Sample planning objection letter BELOW.
Please email objection-letter@local-2u.uk
Or call our professional planning objection team.
Take the stress out of the cumbersome, confusing process of the planning industry by calling our friendly team.
Stop that planning proposal !!
How do you get it refused?
You need to object to this planning application NOW !!!!!
Our team of experts are fully qualified, Chartered Town Planners.
0800 456 1060 07436802755
Get In Touch
Sample Objection letter that illustrates the extent of the work and planning knowledge involved when constructing/preparing a compelling case.
You may object to planning applications including extensions, boundaries, new dwellings etc.
For a sample Objection letter we have selected Solar panel application.
In summary, my client objects to the planning application for the following reasons:
i) Major Development that would result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape;
i) The substantial harm that will be inflicted on nearby designated heritage assets;
ii) The severe impact on the amenity of my client’s property through loss of privacy, glint and glare as well as an increase in noise and disturbance;
iii) Loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
iv) The severe impact on highway and pedestrian safety;
The above concerns will be articulated below following a review of the prevailing local and national planning policy context.
1.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
In June 2019, the Government published the latest version of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how they are expected to be applied. The NPPF took immediate effect.
Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
Paragraphs 7 and 8 confirm that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which comprises economic, social and environmental dimensions.
The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 reaffirms that “applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
The Courts have held that Central Government’s policy is a material consideration that must
be taken into account by the decision maker, as are relevant appeal decisions. The following is a summary of the policies that are pertinent to this case:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable development
Chapter 4. Decision-making
Chapter 9. Promoting sustainable transport
Chapter 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Chapter 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
The development plan consists of the Tendring District Local Plan (adopted December 2007) and Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017).
The Tendring District Local Plan
Policy QL3 Minimising and Managing Flood Risk
Policy QL9 Design of New Development
Policy QL11 Environmental Impacts and Compatibility of Uses
Policy EN1 Landscape Character
Policy EN4 Protection of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
Policy EN6 Biodiversity
Policy EN6A Protected Species
Policy EN6B Habitat Creation
Policy EN13A Renewable Energy
Policy EN23 Development within the Proximity of a Listed Building
Policy TR1A Development Affecting Highways
Policy TR2 Travel Plans
Tendring Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017)
Policy SPL1 Managing Growth
Policy SPL3 Sustainable Design
Policy PPL1 Development and Flood Risk
Policy PPL3 The Rural Landscape
Policy PPL4 Biodiversity & Geodiversity
Policy PPL5 Water Conservation, Drainage and Sewerage
Policy PPL7 Archaeology
Policy PPL9 Listed Buildings
Policy PPL10 Renewable Energy Generation
Policy CP1 Sustainable Transport and Accessibility
2.0 DETAILED REASONS FOR OBJECTION
i) Major Development that would result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape
Saved Policy QL9 and EN1 of the Tendring District Local Plan (2007) and Policy SPL3 and PPL3 of the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in its locality and does not harm the appearance of the landscape.
The 26.68 hectares of land is situated within an area of very attractive open countryside and a greenfield site. The site is located in the National Character Area 111 (Northern Thames Basin) and Local Landscape Character Area 8a (Tendring and Wix Clay Plateau). The Tendring District Landscape Character Assessment (2001) identifies that the key characterises of the area include gently undulating rural agricultural plateau in the north east of Tendring underlain by London Clay, remote rural arable landscape of large scale, geometric fields divided by low, gappy hedgerows with occasional hedgerow trees, and small remnants of ancient woodland have neglected coppice with standards structure.
The proposed solar panels and associated infrastructure, including the access track and security fencing would be new elements within the landscape. The long rows of panels, internal access track and ancillary buildings would comprise a rather utilitarian form of development that would contrast awkwardly with the unspoilt open qualities of the site.
For the duration of the development, some 25 years the proposal would markedly alter the character of the site. The panels would be would be seen from a number of public vantage points including PROW 183_1 that passes through the site from north to south. The arrays of dark grey coloured panels, along with 49 CCTV cameras with a maximum height of 3m, as well as tubular lighting poles would disrupt the harmonious pattern of open fields and would appear as a discordant element. The proposal would detract from the pleasing rural scene and erode the landscape qualities of the area.
