Daily Mail Article

[Chris]

Yeah, he probably should have mentioned it to the neighbours with it being 12' tall total, but I'm not really buying the sunglasses story, I just think he got the neighbours back up enough for them to find an excuse!

I do feel for him though, the council don't appear to be listening to what I would say are reasonable corrective measures which would solve the 'sunglasses issue'

 

"In all the circumstances, it is considered that the council should accept the applicant's proposals to: 1) paint the dome matt grey, 2) plant a vegetative screen along the south western boundary adjacent number eight 3m high.'

However, civic chiefs turned it down after council planners branded the building 'incongruous' and 'un-neighbourly.'"

[Tim]

1 hour ago, carastro said:

If the council complain about the POD I will sell it and replace it with a ROR.  But so long as no one complains I will leave it as it is as rather too much faff to change it unless I have to.  

Carole 

If you have had it over four years without complaint there is nothing they can do anyway

[Paul M]

16 minutes ago, Alien 13 said:

Never understood why a homeowner has the right to complain about what a neighbor is doing, if he wanted to build a 50 story block of flats on his property that would be fine with me...............

Alan

Ah!, we've objected on two occasions to neighbour's planning applications.

A few years ago our next door neighbour to our south submitted plans for a 2 story extension on the back of the house. Given the close proximity of their building line to our boundary we were very concerned about loss of sunlight on our garden which has a good southerly aspect. I was particularly concerned about loss of half my southern horizon for observing.  We were successful. They were granted a single story extension which we were more than happy for them to have. They had no use for the extension. Two of them living in a large 4 bed house. They were only building value into the property with a loss of amenity for us. 

Then more recently the neighbour over the back, to our west, put in plans to knock down their existing detached garage and build an attached double garage, again right along the boundary causing loss of my already limited W horizon, my "Venus Slot". Those plans were approved with a modification to the roof line. Again, 2 people living in a 5 bed house just building value in with loss of amenity for us.

The bright, open aspect of our back garden was one of its attractions when we bought it so felt it was worth fighting for. We spend a lot of time pottering around out back!

[Tim]

10 minutes ago, Lockie said:

However, civic chiefs turned it down after council planners branded the building 'incongruous' and 'un-neighbourly.'"

Council planning departments are an absolute joke in Warwickshire and have demonstrated time and again that they pander to wealthy interests of massive developments and nitpick over minutiae with household projects. I take delight in thwarting them by using their own double standards against them.

When they visited my home for a query about a structure, they noticed that I had erected an 8ft fence along one side of my garden. They said, "You are not supposed to do that, it is un-neighbourly!"

My reply was a little sarcastic i'm afraid:  "Is it? Oh. Well I erected it to stop the heroin addict boyfriend of my neighbour from trying to hit golf balls from their garden, across ours and another garden, into the nearby parking area for aeroplanes at Coventry airport. But I am being un-neighbourly!!"

As for the poor guy in the OP, well he should have gone through planning I guess, but even if there wasn't bad feeling between the neighbours before, there will be now. So who wins? 😕

 

 

[Chris]

I just want to know how the council guys face looked when you told him the Heroin golfer story, Tim. 

[PEMS]

Maybe we should not automatically side with the person with the dome. They could want the neighbour to keep their lights down and then be out at the early hours of the morning rotating a noisy dome and disturbing people. Would expect that dome to produce significant noise when rotated from target to target.

The "evil" neighbour may just have become fed up of it and complained to the council through having an inconsiderate astronomy observer living next to him. The astronomy guy has not bothered to ask or enquire about the need for planning permission. Did he talk it over with the neighbour or just go ahead regardless?

There may be another side to the story.

[DAVE AMENDALL]

Man told to tear down 12ft-high observatory after neighbour said needed sunglasses because of glare _ Daily Mail 

Anybody see this article? Surely spray it dark green or even matt black is the answer...................Dave

Edited October 18, 2019 by DAVE AMENDALL
typo

[Geoff Barnes]

Already being discussed here Dave...

 

[DAVE AMENDALL]

Seems to me If you have planning permission or not the Council if they have a mind can revoke it and deal with any complaints genuine or otherwise. The article in the Mail will give other people the idea of complaining if they live anywhere near a dome. When I bought my dome I was told that I did not need planning permission as it was classed as a non permanent  structure. I got planning permission anyway. You never know when new people move in near you which way they are going to jump. The article will make people more wary about purchasing a dome in future..........Dave

[Paz]

I think the glare / sunglasses line is not very believable but at the same time doing this without planning permission does leave the astronomer open to stronger challenge and more likelihood of a challenge.

That observatory looks epic to me, but if it was a 12ft skate ramp or a 12ft bungalow or any other 12ft construction dominating my horizon right on top of my garden boundary I wouldn't be so keen.

[DAVE AMENDALL]

I think that the 12 Ft high and too near the adjacent boundary is probably the main issue. It probably looks taller than 12 ft being that near. The 2.2 metre full observatory is approx 8ft high and the planning permission states must be no nearer the boundary than 14 ft. ...............Dave

[kirkster501]

In the comments section the comments from people are largely very positive about the guy and largely supportive of him and his obs.

[ollypenrice]

Two things strike me. 1) The glare/sunglasses story is absolute tosh and any visit to the neighbour's property would have confirmed this. It's a dome. It can, therefore, reflect very little light directly towards the eyes of an observer since its shape will cause it to disperse its reflected light. The sunglasses chap is a fruit cake.

2) The fact that it is unusual is considered grounds for removing it. Hey guys and gals, don't be unusual. Be just the same as everyone else. Garden gnomes a go-go.

Olly

 

Edited October 27, 2019 by ollypenrice

[Gina]

One reason I went for a green wooden shed with a funny roof.  The other was that I felt a dome would be too difficult for a DIY project in the size I wanted.