Building extension nightmare Help please

[Softus]

Perhaps I'm stupid, but I can't see what's wrong with a company, or a government department, charging for an optional service that they provide.

It's not like education, or health, or roads, or police, (to name but several), all of which are used by everyone, or for the general good of everyone.

Some people who pay Council Tax never own property, and/or will never apply for planning permission. Why should those people subscribe to a service that they can be certain they will never use? How is it any different to paying a road fund license, or duty on fuel?

Or have I got it wrong? Maybe I should be complaining to the council, and bleating to the world at large, that I don't get 800 channels of TV within the cost of my Council Tax.

 

[NS215]

thats just silly
i pay for loads of council run things i don't use like swimming pools, parks
Some people who pay Council Tax never own property, maybe but they do have there bins emptied and have police and fire sevice only a phone call away

 

[noseall]

Perhaps I'm stupid, but I can't see what's wrong with a company, or a government department, charging for an optional service that they provide.

this is an elected institution with a mandate to serve the people who elected them.

the least they could do is lick our boots, the bunch of sycophantic, a**e licking, smarmy, double standard, back stabbing, liars.







just joking. not fond of politicians though.

 

[Robert too]

I never meant rubbish, as in not true, but rubbish as in should not be happening.

It needs to be challenged to prove its legality, as although seemingly getting more prevelent as a money earner, it is a dubious practice.

Richmond BC introduced this way back in early eighties.

It ran for about a year before it was challenged and proven to be illegal charging , they had to provide a refund to anyone that claimed it.

Its not as though the information provided is actually binding , it will be heavily covered as " informal opinion "

 

[Softus]

i pay for loads of council run things i don't use like swimming pools, parks

Those are amenities provided for the community. The planning department is a government agency that some people can guarantee never to have to use, for any reason.

Some people who pay Council Tax never own property, maybe but they do have there bins emptied and have police and fire sevice only a phone call away

They don't have their bins emptied by the planning department, and I think you'll find that I included the police in a shortlist of things that benefit everybody, with the implication that it's reasonable for everybody to contribute.

 

[^woody^]

Many people may not want to use the planning dept for their own extension, but perhaps their neighbour plans some monstrosity, or the local developer has bought up a few back gardens and wants to put some 5 storey tower blocks in.

All somebody wants is a few minutes chat with an officer whom is paid for out of local taxes and employed to serve and advise the local community who employs him or her. There is absolutely no additional cost to the council and it is not an 'additional' service, but a fundamental one.

What happens next? Does the building control officer come out and say that your footings aren't deep enough, and then when you ask how deep does he want them, he charges you £35 for his "advice"?

I know for a fact that many councils charge, and attempt to charge for "additional services" but they would not have a leg to stand on if their charges were tested in a court of law. They make political decisions without getting their own legal advice - perhaps they don't want to pay for it either. lol

We have all paid for our local planners - for their wages, for their training and university degrees, and their pensions.

I'd be damned if I would cough up again for what invariably is some wishy-washy, may-be, perhaps, probably, might be, could be, vague, informal, non-binding, non-commital advice.

 

[Softus]

Many people may not want to use the planning dept for their own extension, but perhaps their neighbour plans some monstrosity, or the local developer has bought up a few back gardens and wants to put some 5 storey tower blocks in.

Hm. You have a point, and you've succeeded in changing my mind - I was wrong.

 

[Richard C]

Well that comment sparked some debate then didn't it! Having PC probs so only just caught up with this thread again. I've got free advice from my local planning 3 or 4 times without charge in the last 3 years but they have got a fair bit of money out of me since for both PP & BC; I also have a developer friend who does it all the time, usually before he finally commts to buy a potential development property but he is well known to them.

 

[Ron Gamma]

you say you are on a corner plot. The 1m boundary may be to preserve the line of sight around the corner for traffic.
I have a similar problem as there is a restriction on the height of my garden wall and planting within a set distance from the pavement. This leaves a dead space on the plot and means I can't plant tall protective shrubs to improve my security arrangements.
(it doesn't stop anyone parking a van in the road and blocking the view though... )

You can build up to a neighbours boundary line - my old neighbour did it, which is why I moved as the estate began to look and feel like a prison complex.
If they are detached properties you need to leave a nominal gap between the absolute outer edge of your extension and the boundary fence/wall. In some cases on large developments there is a covenant that allows for the soffits and fascias to overhang so the nominal gap can drop to as little as 20-30mm.

 

[^woody^]

Building to the boundary is policy dependant on the local council. Some councils will allow one neighbour to build to the boundary, but then this prevents the other doing it as it will close any gap. Other councils will not allow either neighbour to build with one metre. Others insist on more space to the boundary.

There are different ways to prevent the terracing effect, and it depends on the local council how they implement it.

Bizarrly, on new-build estates you are allowed to cram right up to the boundary no problem.

It makes me smile when a planner tries to justify how bad building to the boundary is on older houses, and how good it is on newer estates.

 

[ColJack]

I'm with NS215 on this one softus..

why do my council taxes pay for a local park where gardeners and the like are employed to keep it looking nice?

they should charge an entrance fee for those who want to take thier dogs for a run, or to admire the flowers...etc..

My taxes even pay for non local visitors to be able to use the parks whern they don't pay for it..

the parks are there if i ever want to go and visit one for free, so why not free advice from the planning people..?

after all it's not like they are entirely funded by the council anyway.. you have to pay for visits to comply with part p, and for planning permission submissions.. etc, etc...

it's a good idea for them to give free advice on small things anyway since if he can do what he wants then he'll submit plans, get it built and wired and plumbed etc all of which will make them money from visits and the like..

 

[Softus]

I'm with NS215 on this one softus.

I'm guessing that you didn't read my most recent post on this topic.