Breach of planning law regarding outbuilding against my fence. Council happy to ignore. (photo enclosed)

[wessex101]

Clearly the planners have got it wrong. They are measuring from the raised ground level not the natural ground level.

Whether they will do anything about it is another matter. I'm working on a case at the moment where a neighbour has doubled the size of their approved rear extension with a roof terrace on the top. The affected neighbour is simply asking for screening to the side of the roof terrace overlooking their garden but the planners are refusing to acknowledge that the extension is not in accordance with the approved plans.

The enforcement officer told me on the phone that he has been to site and the extension is as the approved plans. Clearly he is a moron and cannot read a plan, we not talking about it being slightly larger, it is twice the size. His justification was the plans show 1 window on the side elevation and the extension has 1 window. He doesn't seem to own a scale rule or a tape measure. This is the calibre of planning officers these days.

 

[jeds]

The ground was at the same height on either side of my fence when the fence was put up, as the gravel board of the fence sits on the this ground.

The height of the land at the fence isn’t the issue – it is the height of the land at the base of the shed on the host side? If the land is sloping from the fence, the shed builder is entitled to build up the land in order to make the shed floor level. In your case that would mean building up the land at the fence which, by the sound of it, is what they have done.

 

[Notch7]

What does this mean:

Officers would have attempted to have measured by the best practicable means and taking into account the accessibility and orientation of the building

It sounds to me like they either haven’t visited the site, or visited and neighbour was out or refused access, so they peered over the gate.

In this endeavour our officers noted that

What is an endeavour?

What it should say is “our officers went armed with a tape measure and measured the flipping thing”



What they have actually said is…..not a lot of anything specific and a lot of “covering our arze”.

 

[Notch7]

TBF it’s a tad under 2500mm down to the patio.

its 2200mm to underside of fascia

 

[John D v2.0]

What I found out recently, is the word "natural" was deleted about 5 years ago and now it's just "ground level".
So unless the ground level changes themselves need planning permission, it's pretty vague

 

[tony1851]

Its built of timber and therefore flammable which is not allowed within 1 metre of the boundary iirc.

Unless its less than 15 m2 in floor area.

 

[jeds]

the word "natural" was deleted about 5 years ago and now it's just "ground level".

If you mean the technical guidance, I don't think it ever said 'natural'.
The latest version says; '...from the highest ground level immediately adjacent to the building.' I think it has always said that.

 

[wessex101]

If you mean the technical guidance, I don't think it ever said 'natural'.
The latest version says; '...from the highest ground level immediately adjacent to the building.' I think it has always said that.

There are appeal decisions that clarify "ground level" such as ..... Furthermore, when measuring the height of a structure, “ground level" should be taken to be natural ground level, and therefore excludes the level of any ground that has been artificially raised or lowered.

A bit of common sense is required. Otherwise you could raise the ground by 0.5 metres then stick a 2.5m tall outbuilding on top. As if anyone would try that cheap trick?

 

[jeds]

There are appeal decisions that clarify "ground level" such as ..... Furthermore, when measuring the height of a structure, “ground level" should be taken to be natural ground level, and therefore excludes the level of any ground that has been artificially raised or lowered.

A bit of common sense is required. Otherwise you could raise the ground by 0.5 metres then stick a 2.5m tall outbuilding on top. As if anyone would try that cheap trick?

I don't disagree, but the OP is asking if there is anything they can do about it? Without evidence of mis-measuring or some other subterfuge, I would say not a lot?

 

[wessex101]

I don't disagree, but the OP is asking if there is anything they can do about it? Without evidence of mis-measuring or some other subterfuge, I would say not a lot?

As I said in my previous post they can pursue their formal complaint with the council and ultimately go to the local government ombudsman.

Whether it is worth all the hassle is another matter. Personally I don't think the outbuilding is all that bad and if the council did insist on the neighbour making a planning application I could see it being approved.

 

[martygturner]

I just love people who cut their nose off to spite their face...it might be 100mm or even 200mm over the height if measured from the right spot. But the op has gained the right to build a similar space for himself or any other owner in the future...as home working office space requirement will only increase he has gained an useful addition to his properties saleability and price...garden rooms add 5% to a house value...inability to extend takes away 15% of value...see the RICS website.