Decking on a sloping garden - urgent help pls!

[big-all]

i dont think the words "in dispute with the planning department" on the form will give the buyers much joy

 

[mummypickle]

Exactly! Especially as with an afternoons work it is now all 300mm

 

[big-all]

Exactly! Especially as with an afternoons work it is now all 300mm

bet your neighbours still complain even though its sorted

spell checker fairly useless put in neigbours and no offers off spelling only a"H" out

 

[mummypickle]

Just had planning officer back round (great service!) and he's said it's all fine now and is within PD. He was totally happy with it and said he'd send me a letter to confirm that.
Then, just as he was leaving he said that he'd have to notify the complainant and make sure that she was ok with it all, then clarified that he meant that he'd done his job rather than anything else, but that's got us concerned now that this might not be over.
My understanding is that if something is now Council approved as PD there's nothing that anyone can do about it. Is that right?

 

[big-all]

if its within permitted which he has said it is then its just a courtesy advising them it complies
even if a million people sign a petition it stays as is

 

[mummypickle]

So, they told her it was now PD and she is now alleging that we have raised the ground.
We had some work done 5.5 years ago and they scattered the earth across the 50x30ft area of the top of the garden, which has probably amounted to approx a 2 inch height over the whole area.
The officer has conceded that due to the elapsed time there is nothing he can do about the 'raised ground' allegations but that he needs to check and see if we can then put our 30cm PD deck on the top of it.
Surely the level that it has been for the past 5.5 years becomes the accepted level of land having never been complained about and then the decking on the top is permitted as it is 280mm from that?
Please can anyone give me any links or references of anything similar that may be out there?
Thanks in advance!

 

[rjm2k]

Have you admitted to the council that the land was raised? has she any proof?

 

[mummypickle]

I have told them that we did distribute some chalky earth yes, but not said how much as we have no idea. It's pretty obvious as the top layer is chalk so couldn't really hide it.
I want to get this sorted so thought that by explaining the work and that it was over the 4 year period (which I can prove) it would be the best way to put this to bed.
She has no proof of anything though.

 

[rjm2k]

I want to get this sorted so thought that by explaining the work and that it was over the 4 year period (which I can prove) it would be the best way to put this to bed.

Not really, it just means they can't enforce on the earth that was added, new developments on top of that such as decking are a different issue.

 

[mummypickle]

If the scattered earth issue has been and gone as the time has elapsed and the decking is under PD then what can they refuse?

 

[big-all]

was the ground level with a n even scattering
or was there a natural high spot you leveled it to

 

[planningjungle]

Hi mummypickle,

Adding earth to your garden to raise its level can require planning permission if the amount of earth is significant enough. However, even if such works did require PP, 4 years after they were finished they would have become lawful through the passage of time.

With the decking, the key issue is whether its "height" is more than 30cm. "Height" refers to height above ground level, which means "natural" ground level. In my opinion, regardless of how long ago you raised the level of the rear garden, and regardless of whether the latter works are now lawful, "natural" ground level would still mean the original level of the garden, rather than the raised level of the garden.

However, as a separate issue, the legislation specifies that you can measure the height of a building from "the level of the highest part of the surface of the ground adjacent to it". So, although you would have to use the original ground level, rather than the raised ground level, in my opinion you could use the highest part of the original ground level that's adjacent to the decking.

Thanks,
Steve

 

[mummypickle]

Thanks guys for replying.
It's a tough one. The garden has been historically landscaped, with portions being dug out and levelled and other areas being built up. This work looks to be around 50 years old, but could be older than that. So, the only natural ground level we can be certain of is that at the very back of the garden as it runs adjoining and in a continued downward slope from the gardens backing onto ours, and the level that the house is on as that's not been changed either.
So, how can they determine what is the 'natural' ground level? And if they pick an arbitrary point, who's to say that point is any more appropriate than any other? Surely what was changed 50 years ago is just as valid as something that was done and accepted 5.5 years ago?

The back of the decking is around 2m in from the very back boundary and is dug down into the natural ground level at this point meaning that it is only roughly 70mm higher than the ground level and still lower than the very back of the garden.
The front of the decking extends forward just under 4m to the end point of this first top historical tiering. The scattered earth at this point is prob about 5-7cm high on top of a small piece of old concrete we can see jutting out of the side where a wall was built. This 5-7cm does not quite bring the land level and therefore the decking at this point is 280mm (again slightly dug down though) above the earth on which it sits.

I've already had the conversation with the officer regarding the height being from the highest level of natural ground adjoining the structure as a whole, and that in this case it is the rear of the deck/garden. He made it clear that his stance (and apparently that of his colleagues) is that in instances like these measurements should be taken from varying points. To avoid any further issues we just swallowed it and made the whole thing come in under 300mm. However if it's now going to be disallowed again due to the earth then I think we will need to challenge this interpretation because essentially what he's saying is that no-one can build a flat surface on a slope and that our decking would end up being steps!

It just seems ridiculous as we are talking such minute amounts. If we were to drop the decking to the height of the historical old tier at the front, assuming they pick that point at random, then it will still only lower it by 50mm which has no real benefit to anyone.

If he refuses to accept that the regulation is from the highest natural point of ground, and that is the back of the garden, where can we go from here? How do we challenge a decision pls?

 

[big-all]

the trouble here is you decking passes the requirement
its the misinterpretation off the regs thats the problem

 

[mummypickle]

What can I do about that?