Landowners 'firmly rebut' council's rejection of Telford homes plan over ‘not enough sun’
Landowners have challenged council planners who rejected proposals for new homes because their gardens would only get a ‘maximum of four hours a day’ of sun in the summer.
Two plans – one for three homes and another for four homes – on land behind Haybridge Road in Hadley, Telford, had both been rejected by officials at Telford & Wrekin Council.
Neighbouring trees, not owned by the applicants, throw shadow on the site.
“The reason for refusal, that Plots 1 and 2 would be afforded poor levels of private amenity space due to significant levels of over shadowing from adjacent trees, is firmly rebutted,” say agents Peter Richards and Co, representing applicants Mr and Mrs Wickstead.
The agents says they are using official rules on sunlight.
They have also cited the Government’s pro-housebuilding policies as reasons for the inspector to overturn the council’s decision.
They say that the key date for assessing is March 21 – the spring equinox – when at least 50 per cent of the rear garden of Plot 1 would get three hours and 40 minutes of sun while Plot 2 would receive two hours and 55 minutes.
They will tell the inspector that the official rule they use is that “at least half of a garden or amenity area should receive at least two hours of sunlight on March 21".
They add that they also meet another yardstick which says that a habitable room, preferably a main living room, should receive a total of a least 1.5 hours of sunlight on March 21.
Two appeals are being lodged at the same time after the council rejected a plan for four homes and another one for three homes on the site. The reduction in the number of homes “was done to address the reasons for refusal, being overshadowing".
The appellant also says that “the officer’s interpretation of the local policy is contested".
"The suggestion that there is significant overshadowing from the adjacent tree, reducing the functionality of the garden facilities associated with Plots 1 and 2 is incorrect.”
They add: “Given the specialist evidence provided in respect of shading and the policy support for windfall development on this site, the appeal seeks to overturn the refusal and secure planning permission for four dwellings in a well-connected and sustainable location.”
The Planning Inspectorate has asked for final comments on the appeal by July 21 this year. A decision will be made following an inspector’s site visit at some time after that date.
In rejecting the plans the officials had noted that the guidance the applicant used is “not an adopted planning policy document and therefore can be given limited weight, if any, in the decision making process".
They went on to say that “in the summer months, where occupants are seeking to enjoy more time in private amenity spaces for recreational purposes, a period of only between three to four hours where the garden will not be significantly shaded is considered to be a poor provision of amenity space and would not encourage the healthy living of occupants".
Planners noted that the site currently comprises a number of detached outbuildings, which vary in scale and design. It is used as parking for the adjacent butcher’s shop, which is also run by the applicant.
Outline planning permission had been granted in 2010 for two dwellings on the site.
But planning policies have changed since then, the officials noted.
