Driveway/Planning Permission Advice

teneighty

There must be more to this than we are being told.

Replacing an existing concrete driveway with gravel does not require a planning application.

What has the enforcement officer actually written?

Dan-Dan

Most surveyors will make no comment on any driveway or garden areas

Furts

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Most surveyors will make no comment on any driveway or garden areas

If there is a problem then it should be flagged up. I was recently looking at a house and there was a basic valuation survey. It flagged up the state of the rear garden as being unsatisfactory and requiring expenditure to bring it up to standard. I regarded this as bizarre, because I knew the surveyor had not been in the roofspace, and my intuition was he had not even been inside the house.

It was not just a drive buy valuation - the surveyor had got out of his car and wandered around...but that appeared to be about as far as it went. Still, I was not paying for the survey - that was somebody else's problem!

bouicca21

I don't understand the problem with the concrete post. Is it on your land? How does it interfere with the pedestrian crossing?

George_Michael

Furts wrote: »

It is also a strange area to be considering and commenting on. A drive made of gravel is not an approved surface and neither is it deemed good practice. The Enforcement Officer need only quote the building of new homes and drives where such construction has been forbidden for decades.

If gravel is forbidden, why does the government's own planning website state otherwise?

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/45/paving_your_front_garden

You will not need planning permission if a new or replacement driveway of any size uses permeable (or porous) surfacing which allows water to drain through, such as gravel, permeable concrete block paving or porous asphalt, or if the rainwater is directed to a lawn or border to drain naturally.

Dan-Dan

George_Michael wrote: »

If gravel is forbidden, why does the government's own planning website state otherwise?

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/45/paving_your_front_garden

Depends whats underneath the gravel

George_Michael

Dan-Dan wrote: »

Depends whats underneath the gravel

I agree but gravel itself is far from being forbidden on driveways.

Tilly5

Wow, thank you for all your responses.

It is quite difficult to explain in full but to summarise points raised.

There is no issue with water run-off onto the highway, the gravel has actually helped resolve issues which were caused by the existing concrete without drainage. The council have not raised any issues with water run-off. According to new regulations you are not allowed gravel within 2m of a footway this is what the enforcement officer is requesting I change. I have installed a double row of cobbles at the end of the driveway so any gravel coming off the driveway is minimal.

The next part of the enforcement is the stone post. I have been and measured and the nearest point of my driveway to the nearest point of the pelican crossing is 5.6m. From what the EO has said regulations have changed and my driveway is now deemed to be too close to the pelican crossing. The property next door has a driveway that is under a 1m away from the crossing but because they have received no complaints they do not need to act on it.

I can move the stone post like they request but this will prevent access to the original driveway and current driveway because of the fence erected by my neighbours in February.

Either way I think I am in a lose-lose situation. I have already disclosed to the buyer, I would never try to hide anything like that. If the buyer wishes to proceed I will of course be offering a discount on agreed price but there is the possibility that they will not want to proceed.

I still haven't received any formal written notification, it all seems so strange?

But there is nothing more to this than council received a complaint, reviewed complaint and assessed driveway against CURRENT regulations and provided advice to meet these regulations.

Whats more annoying is the driveway was here first, then the pelican crossing

I am absolutely gutted as I am set to lose my onward purchase, I also feel for my buyers as they are in a predicament too.

Tilly5

With regards to stone post - yes this is on my land and forms part of boundary. But due to it being relocated and subsequently widening driveway access it is now deemed unacceptable.

Confusing matter is that the stone post is no further along than the dropped kerb?? But I suppose that comes back to the difference in previous regulations and current regulations.

bouicca21

I'm still confused. Are you being told what current regulations are? Or are you being instructed to meet current regulations?

There are plenty of situations where buildings don't meet current regulations. It is impossible for them to do so, since regulations keep changing. There is therefore no obligation for any but new installations to comply. When a complaint of somekind is received then the officers are bound to point out what current regulations are. That doesn't mean that they are trying to impose them.