Permitted Development and 200mm setting back from eaves

[freddiemercurystwin]

The very fact that has been clarified in the new (not yet in force) Guidance means it is still open to interpretation and as such the rest of us are in the same boat ie we can't say for certain either.

Presume you've been through this site with a fine tooth comb? http://www.planningjungle.com/

 

[Frank2010]

Thanks for reminding me again of this invaluable source of information.

I found this appeal case (21 June 2010 – 379 Staines Road) and the conclusion is

For the purposes of the 20cm set back, the term “eaves” applies just to the outer edge of the section of the roof overhanging the wall. As such, the 20cm set back should be measured from the outer edge of the sloping roof.

This contradicts the appeal case on the Wood Lane, Isleworth and supports our case of 20cm set back from front of eaves.

I also noted this (1 July 2009 – 80 Hermitage Road)

Where an application was received prior to 01/10/2008 (and works had begun by that date), yet determined on or after 01/10/2008 it was incorrect for the LPA to determine the application on the basis of the amended GPDO.

Why can't the same principal apply to our build on the basis that we had applied and completed before the appeal case in Wood Lane Isleworth came into force, changing the council's mind?

Where there is a discrepancy on a drawing between annotated dimensions and those produced from scaling, the annotated dimensions have precedence.
[Source: 26 May 2010 – 53 Chillerton Road]

This didn't happen at one stage in our case with the case officer insisting to scale off plan and ignoring dimensions specifically written on for her benefit.

In an application for a certificate of lawfulness, the burden of proof is firmly on the applicant

Yes, I can sympathise with that

I'm still struggling with the window. Whilst there are enough appeals to suggest that it doesn't need to be specified on plan on the basis that the applicant could still comply (and if they don't could subsequently be enforced on) I can't see any mention that may support our case yet. It's annoying as on plan we had 'obscured' in writing on plans and if we had the certificate this would now class as a case for enforcement for us too and not a reason to turn the application down. All for the sake of a window, grrrrrr ......

I'll keep looking tomorrow at work if not kept busy .....

 

[jeds]

I don't see any way around the window situation under the lawful development procedure. The whole point of the procedure is that it confirms that something is either lawful or not. The idiots who drafted the act may well have designed in more ambiguity in one small document than most of us would have thought possible but one thing they did make crystal clear is that a side facing window on the upper floor must be obscure and fixed or the opening part must be more than 1.7m above floor level.

All the arguments about opposite wall having no windows etc. are irrelevant. Unless of course you make a separate planning application - in which case they can be considered.

 

[Frank2010]

Looks like the Council has been very thorough in the end. In a cynical twist they have even managed to take us over the volume. Contrary to an e-mail I received earlier stating we were at approx. 39 cu m we are now a fraction over at 40.43 cu m. Seems some last minute revisions were made.

So we are over the volume, not set back enough and have an opening non obscured window. The report is also pretty damning too. Looks like we are also being served an Enforcement notice straight away, which will require us to act much faster than I anticipated if we realistically want to appeal. However given the added issue with volume it may be easier just to bite the bullet and rip the house apart now. I will have to speak to Planning Aid London on Monday and get their opinion what my options are. The builder will also have a bad start to the week being currently blissfully unaware I would think.

At least it's the weekend. Any input appreciated on latest revelations and what my chances of appeal against enforcement have reduced to.

 

[jeds]

I'm still a bit confused as to what they are basing their volume measurements on. Have they measured the extension on site or are they going by drawings? If drawings, are they dimensioned or are they scaling off?

 

[Kur]

Richmond council requires 200mm from the external face of a wall

 

[Frank2010]

Have they measured the extension on site

Not with me present or any other family member. I believe all measurements are taken from drawings.

If drawings, are they dimensioned or are they scaling off?

Both, dimensions and scaling.There is a long e-mail trail and notes in the officer's report that show how the volume has continuously changed for various reasons and mistakes made both sides.
Some physical dimensions were put on plan to clarify dimensions with others not provided by the engineer that had to be measured off plan.

I think we have a volume ranging from ~38 cu m to 46 cu m over the length of 8 months. On last confirmation in an e-mail it was 39 cu m and then changed to slightly above. To me it still not seems confirmed what the actual volume now is? Bar of course what is in the refusal notes.

Richmond council requires 200mm from the external face of a wall

Correct, since the appeal case in Isleworth February 2010. The Staines Road Appeal in June 2010 in the same Borough contradicts this view and interpretation btw.
We had completed before the Council took the decision into consideration. As the application side was still ongoing the premise of where to measure the 20cm set back changed. Hence our build was turned down under the 20cm set back from wall when 20cm from front of the eaves was acceptable at time of construction and application made. Under the revised PD guidelines the set back would pass too.

 

[jeds]

It is impossible to scale to within half a cubic metre off of a drawing. I'm having a bit of deja vu here but why don't you measure on site so you know exactly what it is?

 

[Frank2010]

Long story, short summary .....
A re-measure was done a 2nd time round previously by our engineer and measurements confirmed to be correct now.
In the end the Planning Officer based calculations on this information and dimensions physically drawn on plan with other dimensions being scaled off.
There was a bit of an issue beforehand. The dormer was made wider to original plans submitted, requiring the re-measure in the first place. The new volume is calculated on this. Due to the re-measure our engineer had altered and put new dimensions on plan but it seems neglected to change the actual drawings themselves. The case officer rejected the physical dimensions and continued scaling off plan, which I queried. This required another submission of plans later on to accurately reflect physical dimensions and drawings.
There was also some initial argument how the volume should be calculated with the officer including the eaves for calculations on hip to gable conversion, which later was accepted to be wrong as they already existed beforehand.
This on its own led to long drawn out discussions about volumes leaving us to argue the case. I think there is another thread of mine floating around from that time asking for clarification on this. If dimensions in the beginning would have been calculated correctly this might have changed timescales and length this case has taken. It may have even concluded the case before the Isleworth Appeal, bringing about the issue with 20cm set back. Of course the widening of the build didn't help in this instance from our side.
The plans are still being criticised to be inaccurate in the officer's report but because of the window and set back this doesn't merit much further investigation for the application to be turned down.
So as you see there is a raft of reasons why the volume has constantly changed and hence why the volume is calculated on information provided off plan the way it is. There is no mention in the case notes how the officer calculated a volume of 39 cu m, which I have in writing in an e-mail, that changed to 40.43 a couple of days later on.

Of course we could re-meassure again but I don't have the facility to measure the full house accurately myself to confirm whether any mistakes have been made. There is little point in the engineer coming out again doing this as the assumption would be that he produces the same figures. He may also decline to do so as from his point of view the original drawings did fall within PD but the builder deviated. Hence the additional volume isn't the Engineer's issue.
So unless I can find someone independent to re-meassure and carry the costs I need to have confirmation from the builder what he would like to do to rectify the problem. Our contract is with him for plan and build to PD and hence it is foremost his responsibility to sort it. I just hope this doesn't open the next can of worms now .....

 

[keytouch]

Did you ever resolve this issue?
The 200mm guidance was published in August, did the council ignore that part from then on?