Neighbour moving. Workshop
Discussion
We arrived back from holiday some months ago to find our neighbor had built a large workshop. Contrary to our original belief the stretch of land it was built on was not part of the conservation area so difficult to claim a conservation breach. Looking at the estate agents spec the workshop is 23 feet long and 4 meters wide. I don't know the height but would put it at around 4 meters. It has been built slightly over his original boundary as trees that were on the boundary and on the adjacent public footpath have been cut down and concreted over providing the workshop base. The back of the workshop (4 meters) now forms the boundary. We couldn't do much about this at the time but knew he was brassic so seemingly push has come to shove and he's selling up.
My question is what's the best way to tackle this. Our best outcome is for him to demolish the workshop, removed the concrete base, put the fence back up. We don't wish him any malice and trusts he gets better suited elsewhere. I am happy to follow the guidance of our local council on such matters but is there anything blatantly obvious I need to be aware of before I start negotiations? I understand it's opinion only on PH.
My question is what's the best way to tackle this. Our best outcome is for him to demolish the workshop, removed the concrete base, put the fence back up. We don't wish him any malice and trusts he gets better suited elsewhere. I am happy to follow the guidance of our local council on such matters but is there anything blatantly obvious I need to be aware of before I start negotiations? I understand it's opinion only on PH.
If its 4m high and on the boundary it won't come under permitted development. I think the limits are 2.5m within a metre of the boundary but check, there's plenty online.
Otherwise he'd need planning permission which I assume he doesn't, in which case the council would like to know...
Otherwise he'd need planning permission which I assume he doesn't, in which case the council would like to know...
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee my advice would be to contact your district or county planning department and speak with the Planning Enforcement team. Just make them aware of the issue and they'll take it from there. They shouldn't even tell your neighbour who complained, especially if you ask them not to divulge your details. Our enforcement team, if relevant, would ask him to apply for retrospective planning permission and if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
ColinM50 said:
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee my advice would be to contact your district or county planning department and speak with the Planning Enforcement team. Just make them aware of the issue and they'll take it from there. They shouldn't even tell your neighbour who complained, especially if you ask them not to divulge your details. Our enforcement team, if relevant, would ask him to apply for retrospective planning permission and if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
^^^ This.At that height on the boundary it would not qualify for permitted development, so without planning permission being grated he is, to use the technical phrase, buggered.
We have similar with our d
head neighbour. IIRC 2.5 metres high is the max. You're not allowed any platform (a floor is a platform) higher than 30 cm off the ground or a veranda without permissions. Also being on a boundary what is it made of? AFAIK the are building control regs stating that if it's made of flammable materials it needs to be a metre away from the boundary at that size. Be quick on that last point though, building control aren't interested if it's built over a year ago.
head neighbour. IIRC 2.5 metres high is the max. You're not allowed any platform (a floor is a platform) higher than 30 cm off the ground or a veranda without permissions. Also being on a boundary what is it made of? AFAIK the are building control regs stating that if it's made of flammable materials it needs to be a metre away from the boundary at that size. Be quick on that last point though, building control aren't interested if it's built over a year ago.DKL said:
...I think the limits are 2.5m within a metre of the boundary but check...
It's within 2 metres of the boundary. The 1 metre limit applies to Building Regulations exemption for certain smaller buildings (see below).ColinM50 said:
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee....
You still there, then?Your Authority's Standards committee recommended your removal from that committee for breach of the Council's Code of Conduct?
ColinM50 said:
... if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
There may not be a 'hearing'. There is every chance that such an application would be dealt with under Officer Delegated powers and would go nowhere near Committee for a hearing.You will have the right to submit a written objection to the retrospective application, but it will not be anonymous and be aware that it will need to relate to 'material' Planning matters to carry any weight and under normal circumstances the boundary/land ownership issue is not a material consideration for Planning.
Any retrospective application should properly be judged only on the additional impact it presents over and above what be allowed as Permitted Development. In other words, if it would be Permitted Development except for the height, they should only be assessing whether the excess height alone makes enough of a difference to justify refusal... and his easiest remedy might be to simply put a flat roof on it that doesn't exceed the 2.5m limit (which might end up being a Phyrric victory for you, as it might end up looking worse than it does already).
