Shall we reduce our wall??

[geraldthehamster]

Yes the rear is single storey.

Ta

It seems awfully churlish of the Council to quibble over 9 inches or so. I hope they don't do that to mine

Cheers
Richard

 

[noseall]

It seems awfully churlish of the Council to quibble over 9 inches or so.

Why?

If you apply for permission for a building that is 3m long then build it 3m long or put in an application for a building that is 3250mm if you want one that is 250mm bigger.

It always astonishes me when folk build an extension bigger or different to what is on the drawing. It is not only foolish but very risky.

I often get asked to build "just an extra half brick or so" and always refuse. It is usually the customer asking the builder to brake the rules. I cannot see what a builder would gain by building it bigger he will only lose out.

Total blarney if you ask me all these posts about homeowners getting into a pickle "cause the builder did it".

Builder my erse!

 

[geraldthehamster]

It seems awfully churlish of the Council to quibble over 9 inches or so.

Why?

If you apply for permission for a building that is 3m long then build it 3m long or put in an application for a building that is 3250mm if you want one that is 250mm bigger.

It always astonishes me when folk build an extension bigger or different to what is on the drawing. It is not only foolish but very risky.

I often get asked to build "just an extra half brick or so" and always refuse. It is usually the customer asking the builder to brake the rules. I cannot see what a builder would gain by building it bigger he will only lose out.

Total blarney if you ask me all these posts about homeowners getting into a pickle "cause the builder did it".

Builder my erse!

Quite. But in deciding whether to take enforcement action, a planning department has to consider whether such action is in the public interest. It's hard to see that it can be in anyone's interest to compel a structure that is substantially built, or complete, to be taken down for the sake of 9 inches. Unless the 9 inches has a significant adverse impact on somebody, which may or may not be the case here.

Cheers
Richard

 

[noseall]

But why not apply for that size in the first place?

http://www.winstonsolicitors.co.uk/council-forces-house-demolition.html

 

[geraldthehamster]

But why not apply for that size in the first place?

http://www.winstonsolicitors.co.uk/council-forces-house-demolition.html

"residents organised a petition against the property when they saw it rise to three feet above other properties in the street and almost touch the gutters of the house next door. "

Not quite the same as going a brick's length too far out on a single storey extension through error or misjudgement, when something has been done under PD rather than PP. I still maintain the Council would have to be petty, and would be wasting council tax payers' money.

Cheers
Richard

 

[NadTheLak]

Thanks Richard. Well I'll let you all know how this unfolds in due course!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Not quite the same as going a brick's length too far out on a single storey extension through error or misjudgement, when something has been done under PD rather than PP. I still maintain the Council would have to be petty, and would be wasting council tax payers' money.

Yes but you seem to have missed the point, would you say if it were 2 bricks over would that be OK? What about 3 bricks? What about 4 bricks or maybe 5? Then please explain why you arrive at your allowable limit by which building over should be allowed. Please explain at which point the council would go from being petty to justified.

 

[^woody^]

Quite. But in deciding whether to take enforcement action, a planning department has to consider whether such action is in the public interest. It's hard to see that it can be in anyone's interest to compel a structure that is substantially built, or complete, to be taken down for the sake of 9 inches.

In the OPs case, it is not a matter of the extension being built slightly bigger - which although no longer conforming to the PD criteria, is not a big issue.

The point is that now the extension breaches a [fundamental]part of planning policy which is the 45 degree code. There is no compromise with this rule - that is why accurate measurements are essential

 

[geraldthehamster]

Quite. But in deciding whether to take enforcement action, a planning department has to consider whether such action is in the public interest. It's hard to see that it can be in anyone's interest to compel a structure that is substantially built, or complete, to be taken down for the sake of 9 inches.

In the OPs case, it is not a matter of the extension being built slightly bigger - which although no longer conforming to the PD criteria, is not a big issue.

The point is that now the extension breaches a [fundamental]part of planning policy which is the 45 degree code. There is no compromise with this rule - that is why accurate measurements are essential

Which is why I said in an earlier post "Unless the 9 inches has a significant adverse impact on somebody".

Cheers
Richard

 

[geraldthehamster]

Not quite the same as going a brick's length too far out on a single storey extension through error or misjudgement, when something has been done under PD rather than PP. I still maintain the Council would have to be petty, and would be wasting council tax payers' money.

Yes but you seem to have missed the point, would you say if it were 2 bricks over would that be OK? What about 3 bricks? What about 4 bricks or maybe 5? Then please explain why you arrive at your allowable limit by which building over should be allowed. Please explain at which point the council would go from being petty to justified.

