Proposed changes to permitted development?

[John Rumm]

They probably figured its not their problem...

[geraldthehamster]

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D\

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0|

=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D/- Hide quoted text -

If he didn't want Planning to know, I'd be highly surprised if he had risked involving Building Control, as the lesser of the two evils. Building Control are only ever likely to want something demolished if it's dangerous, whereas Planning want it knocked down because it's there...

Cheers Richard

[Tim Streater]

So when did he get it signed off by BC? If he didn't, then I don't see how it could have been considered "finished" anyway.

[geraldthehamster]

Building Control have enforcement powers for 12 months after work is "finished", which suggests there is a definition of "finished" that is independent of Building Control.

The crappy lean-to utility room outside my kitchen has been there since the 1960s and is clearly finished, though I doubt anyone resembling a BCO has ever seen it.

Cheers Richard

[Tim Streater]

Mmmm. Yes, OK, that makes sense. Perhaps it's the certificate of practical completion then (not really sure what that is, but I did get one once).

[geraldthehamster]

Possibly my utility room might have had a Certificate of Impractically Cobbled Together. The bloke was a joiner as well.

Cheers Richard