Neighour's extension on my land

planning_officer

VictorMeldew wrote: »

He also mentioned the fact that the house has already been extended previously by apparently more than 10% of it's original size, and therefore has already used up it's allowance (something along these lines anyway). Is this just a guideline or is it legislation? If I can prove that the house has been extended previously would this mean that the entire development should not have been permitted?

Hello Vic - sorry to dampen this, but that won't make any difference. Basically, under planning legislation, one can extend a detached house or a semi up to 70 cu m or 15% (not 10% - the councillor is getting mixed up there (that only applies if it's a terrace or you're in an AONB, National Park or Conservation Area)!), whichever is the larger, as 'permitted development'. These figures and percentages only apply to what can be classed as permitted developemnt - they have no bearing whatsoever on a planning application, which is an entirely different issue. There's no 'set limit' properties can extend by, providing planning permission is granted - every planning application is considered on its own merits, including visual appearance and impact on neighbours as two important issues.

I think the councillor was trying to say that the single storey extension could not be permitted development as the PD allowance had already been used up, which is what we concluded earlier in the thread. As I say, this unfortunately has nothing to do with the two storey extension, or the planning application.

VictorMeldew

Thanks for all the support again everyone.

I think that the councilor was saying that the original extension was more than 10% of the original house (it is a terrace btw) and therefore thought that it shouldn't have been extended more than this. I know that this is incorrect now(or maybe I misunderstood him) , I was just clutching at straws again!

I received an email from one of the councilors asking what I'd consider a positive outcome to this situation, so I said basically that I wanted to be able to achieve the same price for my house when I come to sell. as if the extension wsan't on my land. I said therefore that I wanted the extension removed from my land, or compensated by the amount I'll lose because of it when I sell. I'm trying not to get my hopes up too much, although they did seem pretty positive that something could be done.

My surveyor's report will apparently be ready tommorrow so hopefully I'll know what sort of situation I'll be in if I want to go to court.

Hethmar - if I got my neighbours to sign a statement saying that to the best of their knowledge the fence hasn't been moved, would this stand up in court? The ones opposite him at the back have been there 20 years, and I've already asked them to look through their old photos for me!!

hethmar

It has to have a statement of truth on it Vic. I had statements typed up and signed but the solicitor then sent for them again to each person because you have to add a statement of truth and then sign it. I dont know if it would be worth getting them to go to a solicitor to do it. Hang on, Ill find out on mine what it actually says:

You do the statement and at the end of it you type - silly nonsense really but apparently necessary.

STATEMENT OF TRUTH

I believe that the facts stated in this Statement are true.

Signed by

Full Name

Dated this xxxxxxxxx day of xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008

It may be worth seeing if you could get a solicitor to type them out so it looks more official? The actual statement itself has to contain all the relevant dates and details, the persons name and address.

I guess in your case something like,

I xxxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxxxxxxxx have lived in this property adjoining xxxxxxxxx since xxxxxxxxx and during all that time the fences *on the xxxxxx boundary between xxxx and xxx * have remained in the same position as they are currently.

On ours - ready for court - it says

The effect of making a false declaration as to the truth of this document would be to create a situation where you can be in contempt of court which is punishable by a fine and will affect the outcome of the litigation. Please check the documents are accurate before you sign them.


Something along those lines and also get some pics now and if you can get some old ones that would be good with dates. Ive also got old aerial photos of ours. We usually have salesmen come round every 7 years or so trying to flog them and we have a few of ours and from the old lady next door who had lived there since 1950. Google earth may be just as good for the position at the mo.

VictorMeldew

Bit more of an update for anyone who is still interested! My surveyor's report is due to arrive tomorrow - there have been a few delays due to the complexity of the site. My surveyor says that it clearly shows a significant trespass though.

I have received a reply from the planning department complaint procedure. It turns out that the planning officer knew all along about the new one storey extension, and just decided himself that it didn't need planning permission. They have admitted now that it should have had planning permission, but still don't seem to be doing anything to rectify this. I am fuming that when I phoned up and told him of the new one-storey extension when it was being built he already knew about it! He said at the time that an enforcement officer would be sent out, and I received a letter from him stating that this had occured - this was all complete bullsh!t.

They seem to have avoided my accusation that the ommission of the site plan led to me not being able to properly object to the application as I could not know exactly where it was being built, and also that I was unable to prevent it being built on my land because again I could not know where it was meant to be built until it was too late.

Here is their response -

VictorMeldew

Thank you for your complaint. Your complaint has given us an opportunity to learn about how we can deliver better services to our customers.
Your complaint
Relates to the construction of an extension (Appl No: xxxxxxx) at x xxxxxxx xxx which involved the erection two-storey extension at side and canopy to front, and erect pitched roof over existing flat-roofed extension at rear and the fact that a single storey structure ha; been constructed in addition to the above without the benefit of planning permission. Furthermore you raise concerns that the extensions were granted planning permission without a siteplan showing where the extension was to be sited in relation to both yours and the applicants property.
My findings
I have reviewed the case file together with the series of e-mails between yourself and the case officer (xxxxx xxxxxxl). I have separated my response into the two separate, but interlinked, areas of concern that you have identified.

