Single storey outbuilding being redeveloped as two storey house !

jonnydeppiwish!

GDB2222 said:

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

Totally true - again, we don’t k ie what it will be used for as the op doesn’t know. Bedroom for their teenage child, parent or to rent out perhaps?

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

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! said:

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

I read the OP's post, and understood the implications of the amendments it appears the neighbour is making.

You don't appear to understand the significance of these yourself.  Consequently the OP and anyone reading this thread in a similar situation (either as developer or neighbour) should treat your 'advice' with due caution.

Building something which is capable of use as an independent dwelling is a massive change from the consented development - the exterior may not look that different, but it is a 'rookie error' to believe that planning only relates to what the building looks like on the outside.

How do you know "no local planning authority will put an enforcement notice on it"?  In my experience many local authorities are treating "beds in sheds" as a top priority for enforcement action as this kind of development is also associated with exploitation of vulnerable people.  Enforcement action against anything of that nature is common in the areas where I've worked and lived.

Section62

jonnydeppiwish! said:

GDB2222 said:

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

Totally true - again, we don’t k ie what it will be used for as the op doesn’t know. Bedroom for their teenage child, parent or to rent out perhaps?

In a case like this it doesn't matter what the neighbour intends to do with the space.  What matters is what the space is cabable of being used as, and whether the development is being built in accordance with the consent.

GDB2222

We go to a seaside town quite a bit, and we have noticed a really big crop of beds in sheds has appeared during the pandemic, due to the demand for staycations.  Apparently, you could let any old tat for holiday accommodation, over the last two years, and the local authority  has turned a blind eye to it. But, what will be done with this accommodation now that travel restrictions have ended? 

There’s quite a short window for the LA to clamp down, and are they going to be happy when all these huts get filled with permanent residents?

AlexMac

Interesting thread, and I'd hope to hear the eventual outcome and whether the Council do investigate or enforce.

If you are unhappy with the short-term outcome, get on to your ward councillors via writetothem.com  They are the politicians who run the Council, so are the "non-execs" responsible for local planning decisons and enforcement, and should hold their paid Officers to account

I woudn't bank on rapid responses without you pushing.  Locally we have a problem that the Council are desperately short of Planning Officers, and struggle to cope (I live in a riverside borough where masses of flats are being built on the large tracts of former industrial land, so lots of new work for Planners and Building Control in addition to the usual domestic odds n ends)

In consequence, and although we residents secured lots of helpful Planning conditions on a recent house-building project, the rules were really hard to enforce.

The developer got permission to replace a bungalow with two four-storey semis, with 2 underground basements sunk into a13 metre deep hole, so lots of noisy piling and excavation and massive quantities of spoil .We'd successfully argued that 32-tonne tipper lorries shouldn't traverse our narrow unmade-up lane before 9.30am  or after 3pm, as there are no pavements and hundreds of kids and others walk along it daily. There were also the usual restrictions on noise, dust and requirements for vibration monitoring equipment. 

All ignored, despite me and others grassing 'em up, frequently, to the Council, with photos, after  walls started to crack, plates started falling out of cupboards, pictures off walls, phonelines dying and in our case, despite us being five houses away, Alarm systems being knocked out!

We got our own back in the end, albeit strategically;  the Councillors and Planning Officers got so fed up being bombarded with calles, complaints, letters and emails that they eventually wrote a presumption AGAINST double depth basements into the local SPDs (supplementary planning documents).  

Hop your lot are more responsive in the short term!

FreeBear

AlexMac said:(I live in a riverside borough where masses of flats are being built on the large tracts of former industrial land, so lots of new work for Planners and Building Control in addition to the usual domestic odds n ends)

The developer got permission to replace a bungalow with two four-storey semis, with 2 underground basements sunk into a 13 metre deep hole

Those basements are going to end up as indoor swimming pools....

stingrayjjj

many thanks for all your suggestions. A formal investigation has been announced by the Planning Dept, though my messages and photos take a long time to get a reply and no one picks up the phone 'due to covid' . I have written to our local councillors and asked neighbours to also do so. 

stingrayjjj

This is the latest from the Planning Dept

I visited the site yesterday, measured the building, and discussed our concerns with the agent. I have checked my measurements against the drawings approved by the planning application xxxx, and can confirm that the overall external dimensions are as approved.  The main difference is therefore the internal layout, whereby there are now two floors and more rooms have been fitted into the same amount of space.


I have been advised that the use of the building is intended for close family members only, which would be incidental to the main dwellinghouse and would not constitute an unauthorised change of use.

We have received an application for the development as it is being built, though this is not yet validated. I shall inform you once it is ready to view on the public planning register, and you'll have the opportunity to comment or object. In terms of the enforcement case, we will be awaiting determination of this application prior to deciding how to progress the case.


My objections are that the external dimensions may be the same but only because of large-scale excavation. The internal dimensions are not the same. They have dug down to accommodate two floors.

1 Two floors have been created instead of one.
2 Two bedrooms and an upper bathroom have been built instead of none.
3 A residential building has been created instead of the proposed garden room/office space. 
4 The owners have disregarded the application and constructed an entirely different building to the one originally proposed. 

Any other advice gratefully appreciated! 







   

 

user1977

stingrayjjj said:

We have received an application for the development as it is being built, though this is not yet validated. I shall inform you once it is ready to view on the public planning register, and you'll have the opportunity to comment or object...

My objections are that the external dimensions may be the same but only because of large-scale excavation. The internal dimensions are not the same. They have dug down to accommodate two floors.

1 Two floors have been created instead of one.
2 Two bedrooms and an upper bathroom have been built instead of none.
3 A residential building has been created instead of the proposed garden room/office space. 
4 The owners have disregarded the application and constructed an entirely different building to the one originally proposed. 

Are these objections to the new application (which it doesn't sound like you've even seen yet)? Surely the point of that is that they are now applying for permission for something different than originally proposed? Your objections need to relate to the current application, not the previous one.

GDB2222

You should stop looking at this retrospectively. They are submitting a brand new planning application, effectively, and you need to look at that, and comment accordingly. There are specific grounds for objecting to planning applications, and there is no point raising anything else.