Overall, the development would be prominent from a number of vantage points, including from my client’s property that is positioned adjacent to the site. As a result of its sensitive position, the proposed development would appear as an incongruous and an intrusive addition to this local environment. Its overall scale and prominent siting would emphasise this intrusion, appearing over dominant in the sensitive landscape. The proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful landscape impact, contrary to local and national planning policy.
ii) Heritage Impact
Policy EN23 Development within the Proximity of a Listed Building sets out that proposals for development that would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted. This includes long distance views.
The arrays of solar panels would be about 460m to the south west of The White Hart Inn that is located Grade II listed building. The utilitarian form of the proposed development and the likely dark colour of the panels would be evident in views. This discordant addition to the landscape would disrupt the landscape setting of this heritage asset and diminish the significance of the heritage asset. It would have an adverse impact upon the setting of a building that is recognised as being of exceptional interest. In the context of the NPPF, it is considered that it would result in substantial harm.
The proposal would therefore result in unacceptable harm on this designated heritage asset that is contrary to local and national planning policy.
iii) Severe Impact on Neighbour Amenity
Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states that planning should always seek to secure a high standard of amenity for existing users. Policy QL11 of the adopted Tendring District Local Plan (2007) states that development will only be permitted if it will not have a materially damaging impact on the privacy, daylight or other amenities of occupiers of nearby properties. Emerging Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017 supports these objectives
Given the proximity of the development to my client’s property that adjoins the application site, the proposed development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the level peace and tranquility that he has become accustomed for the last 20 years.
In addition, to the arrays of panels, as part of the proposal, the following supporting infrastructure is proposed:
1 No. Substation and DNO substation;
3No. Inverter transformers;
49No CCTV cameras;
2.5m high Perimeter fence.
My client is particularly concerned that due to the orientation of his property and the proximity of the development that the proposal will result in glint and glare from the proposed panels. In addition, the provision of the associated infrastructure will result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance emanating from the substation and transformers. The harm will also be compounded during construction, as well as the on going maintenance that will be needed. Moreover, harm will also be inflicted due to the provision of secure permitter fencing and the presence of 49 CCTV cameras. The proposal therefore fails to safeguard the living conditions of my client and is therefore contrary to local and national planning policy.
iv) Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
Paragraph 112 of the Framework includes a requirement for the LPA to take into account the economic and other benefits of the BMV agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the LPA should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. This is echoed in the Council’s local planning policies.
A detailed Agricultural Land Classification Survey of the field, undertaken on behalf of the appellant, reveals that just over a third of the site is Grade 3a agricultural. The site therefore comprises BMV agricultural land.
The Ministerial Statement in March 2015 advises that where a proposal of a solar farm involves the best and most versatile agricultural land, it will need to be justified by the most compelling evidence. My client is concerned that insufficient cogent evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites of lower grade agricultural land.
Overall, it is contended that the proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of BMV agricultural land that would harm the agricultural industry, contrary to local and national planning policy.
v) Highway Safety
The NPPF identifies that planning permission should be refused on highways grounds, if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. In this case there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
It is understood that the site will be accessed via an existing farm access point from the A120 with an exit further east from a new access point to be created on Bowls Road (slip road off A120. During construction and the operation of the solar farm the proposed development will result in significant movements along a constrained part of the highway network. Consequently, it will have a severe residual impact on highway and pedestrian safety. Accordingly, the proposal is clearly contrary to the NPPF and local planning policy.
4.0 SUMMARY
There are compelling reasons why the application should be refused as the proposal comprises inappropriate development of this site within the open countryside. In particular the following harm will result:
Significant harm to the landscape character of this part of the countryside;
Significant harm on the setting of designated heritage assets;
Severe harm on the living conditions of neighbouring properties through glint and glare and an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance;
Loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
Severe harm to highway and pedestrian safety as a result of an increase in traffic on a sensitive part of the highway network;
Overall, the proposal is contrary to both local and national planning policies and does not comprise sustainable development. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the planning application is refused.
Professional Planning Objection Letters
07436802755
08004561060
Evenings 6pm - 2am
07436802755
Sample planning objection letter BELOW.
Please email objection-letter@local-2u.uk
Or call our professional planning objection team.
Take the stress out of the cumbersome, confusing process of the planning industry by calling our friendly team.
Stop that planning proposal !!
How do you get it refused?
You need to object to this planning application NOW !!!!!
Our team of experts are fully qualified, Chartered Town Planners.
