Neighbour consultation scheme - dimensions and completion

^woody^ · 4 Jan 2019

Does anyone have any info on what constitutes completion under this scheme? The guides say that "the development" should be completed by the end of May 2019, but is this the shell, the externals or painted and carpeted?

Also how flexible is the scheme to allow for different roof heights to that stated in the decision notice? If say, eaves and total height were stated at 2.4 and 2.9m on the application and decision notice, but the roof was constructed higher - but still within the PD limits, does this require a variation, resubmission or is it just OK?

Prodigy · 4 Jan 2019

I was wondering about this myself recently. All I can offer is an unsubstantiated opinion, which is that the development should be considered complete when those aspects required to be specified are complete. In other words, the structure and the roof. Nothing else is required to be specified in the prior notification, so in theory if by the deadline you've done what your drawings say you should be okay.

I successfully put through one of these, doing the absolute minimum required both in words and the drawings. I recently contemplated whether to start, due to the looming deadline, but decided I don't want it afterall. (Want a loft extension instead, to maintain garden size.)

I suspect that the deadline will not be enforced much though; imagine the backlash nationwide if councils order people to tear down tens of thousands of pounds worth of work just because they were falling behind/suffered delays.

Prodigy · 4 Jan 2019

Oh regarding the other question, I went through GPDO 2015 with a fine toothcomb in 2016 when I prepared my notification, and I cannot recall seeing anything about how to deal with what you've described. Nonetheless there might be something in there somewhere, but if not then tread carefully. How much higher? Did I understand correctly that you've already built the roof, or is it just that you want it to be higher than specified?

^woody^ · 4 Jan 2019

Prodigy said:
How much higher

It's not built, just at the design stage following the prior approval.

We might need to raise the eaves slightly to accommodate deeper joists. May be about 100mm.

Prodigy · 5 Jan 2019

My instinct is you'll have to submit a whole new notification, to supersede the existing one. However, I'd recommend writing to the local planning department and asking if they would accept a modification of the existing one.

The reason I think the request to modify is unlikely to succeed is to do with formalities. In theory it should formally go back to the neighbours for consultation, as where they did not (presumably) object to your original proposal, they might object to an increased height. In reality though 100mm is nothing, so either they object or they don't...and if they did, the L.A. approved it anyway.

tony1851 · 5 Jan 2019

For 'completion', a commonsense view would be walls up/roof finish on/windows and glazing in. I suspect 'completion' would not include minor items such as rainwater goods, or internals such floor/wall finishes, electrics, plumbing etc.

For the second question: have you submitted any drawings (particularly elevations) other than the required "plan indicating the site and proposed development" ?
The reason I ask is that the written information required by A(2)(a) is meaningless in the absence of a drawing. For example - assuming you are a semi -
you could build a monopitch roof up to 2.9m high, directly on the party-boundary, with the eaves on the other side; or a lean-to; or a gable roof with eaves along the boundary. This is one of those pieces of legislation which was not thought through, because how is an LPA then able to assess the impact on amenity if a neighbour complains?

But whatever configuration, one could argue that 100mm is not large in the scheme of things - assuming anyone even noticed.

As it is a pitched roof - presumably with rafters - you could cut a much deeper birdsmouth than the conventional type to get the eaves down; in some cases it is structurally possible to take away up to one-half the depth of the rafter if needs be. Have had to do this a few times myself where the eaves height was critical.

Nakajo · 5 Jan 2019

Note that prior approval applications require only the submission of 'a plan indicating the site and showing the proposed development'. An elevation is obviously useful, but it doesn't need to be dimensioned. Where it is dimensioned, it seems reasonable to me to simply say 'height to be within permitted development limits'. That said, in this instance, I can't imagine that anyone would make an issue out of 100mm, so I'd just crack on - given that there probably isn't enough time left to submit a fresh Prior Approval Inquiry.

Ordinarily, we might suppose that this legislation would be reviewed in the coming weeks, and the completion deadline pushed back another year, but the government seem a little preoccupied.

tony1851 · 5 Jan 2019

Nakajo said:
Ordinarily, we might suppose that this legislation would be reviewed in the coming weeks, and the completion deadline pushed back another year, but the government seem a little preoccupied.

As I understand it, the latest proposal is to make the scheme permanent; but they intend to charge for each application - I think the figure was around £90-odd IIRC.

napoleondynamite · 10 Jan 2019

Government are consulting on making the rights permanent. Consultation ends 15th January; I imagine legislation to make the rights permanent is likely to be published and come in to force prior to end of May but nothing confirmed as yet.

Re measurements and drawings-

It is a requirement of the legislation that you comply with the drawings and details which you submit, unless otherwise agreed with the council. So if you do put in a full set of drawings, as many people seem to do, you are bound to that design and the measurements, unless otherwise agreed with the council. If you just put a site plan with footprint plus measurements, you are just bound to those details but retain flexibility on the design.

In my experience, councils may agree in writing minor design changes or reductions in the proposed measurements, but are unlikely to agree increases in the measurements as this would go beyond what the neighbours were consulted on at the time of the application.

If you're looking at 100mm its a judgement call whether you want to involve the council or proceed.

The question of completion is interesting but will not be relevant if the rights are made permanent which seems most likely. In terms of dealing with buyers / solicitors in the future it would be simplest to have a BC completion certificate prior to the end of May I imagine.

Nakajo · 11 Jan 2019

"which seems most likely" - you are aware that the government might not be the government next week?

^woody^ · 11 Jan 2019

Planners are saying that because the dimensions were specified, and that was what the neighbours were told, and the basis of the neighbours response and planner's decision, then it can't be changed and a new application is needed.

I wondered if the fact that permission can't be applied for retrospectively would come into play - ie if the work had already started, can permission for changes then be applied for? The planners did want to know if work had begun, which it has.

^woody^ · 11 Jan 2019

Nakajo said:
"which seems most likely" - you are aware that the government might not be the government next week?

Politicising this thread will incur my displeasure.

wessex101 · 11 Jan 2019

^woody^ said:
Politicising this thread will incur my displeasure.

"All Property is Theft" We

Jezza.

LukeB123 · 11 Jan 2019

^woody^ said:
Planners are saying that because the dimensions were specified, and that was what the neighbours were told, and the basis of the neighbours response and planner's decision, then it can't be changed and a new application is needed.

If the dimensions have been stated then I would agree with what the planners have said. In reality unless the changes are going to be hugely significant, no one is going to be bothered. From the planners perspective, allowing you to carry on under this application and building it differently to what has been approved could incur the wrath of the neighbour(s), councillors, enforcement etc, so they are going to err on the side of caution / the legislation.

^woody^ said:
I wondered if the fact that permission can't be applied for retrospectively would come into play - ie if the work had already started, can permission for changes then be applied for? The planners did want to know if work had begun, which it has.

Yep, if the work has been started then you cannot technically gain approval for a neighbourhood consultation extension and full PP will be required. The only thing you could try (which I've thought about doing before but not tested) is submitting a new neighbourhood consultation application, but make it different (the new roof, an additional .5m in length if it permits, maybe a different window, or a material). You could then argue that you have not commenced the works that you are applying for, I'd imagine the planners probably wouldn't have it tho.

This may be a moot point if the build is so far gone it's not feasible to change or it's too much effort vs a planning app.

In terms of "complete" my view is substantially complete, as per Tony's first reply. Brickwork done, windows in and some sort of roof on.

napoleondynamite · 11 Jan 2019

Personally, for the sake of 100mm I would keep schtum..

It sounds like the only other alternative if you have started works is to apply for planning permission.

diynot

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

Neighbour consultation scheme - dimensions and completion

Similar threads