@tdgeek is your property able to be re developed or sub divided? If you did so, would being able to breach the same rules that the neighbour wants to, be of benefit to you? Do you need an easement to run pipes / wires etc through their land? Do you need a Right of Way (driveway) across their land?
Even if you never intend to redevelop yourself. Getting extra development rights in place can massively increase your property value. Especially if something like an easement is the difference between allowed to subdivide, and not being allowed to subdivide.
Any concessions granted by your neighbour / developer can be recorded via covenants or other instruments on their title, so them and any future owners will be bound to them.
I guess that is the sort of horse trading they could do if the council decides they need to limited notify. IMO though, the recession planes are in place for a reason, and that is so people get the amount of light they are entitled to. Unfortunately as houses get closer and closer together you can literally pass sugar between windows of two houses, some houses get poor natural. Although that is in part because they are often spec off the plan houses, and aren't designed for the site.
Here’s what I would do. I would write to the Council and advise them that you’ve seen the proposal and you do not agree that the impact is minor - that you think it may have a material impact (if that’s what you think). Material impact could be on your enjoyment of the property, or affect on future sale of the property (you don’t need to be specific on the impact, just that you think it’s material - less detail is better).
Request that the council consider all aspects when considering the application. Request that they inform you when an application is lodged. Request they acknowledge your letter to you.
When the application is lodged and they inform you, write again noting you have had advice that from what you’ve seen the impact is material. You don’t have to supply the impact statement, which could come from your greengrocer or mother-in-law. See what they say.
If they say that they don’t think the impact is material and that your consent is not required, and they intend to allow the application, write back and say you hope they took your communications into account, and to find out you’ll see them in court. You don’t have to go through with it. But I think you’ll find that the threat will make them apply proper consideration instead of tokenism. The possibility of having to pay costs because they didn’t do their job will give them ... pause for thought.
The idea is to work up to a position where it’s clear that if they don’t properly do their job, then you’ll go them for not doing things properly.
Of course, if they do do their job, and the application is successful nonetheless, well you can’t do anything about that.
The key to what i’m suggesting is to make sure the council is clear you are after a proper assessment from them, and you won’t bow to subtle or not subtle inaccuracies in the application. You will hold the council accountable for a proper assessment. So your language and messaging should focus on that.
If they say that they don’t think the impact is material and that your consent is not required, and they intend to allow the application, write back and say you hope they took your communications into account, and to find out you’ll see them in court.
What happened in my friends case, is that they were in regular communications with the council during the process, and were told that they had received the application from the developers, and it was being reviewed by the council to see if notification was required or not. Then the next time the council contacted them was to say it had been approved, and the processes that they would need to follow if they objected to it, including going to the environment court. So there was no opportunity to object to the decision to notify it or not. But the whole point I thought with notification (and limited notification), was to see at what extent people were affected. So if the council are able to make that decsion based on teh applicants reports, you have to wonder how often notification is used. Sometime councils do require the applicants to get their reports peer reviewed, and sometime the council(ratepayers) end up paying. I suspect notification is very rarely used, and recall seeing some stats in the media on it recently that showed this Once approved, I don't believe the council can reverse the decision without going through the courts, but I stand to be corrected.
If they say that they don’t think the impact is material and that your consent is not required, and they intend to allow the application, write back and say you hope they took your communications into account, and to find out you’ll see them in court.
What happened in my friends case, is that they were in regular communications with the council during the process, and were told that they had received the application from the developers, and it was being reviewed by the council to see if notification was required or not. Then the next time the council contacted them was to say it had been approved, and the processes that they would need to follow if they objected to it, including going to the environment court. So there was no opportunity to object to the decision to notify it or not. But the whole point I thought with notification (and limited notification), was to see at what extent people were affected. So if the council are able to make that decsion based on teh applicants reports, you have to wonder how often notification is used. Sometime councils do require the applicants to get their reports peer reviewed, and sometime the council(ratepayers) end up paying. I suspect notification is very rarely used, and recall seeing some stats in the media on it recently that showed this Once approved, I don't believe the council can reverse the decision without going through the courts, but I stand to be corrected.
Ugh!!! You are supposed to say that it was all good!! Now, we do know the Mayor at a reasonably close personal level... but id rather it was common sense than who you know. I can be a bit of a softie as I care who is happy, but I can and will roll the dice if need be
Ive just got home, before i read other comments, thank you all a lot. Many of us don't deal with this every other week so all posts are appreciated
If they say that they don’t think the impact is material and that your consent is not required, and they intend to allow the application, write back and say you hope they took your communications into account, and to find out you’ll see them in court.
What happened in my friends case, is that they were in regular communications with the council during the process, and were told that they had received the application from the developers, and it was being reviewed by the council to see if notification was required or not. Then the next time the council contacted them was to say it had been approved, and the processes that they would need to follow if they objected to it, including going to the environment court. So there was no opportunity to object to the decision to notify it or not. But the whole point I thought with notification (and limited notification), was to see at what extent people were affected. So if the council are able to make that decsion based on teh applicants reports, you have to wonder how often notification is used. Sometime councils do require the applicants to get their reports peer reviewed, and sometime the council(ratepayers) end up paying. I suspect notification is very rarely used, and recall seeing some stats in the media on it recently that showed this Once approved, I don't believe the council can reverse the decision without going through the courts, but I stand to be corrected.
