andión-Ibañez, 2012). Thus, objection could be raised on the basis of proper arrangement of facilities; therefore, these are the prime factors that are essential to consider in this case. Proper spacing between both the houses is vital as that can aid in making the premises more spacious and ventilated. Direction and size of window also matters in this case; hence opposite is required to get all sort of information in the same area. There should not be small gap between both the houses as that may damage the space of the house.

In addition to the same, safety assessment is also required to be conducted and accordingly proper spacing must be given if residents want to walk in the house. This is crucial for the purpose of ascertaining how much gap exists in the house. Proper space is crucial to give in the house premises and that should be held with suitable safety and security measures. However, walking on stories has become unsafe and it is also dangerous for pedestrians to walk down in that pathway. It is also observed that no front garden is shown in the proposed house elevation; therefore, it may change the way of wind. Alongside, speed of wind may also get changed accordingly which could affect the party. The three story building also shows unspecific height; therefore, it directly impacts the privacy aspects.

Moreover, in the architecture, it is also analysed that a flimsy wooden fence is proposed with unspecific height and at the same time, it can also impact the existing property of the bungalow. Therefore, proper permission is also required to be acquired from Household Planning Authority (Bazelon, 2011). Thus, the place should not be dominating over others immediate neighbour can also claim for several rights and obligations. Along with the same, there should not be large unprecedented space for window and other areas as that may affect the front side of the property. Moreover, in this context it can be said that proper space is required to be given to window elevation so that door, ground and other areas can be suitably managed. Hence, all such provisions ought to be considered while taking any decision on the case.

Furthermore, below exist some structured objections, referred as-

Policy Interpretation Objection

This is on considering the applicant's proposal for the removal of a precious bungalow property and its conversion into a three storey building that is apparent to make tremendous changes in its existing structure by equally affecting the nearby buildings that includes the objector's residence as well. It is mainly due to an adjoining wall between the houses of both the applicant and the protester whose demolition is proven to destroy the residence of the objector to a great extent (Dunn, 2015). Apart from this, this will also make a drastic change onto the character of the entire street by duly changing the originality of the existent construction of the properties located at that landscape. It is basically due to a completely altered vicinity that will directly hinder into the comfort zone of the people located in that area from a long term period due to a totally transformed structure. This involved a significant existence of elderly people who are residing in this bungalow from a quite long period with comfortable amenities nearby them. It has therefore resulted in the creation of yet another concerning agenda of securing the old age people who are no more able to climb up the staircases such as in the present case of the applicant who is planning to convert the traditional bungalow into a 3 storey building (Lewis, 2015). This is evident to destroy the precious home of the old age people. It is a disgraceful attempt where the applicant has hereby presented some of his personal issues behind doing so. However, this is on considering the fact, it has been found that it was previously predictable by both the applicant and his spouse that in future they will be planning for kids and for which, extra space will be required.

With that respect, they have taken the decision of purchasing this bungalow in adjacent to the house of the objector who is equally proven to get affected from the decision of its conversion into a 3 storey building. It is therefore advisable to the applicant to refer to an easier route where he may consider selling the bungalow and instead buy a 3 storey building in a well-known area named Willen where it will be easily accessible under a reasonable price structure. This will in turn result into certain agreeable outcomes where no destruction of an existing uncommon bungalow will take place with no wastage of council's valuable resources and no disturbance to the close neighbours who are tremendously upset from the proposed plan of the applicant. It is with a major protest from the immediate neighbour named Maniam objecting this whole idea which is proven to impact on the quality of their personal lives.

It is on referring to a factual case of Tesco Stores v Dundee City Council [2012] that relied on such similar matter. In this particular case, the Court hereby decided the significance of the term policy which is a sole consideration of the Court and is being consulted for understanding the base of logicality.

This is together on considering the case of R (on the application of TW Logistics) v Tendering District Council and Anglia Maltings (Holdings) Ltd [2013] Inter-Environment Bruxelles et al v Region de Bruxelles-Capitale that also relied upon the scope of SEA (Mason and Stephenson, 2015). The objector hereby chosen to favour yet another factual case of Heard v Broadland DC, South Norfolk DC & Norwich City Council [2012] linked to the determinations of above two lawsuits. It however reflected a prior involvement of LPA where in case it approves the projected plan of the applicant, it will be a prime responsibility of the LPA to consider any alternative measure in support of the protester with some valid objection against total reconstruct or extension.

It will be created on considering the projections outlined in the planning proposed by the applicant where in the present case, the applicant has duly referred to rebuild a 3 storey building to entirely convert the bungalow in requirement of extended area in the future. However, the objector has hereby claimed the applicant to present a dubious reason for the same where there were many spacious bungalows available nearby that area when the applicant chooses to buy a small house. It is now seemed to be a complete unnecessary plan where the applicant is having a larger garden area in comparison to others residing in that similar area.

