We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING:
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour.
Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
How did the council get away with this?
Comments
-
Surely the land boundaries were clearly defined before the building work took place? Was there not some kind of fence?
Even so, there should be no encroachment between properties within the space formed by a vertical line dropped from the gutter outside edge to ground level.
Council enforcement visited and noted the encroachment and building not within scope of the original plan and yet they bottled it and refused to address the issue.
The council need to be taken to task, and held accountable .
Mr Nazir needs to be forced to remove the extension and rebuild it correctly,
The council must be compelled to pay for all remedial works since it appears guilty of maladministrationFeudal Britain needs land reform. 70% of the land is "owned" by 1 % of the population and at least 50% is unregistered (inherited by landed gentry). Thats why your slave box costs so much..0 -
There's no record on there of any objections to the application, and the before photos in the PDF show that the two houses were linked anyway by a closed passageway which has been replaced.
Am I misreading your first link?4. Consultation/PP Responses
4.1. Neighbours and local Ward Councillors have been notified. Ten responses have been
received from the occupiers of Nos. 33, 35, 51, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64, 66 and 68 The Hurst.
Objections were raised on the grounds of:
· Loss of character of the street,
· Scale of the development,
· Terracing within the street,
· Loss of privacy/light/outlook,
· Overshadowing,
· Overhang and encroachment,
· Party Wall/maintenance issues,
· Potential drainage issues,
· Structural integrity of neighbouring dwellings,
· Sets an undesirable precedent for other extensions within the street.
4.2. A petition with 52 signatures has also been submitted, objecting to the proposal.0 -
No, I missed that completely. I'm used to the planning record showing all objections received, in full. I wonder why Brum don't...? Apologies.Nobbie1967 wrote: »Am I misreading your first link?0 -
C_Mababejive wrote: »Surely the land boundaries were clearly defined before the building work took place? Was there not some kind of fence?
It sounds like the complainers' gable wall was the boundaryEven so, there should be no encroachment between properties within the space formed by a vertical line dropped from the gutter outside edge to ground level.
If the complainers' gutter is overhanging the new extension, that suggests it was already encroaching on the neighbours' property.0 -
If the complainers' gutter is overhanging the new extension, that suggests it was already encroaching on the neighbours' property.
Whilst the land the gutter overhangs may belong to another person, this is as-designed by the builder so an easement exists and no "encroachment" has taken place.0 -
Interesting re the mentioning of 'terracing' in one of the objections. We had to step the front wall of our extension back from the existing building line of our front wall because the council claimed there would be a 'terracing' effect. This despite our neighbour's house being about 4ft closer to the road than ours. I see that this doesn't seem to have been an issue here.Make £2026 in 2026
Prolific £231.51, Octopoints £4.60, Tesco Clubcard challenges £38.80, Airtime £10 TCB £225.19, Everup £77.04, Roadkill £1.77, Zopa CB £30, Misc £10.11,
Total £629.02 31%Make £2025 in 2025 Total £2241.23/£2025 110.7%
Prolific £1062.50, Octopoints £6.64, TCB £492.05, Tesco Clubcard challenges £89.90, Misc Sales £321, Airtime £70, Shopmium £53.06, Everup £106.08, Zopa CB £30, Misc survey £10
Make £2024 in 2024 Total £1410 70%Make £2023 in 2023 Total: £2606.33 128.8%0 -
Wouldn't having two houses so close together cause damp issues? I'd imagine rain water would be able to get between the houses but air/sunlight wouldn't really be able to circulate and dry it out.0
-
No, I missed that completely. I'm used to the planning record showing all objections received, in full. I wonder why Brum don't...? Apologies.
Our council remove all the comments once the case is closed - they don't stay there indefinitely.
Presumably the property developer who built the extension will have to disclose a neighbour dispute when he sells - which won't do wonders for his selling price.Adventure before Dementia!0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 355.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 456.2K Spending & Discounts
- 248.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 606K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 179K Life & Family
- 263.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards