Single storey outbuilding being redeveloped as two storey house !

jonnydeppiwish!

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Wait and see what the council say. There’s no reason why, if needed, they won’t be able to apply for retrospective planning permission and be given it, regardless of how ‘outraged’ you and your neighbours are. Then again, the council might refuse it.

There's a whiff of criticism of the OP in some posts on this thread.

The OP is absolutely within their 'rights' (there is a right to comment/object) to complain to the council about a development taking place which is not in accordance with the approved plans.  There's no point in having a plan-led development control system if people apply for consent for one thing, and decide to build something completely different when they think nobody is watching.

People dodging the law when it comes to development means other people end up living in sub-standard damp and difficult to heat properties.  Or they cheat the taxpayer by not paying what is due on a separate dwelling. Often 'beds in sheds' get let to people on the margins of society, those who find it hardest to exert their 'rights' for fit and suitable accommodation.

If the OP is exercising their 'right' to alert the council to potentially unlawful development that ultimately might put other people's safety and health at risk, possibly to the point of abuse of people who have no voice, then I say all power to the OP.  If the neighbour is acting lawfully then they have nothing to worry about if planning and building control take a closer look.

From the OP's perspective they also have a 'right' to expect the council to take development control decisions lawfully and within the plan-led DC framework.  The OP and the neighbours weren't consulted on the construction of a two-storey dwelling.  In assessing the changed development - either as a variation of the approved plans, or as retrospective consent - the council need to follow the correct process and (IMV) reconsult the neighbours.  If the council let this change of plans go through 'on the nod' the OP has a 'right' to complain - i.e. following the council's complaints process and if that doesn't achieve a satisfactory result* they may take their complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman

https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/your-neighbour-s-planning-application

(*the result won't be overturning a planning consent once given, hence the need for pre-emptive action by those who might be affected)

Suggest you reread my comment - there’s no way a council will ask them to knock anything down without given them an opportunity to apply for retrospective pp, regardless of what the op and their neighbours may say or do, exactly what you’ve just repeated in a lot more words.

Sometimes giving a simple and straightforward response is a lot more beneficial for the op.

jonnydeppiwish!

ProDave said:

If I am reading this right, the neighbour has planning for a single storey building but is constructing a 2 storey building instesd.

Then the OP absolutely must report this the the council and get their planning enforecement team involved.  That is not a case of counting the number of objections, but simply enforcing the neighbour to build exactly what he has planning permission for and nothing else.

The neighbour could submit another retrospective planning application and if he does that, THEN is the time for you to object to the modified plans.

If the neighbour fails to get retrospective planning for the 2 storey building then the council should enforece it's removal, or reduction in height to comply with the single storey planning.

Exactly my point. Ward councillors have minimal input into any planning decisions, regardless to what they may think. Local councillors have no input as the planning dept are governed by set regulations.

jonnydeppiwish!

@canaldumidi

The one other thing you could consider is contacting the council's Building Control dept. This is seperate from Planning, and they would enforce compliance with Building Regulations - an entirely different matter.

A good point but BC would only be able to enforce issues if there is material problems with the actual build itself. They have no concern of what has or does not have pp.

GDB2222

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Wait and see what the council say. There’s no reason why, if needed, they won’t be able to apply for retrospective planning permission and be given it, regardless of how ‘outraged’ you and your neighbours are. Then again, the council might refuse it.

There's a whiff of criticism of the OP in some posts on this thread.

The OP is absolutely within their 'rights' (there is a right to comment/object) to complain to the council about a development taking place which is not in accordance with the approved plans.  There's no point in having a plan-led development control system if people apply for consent for one thing, and decide to build something completely different when they think nobody is watching.

People dodging the law when it comes to development means other people end up living in sub-standard damp and difficult to heat properties.  Or they cheat the taxpayer by not paying what is due on a separate dwelling. Often 'beds in sheds' get let to people on the margins of society, those who find it hardest to exert their 'rights' for fit and suitable accommodation.

If the OP is exercising their 'right' to alert the council to potentially unlawful development that ultimately might put other people's safety and health at risk, possibly to the point of abuse of people who have no voice, then I say all power to the OP.  If the neighbour is acting lawfully then they have nothing to worry about if planning and building control take a closer look.

