Hi there -
I am hoping someone can help. I recently extended pre-existing decking at the rear of my property. My house is built on a heavily sloping hill which declines in gradient as you approach the rear. As a result, there is a c.1.1m drop when you open the back door. I researched online and saw that for uneven surfaces, the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building. As a consequence, the decking fell under permitted development. The neighbours complained and enforcement paid a visit. I was not home so they viewed the decking from the neighbours house. They subsequently sent a letter to say it requires PP as it is above 0.3m. I wrote back stating the definition of ground level for uneven surfaces meant that it was not above ground level and kindly asked them to provide case law evidence if, for some reason, their interpretation of ground level differed from government guidelines. The enforcement officer then wrote back and said there was some 'confusion' and it was not decking, it is a veranda and they do not have permitted development rights.
My mind is now blown as the first letter from enforcement very clearly said it was decking and required PP due to the height. Now, when I have pointed out it is PD, he has changed his tune to ensure it does not fall under permitted development. Surely, this is nonsense?! I am now confused and wondering if I can tell him to stop making up rules or if I need to remain calm and politely point out it is not a veranda?
Given he has contradicted himself does this strengthen my case if I do receive an enforcement later down the line? Can anyone provide the definition for decking vs veranda? My structure does not have a roof which is what I can see constitutes a veranda. It does have a hand rail for safety given the steep drop.
Sorry this is long - I am just very confused with how best to deal with this. As a side, I will not be drawn into applying for PP as the neighbours will complain (they already have enforcement on speed dial) and it will get rejected.
I am hoping someone can help. I recently extended pre-existing decking at the rear of my property. My house is built on a heavily sloping hill which declines in gradient as you approach the rear. As a result, there is a c.1.1m drop when you open the back door. I researched online and saw that for uneven surfaces, the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building. As a consequence, the decking fell under permitted development. The neighbours complained and enforcement paid a visit. I was not home so they viewed the decking from the neighbours house. They subsequently sent a letter to say it requires PP as it is above 0.3m. I wrote back stating the definition of ground level for uneven surfaces meant that it was not above ground level and kindly asked them to provide case law evidence if, for some reason, their interpretation of ground level differed from government guidelines. The enforcement officer then wrote back and said there was some 'confusion' and it was not decking, it is a veranda and they do not have permitted development rights.
My mind is now blown as the first letter from enforcement very clearly said it was decking and required PP due to the height. Now, when I have pointed out it is PD, he has changed his tune to ensure it does not fall under permitted development. Surely, this is nonsense?! I am now confused and wondering if I can tell him to stop making up rules or if I need to remain calm and politely point out it is not a veranda?
Given he has contradicted himself does this strengthen my case if I do receive an enforcement later down the line? Can anyone provide the definition for decking vs veranda? My structure does not have a roof which is what I can see constitutes a veranda. It does have a hand rail for safety given the steep drop.
Sorry this is long - I am just very confused with how best to deal with this. As a side, I will not be drawn into applying for PP as the neighbours will complain (they already have enforcement on speed dial) and it will get rejected.