0800 456 1060 07436802755
Get In Touch
Sample Objection letter that illustrates the extent of the work and planning knowledge involved when constructing/preparing a compelling case.
You may object to planning applications including extensions, boundaries, new dwellings etc.
For a sample Objection letter we have selected Solar panel application.
In summary, my client objects to the planning application for the following reasons:
i) Major Development that would result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape;
i) The substantial harm that will be inflicted on nearby designated heritage assets;
ii) The severe impact on the amenity of my client’s property through loss of privacy, glint and glare as well as an increase in noise and disturbance;
iii) Loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
iv) The severe impact on highway and pedestrian safety;
The above concerns will be articulated below following a review of the prevailing local and national planning policy context.
1.0 PLANNING POLICY CONTEXT
In June 2019, the Government published the latest version of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and sets out how they are expected to be applied. The NPPF took immediate effect.
Paragraph 2 of the NPPF states that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
Paragraphs 7 and 8 confirm that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, which comprises economic, social and environmental dimensions.
The NPPF retains a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 11 reaffirms that “applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.”
The Courts have held that Central Government’s policy is a material consideration that must
be taken into account by the decision maker, as are relevant appeal decisions. The following is a summary of the policies that are pertinent to this case:
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Chapter 2. Achieving sustainable development
Chapter 4. Decision-making
Chapter 9. Promoting sustainable transport
Chapter 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
Chapter 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Chapter 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
The development plan consists of the Tendring District Local Plan (adopted December 2007) and Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017).
The Tendring District Local Plan
Policy QL3 Minimising and Managing Flood Risk
Policy QL9 Design of New Development
Policy QL11 Environmental Impacts and Compatibility of Uses
Policy EN1 Landscape Character
Policy EN4 Protection of the Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
Policy EN6 Biodiversity
Policy EN6A Protected Species
Policy EN6B Habitat Creation
Policy EN13A Renewable Energy
Policy EN23 Development within the Proximity of a Listed Building
Policy TR1A Development Affecting Highways
Policy TR2 Travel Plans
Tendring Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017)
Policy SPL1 Managing Growth
Policy SPL3 Sustainable Design
Policy PPL1 Development and Flood Risk
Policy PPL3 The Rural Landscape
Policy PPL4 Biodiversity & Geodiversity
Policy PPL5 Water Conservation, Drainage and Sewerage
Policy PPL7 Archaeology
Policy PPL9 Listed Buildings
Policy PPL10 Renewable Energy Generation
Policy CP1 Sustainable Transport and Accessibility
2.0 DETAILED REASONS FOR OBJECTION
i) Major Development that would result in a significant adverse impact on the landscape
Saved Policy QL9 and EN1 of the Tendring District Local Plan (2007) and Policy SPL3 and PPL3 of the emerging Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft (June 2017) seeks to ensure that development is appropriate in its locality and does not harm the appearance of the landscape.
The 26.68 hectares of land is situated within an area of very attractive open countryside and a greenfield site. The site is located in the National Character Area 111 (Northern Thames Basin) and Local Landscape Character Area 8a (Tendring and Wix Clay Plateau). The Tendring District Landscape Character Assessment (2001) identifies that the key characterises of the area include gently undulating rural agricultural plateau in the north east of Tendring underlain by London Clay, remote rural arable landscape of large scale, geometric fields divided by low, gappy hedgerows with occasional hedgerow trees, and small remnants of ancient woodland have neglected coppice with standards structure.
The proposed solar panels and associated infrastructure, including the access track and security fencing would be new elements within the landscape. The long rows of panels, internal access track and ancillary buildings would comprise a rather utilitarian form of development that would contrast awkwardly with the unspoilt open qualities of the site.
For the duration of the development, some 25 years the proposal would markedly alter the character of the site. The panels would be would be seen from a number of public vantage points including PROW 183_1 that passes through the site from north to south. The arrays of dark grey coloured panels, along with 49 CCTV cameras with a maximum height of 3m, as well as tubular lighting poles would disrupt the harmonious pattern of open fields and would appear as a discordant element. The proposal would detract from the pleasing rural scene and erode the landscape qualities of the area.
