Rules are rules or leave them alone?
Discussion
Two conflicting views but who do you think is right and should the council be so draconian or is the law the law?
https://www-coventrytelegraph-net.cdn.ampproject.o...
https://www-coventrytelegraph-net.cdn.ampproject.o...
the newspaper headline said:
...family told demolish family home
the Certificate of Lawfulness Application that was refused 4 years ago said:
... a temporary timber frame structure...to be used by family members in addition to the use of the main house....It will be used in a manner ancillary to the main dwelling property. It is not someone's separate dwelling.
the Council's refusal notice said:
1 Insufficient evidence has been submitted to satisfy the Local Planning Authority that the structure falls within the established definition of a caravan. Having regard to the tests of size, permanence or physical attachment, and the fact that the structure was constructed in situ, it is considered to amount to operational development which does not benefit from deemed consent.
2 The structure does not fall within Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 because the structure is too large (in excess of 88 square metres) to be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
3 In addition, the structure does not fall within Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 because the structure would comprise primary accommodation and therefore would not be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
Edited to add:2 The structure does not fall within Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 because the structure is too large (in excess of 88 square metres) to be considered incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
3 In addition, the structure does not fall within Class E of The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 because the structure would comprise primary accommodation and therefore would not be incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.
Oh, and note that the Certificate of Lawfulness application was for proposed siting of the unit, so it looks - from the admittedly limited and redacted evidence now available online - that they were told it didn't comply, but went ahead and purchased and erected it anyway.
Edited by Equus on Monday 26th September 21:37
WelshRich said:
As an aside, how can it cost £60k to demolish what is basically a static caravan?
Council contractors (if the owners won't demolish themselves, the LPA has the right to send someone in to do it, and to charge the cost back to the owners).Council demolition contractors will be doing it by the book, in full compliance with CDM Health and Safety requirements, waste disposal permits, etc.
They're not Bob Bodgeit the Builder slinging the bits in the back of a Transit before fly-tipping it down the canal embankment.
Equus said:
WelshRich said:
As an aside, how can it cost £60k to demolish what is basically a static caravan?
Council contractors (if the owners won't demolish themselves, the LPA has the right to send someone in to do it, and to charge the cost back to the owners).Council demolition contractors will be doing it by the book, in full compliance with CDM Health and Safety requirements, waste disposal permits, etc.
They're not Bob Bodgeit the Builder slinging the bits in the back of a Transit before fly-tipping it down the canal embankment.
Article said:
Stephanie and Stuart, who have children, Freddie, five, and Mollie, two, said the decision could leave them 'paying a mortgage on a home they no longer have' in a cost of living crisis. “We will be homeless by Christmas,” Stuart said. “Our son is disabled and has a helper in the local school, there's no way we can get a house near here.”
No way they got a mortgage on that.And whilst I'm fully aware that not all disabilities are physical, you'd think they'd put a ramp and rail at the front door, not steps without any barrier...
Equus said:
It took me a moment to work out what was going on, because you can't see the offending building on Streetview, yet, but the smaller building identified by the red marker is the 'parent' dwelling and it's the grey roof to the north west of it that's the offending 'outbuilding':
You can get a partial view from certain spots. I’d agree with the planning inspectorate that the construction certainly doesn’t resemble that of a caravan or movable structure.
Equus said:
WelshRich said:
As an aside, how can it cost £60k to demolish what is basically a static caravan?
Council contractors (if the owners won't demolish themselves, the LPA has the right to send someone in to do it, and to charge the cost back to the owners).Council demolition contractors will be doing it by the book, in full compliance with CDM Health and Safety requirements, waste disposal permits, etc.
They're not Bob Bodgeit the Builder slinging the bits in the back of a Transit before fly-tipping it down the canal embankment.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&...
Highlight of the thread
Highlight of the thread
Edited by Digger on Tuesday 27th September 07:14
jason61c said:
If it’s a moveable home, surely they can just move it?
If they can’t, there’s the issue.
£60k to demolish is nuts. Good to see council ‘back handers’ are still happening
I wondered how long it would be before the predictable ‘brown envelopes’ card was played. Shame you didn’t read Equus’ post re: the demolition process before posting this tripe. If they can’t, there’s the issue.
£60k to demolish is nuts. Good to see council ‘back handers’ are still happening
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff