Online Representation

Personal Details:  Please Note the Council Publishes the Name and Address of all people who comment on a Planning Application. 

Forename: Emma
Surname: Coyne
Address: 129b Papplewick Lane, Hucknall, NG15 8BG

Opinion:

Overview View: OBJECT

Comment:

Comment:I object to the application for the following reasons. 

We have further evidence shall you require any substantiation to assist with resolving this matter. 

Raised levels - 
1.	The boundary wall dividing my plot and the plot within the application, was damaged during the development, impacting the integrity of said wall with multiple cracks and scrapes. This is not a retaining wall and was not designed, nor constructed to retain any increases in levels that will impact loading onto it via additional material, or by drainage issues caused by increasing levels elsewhere in the plot. 

2.	The raising of the existing natural levels could impede the privacy of my property – introducing privacy issues via the windows in my home and when My son and I use my garden. I should be allowed to enjoy the privacy that came with the original levels - this was not part of the original planning, hence raising this as an issue on this application. 

3.	During the fence installation, the developer managed to fill weep holes installed in the boundary wall with concrete (post Crete) and so any drainage issues caused by raising ground levels and making surface water ‘flow towards the wall’ would be compounded by the blocked weep holes. 

4.	I would like to propose an independent survey of the levels, which we will happily arrange and pay for to assist all parties with resolving this issue. To clarify, this survey would be to illustrate that the original approved levels have been adhered to. 

5.	Please note, the above was raised with the developer and the planning department in the first instance in a bid to resolve the issues before becoming a reality. 

Fence – 

1.	The fences that have been installed are not specified on any planning application. It is our understanding that the fence is taller than is permitted - this can be measured from my property and access will be granted to any parties wishing to measure. 

2.	Due to the fences protruding above the boundary wall, the fences are an eye sore from my property, with ugly geo tec material flapping around. My son has commented that the newly introduced visible fence is providing a feeling of “being enclosed similar to a prison.”  

3.	Due to the fences protruding above the boundary wall, they are reducing my natural light into my home, via windows and reducing the sun and light in the patio/garden. 

4.	It is noted that the fences were not installed in accordance with the Party Wall act 1996 – for the avoidance of doubt, I was not consulted regarding the work to be installed on the party wall –I refer to my boundary wall that I had built and was in situ before the development at 131 commenced. Because In order for the developer to install the fence within such proximity, the developer removed sections of the foundation of my wall to install the fence posts – by means of a hydraulic breaker.

5.	Taking the above into account We would like the fences to be removed in the first instance if possible. However, in a bid to show collaboration and resolve the issues, I will accept them being reduced to below the level of the boundary wall to be out of sight, thus being a mitigation so I can continue to enjoy my property as I did before this development commenced.