Overall, the development would be prominent from a number of vantage points, including from my client’s property that is positioned adjacent to the site. As a result of its sensitive position, the proposed development would appear as an incongruous and an intrusive addition to this local environment. Its overall scale and prominent siting would emphasise this intrusion, appearing over dominant in the sensitive landscape. The proposed development would have an unacceptable and harmful landscape impact, contrary to local and national planning policy.
ii) Heritage Impact
Policy EN23 Development within the Proximity of a Listed Building sets out that proposals for development that would adversely affect the setting of a Listed Building will not be permitted. This includes long distance views.
The arrays of solar panels would be about 460m to the south west of The White Hart Inn that is located Grade II listed building. The utilitarian form of the proposed development and the likely dark colour of the panels would be evident in views. This discordant addition to the landscape would disrupt the landscape setting of this heritage asset and diminish the significance of the heritage asset. It would have an adverse impact upon the setting of a building that is recognised as being of exceptional interest. In the context of the NPPF, it is considered that it would result in substantial harm.
The proposal would therefore result in unacceptable harm on this designated heritage asset that is contrary to local and national planning policy.
iii) Severe Impact on Neighbour Amenity
Paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 states that planning should always seek to secure a high standard of amenity for existing users. Policy QL11 of the adopted Tendring District Local Plan (2007) states that development will only be permitted if it will not have a materially damaging impact on the privacy, daylight or other amenities of occupiers of nearby properties. Emerging Policy SPL3 of the Tendring District Local Plan 2013-2033 and Beyond Publication Draft 2017 supports these objectives
Given the proximity of the development to my client’s property that adjoins the application site, the proposed development will lead to an unacceptable impact on the level peace and tranquility that he has become accustomed for the last 20 years.
In addition, to the arrays of panels, as part of the proposal, the following supporting infrastructure is proposed:
1 No. Substation and DNO substation;
3No. Inverter transformers;
49No CCTV cameras;
2.5m high Perimeter fence.
My client is particularly concerned that due to the orientation of his property and the proximity of the development that the proposal will result in glint and glare from the proposed panels. In addition, the provision of the associated infrastructure will result in an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance emanating from the substation and transformers. The harm will also be compounded during construction, as well as the on going maintenance that will be needed. Moreover, harm will also be inflicted due to the provision of secure permitter fencing and the presence of 49 CCTV cameras. The proposal therefore fails to safeguard the living conditions of my client and is therefore contrary to local and national planning policy.
iv) Loss of Best and Most Versatile Agricultural Land
Paragraph 112 of the Framework includes a requirement for the LPA to take into account the economic and other benefits of the BMV agricultural land. Where significant development of agricultural land is demonstrated to be necessary, the LPA should seek to use areas of poorer quality land in preference to that of higher quality. This is echoed in the Council’s local planning policies.
A detailed Agricultural Land Classification Survey of the field, undertaken on behalf of the appellant, reveals that just over a third of the site is Grade 3a agricultural. The site therefore comprises BMV agricultural land.
The Ministerial Statement in March 2015 advises that where a proposal of a solar farm involves the best and most versatile agricultural land, it will need to be justified by the most compelling evidence. My client is concerned that insufficient cogent evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there are no alternative sites of lower grade agricultural land.
Overall, it is contended that the proposal will result in an unacceptable loss of BMV agricultural land that would harm the agricultural industry, contrary to local and national planning policy.
v) Highway Safety
The NPPF identifies that planning permission should be refused on highways grounds, if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe. In this case there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety.
It is understood that the site will be accessed via an existing farm access point from the A120 with an exit further east from a new access point to be created on Bowls Road (slip road off A120. During construction and the operation of the solar farm the proposed development will result in significant movements along a constrained part of the highway network. Consequently, it will have a severe residual impact on highway and pedestrian safety. Accordingly, the proposal is clearly contrary to the NPPF and local planning policy.
4.0 SUMMARY
There are compelling reasons why the application should be refused as the proposal comprises inappropriate development of this site within the open countryside. In particular the following harm will result:
Significant harm to the landscape character of this part of the countryside;
Significant harm on the setting of designated heritage assets;
Severe harm on the living conditions of neighbouring properties through glint and glare and an unacceptable increase in noise and disturbance;
Loss of the best and most versatile agricultural land; and
Severe harm to highway and pedestrian safety as a result of an increase in traffic on a sensitive part of the highway network;
Overall, the proposal is contrary to both local and national planning policies and does not comprise sustainable development. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the planning application is refused.
Professional Planning Objection Letters
07436802755
08004561060
Evenings 6pm - 2am
07436802755