Council "insiders" and planning permission

[T i m]

And the work that is actually going on (bulldozers, cranes etc) whilst the planning is still (supposedly) under discussion?

And then the letter from the electricity provider apologizing for the pending upheaval as they run a new power feed from 3 miles away .. "this work has been planned for over 12 months .."

It's not *who* you know now either .. it's how much money you

*promise* to the Borough (and then forget to pay .. the local Council then takes you to court and that costs the local ratepayer even more money ....)

They wouldn't let me put up a 1m deep front house width 'porch' (like the many around me) because it will 'spoil the street scene' but allow ugly developement all around of steel framed 'sheds' (some actually become 'D-I-Y 'sheds' and some become what would loosely be described as 'housing' ?) that has a *far* bigger impact on the 'street scene' (and burden on the local infrastructure) than anything I proposed .. but that's 'ok' ..?

Hmmmm

T i m

[Peter Taylor]

I don't think there was any need for this, particularly when you haven't got the facts straight yourself.

There is no mention of "Front Elevation" in the legislation. What it actually says is this:

Class A Permitted development: The enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. Development not permitted: A.1 Development is not permitted by Class A if-

(c) the part of the building enlarged, improved or altered would be nearer to any highway which bounds the curtilage of the dwellinghouse than- (i) the part of the original dwellinghouse nearest to that highway, or (ii) any point 20 metres from that highway, whichever is nearer to the highway;

In other words, you are allowed to extend an elevation facing a highway under Permitted Development as long as you do not intend building any closer than 20 metres from the highway. And even if you are closer than 20m, you are still allowed to, say, infill a recess, as long as you don't encroach toward the highway any closer than the existing building.

Also, as Simon mentioned, you are allowed under Class D to add a porch to the front of a building as long as it is not greater than 3 sq m floor area, no higher than 3m from ground level and not closer than 2m to any boundary with a highway.

If you want to read the actual legislation it is here:

would add that if anyone intends carrying out work that they feel comes under the GDO, they would be very wise to obtain confirmation of this in writing from the Local Authority Planning Department before starting and ideally obtain a "Certificate of Lawful Development". This will prevent any arguments with neighbours and also any difficulty with conveyancing when the time comes to sell.

Peter

[John Cartmell]

Is the 3 sq m porch in addition to infilling a recess if they end up being one continuous area?

[Ian White]

In our case they played that part straight. The only digging that was done was in support of the archaeology. We did think of "salting" the site with a few choice remains, but decided that an invasion by Time Team would have been worse than the houses.

[Peter Taylor]

Yes, you could do both as long as all the other considerations are satisfied. The infill wouldn't be just an infill if it projected out from the existing building, so if it's within 20m of the highway it wouldn't be classed as "Permitted" under the GDO. Also the combined volume of the porch plus the infill (plus any previous extensions) would still need to be within the specified limits. These were part of the text I snipped, as follows:

Development is not permitted under the GDO if:

(a) the cubic content of the resulting building would exceed the cubic content of the original dwellinghouse- (i) in the case of a terrace house or in the case of a dwellinghouse on article 1(5) land, by more than 50 cubic metres or 10 %, whichever is the greater, (ii) in any other case, by more than 70 cubic metres or 15%, whichever is the greater, (iii) in any case, by more than 115 cubic metres;

Even though proposals my not be "Permitted" under the GDO, that doesn't mean you won't get Planning Permission if you apply. The Council will judge the proposals against their adopted planning policies in the Local Plan, which you can normally find in the Planning section of their website.

And please don't ask me what article 1(5) land is. I'd hazard a guess at Dr Drivel's garden :)

Peter

[sPoNiX]

Round our way they are small green posters attached to the 'nearest' lamp post or telegraph pole.

Often these get moved to poles/posts further down the road, the opposite side of the road or removed altogether!

sponix

[Peter Taylor]

The Govt are pushing all councils to go electronic ASAP and link up with their "Planning Portal". Soon you'll be able to see all applications on line, including drawings, forms and (I think) representations and letters. You'll soon be able to submit Planning Applications on-line and also make representations about other applications.