From the OP's perspective they also have a 'right' to expect the council to take development control decisions lawfully and within the plan-led DC framework.  The OP and the neighbours weren't consulted on the construction of a two-storey dwelling.  In assessing the changed development - either as a variation of the approved plans, or as retrospective consent - the council need to follow the correct process and (IMV) reconsult the neighbours.  If the council let this change of plans go through 'on the nod' the OP has a 'right' to complain - i.e. following the council's complaints process and if that doesn't achieve a satisfactory result* they may take their complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman

https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/your-neighbour-s-planning-application

(*the result won't be overturning a planning consent once given, hence the need for pre-emptive action by those who might be affected)

Suggest you reread my comment - there’s no way a council will ask them to knock anything down without given them an opportunity to apply for retrospective pp, regardless of what the op and their neighbours may say or do, exactly what you’ve just repeated in a lot more words.

Sometimes giving a simple and straightforward response is a lot more beneficial for the op.

I gather it’s usual to allow an application for PP to be made. Are you saying that the council have to do so?

It's not obvious that that application would be successful. You seem to be going on the assumption that it would be. Can I ask why?

jonnydeppiwish!

GDB2222 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Wait and see what the council say. There’s no reason why, if needed, they won’t be able to apply for retrospective planning permission and be given it, regardless of how ‘outraged’ you and your neighbours are. Then again, the council might refuse it.

There's a whiff of criticism of the OP in some posts on this thread.

The OP is absolutely within their 'rights' (there is a right to comment/object) to complain to the council about a development taking place which is not in accordance with the approved plans.  There's no point in having a plan-led development control system if people apply for consent for one thing, and decide to build something completely different when they think nobody is watching.

People dodging the law when it comes to development means other people end up living in sub-standard damp and difficult to heat properties.  Or they cheat the taxpayer by not paying what is due on a separate dwelling. Often 'beds in sheds' get let to people on the margins of society, those who find it hardest to exert their 'rights' for fit and suitable accommodation.

If the OP is exercising their 'right' to alert the council to potentially unlawful development that ultimately might put other people's safety and health at risk, possibly to the point of abuse of people who have no voice, then I say all power to the OP.  If the neighbour is acting lawfully then they have nothing to worry about if planning and building control take a closer look.

From the OP's perspective they also have a 'right' to expect the council to take development control decisions lawfully and within the plan-led DC framework.  The OP and the neighbours weren't consulted on the construction of a two-storey dwelling.  In assessing the changed development - either as a variation of the approved plans, or as retrospective consent - the council need to follow the correct process and (IMV) reconsult the neighbours.  If the council let this change of plans go through 'on the nod' the OP has a 'right' to complain - i.e. following the council's complaints process and if that doesn't achieve a satisfactory result* they may take their complaint to the Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman

https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/planning-and-building-control/your-neighbour-s-planning-application

(*the result won't be overturning a planning consent once given, hence the need for pre-emptive action by those who might be affected)

Suggest you reread my comment - there’s no way a council will ask them to knock anything down without given them an opportunity to apply for retrospective pp, regardless of what the op and their neighbours may say or do, exactly what you’ve just repeated in a lot more words.

Sometimes giving a simple and straightforward response is a lot more beneficial for the op.

I gather it’s usual to allow an application for PP to be made. Are you saying that the council have to do so?

It's not obvious that that application would be successful. You seem to be going on the assumption that it would be. Can I ask why?

The retrospective pp application would be allowed in almost all situations. This would be the only time objections would be heard from the op and neighbours.

I certainly didn’t say it would be approved though as that would likely go to planning committee rather than delegates decision.
If decided against, that would be when the council would be able to take enforcement action and not before. 

Additionally, an appeal would almost certainly be an option before said action.

Any letters to planning complaining of changes would only implement an investigation, and other than said investigation, would have no impact on said investigation. Only one complaint is needed to instigate it.

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Wait and see what the council say. There’s no reason why, if needed, they won’t be able to apply for retrospective planning permission and be given it, regardless of how ‘outraged’ you and your neighbours are. Then again, the council might refuse it.

...