He is now intending to cover that by enlarging the building for his own personal gain that will in turn result in creating various problematic concern for the immediate neighbours. The LPA is hereby required to consider either of the two situations (Knapp, Crystal and Prince, 2016). Wherein, this change will either result in a major loss to the old age people where they will be losing a low budget bungalow ideal for their use and fulfils the special needs of disabled residents or the personal gain of the applicant. Wherein, he is intending to do so for his own personal financial benefit and use half of the portion of the newly constructed house for his own business purpose.

Whereas, on the approval of second situation, it is proven to cause severe environmental pollution due to such heavy traffic for the delivery and pick up of van and trucks because of such tiny residential area with petite streets. The objector has thereby made some valid charges against the applicant where it is thereby referred to be a contradictory plan for the development which will in turn result in the loss of a property which is extremely valuable for the needy people. Also, this will reflect a violated decision of Bruxelles where it will be along with some significant fiscal results for the Milton Keynes Council.

Also, the applicant is getting full support of the concerned officials who are responsible to pass the proposed plan of development and on whose basis, the applicant has been permitted for 3 continual revisions in his projected design that in turn deferred the entire matter of decision (Hazard, Hodes and Jarvis, 2014). However, it was required to be done within a reasonable time period where the objector named Maniam is herself a pensioner where she is fully entitled to decide the whole matter on time with no requisition of objecting 3 times where the applicant all the time gets permission to make further changes in his proposed application of planning.

On considering this situation, it reflects a clear infringement to the human rights and equal rights of the objector where the applicant is all the time allowed to make accordant changes as per the objected clauses rather than concluding the case with a final decision. This can be further interpreted by relating to some factual lawsuits as mentioned below-

Firstly, it is the case of Moore and others v Secretary of State for communities and local government (2015) that held in the year 2015 in the month of January that duly concerned with the legality of the approach taken up by the State's Secretary. This was mainly in regard to retrieve the appeals for planning for gypsy and traveller pitches. However, it was found that the practices undertaken by the State's Secretary for the recovery of the appeals made related to the pitches for caravans in the Green Belt as per his sole determination. It was duly challenged for indirectly discriminating with the ethical communities that in turn deferred their appeals.

Herein, the claimants got successful in challenging the State's Secretary by duly amounting him to make use of lawless practice by making indirect discrimination with the ethnic group that could result in making an adverse effect on them. This is where the State's Secretary has together accepted to get unsuccessful in applying coherent practice that could lead to a correspondent attainment of a legitimate objective (Downie, McLeod and Shaw, 2013). Also, the State's secretary failed to succeed into the discharge of his obligation under section number 149 in accordance to the Equality Act 2010 that accounts with the Public Sector Equality Duty which is procedural in nature. On whose basis, it was important for the State's Secretary to consider eliminating the existence of any sort of partiality and promoting equal number of opportunities.

This is to fortify considerable relationships among the persons who are known to share fortified features along with those who do not. It was not to profess the process of recovering a policy as a prohibited consideration but to explicate the relevancy of the duties of the administrative bodies to meet out and are set in conformity to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Equality Act 2010. Beside this, there together existed yet another successful attempt of the claimant were they were correct in challenging the undertaken decisions of the State's secretary under the artile 6 of ECHR where delayed decision in the appeals is referred to be an unnecessary and unwarranted approach. In contrast to which, making timely determinations within a reasonable time period is a must for the council bodies.

Sustainable development objection

It is in context to the letter dated 4th June 2017 by Campbell Parish Council that has made yet another major mistake of not consulting the immediate neighbour of the applicant who is proven to get stuck by the acceptance of the said planning application (Pearce, Barbier and Markandya, 2013). Wherein, the applicant's proposed plan has been declared to have the scope of sustainable development. This illustrated the failure of Parish Council in verifying the protest against the projected plan of the applicant for the demolition of the bungalow and its conversion into a three storey building. It is due to the lack of any supportive information in collaboration to the undertaken decision with no further statement to the contiguous neighbour objecting this whole idea.

It is yet again observed that the applicant with a partial approval towards the proposed plan has later recommended to make certain changes to correspond with the objections made by the immediate neighbour. This yet again delayed the entire decision of this case where the objector is again and again required to submit objection letter to express various related concerns that could create several issues on the approval of the proposed plan of the applicant (Bailliet, 2010). On considering the same, Campbell Parish Council has hereby enlightened the raised issues of the objector by suggesting the applicant to make such changes that do not lead to create any accusative clauses against the approval of the proposed planning application.

