Decking complaint (threads merged)

[sacred]

Now you can complain about the original 'officer' causing you a great deal of stress and anxiety and ask for an apology make him eat humble pie!

 

[Dicky mint]

Another update
Ok after the original enforcement officers manager visited last week
I got the promised letter today from the original officer. (Who's case it was)
Is it me or is the letter saying there was a breech or not. Or has it been worded so not to admit they were wrong.
Can the complainant try and open up this case again.( Look at the wording)

Dear Mr #######

I write following an evaluation of the breach in planning control and subsequent site visit by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Manager ######### ####


######### has examined the decking and the resultant impact on the amenity the neighbouring property. Whilst it has been determined that a breach in planning control persists, the breach in itself and resultant harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property is considered to be minimal in terms of the impact and overlooking issues. As a result, and as is normally the case in such circumstances, the Council do not consider it expedient to take formal enforcement action in this instance. Accordingly, the case file will now be closed and no further action taken.

YoursSincerely,


###### ######

 

[Dicky mint]

Another update
Ok after the original enforcement officers manager visited last week
I got the promised letter today from the original officer. (Who's case it was)
Is it me or is the letter saying there was a breech or not. Or has it been worded so not to admit they were wrong.
Can the complainant try and open up this case again.( Look at the wording)

Dear Mr #######

I write following an evaluation of the breach in planning control and subsequent site visit by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Manager ######### ####


######### has examined the decking and the resultant impact on the amenity the neighbouring property. Whilst it has been determined that a breach in planning control persists, the breach in itself and resultant harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property is considered to be minimal in terms of the impact and overlooking issues. As a result, and as is normally the case in such circumstances, the Council do not consider it expedient to take formal enforcement action in this instance. Accordingly, the case file will now be closed and no further action taken.

YoursSincerely,


###### ######



Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/decking-complaint.534101/page-6#ixzz6amTDzZHr

 

[sxturbo]

Another update
Ok after the original enforcement officers manager visited last week
I got the promised letter today from the original officer. (Who's case it was)
Is it me or is the letter saying there was a breech or not. Or has it been worded so not to admit they were wrong.
Can the complainant try and open up this case again.( Look at the wording)

Dear Mr #######

I write following an evaluation of the breach in planning control and subsequent site visit by the Council’s Planning Enforcement Manager ######### ####


######### has examined the decking and the resultant impact on the amenity the neighbouring property. Whilst it has been determined that a breach in planning control persists, the breach in itself and resultant harm to the amenity of the neighbouring property is considered to be minimal in terms of the impact and overlooking issues. As a result, and as is normally the case in such circumstances, the Council do not consider it expedient to take formal enforcement action in this instance. Accordingly, the case file will now be closed and no further action taken.

YoursSincerely,


###### ######



Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/decking-complaint.534101/page-6#ixzz6amTDzZHr

Lol, yeah that's then saying they were wrong but using politician wording to not actually admit it.

Well done now it's autumn and wet and cold you can enjoy it..

 

[Nakajo]

We don't really need two threads for this

 

[Doug99]

The letter may have set a precedent that all future breaches may not be enforced if considered 'minimal'.

 

[mrrusty]

Ha Ha "determined by him" perhaps, but no-one else. As you say, politicians answer. He was never going to admit to being wrong.....He's obviously a bit of an arris.

 

[^woody^]

There is a requirement with any planning enforcement, that action should (more specifically can) only be taken if the action will be in the wider public interest. This is because they will use public money to pay for the action.

So it is correct not to take further action for what may well be a minor breach.

Whilst they say that they are closing the file and will not take and further action, typically that will be the end of it, but as with most things, the closing of the file could itself be challenged by others, or if new information came to light. But the longer it stays closed (months) the less likely it can be re-opened.

As to the officer's comment's that there is a breach, well that's his opinion and he is entitled to express it. His opinion would be the basis of enforcement and the actual decision on whether it is in fact a breach would be made by others, so strictly the letter is factually incorrect in stating that there is a breach and it should have been worded differently - in fact that wording could be subject to a complaint!

 

[Dicky mint]

Thank you for.you comments
I was just hoping this will be the end of the matter. Only problem I can see is if the complainant when they have there letter kick off to them about it

 

[mrrusty]

Accordingly, the case file will now be closed and no further action taken.

This is the phrase that matters. The rest is padding. I really wouldn't worry. IMHO the chances of the council ever trying to have another bite at this are somewhere between 0.0000000001% and FA. That letter is as close as you are ever going to get to an admission that "I was wrong, my colleague was right, and we're now going to forget about it"

However, if you are doing further applications I think you need to make sure you cross all the T's

 

[Luke Sartain]

So, I thought I would continue this thread seeing as I have literally just started the same process.

Exactly the same situation but with North Somerset Council this time.

Any advice Dicky then please let me know if something is missed from here!

(Neighbour complained it was overlooking also, but the same "you have built a raised platform argument"

 

[mrrusty]

Personally, if it was me and I was confident I was on safe ground, it would be:-

Thanks for your letter. The garden room/outbuilding conforms to the permitted development rules as described on the planning portal. The decking is significantly under the 30cm height measured at the highest adjacent ground level, and therefore according to my understanding is also permitted development.

If you disagree, please issue an enforcement notice.

It will bring things quickly to a head, and stop months of prevarication. If you're right, you're right.

 

[Luke Sartain]

Thanks for the advice Rusty

 

[mrrusty]

Just my opinion. I like to get things done, rather than pussy foot around. Others might think a more diplomatic approach might be better...

 

[Luke Sartain]

My reply -


Many thanks for the letter sent regarding my garden building and decking.

Having received advice from a town planner, an architect and planning solicitors the works being completed in my garden are within permitted developments.

The issue of a raised platform is simply not the case and the images you received are deceiving based on the elevation of the land. The garden room/outbuilding conforms to the permitted development rules as described on the planning portal. The decking is significantly under the 30cm height measured at the highest of the land adjacent and is actually sunk into the land slightly.

My architect advised this is stated under defintiations under general issues. Our home is unfortunately on an old quarry, so all neighbours have had to do the same. (Including the complaining neighbour) having to have the decking level with the rise of the land.

"“Height” - references to height (for example, the heights of the eaves on a house
extension) is the height measured from ground level. (Note, ground level is the surface of
the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question, and would not include any
addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. Where ground level is not uniform (for
example if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of
the ground next to the building.)" - Taken from PD Rights document from Government website.

I can provide evidence and images that the two levels of decking adhere to these rules, the building itself as it complies with permitted development rules also does not require planning permission.