[John Cartmell]

many thanks

[Dave Fawthrop]

| On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:46:13 +0000, Dave Fawthrop | wrote: | | >On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 13:14:38 +0000, freddyuk | > wrote: | >

| >| | >| We have discovered that a house at the end of our road (the corner plot) | >| has been bought by a local counciller. We also know in the past they | >| have used their contacts in the council to get round the planning laws | >| which apply to Joe public so we are concerned that an extension is | >| about to be built and will detract from our road frontage and devalue | >| all the properties in our road. | >| What options do we have to prevent building going ahead on the basis | >| that Travellers and the like have regularly obtained retrospective | >| planning. | >| We are determined to catch this early as we reckon that once work | >| starts they will get away with it! | >| | >| Not strictly a DIY subject but a guess many on this board will have | >| come across planning issues?? | >| | >| Thanks for any ideas. | >

| >All planning applications are advertised, in outline, on little yellow | >boards, which tell you to go to the planning department to see full | >details, you have ??? days to object. I have done this and it works fine. | >Keep your eyes open. | | Round our way they are small green posters attached to the 'nearest' | lamp post or telegraph pole. | | Often these get moved to poles/posts further down the road, the | opposite side of the road or removed altogether!

Around here they do not get moved at all. The people round you must have no respect for the rules, apart from moving them being illegal.

[Christian McArdle]

Actually, both would be the "front elevation" as it were. It's any side facing a road (and usually public footpaths).

Don't even mention house values. Keep your mouth shut on that, or they'll put your complaint in the bin. Road safety is one possible. Changing the character of the area is another. You'll have more luck on the that ground in a nice Victorian villa area than a 1960s council estate.

One possible that works in some areas is affect on parking. Some councils publish a minimum number of off road parking spaces for certain sizes of houses. With the house getting smaller, possibly using space originally used for off road parking, a restriction could be invoked.

Christian.

[Christian McArdle]

Of course I meant "the house getting bigger".

Christian.

[flatman]

freddyuk Wrote:

Reply from Flatman To: Freddie about Exntension by the councillor

OK so the main thing is you do not really like the idea of thi extension. To me that is hte starting pint of this whole thing. ie how you feel. NextHow do your neighbours feel? Say ever neighbou within about 100 yards either way of the proposed exentension. Or a least within a reasonabledistance where they can see it or reasonalb feel that it detracts from thier own property in value of enjoyment o their property. Do you know? NO? Well in my exepreinece when yo object to waht someone else wants it usually makes you a bit unpopula with that person. other people often are going to be with you but wil not actually want to be jknown to be on your side as they wil be worrie about offending their neighbour who wants to have the extension. Yo have to find out though and in doing so you are bound to annoy th bloke aren't you? I suggest that if you are really up for putting th mockers on his extension you need the joint backing of your neighbours You may be surprised that some of the weird reactions you get when yo knock on your neighbours doors and tell them about the extension an ask them to back you up in stopping it getting built. some will no ahve heard about it. Others will just close the door and tell the cannnot be bothered and some will dodge and say they don't lik upsseting the nice man and others will belong to the same "party2 o golf club - so wantch yourself. Bottom line - you need a petition - i is just a piece of paper that says we the undersigned hereby object to Mr XX of (address)****** building an extension. and tehn find out th correct place to lodge that petition. i am sure the local palnning dep at your local concil offices will tell you very simply how to object an yes i have done it and yes the reactions at the door was well weird fro otherwise very rational people ---- Good luck!

Flatma

-- flatman

[Brian Sharrock]

I read it as you wrote it. :)

No ambiguity exists because you wrote 'permitted developments are (quite) limited to the front elevation'. The word 'quite' doesn't change what you wrote.

Perhaps, so as not to mislead, it would be better stated; - The front elevation, with minor exceptions for porches, may not be changed without planning permission.

[Peter Taylor]

Wrong again! Can't you read my previous message? Please stop spreading misinformation.

[John Anderton]

Bear in mind that "the highway" also covers the side road so the 20m rule applies. If the new building comes within 20 metres of your road then it's not covered by permitted development.

Yup, that's irrelevant to the planning decision so don't mention it.

Unless the drains are used by another property and become blocked as a result of being moved I doubt you will make any headway there.

Cheers,

John

[John Anderton]

Not usually (they're usually too busy)

Yes

Cheers,

John

[John Anderton]

Which law do you think is being broken ?

Cheers,

John

[Dave Fawthrop]

| On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:39:47 +0000, Dave Fawthrop | wrote: | | | >Around here they do not get moved at all. The people round you must have | >no respect for the rules, apart from moving them being illegal. | > | Which law do you think is being broken ?

Thy always have these things covered somewhere.

[Christian McArdle]

No you didn't. You can't say "quite limited to" and use it as meaning "limited to". Your interpretation is actually gramatically incorrect. It is understandable why you made the mistake, however.

But that is not what I said. Indeed it is not true. Porches are not the only exception. There are others.

Christian.

[freddyuk]

-- freddyuk