Aaaaand………..breathe! A good result. I bet you’ll sleep well tonight.
Haha - yea mate. Close call!Aaaaand………..breathe! A good result. I bet you’ll sleep well tonight.
A good result for the OP, common sense has prevailed as predicted.Good outcome for the OP, it should never have got that far. Years ago our local Council required an owner to take down a roof that was 12" or so higher than permitted, something to do with the measurement taken from ground level. The case was appealed and allowed. Petty parish council politics (it was a new development they had objected to) and the pressure which that created on the council was the only reason they enforced.
Blup
Good outcome for the OP, it should never have got that far.
50 mm in this case, in any event it is not just whether the law has been broken, its whether it is expedient to bring enforcement action. Government guidance says trivial or technical breaches should not be pursued, 40/50mm to high is hardly harmful to anyones amenity. Its got to be case by case, it shouldn't be because the right person shouts loudest.A good result for the OP, common sense has prevailed as predicted.
However when is an outbuilding too tall? 12" too high? 18", 24", 30", 36" 42", 48", even higher? Please explain exactly at what height you think the law should be applied and why? Don't worry, I have asked this question to many regulars and they have never been able to provide a defensible answer.
Malicious complaint.How far? Complaint was made, someone came and checked, said no further action. There isn't much less that could be done, without being negligent.
I'm still not clear why lyou think the council should not have investigated? Or are you just saying stuff without really thinking about it?50 mm in this case, in any event it is not just whether the law has been broken, its whether it is expedient to bring enforcement action. Government guidance says trivial or technical breaches should not be pursued, 40/50mm to high is hardly harmful to anyones amenity. Its got to be case by case, it shouldn't be because the right person shouts loudest.
Blup
Make your mind up, your original question was about when the council should investigate, you're now asking whether they should.I'm still not clear why lyou think the council should not have investigated? Or are you just saying stuff without really thinking about it?
I'm not going drag out a discussion over 50mmYet you're unable to answer any questions, as predicted.
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local