One for the planning people...is this bloke being a bit cheeky?

Captain_Mainwaring_2

Well you will see soon enough, but if the flank wall is on the boundary then almost certainly he will have some detail overhang or it will look quite odd.

You really need to decide what it is you are objecting to if anything - is it that he has just been a "bit cheeky"?

I had a cocky neighbour a while back in a leasehold that I own come slepping through the garden lifting manhole covers to look for a main sewer connexion, I asked him what he though he was doing and told him to get off the property, he was under the impression that because it was just a flat he could do what he wanted, well he got a shock.
Even though he knew the flat was tenanted he though he could pull a fast one and he served a party wall act notice, scribbled on a bit of paper, the end result was he had to keep all of his footings with the boundary and had to to all his brickwork overhand.

He should have tried a few manners first and he may have got a better response.

I think you need to go to building control and get an enforcement notice served. For some reason planning officers are very quick to take the easy option and grant retrospective planning even when the original application would have been refused.

Dinah93

Grief, it's complicated. As I read it your sons extension would not be along the party boundary correct? The exact measurements vary from council to council but at mine a two storey extension is generally not acceptable along the party boundary due to over shadowing, and may be acceptable up to 2.4 in lenth set back from the party boundary. If the neighbour goes and sticks this up without permission he can have an enforcement notice served on him by the planning department, and if it is deemed not to be acceptable, he can be ordered to take it down. If it is along the party boundary, he has very slim chances of getting permission unless he can demonstrate that your son has intentions to place a similar extension on his property, and has no objections to the neighbours, but this would require some form off pp to have been submitted for your son as even if he has extensions, neither neighbours extension might be acceptable anyway!

As for the window in the roof of the dining room extension, lots of ways round this. Is the dining room extension being done under permitted development rights? If so, window is fair game, nothing the planners or the neighbour can do to prohibit it. If permission has been granted for plans without the window, your son can either apply for a minor amendment to the plans to get the window in, or once the extension has been fully completed he can then put a velux in the roof. Remember a building or extension under development has no permitted development rights, and permission must be gained for any changes. Once the structure is up however the same permitted development rights apply as on the rest of the property (assuming your property is not covered by an article IV direction, and no conditions have been applied to the permission to restrict velux windows, which would be a fairly odd condition to dream up and I don't think it would pass at least 2 of the 6 tests needed for a condition to stand up under inspection anyway).

Hope that helps, Dinah

I am a planning officer. Any comments made on these forums are informal opinion and should be taken as such. Planning guidelines vary between authorities, and you should consult your local council's planning team for in depth advice.

ken_and_dot

I don't think it would pass at least 2 of the 6 tests needed for a condition to stand up under inspection

Hi Dinah93. I'm interested in this sentence. What are these 6 tests or where could I read them up.

Dinah93

Any condition attached to a planning permission must pass 6 tests. These are
1. Neccessary
2. Relevant to planning (ie not covering something that can be enforced through other regulations such as building regulations or housing standards)
3. Relevant to the development to be permitted
4. Enforceable
5. Precise
6. Reasonable.

Personally I think restricting a velux window on a dining room extension would be unneccisary and unreasonable, as well as possibly being irrelevant to the development. Applications that go to committee have a nasty habit of being passed with barmy conditions on, often on the whim of the councillors who want to appease complainants who unfortunately have complained on grounds not relevant to planning. The developers then go to appeal, they win, and the council has to pay the costs. A recent one I read was a old people's home having to have all obscure glazed windows on 2 elevations so the old people would not be able to see into the playground of a school. There was an exceptionally scathing report from the planning inspector, and the condition has been removed as it is unreasonable.

I am a planning officer. Any comments made on these forums are informal opinion and should be taken as such. Planning guidelines vary between authorities, and you should consult your local council's planning team for in depth advice.

ken_and_dot

Any condition attached to a planning permission must pass 6 tests. These are
1. Neccessary
2. Relevant to planning (ie not covering something that can be enforced through other regulations such as building regulations or housing standards)
3. Relevant to the development to be permitted
4. Enforceable
5. Precise
6. Reasonable.

Thanks, that's very interesting although 1. and 6. do seem to be rather subjective. I had an application turned down on the grounds that it would cast unacceptable degree of shadow on the neighbouring property. I appealed and used computer software designed for the pupose to illustrate that between March and September the maximum increase in the area of shadow was less than 3%. Still lost on the appeal and it was clear from comments from the appeal officer that he hadn't even read my documents.

clutton_2

""A recent one I read was a old people's home having to have all obscure glazed windows on 2 elevations so the old people would not be able to see into the playground of a school.""

how utterly absured - so are OAPs now the "new paedos?" ????????????

Dinah93

The tests only apply to conditions put on an approved application, not on planning decisions. They are subjective, but demonstrable need must exist for a condition.

clutton_2

""The tests only apply to conditions put on an approved application, not on planning decisions. They are subjective, but demonstrable need must exist for a condition""

this is typical local authority double speak - Dinah i would be most grateful if you could put this into english - thanks

planning_officer

clutton wrote: »

each property will still have to have a separate complete planning application - no money will be saved at all - time possibly.

Not technically true, a joint application can be submitted, which would be very slightly cheaper (single fee of £295 rather than two applications each costing £150... a saving of £5!!) and of course would be by far the most sensible way forward - if one extension relies on the other for its acceptability, then this is the only way forward - it needs to be a joint application for both extensions, so the extensions can be conditioned to only be built in conjunction and not independently of each other.

Basically, if blokenextdoor submits plans for the retention and completion of his two storey extension, whether your son has built a two storey extension or not makes absolutely no difference - the planning officer cannot justify blokenextdoor's extension on the basis of an unlawful extension to your son's property. As your son's two storey extension would have no permission, blokenextdoor's application would have to be assessed on the basis that there is no extension to your son's property.

Again, the only way forward for a retrospective application is for both properties to retain their extensions, although as your son hasn't built his yet, blokenextdoor has got himself into a very silly position!

planning_officer

Captain_Mainwaring wrote: »

I think you need to go to building control and get an enforcement notice served. For some reason planning officers are very quick to take the easy option and grant retrospective planning even when the original application would have been refused.

Completely disagree I'm afraid. Firstly, it's planning that serve enforcement notices, not building control - and that's only when negotiations fail. Secondly, and most importantly, whether a development is in place or not makes no difference - if it's unacceptable on its planning merits, i.e. would not be granted permission if applied for prior to building commencing, then it should be refused retrospective permission and enforcement action taken. My authority is very pro-active on that count - whilst I can't comment for other LPAs, if they are granting permission like you say then they lay themselves open to all sorts of ombudsman complaints and compensation claims from neighbours.