Breaching Building Regs/Planning

[wobbly2]

Hi this post in on behalf of a friend's neighbour who is in a boundary dispute with a neighbour who is building a single storey rear extension that required Planning Permission (which has been granted). The property that is having the extension is detached.

The outer leaf of the side wall of the extension, that which faces the neighbour, is being constructed out of concrete blocks running parallel with the dividing fence at approximately 100mm from the fence. The rest of the walls, those that the owner will see, are being constructed in red brick.

The issue is that if the fence, covering the concrete block wall, is either removed or falls apart and is not maintained the neighbour will be left looking at an ugly concrete block wall.

Is building the side wall that faces the neighbour, regardless of who owns the fence or whether the fence is removed or not, a breach of the Building Regs and/or Planning Regs.

The planning application states that the materials used will match the existing building, which is red brick at the ground floor level.

 

[DevilDamo]

Are you asking if there are any rules preventing neighbours looking at an ‘ugly’ wall of their neighbours’ extension?

 

[tony1851]

First of all, forget Building Regulations - nothing to do with it and no inspector will get involved.

With regard to the Planning Permission, one of the standard conditions on approvals is that the materials shall match the existing materials of the house. To that extent, the use of concrete block will be a technical breach, but whether the council would take action on it is another matter.

If there is a fence there, the LPA may be minded not to bother with enforcement because, if the existing fence falls away, it would be possible for the adjoining neighbour to build another.

 

[Notch7]

Are you asking if there are any rules preventing neighbours looking at an ‘ugly’ wall of their neighbours’ extension?

succinctly put

 

[Notch7]

The outer leaf of the side wall of the extension, that which faces the neighbour, is being constructed out of concrete blocks running parallel with the dividing fence at approximately 100mm from the fence.

has the fence been taken out and the brickie working from the neighbours side, or is he bricklaying overhand......if thats the case the blockwork pointing will be awfully messy. if the fence is still in place then that might explain the reason for using blocks.

 

[ajstoneservices]

A friends dad has this when he built his extension the neighbor refused them access and said the builders couldn't remove "his fence". Once the extension was built the neighbor complained to the planning officer. Who told him it was his fault that it had been built like that so he would have to live with it.

 

[wobbly2]

The planning consent letter under "CONDITIONS & REASONS" states-

• "2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and ensuring the new development responds positively to the local context and character in accordance with Policy CC7 and Policy H9 of the Reading Borough Local Plan 2019."

The fence which the extension's owner put up years ago appears to have recently been jury rigged in the section that is adjacent to the new extension wall; almost as though the intension is to remove that section of fence once the extension is complete.

 

[DevilDamo]

That’s a standard condition across all, if not the majority of extension applications. So yes, all new walls should match the finish of the existing dwelling and if they don’t, they’re in contravention of the Planning approval, which could potentially lead to the LPA taking enforcement action.

There are in some cases where the condition is worded slightly differently which makes reference to the proposed materials to match those as stated on the application form and/or drawings. But in this case, it appear the application form and approved drawings state “to match existing”.

 

[^woody^]

The planning consent letter under "CONDITIONS & REASONS" states-

• "2. The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used on the existing building. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity and ensuring the new development responds positively to the local context and character in accordance with Policy CC7 and Policy H9 of the Reading Borough Local Plan 2019."

The fence which the extension's owner put up years ago appears to have recently been jury rigged in the section that is adjacent to the new extension wall; almost as though the intension is to remove that section of fence once the extension is complete.

Complete waste of time.

There are no rules on finishing the approved work, so perhaps the bloke plans to render it next century or something, and no one can do anything about it.

 

[DevilDamo]

perhaps the bloke plans to render it next century or something, and no one can do anything about it.

If the proposed materials do not match those of the existing dwelling as stated in the Planning condition, then of course the LPA can do something about it.

 

[^woody^]

If the proposed materials do not match those of the existing dwelling as stated in the Planning condition, then of course the LPA can do something about it.

How can they when the work is not finished?

Are there now time limits to complete work in your part of the world?

 

[DevilDamo]

What are you on about? I’m not talking about time limits. I’m talking about the fact if (in this case) the existing building is finished with facing brickwork and the extension has been conditioned for the proposed external materials to match existing, then why does that give them the option to render it?

 

[DevilDamo]

@wobbly2 The only thing you’ve mentioned about the external finishes of the existing house is that the ground floor element is red brick. What is the finish to the first floor element, a different coloured brick, tile hanging or infact render? Whatever existing finishes are present on the existing building at whatever level, the proposed finishes to the extension can match irrespective of what level they’re at.

 

[tony1851]

Assume someone gets planning permission for - say - a two-storey side extension, the plans showing a tiled roof. If the applicant finishes it with a flat roof instead, there is obviously a breach of the planning permission. But is an LPA actually in a position to do anything? The client can say he ran out of money and will complete the roof next year - or maybe the year after.
While a development must be begun within three years of an approval, there is no time limit for construction.

 

[^woody^]

What are you on about? I’m not talking about time limits. I’m talking about the fact if (in this case) the existing building is finished with facing brickwork and the extension has been conditioned for the proposed external materials to match existing, then why does that give them the option to render it?

You don't seem to understand the issue.

Time limits are relevant because there is no set period of time for complying with conditions, unless a time condition is made in the approval.

To make it simple for you, in this case, the wall can be rendered at some future date, it is unfinished, so in the meantime no enforcement can be undertaken because no condition has been breached.