building next door

planning_officer

AdrianW2 wrote: »

Why didn't they know? If the LA were negligent in posting signs then there may be a case for referral to the local government ombudsman.

There's no national legislation that specifies exactly how planning applications have to be publicised, so it's highly unlikely there's any case for the ombudsman.

planning_officer

cheapaschips wrote: »

i've spoken to planning enforcement and he said ... that i should have a quiet word with the developer when he starts and make it clear to him where the wall should be and that if it isnt in the right place, it will either be - reapply time or planners make him take the wall down.

It's the planning enforcement officer's job to do that, not yours!

cheapaschips wrote: »

he also said that the developer had'nt paid a bill to the council so that mean he hadnt dispensed with his proviso's. when i said well then in that case his planning has run out and he will have to re-apply, he said oh it doesnt work like that cause his footings are in now.

If the developer has not paid the fee to discharge the conditions, then the permission has not been implemented - you cannot implement a permission until all the conditions have been discharged. As the permission has now expired, it can never be implemented. You are quite correct about this, and the enforcement officer is talking complete rubbish! It makes no difference whether the footings are in - they're unauthorised and do not benefit from any planning permission, even if they were started before 23 June.

cheapaschips wrote: »

Can anyone comment on this and let me know if there's anything i can do to stop the build and make him re-apply? since he got planning approval, loads of the folk on the street who didnt know about the application have said that they would have objected if they'd known. it's an ugly house that isnt in keeping with the street and is far too close to my house in particular for anyones liking.

Whilst the developer is building an unauthorised house and should be made to reapply, if the Council have already granted permission 3 years ago for this house, and none of the relevant policies have changed, then they can't reasonably refuse permission if he did reapply, so you may find it a bit fruitless if he does reapply.

planning_officer

IAIN wrote: »

If the developer has been granted permission and he has started construction on site within the time limits imposed, there is very little you can do. There are likley to be conditions attached to the application which the developer will need to discharge and comply with, but these are usually dealt with in parallel with the construction of the dwelling and not necessarily before construction starts.

Whilst that certainly used to be true, now fees are payable for discharging conditions. If the relevant fee has not been submitted to the Council, then that condition has not been discharged. As the developer has failed to discharge the conditions before the 3 year period by which the permission expires, he cannot now ever implement that permission - it's expired! Any works are therefore unauthorised, however, like I say above, if the developer does reapply, the Council wouldn't be able to reasonably refuse it, having already granted it permission 3 years ago.

cheapaschips_2

Planning officer,
thanks. this is more what i was after, informed sensible observations.
thanks again
cheap

Cknocker

Planning officer, this point is largely irrelevant, but I guess may explain the enforcement officers lack of interest at present. You obviously need planning permission to build a house, which the developer appears to not have at present, so if he builds a house the council should be taking enforcement action.

Do you however need planning permission to dig a hole and fill it with concrete. i.e. footings? Other than pperhaps it being viewed as hard landscaping I can't think of a reason stopping anyone.

planning_officer

Yes good question - depends if it is 'development' - the definition of development includes works underground however whether or not it was termed development, I think it would be so minor that the council wouldn't be taking any formal action over it.

benyboy

It may be worth a look at the government PPG7 - this allows for houses to be built in green belt areas providing that the architecture is 'outstanding'. While this is normally only used for grand country houses, it may be worth researching how this might apply to smaller well designed buildings?