Oh come on, you could say the same of any situation where an action might be petty, or might be justfied; it's a matter of judgement.

Or do *you* think enforcement action would be justified over 10mm?

Cheers
Richard

 

[mointainwalker]

Yes Richard I'm sure we all see what you mean, but woody and Freddy are right.

By your reckoning there is a point at which pettiness becomes justified action. The problem is saying exactly where it is and you have been asked to say where it is : can you do so ?

Laws are "arbitrary" and should be non-negotiable to save time and b uggeration ( for the authorities ) and possible legal repercussions if they consciously allow ( and document ) 100 mm over the limit and then get sued by someone who says they are only 200 mm and they let the first one exceed the limit so why can't they do the same.

As for your question about 10 mm, I'm sure nobody including the BCO/Planning would say it is worth enforcement action, but I'm also sure that it would be documented as conforming to plan and nobody would mention the excess as that would risk formally allowing a breach of the regulations.

 

[geraldthehamster]

Yes Richard I'm sure we all see what you mean, but woody and Freddy are right.

By your reckoning there is a point at which pettiness becomes justified action. The problem is saying exactly where it is and you have been asked to say where it is : can you do so ?

Laws are "arbitrary" and should be non-negotiable to save time and b uggeration ( for the authorities ) and possible legal repercussions if they consciously allow ( and document ) 100 mm over the limit and then get sued by someone who says they are only 200 mm and they let the first one exceed the limit so why can't they do the same.

As for your question about 10 mm, I'm sure nobody including the BCO/Planning would say it is worth enforcement action, but I'm also sure that it would be documented as conforming to plan and nobody would mention the excess as that would risk formally allowing a breach of the regulations.

You might accept 10mm, I might accept 9 inches; neither of us would probably accept a metre. But there can't be an arbitrary "point" that applies to every case, because each case is different and judgement has to be applied.

In this case 9 inches might reasonably be overlooked, if that's the only issue; or, if it results in the 45 degree rule being breached, then action could be required on that basis.

And you're also wrong about laws - every prosecution or enforcement action is subject to a test of public interest, whether by the CPS or by the local council, and many are not acted upon because they fail the test.

Cheers
Richard

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

In this case 9 inches might reasonably be overlooked, if that's the only issue; or, if it results in the 45 degree rule being breached, then action could be required on that basis

That's the whole point though isn't it. Please explain why 9 inches should be overlooked in this case, you will not be able to answer the question. You are not in a position to be making judgment calls, your opinion is of little value to the OP just a like minded opinion that in this case the LA are being petty. The builder is responsible as is the homeowner for not getting their tape measure out earlier. Build beyond the limits and face the consequences I have zero sympathy with anyone who builds over, the rules are plain and simple and failure to heed them is just plain arrogant. Incidentally the OP has not mentioned what if any dimensions were on the drawing and their relevance.

 

[geraldthehamster]

In this case 9 inches might reasonably be overlooked, if that's the only issue; or, if it results in the 45 degree rule being breached, then action could be required on that basis

That's the whole point though isn't it. Please explain why 9 inches should be overlooked in this case, you will not be able to answer the question. You are not in a position to be making judgment calls, your opinion is of little value to the OP just a like minded opinion that in this case the LA are being petty. The builder is responsible as is the homeowner for not getting their tape measure out earlier. Build beyond the limits and face the consequences I have zero sympathy with anyone who builds over, the rules are plain and simple and failure to heed them is just plain arrogant. Incidentally the OP has not mentioned what if any dimensions were on the drawing and their relevance.

You'll recall that I didn't say 9 inches should be overlooked "in this case". What I said concerning this case is:

"It's hard to see that it can be in anyone's interest to compel a structure that is substantially built, or complete, to be taken down for the sake of 9 inches. Unless the 9 inches has a significant adverse impact on somebody, which may or may not be the case here."

And of course that's just my opinion. And I never said that Councils weren't *capable* of being petty, nor do I disagree with you that people should be able to use tape measures.

But I really think we've understood each other, and are just repeating ourselves now. I wish the OP luck in not ending up inconvenienced and out of pocket.

Cheers
Richard

 

[^woody^]

The whole thing is very simple ..... the builder builds to the design and the plans, and does not deviate from the plans without authorisation

It is not just about planning regulations, but any deviation has potential knock on affects for a load of other things. So alterations should be viewed in context of the whole project, not one part of it