Also be aware that the 2.5m. is measured from the highest original ground level adjacent to the building, if it's built on sloping ground.
Julia121 said:
It has been built slightly over his original boundary
...However, Permitted Development rights are predicated on the development being within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse (for domestic PD), so if you can prove that the building extends beyond the original curtilage of his property, you may be able to make the technical argument that the building should not benefit from PD rights in the first place (though that's splitting quite fine hairs).Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Also being on a boundary what is it made of? AFAIK the are building control regs stating that if it's made of flammable materials it needs to be a metre away from the boundary at that size.
Might be worth checking the dimensions accurately, as those that you've quoted are getting close to the limit (30m2) beyond which it would need Building Regulations approval, regardless.Do be aware, though, that again the remedy is effectively just a retrospective application (known as a 'regularisation certificate' in Building Control jargon), to remedy any shortcomings and certify that it then complies. It is very unlikely to result in the removal of the building.
Equus said:
DKL said:
...I think the limits are 2.5m within a metre of the boundary but check...
It's within 2 metres of the boundary. The 1 metre limit applies to Building Regulations exemption for certain smaller buildings (see below).ColinM50 said:
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee....
You still there, then?Your Authority's Standards committee recommended your removal from that committee for breach of the Council's Code of Conduct?
ColinM50 said:
... if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
There may not be a 'hearing'. There is every chance that such an application would be dealt with under Officer Delegated powers and would go nowhere near Committee for a hearing.You will have the right to submit a written objection to the retrospective application, but it will not be anonymous and be aware that it will need to relate to 'material' Planning matters to carry any weight and under normal circumstances the boundary/land ownership issue is not a material consideration for Planning.
Any retrospective application should properly be judged only on the additional impact it presents over and above what be allowed as Permitted Development. In other words, if it would be Permitted Development except for the height, they should only be assessing whether the excess height alone makes enough of a difference to justify refusal... and his easiest remedy might be to simply put a flat roof on it that doesn't exceed the 2.5m limit (which might end up being a Phyrric victory for you, as it might end up looking worse than it does already).
Also be aware that the 2.5m. is measured from the highest original ground level adjacent to the building, if it's built on sloping ground.
Julia121 said:
It has been built slightly over his original boundary
...However, Permitted Development rights are predicated on the development being within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse (for domestic PD), so if you can prove that the building extends beyond the original curtilage of his property, you may be able to make the technical argument that the building should not benefit from PD rights in the first place (though that's splitting quite fine hairs).Fermit and Sexy Sarah said:
Also being on a boundary what is it made of? AFAIK the are building control regs stating that if it's made of flammable materials it needs to be a metre away from the boundary at that size.
Might be worth checking the dimensions accurately, as those that you've quoted are getting close to the limit (30m2) beyond which it would need Building Regulations approval, regardless.Do be aware, though, that again the remedy is effectively just a retrospective application (known as a 'regularisation certificate' in Building Control jargon), to remedy any shortcomings and certify that it then complies. It is very unlikely to result in the removal of the building.
An excellent post!
ColinM50 said:
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee my advice would be to contact your district or county planning department and speak with the Planning Enforcement team. Just make them aware of the issue and they'll take it from there. They shouldn't even tell your neighbour who complained, especially if you ask them not to divulge your details. Our enforcement team, if relevant, would ask him to apply for retrospective planning permission and if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=207&t=1789875dmsims said:
ColinM50 said:
Speaking as a district councillor that sits on a planning committee my advice would be to contact your district or county planning department and speak with the Planning Enforcement team. Just make them aware of the issue and they'll take it from there. They shouldn't even tell your neighbour who complained, especially if you ask them not to divulge your details. Our enforcement team, if relevant, would ask him to apply for retrospective planning permission and if he does apply, you have a right to object at the hearing.
https://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=207&t=1789875
Thank you everyone for your support and helpful comments. Really appreciate it. Equus, Sir you are star!
