Council enforcing 20cm setback on loft

[gillere]

To wessex101 yes the vendor is doing other properties in the borough. In fact when we talked to the planning office last week they said they were aware of his activities (in a negative way).

This has all given me some ammunition for when we talk to our solicitors that did the conveyancing.

What a mess up!

 

[gillere]

Ps one other odd thing is that it's only the small part of the L shape (main bedroom Juliette balcony/window) that isn't set back. He's set back the main part of the L (bathroom and small bedroom).

 

[gillere]

Here's an image, the bit the council are not happy with is the big door window whereas the rest on the left (with drainpipe coming down) is setback

 

[Doggit]

Even if it was done under PD, building control would have been involved, and they'd have signed off the works, so is the council trying to hide the fact that one of their own screwed up. Your solicitor should have checked for any work done to the property, and that the paperwork was in place, so they need to prove what they have done.

The council don't want to set a precedent, but as you didn't do the work, and the property has changed hands since it was done, there is a possible argument to make an exception in this case. It might be worth asking fir a meeting with the head of the planning department, as you aren't the perpetrator in this case, more the victim, so they should be more willing to work with you than against you.

Ask the council to provide a list of their correspondence with both the neighbour and the previous owner to see if they've followed their own rules. And it might be worth going round the neighbours to see who made the complaint, but to ask them for their help in resolving it. They may be able to provide some helpful info for you.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Good grief Doggit, Building Control sign off has nothing whatsoever to do with Planning and to suggest the OP will be able to get a meeting with the Head of Planning is beyond bananas! Some threads you really should avoid posting in.

 

[Nakajo]

On the plus side, it looks like a decent job

 

[Doggit]

Now where did I suggest that the BCO had anything to do with planning, but they should have been aware of the setback required, especially as the detail was different to the other face. And having gone to the top guy when I had a dispute, I know it can be done.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Now where did I suggest that the BCO had anything to do with planning, but they should have been aware of the setback required, especially as the detail was different to the other face. And having gone to the top guy when I had a dispute, I know it can be done.

You seem to think the council have somehow screwed up with Building Control somehow allowing something to be built that is not PD when it is nothing to do with BC. There's no dispute going on here, it either is PD or it isn't.

 

[Doggit]

Okay, lets try and get this straight, because I have no problem being corrected if I've got the wrong idea. Although it was done under PD, so no planning required, they still need issue a bulding control notice, and have BC check on the construction, and at the end, sign off the work and issue the building certificate, so you're suggesting that the BCO wouldn't have been aware of needing the 20cm setback, and so didn't spot it wasn't there.

 

[^woody^]

Building control have no duty to check for planning compliance, often have no knowledge of planning issues, and are not aware if work is done as PD or via a planning application.

You need to view the different council departments as being separate entities with no interaction between them.

 

[Doggit]

The're all good ponts Woody, and I'm actually well aware of them, but I was hoping that the OP would have had a BCO that might have spotted the discrepancy. He's in a bit of a bind, so he needs to chase all possible avenues - even if he only muddies the waters.

My comments were never about the BCO and PD.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

so you're suggesting that the BCO wouldn't have been aware of needing the 20cm setback, and so didn't spot it wasn't there.

No I'm not suggesting that I'm telling you that.

 

[noseall]

Has Doggit only just joined this forum section? That stuff is basic and ancient history.

 

[tony1851]

If it's just the lack of a set-back on the outrigger-part of the dormer that the council is complaining about, then it is probably not a problem and the council is mis-interpreting the legislation.
The 20cm set back appears not to apply when the roof enlargement joins an original roof to the roof of a side or rear extension.
This exclusion is clearly stated in the GPDO.
You need to look up Town and Country Planning Act (General Permitted Development Order) 2015
Schedule 2, Part 1.
Then look for part B (roof enlargements).
The bit you need is in the conditions section - B 2 (b); the exception from the 20cm rule for enlargements over an outrigger is clearly implied - your council has got it wrong.
You need to get a local planning consultant to deal with the council on this.

 

[gillere]

Thanks tony1851, that's a very useful tip. I think it might be well worth our while getting a local planning consultant to come and have a look. Yes it seems to be only the outrigger part they are complaining about.