However, it is hereby referred to be yet another objective clause that did not led to resolve the raised concern of the objector and instead resulted in postponing the final decision required to be taken up for its closure. Also, in terms of sustainability, the applicant's planning shows some inconsiderate clauses that do not satisfy with that to the actual terms of sustainability and thus denies the tact of development. It is mainly on referring to some factual terms of sustainability that demands for the diminution of carbon emissions where the dwelling procedure is required to be done using incarnate sources of energy for constructing original footings, walls, floor and roof tiles, etc.

Beside this, the applicant has also specified the use of timber for building new walls that is apparent to destruct the adjoining wall of the immediate neighbour objecting this idea. Beside this, the projected process of dwelling is required to use triple gazing measures using insulated frames for the purpose of exceeding the building (Nieminen, 2015). However, this will yet again lead to certain atrocious consequences such as highly insulated walls and a close air tight sheet with automatically aired unit for the purpose of recovering heat. All these proposed norms are apparent to destruct the privacy of the immediate neighbour by together affecting their ventilated areas in a terrible way.

Apart from this, the applicant has also proposed the idea of spacing to set a plant room nearby the MVHR unit that is also referred to be a pre planning for the future to add a photo voltaic inverter and deep cycle battery. Also, rain water harvesting is also considered in the list of sustainable development of the projected structure where it will be done from the drive away surface and the roof with the help of a procedural approach. This will involve the process of garden irrigation for soaking the overflow as a way of reducing the effect of local flood by together lessening down an excessive use of water that merely results in its wastage.

Herein, all above proposals are duly claimed by the objector where the targeted area chosen for the purpose of development is extremely short to abide by the proposed plans of development. This will however result in suctioning the space available in that area by together impacting on the comfort level of others by largely influencing the close neighbours (MacCormick and Weinberger, 2013). Also, the applicant is charged to plan such development for his own financial benefit that will not lead to the betterment of the community people and will alternatively destroy their personal lives. This can be proved by referring to some other involved clauses in the proposed letter of the applicant with a clear specification of the existing edifice which is already being used as a business office for the purpose of encouraging the tact of working from home. It has together specified the existing use of garage that provides storage space for bicycles, etc., where both these aforesaid clauses are largely claimed by the objector due to no authenticity to the actual premises.

It is firstly on considering the damaging prospects on the residential conveniences where the local plan policy entitled as D1 to impact upon the proposed development on the locality where the planning approval can be rejected due to an additional generation of traffics. This will in turn overburden the existent road link by causing unreasonable disruption and noise pollution, etc., that states several other problematic concerns that included lacking drainage and deficient access to the movement of vehicle, etc. Additionally, this will also result in causing physical impairment to the neighboring sites and property by together creating an exceptionable pollution in different forms.

Also, there existed another local plan policy entitled as D2 referring to the design of buildings where it is together apparent to result into several number of issues by detracting the feature of the original edifice. It is also in context to some statements that are itself remarked by the applicant with a clear mentioning about reducing the 6 car parking space to 4 where it is again referred to be a falsifying statement (Finnis, 2011). It is mainly due to the existent design of parking in the applicant's present bungalow where his garden area is already blocked with excessive number of vehicles that is creating additional generation of traffic in that area paved with little space. Moreover, the planning application is together composed of several other faulty and deceptive proposals where the indicated plan is completely different from the current state of the building and whose conversion is apparent to create some significant issues for the immediate neighbour objecting the whole program. This is due to the most falsified indicant of the applicant's design that failed to show the attached exterior wall with that to Maniam's house.

This is on considering a factual instance of Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd v. East Northants DC, English Heritage and National Trust (2014) in which the decision undertaken by the Court of Appeal was in favour of Barnwell Manor. Herein, the judicature processed the special requirement of the decision-makers where they are hereby required to meet out some specific clauses under s66 of 1990's enactment. In this case, the officer recovered certain less significant damage to the setting of the assets.

Human Rights Objection

It is yet another rightful objection on behalf of Ms Maniam where this projection will directly lead to the devastation of her privacy where she is presently residing into a two bed storey house. It is half attached from the top subdivision and thus offers a highly valuable seclusion to her (Harris, O'Boyle, Bates and Buckley, 2014). It is also with reference to a garden at the backmost portion of the house that will be also destructed after the implementation of the above proposed plan. Also, there will be a prompt existence of visual invasion due to overshadowing and absence of natural light which in turn is evident to make a terrible impact on her accepted standards of living.