Ugh!!! You are supposed to say that it was all good!! Now, we do know the Mayor at a reasonably close personal level... but id rather it was common sense than who you know. I can be a bit of a softie as I care who is happy, but I can and will roll the dice if need be
Ive just got home, before i read other comments, thank you all a lot. Many of us don't deal with this every other week so all posts are appreciated
I am sure yours will turn out well and it is a totally different council :) I think the big ones are better and more professional as they have more resources. Also at least you are communicating with the neighbour about it, and they may want to keep on your good side incase of limited notification being needed. Also it is good that you know the mayor, it all helps. At the end of the day it all comes down to common sense and fair and impartial judgement.
....Also it is good that you know the mayor, it all helps. ....
Sadly I have found it often does come down to how much weight you can swing behind your cause :( Recently we had a "fight" with Auckland Council, using all forms of meetings direct with council, 3rd party specialist companies to weigh in, and eventually had to get a specialist planning consultant to review and write a very abrupt letter advising them that they are overstepping their legal boundaries and making unfounded judgements in areas they cant base decisions on. Once this final letter was submitted, everything was simply approved without rebuttal or explanation or apology or anything. And we are left holding the bill. grrr
It annoys me because we only had this final course of action because of "having someone in the know who knew someone who knew someone"...but am sure there are literally thousands of situations where people have been railroaded by council and they are oblivious (from no fault of their own) to other ways of recourse.
I wish you the best but I do say, don't expect that Council's are working in your best interests. Sadly.
If they say that they don’t think the impact is material and that your consent is not required, and they intend to allow the application, write back and say you hope they took your communications into account, and to find out you’ll see them in court.
What happened in my friends case, is that they were in regular communications with the council during the process, and were told that they had received the application from the developers, and it was being reviewed by the council to see if notification was required or not. Then the next time the council contacted them was to say it had been approved, and the processes that they would need to follow if they objected to it, including going to the environment court. So there was no opportunity to object to the decision to notify it or not. But the whole point I thought with notification (and limited notification), was to see at what extent people were affected. So if the council are able to make that decsion based on teh applicants reports, you have to wonder how often notification is used. Sometime councils do require the applicants to get their reports peer reviewed, and sometime the council(ratepayers) end up paying. I suspect notification is very rarely used, and recall seeing some stats in the media on it recently that showed this Once approved, I don't believe the council can reverse the decision without going through the courts, but I stand to be corrected.
Ugh!!! You are supposed to say that it was all good!! Now, we do know the Mayor at a reasonably close personal level... but id rather it was common sense than who you know. I can be a bit of a softie as I care who is happy, but I can and will roll the dice if need be
Ive just got home, before i read other comments, thank you all a lot. Many of us don't deal with this every other week so all posts are appreciated
I am sure yours will turn out well and it is a totally different council :) I think the big ones are better and more professional as they have more resources. Also at least you are communicating with the neighbour about it, and they may want to keep on your good side incase of limited notification being needed. Also it is good that you know the mayor, it all helps. At the end of the day it all comes down to common sense and fair and impartial judgement.
Thanks. I won't play the mayor card, but I will push for compliance, or that the intrusion is much reduced, if its near enough thats ok with me
....Also it is good that you know the mayor, it all helps. ....
Sadly I have found it often does come down to how much weight you can swing behind your cause :( Recently we had a "fight" with Auckland Council, using all forms of meetings direct with council, 3rd party specialist companies to weigh in, and eventually had to get a specialist planning consultant to review and write a very abrupt letter advising them that they are overstepping their legal boundaries and making unfounded judgements in areas they cant base decisions on. Once this final letter was submitted, everything was simply approved without rebuttal or explanation or apology or anything. And we are left holding the bill. grrr
It annoys me because we only had this final course of action because of "having someone in the know who knew someone who knew someone"...but am sure there are literally thousands of situations where people have been railroaded by council and they are oblivious (from no fault of their own) to other ways of recourse.
I wish you the best but I do say, don't expect that Council's are working in your best interests. Sadly.
Understood, will see what happens, and keep it updated here. I will call next week for an update from CCC as they suggested I do
If it was me I would be trying to preserve the amount of light coming into my garden, to the maximum extent legally possible.
If an area becomes shaded then it may becomes damp and muddy or mossy and the sorts of plants that grow there will change or the performance of existing plants may be affected. OP refers the pear tree, if that would be shaded then pollination rates might decrease and fungus become more problematic.
If it was me I would be trying to preserve the amount of light coming into my garden, to the maximum extent legally possible.
If an area becomes shaded then it may becomes damp and muddy or mossy and the sorts of plants that grow there will change or the performance of existing plants may be affected. OP refers the pear tree, if that would be shaded then pollination rates might decrease and fungus become more problematic.
Agree, I will aim for DP compliance. The left side of our property can get damp, dont really want to add to that
Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly
to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.
Trusted
