Neighour's extension on my land

ffacoffipawb

espresso wrote: »

How many readers actually noticed though?

I don't belieeeve that I didn't spot that either!

RabbitMad

espresso wrote: »

How many readers actually noticed though?

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Fcuknig Anzamig Inst it!

VictorMeldew

While the thread has been bumped anyway!!, I may as well post an update for anyone still interested.

I've got the surveyor's report back and it says that the fence posts that my neighbour he has built through have very likely been moved at some point in the past further onto my land. If this view is upheld, it means that he has trespassed onto my land even more so than just the amount that is over where the fence panel was!! I have an appointment with a solicitor tomorrow, and then after that I'll either go round to my neighbour's with the surveyor's report, or just get the solicitor to write to him depending on what the solicitor thinks is best.

I'm still composing my response to the council for the stage 2 complaint.

The ombudsman gave me the number of a place called Planning Aid, which is a voluntary led advice service for people with planning problems. Here's a link to their website if anyone else needs it

http://www.planningaid.rtpi.org.uk/

The bloke I spoke to was really helpfull, and couldn't believe that the application had been passed without a site layout plan.

I'm thinking that maybe the inclusion of the site layout plan is just another thing that varies from region to region, and the planning office will just say something like - it was up to the discretion of the case officer whether to validate the application without one. I'm still going to complain to the ombudsman though as soon as I've exhausted the planning office's complaint procedure.

planning_officer

Hi Vic - sorry for belated response! I have a few observations on the council's response:

VictorMeldew wrote: »

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.

That really highlights the council's inability to spot what is contained on amended plans. Not only did the amended plans delete the balcony, but they added the rear extension!! They should not have been accepted.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

(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.

Very true - that's what we were saying earlier in the thread. The rear extension cannot be permitted development and at least he acknowledges that now.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

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.

But then he says the application assessed the rear extension - how can it have, when it did not form part of the application? This paragraph is completely irrelevant.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

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.

He dodges the issue of the site plan very conveniently. Yes, the location plan was submitted (which he calls a 'red line plan'), but there should have been a larger scale site plan or block plan showing the extension in relation to the boundaries. Like I said before, it's very bad that the application was validated without one.

VictorMeldew wrote: »

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.

Mmmm, don't really agree with this - with the lack of site plan, it's difficult for the case officer to assess the application properly. Whilst land ownership and boundary issues are not planning matters, it's careless and possibly negligent of the council to assess an application without one, especially when a proposed development was obviously going to be so close to the boundary.

VictorMeldew

Many thanks once again planning_officer.

I see your point about them saying that the one storey extension was assessed as part of the application when it wasn't part of the application - I hadn't spotted that before.

My main complaint is going to be that due to the missing site plan, my neighbours and I could not properly assess the application for the purpose of objecting to it. And also due to this, that the case officer could not assess the application or our objections properly.

Obviously I'll also bring in that he purposefully withheld information from me, and also lied through his teeth! (politely of course!!)

I hope that the Ombudsman sees it your way concerning the ommission of the site plan!!

clutton_2

good luck with all this

i complained about my local council to the ombudsman a few years back and it took ages and ages - they appeared to be impartial - but i was grossly disappointed with their report when it came out - a complete whitewash of the councils ineptitude

greenface

Victor have you got yourself a solicitor yet

VictorMeldew

greenface wrote: »

Victor have you got yourself a solicitor yet

I had an appointment with one who is meant to specialise in boundary disputes on Friday but it didn't go well I'm afraid. When I got there, the receptionist said that they'd been trying to phone me all morning to tell me that the solicitor was going to be late by 15 mins as he was waving goodbye to his son who was going on holiday. I'd had no missed calls on my mobile and it turned out that they'd took my mobile number down incorrectly.

I should have left at this point!

Another solicitor took me in who was very nice but obviously didn't understand boundary disputes very well. I spent about 20 mins going through the situation with her, and then the solicitor I was meant to be seeing turned up (about 1/2 an hour late). He came in as well and had a brief look at the diagrams drawn by the surveyors. I briefly explained the situation to him again as I was on my dinner break and running low on time, and was getting fed up as I'd already been through it all once.

I felt that he really could not be bothered and he also said a few things that seem plain wrong to me. For one he said that my neighour could enforce the party wall act to come onto my land to do his drains. I'm not sure if this is true but it doesn't sound right to me - surely you can't just enforce the act when it suits you??

My surveyor said he'd get back to me on recommending a good solicitor, so I'm waiting for that now.

My surveyor is an expert witness by the way, so the report is admissable as evidence in court - thanks to MaryBishop for making me aware of that.

I don't think I mentioned before but the conclusion of the surveyor's report is that the extension is on my land by 780mm (not including eves) which they think is very significant. The gutters on the one storey extension also oversail my fence. (The report is very complex though)

The whole situation is really starting to get me down now. I want it to be over with but don't want to back down either. I bet I'll feel even worse when the solicitor's fees start mounting up.

greenface

would you belive you pay good money to see these people and get their realtime help and support. if the extension is on your land then it has to be wrong (doesnt it ) i know its more complicated than that. But its on your land. ??
Can you charge your neighbour rent ??

you have mail

nanker

Do you have an update for us Victor?