Tifo vs Council (planning)

planning_officer

Excellent post above!

tifo wrote: »

i have been told it is 70 cubic metres internal area and the enforcement officer agrees with this when he measured. I am 61 internal and 76 external.

No, no and no!!! The enforcement officer cannot be more wrong. Permitted development has NEVER been measured using internal volume - I can promise you that. If it's 76 cu m then as RLH says, you're never going to get a lawful development certificate.

tifo wrote: »

i have a semi-detached house and the new rules state 4 metres for a 'detached' though some officers and most architects think this also applies to 'semi-detached' which is 'half' a detached.

Yes, 4m for detached and 3m for any other type of dwelling - which includes semis!!! A semi is NOT a detached - to describe it as half a detached is just silly - you may as well call a terrace a detached house surrounded by others.

tifo wrote: »

i'll have to find out more on their 'negligence' and 'duty of care' but i'm not going to start a case any time soon.

There is no case unfortunately, as has been said before - it is entirely the property owner's responsibility to build within permitted development rules - which it doesn't actually seem you have either before or after 1 Oct - sorry to be so negative!

tifo

just an update on this one after Feb 09 ....

1. gave 4 statutory declarations as required by the council to prove that i started work before Oct 08. Also gave proof of website advice.

2. above not accepted (and they asked for these in the first place). Always advised to complete an application for an LDC.

3. enforcement officer has conceded to a planning consultant that the evidence i provided seems to be proof that i started before Oct 08.

4. matter went to planning committee giving #2 above as reason. I gave my own submission to each member explaining what had happened but many councillors did not bother to read it (they had a week). Enforcement authorisation given.

5. had a meeting with head of planning and chief planning officer. They said same as #2, but admitted website was wrong until Feb 09 and the neighbour had provided no evidence to support his complaint. Given 28 days to complete and LDC.

6. a few officers have been this week to measure the extension, not from ground or floor level but gradient level, hence giving them a larger figure as volume under the floor is also included (my garden slopes down).

7. they say above has come to 76 cubic metres (plus 6 for the roof). total will therefore be 82 cubic metres.

8. i have had it measured externally at floor level and it comes to 69 cubic metres.

9. the law says i can build up to 70 cubic metres or 15% of the volume of my house, whichever is the greater, which would give me 91 cubic metres at floor level or a higher figure at gradient level. Obviously 15% is the greater.

10. i have been told there is no legal requirement for me to complete an LDC and that since i have provided the evidence required, leave it to the council to enforce, then appeal to win. Of course this means work for the planning consultant who's giving this advice.

any advice please?

benyboy

Although there isn't a legal requirement to go for a Lawful Development Certificate, it might help you in this case, as it sounds like your extension is lawful, but the authority are simply being difficult! Presuming you already have the drawings for the extension, would it not be fairly straightforward to submit online for the LDC (its only 75 pounds) - the result normally comes back in 4 weeks? It may be the case that you et a different planning officer dealing with he LDC application who simply puts it straight through.

hope this helps

tifo

they don't want me to apply for an LDC now but for full planning, as they say i am above 70 m3 at 75.

they've measured around the outside length and width and from ground level for the height and as i am on a slope, space underneath the floor gets included in their calculation.

i've spoken to 2 different town planning consultants and both get between 69 - 69.50 measured externally and from floor level. I am told this is how it is meant to be measured and given me a case which supports this.

i've also read something about built size and net size, where the net size is less and was used as the figure for planning in the case. What are built and net sizes, because i am assuming it means external and internal?

tifo

does anyone know what 'built' volume and 'net' volume means? For example, in a case i am using, the built volume was 184 and net 152, so the council wanted this reduced by 37 to 115 by using the 'net' volume figure.

also, does anyone have information on any guidance to show what height to measure from, i.e. ground level or floor level?

thanks.

tifo

just to bring things up to date ...

the council have measured the extension/conservatory again, this time as the legislation stipulates, and agreed that i am within permitted development regulations at 70 cubic metres. Previously they had measured incorrectly at over 75 but now concede that this was contrary to legislation, which means they weren't aware themselves how to measure the height.

but they still want me to apply with an LDC as it still needs to be proven that i started before Oct 2008. However, the enforcement officer had conceded to 3 professionals (town planner, architect and solicitor) that i seem to have shown i started before Oct 2008 and the size is the issue. Now that the size issue is resolved, they're back to square one. Plus i've shown i only followed what they published and verbally advised.

it makes me think how many other people have had to reduce/demolish their building work because the council measured the volume contrary to legislation? There may be a public interest story here for the media .....

ormus

i dont know why anyone is so surprised.
no local government dept is fit for purpose. they are just a bunch of pencil pushing pension seekers with no chance of ever being sacked for incompetence.

tifo

update .....

now that i've almost won who thinks i'm entitled to my costs (for 1 architect and 2 planning consultants) and compensation (for distress, inconvenience, harassment)?

we're negotiating a settlement to the dispute ...

anotherbigspender

Depends really what 'negotiating a settlement' refers to.

Skim reading the above, I suspect your only recourse would be through the Local Government Ombudsman who who need to be convinced of any maladministration or incompetence on the part of the LPA. If they find in your favour they may ask the LPA to cover your costs and pay you a (normally nominal) sum for your inconvenience.

P.S. I'm interested to know why you went through 2 planning consultants?!

tifo

anotherbigspender wrote: »

Depends really what 'negotiating a settlement' refers to.

If they find in your favour they may ask the LPA to cover your costs and pay you a (normally nominal) sum for your inconvenience.

It's gone to the LGO which is why (i suspect) they want to now settle. They're giving up i think.

My costs were incurred only as a result of the department's maladministration, errors, mistakes etc for which they have already apologised in writing from senior management.

Then there is the stress, inconvenience etc that i've gone through.

Had they accepted what i said 10 months ago, i wouldn't have incurred the costs and gone through the stress of 'fighting' them back. Now they're accepted what i have always said, my statements etc never changed.