Suggest you reread my comment - there’s no way a council will ask them to knock anything down without given them an opportunity to apply for retrospective pp, regardless of what the op and their neighbours may say or do, exactly what you’ve just repeated in a lot more words.

Sometimes giving a simple and straightforward response is a lot more beneficial for the op.

True, a "simple and straightforward response" can be better, but with the proviso it accurately states the position.  The problem with your post was that it doesn't, and the way things work in planning is more nuanced than your post suggests.

And here's another one...

jonnydeppiwish! said:

ProDave said:

If I am reading this right, the neighbour has planning for a single storey building but is constructing a 2 storey building instesd.

Then the OP absolutely must report this the the council and get their planning enforecement team involved.  That is not a case of counting the number of objections, but simply enforcing the neighbour to build exactly what he has planning permission for and nothing else.

The neighbour could submit another retrospective planning application and if he does that, THEN is the time for you to object to the modified plans.

If the neighbour fails to get retrospective planning for the 2 storey building then the council should enforece it's removal, or reduction in height to comply with the single storey planning.

Exactly my point. Ward councillors have minimal input into any planning decisions, regardless to what they may think. Local councillors have no input as the planning dept are governed by set regulations.

The "Local councillors" I work with and who sit on planning committees will be really surprised to learn they have "no input".  Every tier of local government in England (including parish councils) have "local councillors" who have an input into planning decisions.  Those "set regulations" you refer to actually lay out how different kinds of "Local councillors" should be involved in the process.

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

GDB2222 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

I gather it’s usual to allow an application for PP to be made. Are you saying that the council have to do so?

It's not obvious that that application would be successful. You seem to be going on the assumption that it would be. Can I ask why?

The retrospective pp application would be allowed in almost all situations. This would be the only time objections would be heard from the op and neighbours.

I certainly didn’t say it would be approved though as that would likely go to planning committee rather than delegates decision.
If decided against, that would be when the council would be able to take enforcement action and not before.

^More false information.^

See Section 70C of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  An authority may decline to determine a (retrospective) application in relation to development on land to which a pre-existing enforcement notice relates.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/70C

I.e. They don't have to make a decision on a retrospective application and could proceed with the enforcement notice instead.

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Additionally, an appeal would almost certainly be an option before said action.

An appeal against what?

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Any letters to planning complaining of changes would only implement an investigation, and other than said investigation, would have no impact on said investigation. Only one complaint is needed to instigate it.

Sorry, I've got no idea what ^that^ means, but it doesn't reflect the reality of how enforcement action would progress where there were multiple complaints (aka 'objections') regarding unlawful development.

jonnydeppiwish!

Section62 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

GDB2222 said:

jonnydeppiwish! said:

I gather it’s usual to allow an application for PP to be made. Are you saying that the council have to do so?

It's not obvious that that application would be successful. You seem to be going on the assumption that it would be. Can I ask why?

The retrospective pp application would be allowed in almost all situations. This would be the only time objections would be heard from the op and neighbours.

I certainly didn’t say it would be approved though as that would likely go to planning committee rather than delegates decision.
If decided against, that would be when the council would be able to take enforcement action and not before.

^More false information.^

See Section 70C of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  An authority may decline to determine a (retrospective) application in relation to development on land to which a pre-existing enforcement notice relates.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/70C

I.e. They don't have to make a decision on a retrospective application and could proceed with the enforcement notice instead.

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Additionally, an appeal would almost certainly be an option before said action.

An appeal against what?

jonnydeppiwish! said:

Any letters to planning complaining of changes would only implement an investigation, and other than said investigation, would have no impact on said investigation. Only one complaint is needed to instigate it.

Sorry, I've got no idea what ^that^ means, but it doesn't reflect the reality of how enforcement action would progress where there were multiple complaints (aka 'objections') regarding unlawful development.

Read what the op has written.

The only difference, according to the limited information that they have provided, is an additional window.

They haven’t provided any other changes, except for they may have dug down slightly deeper.

As long as the other dimensions are as agreed, no local planning authority will put an enforcement notice on it.

jonnydeppiwish!

Obviously, if it’s a change of use, such as Airbnb, then that would be a completely different situation.

GDB2222

There’s quite a lot of difference between an office and a building that can be used as self contained accommodation.