This is especially on referring to the Human Rights Act 1998 where it is defined to be an illegitimate act for any public body to agree in contradiction to the European Convention on Human Rights. However, the objector in such case is duly allowed to seek the assistance of “declaration of incompatibility” or a “ruling of the European Court of Human Rights” (Rainey, Wicks and Ovey, 2014). This is simply with respect to abide by the judgement made by LPA with that to the human right duties of the province by avoiding any conflict to the “Convention rights” of the objector. In case, the objector has profaned this clause, any Judicature is authorized to take liable set of decisions in favour of the objector where the objector then has the right of getting paid for the damages after suing the Planning Applicant or the LPA and Administrative unit for the same.

It is also in context to the privacy rights of the objector whose breach is rightfully prohibited under the aforesaid enactment where this right to privacy is declared under Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948 which is also known as United Nations Convention (Shelton, 2015). In whose accordance, none of the individual is subjected to any such arbitrary intervention that hinders into the privacy of their own or their family members and where each one of them has a prior right to the protection of the law at the time of dealing with any such affliction on their honour.

Scaling Objection

This is on highlighting some measurable issues to the objector after the approval of applicant's proposed plan where the front expansion for the enlargement of the ground floor will yet again influence the privacy and living conditions of Ms Maniam. Wherein, it will directly lead to create several parking related issues by together increasing the noise pollution where already the parking space is at an atrocious state with limited or almost no area for the movement of vehicles (Bettencourt, 2013). Also, the exterior wall of the immediate neighbor objecting this projection is apparent to destroy by creating a new security risk where this will result in providing a hiding area to the criminals. This is turn is apparent to obstruct the safe and secured amenities of all local residents living there.

It is on considering a factual case of Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) (England) Order 2006 where the objectors won the case and the decision was taken in favour of them. It is where in this particular case, the applicant got failed to discuss the parametric levels of development with that to the surrounding bodies who were apparent to get affected from the projected plan (Svetiev, 2015). On considering the present case scenario, it reflected a correspondent case like above where a prior negligence of the Applicant existed to discuss upon the scale of development with that to the adjoining neighbour and make accordant plans. However, it was important to consult the close neighbour who objected the entire planning application and its approval from other associated bodies and will be directly affected from the demolition of the building and creation of a new three storey cottage house.

Conclusion

All above findings have clearly represented an objectionable approval of the planning application where the objector has hereby presented some strong objection against the proposed plan of the applicant that has been approved by almost all relative council members. This has been together referred to be an unfavourable act by the authorised parties where they have hereby reflected a biased approach towards approval of the projected application plan. It is with a clear reflection of certain personal benefits to the applicant by disregarding the atrocious consequences of the proposed measures which is proven to destroy the survival of the close neighbours without influencing much to others who have then favoured the plan.

It is in regard to demolish the applicant's bungalow so as to convert it into a 2 storey building that will lead to the destruction of the objector's attached resident as well. Despite of this, the appointed officials of the administrative unit are sanctioning the projected plan of the applicant that disrespects the objector's claim that are valid in terms of his presented assertions. It is therefore important for the council bodies to make a close scrutinization of the fact where the ultimate decision must be in the favour of both the applicant and the objector. It means that there must be no personal benefit to either of the parties where on referring to the present situation, the acknowledged case is solely benefiting the applicant by directly harming the objector to a great extent. This in turn reflected the breach of Human rights and Equality act 2010 by those who are directly in charge of it.

References

• Bailliet, C. M., 2010. Constitutional Underpinnings for Conscientious Objection in Allegiance to International Public Law Norms Pertaining To War. In The New International Law (pp. 221-240). Brill.
• Bazelon, L. A., 2011. Hard lessons: the role of law schools in addressing prosecutorial misconduct. Berkeley J. Crim. L., 16, p.391.
• Bettencourt, L.M., 2013. The origins of scaling in cities. Science. 340(6139). pp.1438-1441.
• Downie, J., McLeod, C. and Shaw, J., 2013. Moving forward with a clear conscience: a model conscientious objection policy for Canadian Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons. Health Law Review, 21(3), p.29.
• Dunn, W.N., 2015. Public policy analysis. Routledge.
• Finnis, J., 2011. Natural law and natural rights. Oxford University Press.
• Harris, D., O'Boyle, M., Bates, E. and Buckley, C., 2014. Harris, O'Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European convention on human rights. Oxford University Press, USA.
• Hazard, G. C., Hodes, W. W. and Jarvis, P. R., 2014. Law of Lawyering. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• Knapp, C. L., Crystal, N. M. and Prince, H. G., 2016. Problems in Contract Law: cases and materials. Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
• Lewis, A., 2015. The invalidity of a taxpayer's objection: tax law. De Rebus, 2015(557), pp.52-53.

UPTO50%

Avail The Benefit Today!

To View this & another 50000+ free

Enter Email

Submit