[i) A letter was received from yourself on 18th March 2008 objecting to the proposal
on the grounds that the introduction of a first floor balcony would lead to a loss of privacy to yourself and your property, and that the extension would lead to a loss of light to your rear windows. Following a site inspection the case officer felt that the balcony would indeed be an invasion of privacy to properties at the rear, and advised the applicant to remove that element of the proposal, otherwise the application would likely be refused. Revised drawing were submitted on 18th April which showed this balcony element being deleted. As part of these revisions an additional single storey extension was also shown to the rear of the property. (PLanning officer) has previously stated to you that this single storey element was considered to be Permitted Development and as such did not require planning permission. Whilst I appreciate that Mr xxxxxxxxx was trying to be helpful in his response, and in normal instances where a two storey extension was not proposed, this extension would be considered to be Permitted Development, however in this particular instance I consider that he wasn't entirely correct in his response. The single storey rear extension should have formed part of the overall application for which the Permitted Development entitlement had already been exceeded and as such both you and the neighbouring properties should have been consulted in respect of the proposed revisions made to the applicant. The case officers assessment of the application took into account the likely effect that this single storey extension would have on your property and it was found that this would not affect your residential amenity due to the fact that it would not project any further at the rear than the existing kitchen extension and would be set further off the party boundary than the two storey element of the proposal. However I appreciate, and apologise for the fact, that you were not given an opportunity to comment on the revised scheme.
(il) As part of the application, the applicant had to submit a 'red line plan' and submit a Certificate of Ownership to indicate that he was the owner of land to which the application related. Furthermore an informative was attached to the decision notice, dated 11th June 2008, regarding ownership details, the full text of which reads as follows;
The permission hereby granted does not convey any rights or approval to build on, or develop, any land that is not fully owned or controlled by the applicant, including party boundaries. Applicants should satisfy themselves that the agreement of any adjoining land owners has been given prior to works commencing on site.
I am satisfied that the necessary safeguards were put in place so insure that proposed building works did not encroach onto your property. The applicant was informed of what he had planning permission for and what his responsibilities were. You should also be aware that any unauthorised entry onto your property is a civil matter and is not something that the Local Planning Authority can be held responsible for.
Your right to complain to the next stage
I hope you are satisfied with the action we are carrying out to put things right for you. If you are dissatisfied you can complain at stage 2 of our complaint procedure. You will need to explain why you are dissatisfied with my response and contact xxxxxx xxxxxx who is the Head of Service.
Yours sincerely
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx Development Control Division Phone: 233-302
Email: xxxxxxx.xxxxxx@liverpool.gov.uk

melancholly

i saw this come up in my subscribed threads - i was nervous openning it!

that response reads a lot like 'WE ARE PASSING THE BUCK'...... or is it me? i seriously hope this works out for you and i find it bizarre that if there is a problem with boundaries, the planning office says it's not their problem.... what authority do they even have then?!

hethmar

I think they are on the run, but lets hope that is of benefit to you - they obviously admit the bloke was wrong saying the single storey didnt need Planning application and that you therefore had no chance to object to it nor state that it would encroach on your property. (Sounds like Mr xxxxxxxxxxxx who was "trying to be helpful in his response" has had a real old rocket )


"The single storey rear extension should have formed part of the overall application for which the Permitted Development entitlement had already been exceeded and as such both you and the neighbouring properties should have been consulted in respect of the proposed revisions made to the applicant."


Worse case scenario is surely that you have a claim for negligence against them?

And no melancholly - Planning Office have no interest whatsoever with boundaries - as we found to our cost - as they say above - they tell the applicant his duties regarding it and then wash their hands of any action he takes. We have had the same thing happen to us.

Just reread the letter - the last few sentences sound like a pro forma template - what exactly are they doing to resolve the situation for you? Nothing from the sound of the rest of the letter. Further the complaint to the next stage

melancholly

i don't understand the point of the planning office if they have no power to take action if their advice isn't followed? are they entirely toothless then?

VictorMeldew

This response was from the planning officer's boss, not the planning officer himself. I thought that the first stage of complaint would be dealt with by the planning officer himself.

"and would be set further off the party boundary than the two storey element of the proposal"

I'm not sure what this bit means either as the one-storey extension couldn't be any closer to the party boundary - it is touching the fence!

I notice that they didn't really confirm or deny whether a site plan was included in the application - they seemed to have side stepped the issue.

I have heard nothing else from the councilors, so looks like I was getting my hopes up about that too. They maybe had a hand in getting this reply though.

I spoke to the local government ombudsman and they said that they can't step in yet until the council's complaint procedure has been exhausted. I explained the situation to him though and he said it is definitely worth pursuing as I may have a case about there not being a site plan. I will definitely be pursuing this all the way to the ombudsman if I can, although if the council's other responses are as slow as the first this may be ages off.

VictorMeldew

melancholly wrote: »

i don't understand the point of the planning office if they have no power to take action if their advice isn't followed? are they entirely toothless then?

Unfortunately my neighbour hasn't really done anything wrong in terms of his planning application. He should have had a site plan, but the planning office should have made him submit one.

In a nutshell, all the planning office do is check whether the extension would look ok in the surrounding neighbourhood. I don't know how an extension could be any more over-bearing though than this one is, and they didn't seem bothered about that either.