I've been referring to them whilst looking through local failed planing applications in our area to see what refusal reasons keep cropping up and think I've tied it down to two objections. Also, I'd completely forgotten that he has already built another, bigger shed (over 40 sq meters) on the same land and didn't request planning permission. The land is Greenbelt. I understand my name is probably going to be made public but it's my home and there it is.
My planning objections would be based on the following points:
1) Both buildings are the on Greenbelt: Inappropriate development, siting and scale's dominant and detracting from the locality and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan and Core Strategy.
3) Both buildings combined amount to an 151% increase from the original curtilage so don't fall under Permitted Development.
The stupid thing here is I had totally forgotten about the other building so now both will be under review. If he'd just used a bit of sense. Anyway we are now led to believe that he has handed the keys in to the estate agents and vacated the house; left no forwarding address or phone number with us.
I've been referring to them whilst looking through local failed planing applications in our area to see what refusal reasons keep cropping up and think I've tied it down to two objections. Also, I'd completely forgotten that he has already built another, bigger shed (over 40 sq meters) on the same land and didn't request planning permission. The land is Greenbelt. I understand my name is probably going to be made public but it's my home and there it is.
My planning objections would be based on the following points:
1) Both buildings are the on Greenbelt: Inappropriate development, siting and scale's dominant and detracting from the locality and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan and Core Strategy.
3) Both buildings combined amount to an 151% increase from the original curtilage so don't fall under Permitted Development.
The stupid thing here is I had totally forgotten about the other building so now both will be under review. If he'd just used a bit of sense. Anyway we are now led to believe that he has handed the keys in to the estate agents and vacated the house; left no forwarding address or phone number with us.
Julia121 said:
1) Both buildings are the on Greenbelt: Inappropriate development, siting and scale's dominant and detracting from the locality and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan and Core Strategy.
What do the actual policies say?Julia121 said:
Both buildings combined amount to an 151% increase from the original curtilage so don't fall under Permitted Development.
I think you might be misinterpreting the wording here.You seem to be suggesting that the original built area (not curtilage) has been increased by 151%?
The limit on domestic PD is that:
the GPDO said:
...the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse)
In other words, there's no limit on how much you can enlarge the area of the original buildings; the limit is on how much of the original 'garden' you can cover in doing so.If they had (for the sake of argument) 2 acres of garden in addition to the house, they'd be able to build an acres' worth of outbuildings under PD rights, regardless of the size of the original house
To be honest, though: one step at a time. All you need to do to start with (as Colin has said) is report the matter to your LPA's enforcement team. You don't need to give them reasons; you just need to tell them that you think there has been unauthorised development. They will investigate and if they think there is a basis for your complaint, they will take action (which, as others have said, would usually start by inviting your neighbour to make a retrospective application).
It's only when that retrospective application has been submitted (and you should bee notified by letter) that you need to decide whether you wish to object to the application and only at that point do you need to give the reasons for your objection.
Julia121 said:
Thank you everyone for your support and helpful comments. Really appreciate it. Equus, Sir you are star!
I've been referring to them whilst looking through local failed planing applications in our area to see what refusal reasons keep cropping up and think I've tied it down to two objections. Also, I'd completely forgotten that he has already built another, bigger shed (over 40 sq meters) on the same land and didn't request planning permission. The land is Greenbelt. I understand my name is probably going to be made public but it's my home and there it is.
My planning objections would be based on the following points:
1) Both buildings are the on Greenbelt: Inappropriate development, siting and scale's dominant and detracting from the locality and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan and Core Strategy.
3) Both buildings combined amount to an 151% increase from the original curtilage so don't fall under Permitted Development.
The stupid thing here is I had totally forgotten about the other building so now both will be under review. If he'd just used a bit of sense. Anyway we are now led to believe that he has handed the keys in to the estate agents and vacated the house; left no forwarding address or phone number with us.
I would just check that 151% figure. A 151% increase is very different to a building on 51% of the available land (curtilage).I've been referring to them whilst looking through local failed planing applications in our area to see what refusal reasons keep cropping up and think I've tied it down to two objections. Also, I'd completely forgotten that he has already built another, bigger shed (over 40 sq meters) on the same land and didn't request planning permission. The land is Greenbelt. I understand my name is probably going to be made public but it's my home and there it is.
