Neighbours "eyesore" lean to...

aeg107

Hi - for the benefit of anyone who finds themselves in similar circumstances & comes across this post.
The council have validated my concerns & advised neighbours to remove to avoid legal enforcement actions.

Davesnave

aeg107 wrote: »

Hi - for the benefit of anyone who finds themselves in similar circumstances & comes across this post.
The council have validated my concerns & advised neighbours to remove to avoid legal enforcement actions.

Good!


Did they advise on the exact reason why this action was taken?

aeg107

Visual Harm & materials used do not compliment the original house.
It most certainly is a visual harm!!!
This was my initial concern, but my main concern is fire risk. The planning officer advised that would be more a builing req requirement whereas he is looking at it from a planning perspective

moneyistooshorttomention

Quick google later and found various references to "visual harm". That's a new one on me - but good to know it's official/quotable grounds for dealing with an ugly building etc - and not a case of "Oh - it's your subjective judgement that you think it's ugly" - followed by comment of "So what!".

EachPenny

aeg107 wrote: »

Visual Harm & materials used do not compliment the original house.
It most certainly is a visual harm!!!
This was my initial concern, but my main concern is fire risk. The planning officer advised that would be more a builing req requirement whereas he is looking at it from a planning perspective

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Quick google later and found various references to "visual harm". That's a new one on me - but good to know it's official/quotable grounds for dealing with an ugly building etc - and not a case of "Oh - it's your subjective judgement that you think it's ugly" - followed by comment of "So what!".

Just to be clear here... the planning officer could only initiate legal action if the structure required planning consent and that consent hadn't been obtained.

The issues of "visual harm" and "materials used" are irrelevant* if planning consent is not required. (*from a planning perspective).

If it is true that a planning officer's advice amounted to "The council have validated my concerns & advised neighbours to remove to avoid legal enforcement actions" then they have probably exceeded their authority.

They could advise the neighbour of the requirement to obtain planning consent (and the consequences of not doing so), and they could advise on the probability of consent being granted. (and likewise what would be required in the event of refusal).

But "visual harm" and "materials used" are subjective judgements and as such planning law provides the householder with the right of appeal. A planning inspector might make a different subjective judgement.

Other forum members shouldn't expect the same outcome in the same circumstances.

Davesnave

EachPenny wrote: »

Other forum members shouldn't expect the same outcome in the same circumstances.

Perhaps there's something in the description missing here and normal permitted development rights do not apply?

EachPenny

Davesnave wrote: »

Perhaps there's something in the description missing here and normal permitted development rights do not apply?

That would be my expectation... 9' high right against the property boundary on a house which has already been extended starts cutting down the potential PD rights.

The situation needs delicate handling because an aggrieved neighbour could recheck the PD rights and then build a worse eyesore just to be cussed. It happens.

aeg107

EachPenny wrote: »

Just to be clear here... the planning officer could only initiate legal action if the structure required planning consent and that consent hadn't been obtained.

The issues of "visual harm" and "materials used" are irrelevant* if planning consent is not required. (*from a planning perspective).

If it is true that a planning officer's advice amounted to "The council have validated my concerns & advised neighbours to remove to avoid legal enforcement actions" then they have probably exceeded their authority.

They could advise the neighbour of the requirement to obtain planning consent (and the consequences of not doing so), and they could advise on the probability of consent being granted. (and likewise what would be required in the event of refusal).

But "visual harm" and "materials used" are subjective judgements and as such planning law provides the householder with the right of appeal. A planning inspector might make a different subjective judgement.

Other forum members shouldn't expect the same outcome in the same circumstances.

No planning consent applied for & apparently advised would not be granted either due to materials used. If had been a brick build, then planning app would be invited.
Appreciate may not be the same outcome for others in similar situation, but may help with reaching decision re contacting the council & seeking advice....? I personally did not want to snitch on neighbours, but is a very poor standard build & very imposing on our property - I feel could be detrimental to our chances of selling house in the future......& Believe me it's a bloomin eyesore!!!