Legal Q? - Neighbour's garage rebuild
Discussion
I should have known better after all these years than to ask the massed ranks of country living millionaire well built company director PHs... 
Yes, that really is the best view from here, pylon or not. I realise it isn't a sweeping view of the Chilterns, hence me being pissed off that we're losing the only view of anything vaguely countryside-ish (it seems a surprise to people here that trees lose their leaves in winter?). The rest of the joyous view is (now) high density Barratt estates.
The construction is right up against the boundary wall, possibly part of it, but it is a long time ago since I was last there, so I don't know.
Not being invited to the party room is the least of my worries, they have 3 (currently) pre-teen kids and are child minders during the week, the room will probably be used for that. I realise that I may miss out on some strawberry jelly and exciting chances to do finger-painting. Other than that they haven't done a lot to annoy me specifically, but they have been rather less than sympathetic to the elderly couple and their disabled son who live in the house between us, which doesn't really endear me to them.
A roof ridge in line with regulations would have been absolutely fine though. I have to obey building regs, why shouldn't they? Yes, I have asked the council for an opinion, so shoot me.
Yes, that really is the best view from here, pylon or not. I realise it isn't a sweeping view of the Chilterns, hence me being pissed off that we're losing the only view of anything vaguely countryside-ish (it seems a surprise to people here that trees lose their leaves in winter?). The rest of the joyous view is (now) high density Barratt estates.
The construction is right up against the boundary wall, possibly part of it, but it is a long time ago since I was last there, so I don't know.
Not being invited to the party room is the least of my worries, they have 3 (currently) pre-teen kids and are child minders during the week, the room will probably be used for that. I realise that I may miss out on some strawberry jelly and exciting chances to do finger-painting. Other than that they haven't done a lot to annoy me specifically, but they have been rather less than sympathetic to the elderly couple and their disabled son who live in the house between us, which doesn't really endear me to them.
A roof ridge in line with regulations would have been absolutely fine though. I have to obey building regs, why shouldn't they? Yes, I have asked the council for an opinion, so shoot me.
Equus said:
But what benefit is there in that approach?
Even if your neighbour does not guess who notified the Enforcement Officer, as Busa mav has said, the end result will be that you cost your neighbour £600+ for the preparation of the application and the application fee itself, and I guarantee that the end result will be the same. A retrospective application for that work would be approved - there is no sound reason why it should be refused - so it would be an entirely malicious and pointless act.
Because he has to play by the rules like everyone else. Even if your neighbour does not guess who notified the Enforcement Officer, as Busa mav has said, the end result will be that you cost your neighbour £600+ for the preparation of the application and the application fee itself, and I guarantee that the end result will be the same. A retrospective application for that work would be approved - there is no sound reason why it should be refused - so it would be an entirely malicious and pointless act.
Your job is to get planning permissions. What a surprise you’d like a situation where someone shouldn’t have to bother applying if approval is highly likely.
SonicHedgeHog said:
Because he has to play by the rules like everyone else.
Why? Who does it benefit?The approval is an absolute certainty. It doesn't even benefit the Local Planning Authority, as the cost of sending an Enforcement Officer out and then dealing with the subsequent application will cost more than the £206 fee they'd get back, and they're almost certainly overloaded with other stuff.
It's the equivalent of grassing your neighbour up for driving at 32mph in a 30 zone. As the current US President would tweet it: SAD.
SonicHedgeHog said:
Your job is to get planning permissions. What a surprise you’d like a situation where someone shouldn’t have to bother applying if approval is highly likely.
Eh? I get paid whether the Planning Application is successful or not, but I only get paid where there is an application. Someone would still need to prepare drawings (you need them even for a retrospective application, which is why Busa mav is correctly suggesting an overall cost of circa £600), so it would be easy money for me. In fact, OP, do me a favour: if you really have dobbed your neighbour in to the Local Planning Department, tell him that there's a Planning Consultancy and Architectural Practice you know who is willing to deal with the drawings and application for him on a no win, no fee basis, so certain are they of success (and trust me, that's not something we do frequently), and get him to drop me a line.
The fact that even I am arguing that PP might as well be overlooked in this instance really should tell you something: the whole Planning system, and everyone involved with it, has better things to do with their time than deal with this sort of trivial s
t at the moment.Everyone benefits because everyone plays by the same rules. It doesn’t matter if money is wasted. If something requires planning permission then it should have planning permission. If you let this go then the bloke up the road might try to do the same with a slightly taller roof and then the next bloke might try and put a room in the roof and before you know it our country is full buildings that should never have been there.
Zad said:
I have to obey building regs, why shouldn't they?
They are not in breach of Building Regulations: only Planning PD rules.Building Regulations allow small, single storey detached buildings (up to 30m2 floor area - approximately the size of a developer double garage) to be built without approval, right up to the boundary, provided they are constructed of substantially non-combustible materials.
SonicHedgeHog said:
...before you know it our country is full buildings that should never have been there.
No it isn't, because if the development was genuinely unacceptable, it would be successfully enforced against.As with most well-built PH Directors, I play to win.
For that reason, if no other, I'm surprised that the OP is pursuing this, as he will lose, unless the petty satisfaction of making his neighbour spend ~£600 unnecessarily is something he takes pleasure in.
If the council investigate quickly enough the neighbour may be in a position to adapt the design and lower the roof height to meet the PD regs. It will save them the cost and time of planning and will ultimately keep everyone happy.
It’s entirely the neighbours own doing, if they had followed the PD requirements then there would have been no issue. If he had applied for planning then the OP would have been aware of the development before it started and could have made his comments heard beforehand.