My planning objections would be based on the following points:
1) Both buildings are the on Greenbelt: Inappropriate development, siting and scale's dominant and detracting from the locality and appearance of the area, contrary to local plan and Core Strategy.
3) Both buildings combined amount to an 151% increase from the original curtilage so don't fall under Permitted Development.
The stupid thing here is I had totally forgotten about the other building so now both will be under review. If he'd just used a bit of sense. Anyway we are now led to believe that he has handed the keys in to the estate agents and vacated the house; left no forwarding address or phone number with us.
The other structure could be perfectly permissible (or not), but it does appear that the second is certainly not.
It remains his problem until a new owner comes along and it then becomes their problem.
That's what I was trying to say, in a much more long-winded manner.Equus said:
In other words, there's no limit on how much you can enlarge the area of the original buildings; the limit is on how much of the original 'garden' you can cover in doing so.
If they had (for the sake of argument) 2 acres of garden in addition to the house, they'd be able to build an acres' worth of outbuildings under PD rights, regardless of the size of the original house
To be honest, though: one step at a time. All you need to do to start with (as Colin has said) is report the matter to your LPA's enforcement team. You don't need to give them reasons; you just need to tell them that you think there has been unauthorised development. They will investigate and if they think there is a basis for your complaint, they will take action (which, as others have said, would usually start by inviting your neighbour to make a retrospective application).
It's only when that retrospective application has been submitted (and you should bee notified by letter) that you need to decide whether you wish to object to the application and only at that point do you need to give the reasons for your objection.
I can't speak for the OP's LPA, but recent experience has shown our one to be supine at best, and not understanding the rules at worst.If they had (for the sake of argument) 2 acres of garden in addition to the house, they'd be able to build an acres' worth of outbuildings under PD rights, regardless of the size of the original house
To be honest, though: one step at a time. All you need to do to start with (as Colin has said) is report the matter to your LPA's enforcement team. You don't need to give them reasons; you just need to tell them that you think there has been unauthorised development. They will investigate and if they think there is a basis for your complaint, they will take action (which, as others have said, would usually start by inviting your neighbour to make a retrospective application).
It's only when that retrospective application has been submitted (and you should bee notified by letter) that you need to decide whether you wish to object to the application and only at that point do you need to give the reasons for your objection.
Our neighbour has recently made life very difficult for us, at one point leaving my wife in tears. That offended me far more than any of his bullish, don't care for rules behaviour. Accordingly he has lost any neighbourly good will which we had.
In an outburst he (amongst other things) suggested we were in cahoots with the local planning department. The reason? He's built a veranda on the front of his house, which is essentially the refused porch, minus it's front and sides.
There is a recent planning application next door (the other side to him) for 9 houses. It stands to reason that they've attended the site. They have invited him to apply for planning for his veranda/eyesore, presumably seeing it at the same time, and I guess thinking WTF.
The reason that he thinks we were in cahoots with them is that he likely put himself on their radar, and they've discovered his back yard structures, in sight from the road begind. Nothing to do with us, it came to light when we sought advice on a different matter when we visited for advice.
When he made accusations I informed him that we had not made any objections to our LPA, but that we will likely now do so (having just been threatened with a smack in the mouth - which I also informed him would end badly.... for him)
Yesterday, following it up, Bolsover DC informed us that they consider his backyard developments permitted. Despite the structures covering circa 60% of his (not including house) grounds, the platform (floor) being a probable metre elevated, and it having a veranda (also elevated) allowing him to see straight in to our home.
We have no desire to make this a battle, but you know what, he has taken the royal piss out of us since the moment he moved in. It would be nice if he were made to play by the rules, and to have an LPA who cared about them accordingly.
Oh, and to demonstrate that this is not tit for tat, we haven't and aren't putting any objection in regarding his veranda. Despite it being a home made hash up eyesore, unlike the workshop it is of no detriment to us.
A final example of the pig of a man he is. When he discovered S had her last miscarriage he said to her face 'you know what, some people are just not meant to have children', again, leaving her in tears. No mention of 'I'm sorry to hear that', or similar, like a normal human being would say.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff