Extension Built - Rules Not Followed - Neigbours "Hate..it" - 2B Demolished
- Thread starter The Samaritan
- Start date
Lethal. Paviors should never oversail the wall. Nuts. Differential movement (wall v's the rest) and ex/con will mean a good many of the edge pavoirs will inevitably loosen.Just the thought of stepping up to that front door pains me ... or maybe the builders are about to construct a quality set of steps
Alway use the wall to 'frame' the paving..
Last edited:
Yes, Thank you. The top image is me own gaffe.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,225
- Reaction score
- 953
- Country
Looks like neighbours rejected it from the outset. Some objections seem to just be to find any excuse, e.g loss of light - doesn't look like it blocks any light?
Then traffic, suggestions 5 adults could live there, then 10 adults. *Concerned retired elderly residents* -
https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/onlin...339/pdf/65315_FUL-OFFICER_S_REPORT-338576.pdf
I agree, the pillars look naff, and I can't comment on the quality of the build, but it doesn't look any worst than the many end of terrace / last semi on the row side extensions I have seen before.
I'd wager that most of those concerned retired elderly residents are not of the same cultural and religious background of Mr Mohammed Shorab. The comments about traffic and visitors is probably because the curtain twitchers have already seen the new resident have friends and family over, and they don't like that!
Then traffic, suggestions 5 adults could live there, then 10 adults. *Concerned retired elderly residents* -
A total of 9 representations were received from members of the public, all of which
objected to the scheme. The reasons cited for objection have been summarised as the
following:
· 5 bedrooms is not appropriate for the area as houses are mostly 2 beds
· Height and width of extension would result in loss of light
· Would create a large house - not in keeping with the street
· Could have 5 adults and therefore lots of cars needing parking
· The traffic would cause parking, noise and highway safety issues
· Revised extension seems to have a larger floor area than the original plans
· Could accommodate 10 adults along with private and commercial vehicles
· Retired elderly single people in the street are nervous about the extension
· Concerns about mining legacy and impact upon foundations and drainage system
objected to the scheme. The reasons cited for objection have been summarised as the
following:
· 5 bedrooms is not appropriate for the area as houses are mostly 2 beds
· Height and width of extension would result in loss of light
· Would create a large house - not in keeping with the street
· Could have 5 adults and therefore lots of cars needing parking
· The traffic would cause parking, noise and highway safety issues
· Revised extension seems to have a larger floor area than the original plans
· Could accommodate 10 adults along with private and commercial vehicles
· Retired elderly single people in the street are nervous about the extension
· Concerns about mining legacy and impact upon foundations and drainage system
https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/onlin...339/pdf/65315_FUL-OFFICER_S_REPORT-338576.pdf
I agree, the pillars look naff, and I can't comment on the quality of the build, but it doesn't look any worst than the many end of terrace / last semi on the row side extensions I have seen before.
I'd wager that most of those concerned retired elderly residents are not of the same cultural and religious background of Mr Mohammed Shorab. The comments about traffic and visitors is probably because the curtain twitchers have already seen the new resident have friends and family over, and they don't like that!
They are nervous about people living on the same street as them? As you said, I suspect that it comes down to skin colour. That said, if you can't be bothered to get permission, don't complain when the council make you pay to pull it down. That said, I do know someone that paid a proper outfit to build an extension during the lockdown when building regs refused to do site inspections. They are waiting for retrospective approval but it was covered under the "permissible" rather than requiring planning permission.
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,225
- Reaction score
- 953
- Country
From a planning point of view the footprint is not much changed, as it had a big garage already. The pillars are silly, but some like it. A friend, who's a carpenter, recently bought a house with a pillared porch, and quickly swapped them for some oak.
Looks awful. The Grecian style columns don't exactly look in keeping with a 1960s property. And the poor workmanship 
But more importantly, they ignored the plans. Sounds like it would be a lot of work to alter to what was on the plans, so they have to take it down. Lesson learned, eh?
But more importantly, they ignored the plans. Sounds like it would be a lot of work to alter to what was on the plans, so they have to take it down. Lesson learned, eh?
- Joined
- 17 May 2012
- Messages
- 11,225
- Reaction score
- 953
- Country
Not for certain, but that's why I'd make a wager, no fun in it if you know all the facts, and the odds are better too.
But I have not yet met somebody called Mohammed combined with an Urdo surname (Shorab, in this case) that is not of Muslim heritage. I'd wager his family hailed from Pakistan, that being the main origin of Shorab. Combined with demographics data that around 88% of that postcode is white, we can hazard a guess at why the neighbours were objecting to this extension before it was built (objections published on the planning pages).
None of the above matters though, does it?
Objections should only be considered if they have basis in planning law, so any other objections shouldn’t be considered by the planners / committee.
Fact is though, regardless of the fact it’s a complete eyesore (and the workmanship is terrible), if it had have been built to the plans they wouldn’t be in the position of having to take it down now…
Objections should only be considered if they have basis in planning law, so any other objections shouldn’t be considered by the planners / committee.
Fact is though, regardless of the fact it’s a complete eyesore (and the workmanship is terrible), if it had have been built to the plans they wouldn’t be in the position of having to take it down now…
are the smooth looking slabs on your place porcelain or some kind of smooth sandstone? Looks spot onYes, Thank you. The top image is me own gaffe.
LOL. I knew what his cultural and religious background was just by looking at the photo, and not even knowing any names! And I can tell you, its not Greek or Roman
Thanks yes, Ethan Mason 'Smooth Calibrated' sandstone. A bit more pricey than the riven textured but an absolute boon to sweep clean. They come up brand new every Spring with the Karcher patio scrubber.
Bit of a fuss when laying (random sizes/pattern), being so keen edged especially when you consider that multiples of the small units add up to greater than the larger units. It means basically that you have to adjust the joints of the slabs according to the size you are laying i.e. pinch the smaller units tighter and open up the larger units.
I think it looks great! Long live the Roman empire!
DIYnot Local
Staff member
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