It’s entirely the neighbours own doing, if they had followed the PD requirements then there would have been no issue. If he had applied for planning then the OP would have been aware of the development before it started and could have made his comments heard beforehand.
neal1980 said:
When I read threads like this makes me realise how good my neighbours are !
Planning will deffo be granted for that build.
You are now that a*** of a neighbour that everyone talks about behind your back
Except that garage man will probably think it's the elderly couple next door to him who he's already had run-ins with, and thus ramp up his aggravation of them instead. Win!Planning will deffo be granted for that build.
You are now that a*** of a neighbour that everyone talks about behind your back
Equus said:
No it isn't, because if the development was genuinely unacceptable, it would be successfully enforced against.
Not necessarily. If you’re only a fraction bigger than the last building in your road that the planning department let slide your building might slip through too. Then the next one slips through and so on. It’s really simple. Read the rules. Do you need permission? If yes, apply. If not, fill your boots.
NightDriver said:
It’s entirely the neighbours own doing, if they had followed the PD requirements then there would have been no issue.
Knowing what I know about the Planning system (which, without false modesty, is lots), I'd have probably done exactly the same thing.I'd have known that the worst that could happen would be a retrospective application, which would be approved, but that in most reasonable circumstances it wouldn't even come to that.
In this instance - and again, I don't say this lightly as I've said previously on this forum that once enforcement is triggered, LPA's usually see it through - I'd even be inclined to simply ignore any initial enforcement letter telling me to submit an application. Before the enforcement can be escalated to any actual action on the Council's part, it has to be discussed and agreed by the Planning Committee, and the breach in this instance is so minor that there's a good chance they would decide that it's not in the public interest to progress the matter further.
If I were the OP's neighbour, I'd ignore everything until the Council bulldozers were revving up their engines outside,before submitting a retrospective application - and it would be very unlikely to ever reach that point.
neal1980 said:
You are now that a*** of a neighbour that everyone talks about behind your back
Whereas the other bloke is a wonderful neighbour who builds a building in his garden without planning permission, without even having a friendly chat with the neighbours knowing full well everyone can see it and that it will block out what little pleasant view remains. The OP is only asking that the building complies with the rules. The fact that he is being vilified only goes to show how important our planning laws are.
SonicHedgeHog said:
Not necessarily. If you’re only a fraction bigger than the last building in your road that the planning department let slide your building might slip through too. Then the next one slips through and so on.
It doesn't work like that. LPA's are required by law to act if they are notified of a potential enforcement issue (note that 'acting' doesn't mean 'enforcing' though: they can decide democratically that it is not in the public interest to enforce).
If they 'let slide' on a frequent or escalating basis, then sooner or later someone will take them to the Ombudsman or trigger a Judicial Review.
But the process is essentially reactive rather than proactive. They don't go out looking for breaches of Planning.
I had an old neighbour once complain about a shed in my garden (it was bigger that his), I just ignored the council letters never came to anything else. Honestly it amazes me that people have nothing better to do in life! The council will not be bothered not worth there time. The fact you don't even need building regs should tell you this is not worth bothering with.
Get a beer and go have a look at the new bad ass build in the street
Get a beer and go have a look at the new bad ass build in the street
Equus said:
Knowing what I know about the Planning system (which, without false modesty, is lots), I'd have probably done exactly the same thing.
I'd have known that the worst that could happen would be a retrospective application, which would be approved, but that in most reasonable circumstances it wouldn't even come to that.
In this instance - and again, I don't say this lightly as I've said previously on this forum that once enforcement is triggered, LPA's usually see it through - I'd even be inclined to simply ignore any initial enforcement letter telling me to submit an application. Before the enforcement can be escalated to any actual action on the Council's part, it has to be discussed and agreed by the Planning Committee, and the breach in this instance is so minor that there's a good chance they would decide that it's not in the public interest to progress the matter further.
If I were the OP's neighbour, I'd ignore everything until the Council bulldozers were revving up their engines outside,before submitting a retrospective application - and it would be very unlikely to ever reach that point.
Whereas I would appreciate that my neighbours deserve to know what I’m planning to do, especially where it will be obviously visible to them, and I’d bother to engage with them beforehand. That would have been free!I'd have known that the worst that could happen would be a retrospective application, which would be approved, but that in most reasonable circumstances it wouldn't even come to that.
In this instance - and again, I don't say this lightly as I've said previously on this forum that once enforcement is triggered, LPA's usually see it through - I'd even be inclined to simply ignore any initial enforcement letter telling me to submit an application. Before the enforcement can be escalated to any actual action on the Council's part, it has to be discussed and agreed by the Planning Committee, and the breach in this instance is so minor that there's a good chance they would decide that it's not in the public interest to progress the matter further.
If I were the OP's neighbour, I'd ignore everything until the Council bulldozers were revving up their engines outside,before submitting a retrospective application - and it would be very unlikely to ever reach that point.
If the OPs neighbour is just going to get screwed for a few quid, then so be it. I’d call it the cost of being an arse of a neighbour and entirely his own doing.
NightDriver said:
Whereas I would appreciate that my neighbours deserve to know what I’m planning to do, especially where it will be obviously visible to them, and I’d bother to engage with them beforehand. That would have been free!
Oh, sure, I'd have done that too - but I'd have been conscious that there would be fk all they could do about it, whether they liked it or not.Sure, with retrospect the OP's neighbour could have dealt with it more sociably. But two wrongs don't make a right, and maybe they just assumed - with some justification, it has to be said - that the work they are doing really wouln't have any material effect on anyone, so they might as well just get on with it?
Or maybe the OP is a persistent curtain-twitching busybody, and they took a conscious decision not to tell him?
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff