Planning enforcement

[tony1851]

@op; did you get plans drawn for the loft conversion? Or did the 'loft-conversion specialists' advise that you didn't need plans, or perhaps produced drawings themselves, for illustrative purposes?

As there could be a potential problem with the eaves, surely you could insist the builder rectify it at their expense? If they are 'specialists', they should know the rules.

On a separate note, did they arrange Building Control inspections, or will that be another issue down the line?

 

[Quirky6000]

You mention an "enforcement case on the portal", whatever that is.

I'm confused.
And you seem to be confused too as to what enforcement is.

Has the work been investigated and an outcome of that investigation given? Ie there is no progression to enforcement?
Or is the non compliant work being enforced?

Apologies, I'm probably using incorrect terms.

The local authority planning portal online shows a record of a complaint/enquiry being received. No details of the complaint, just the date received. It also shows that the named officer has closed the case, that the decision was 'no further action' and the reason for the decision was 'justification from officer'

We've not received anything from the council whatsoever. The builder told us about the visit after the fact and we only know about the complaint because I happened to check the 'portal'.

 

[Quirky6000]

@op; did you get plans drawn for the loft conversion? Or did the 'loft-conversion specialists' advise that you didn't need plans, or perhaps produced drawings themselves, for illustrative purposes?

As there could be a potential problem with the eaves, surely you could insist the builder rectify it at their expense? If they are 'specialists', they should know the rules.

On a separate note, did they arrange Building Control inspections, or will that be another issue down the line?

No, we used an architect seperate to the builders for our plans and building control inspections have been carried out by a private bc firm. We're awaiting final inspection after a few final touches.

 

[tony1851]

Do the architect's drawings specifically show the 20 cm eaves set-back? It should be indicated on the cross-section.

 

[Quirky6000]

It does show some set back, but there is no measurement. From the plan, it looks as though there would be more set back than there actually is.

 

[tony1851]

To avoid confusion, the architect should have marked the dimension on the plan.
In most instances where you have flush eaves, you need a steel beam set just inside the wall to carry the dormer front and floor.
Doing it that way usually ensures you get the 20cm set-back.

But looking at the bigger picture, the enforcement officer appears to have put the matter to rest, so why loose sleep?

 

[Quirky6000]

This is what I'm now starting to realise. Too late to change anything now though, unless we have no choice.

I hope that is the case. I just didn't know whether or not I would have this hanging over me until it was immune from enforcement action. I feel like I'll be looking over my shoulder for a planning officer for years to come. Especially with an aggrieved neighbour.

 

[^woody^]

Apologies, I'm probably using incorrect terms.

The local authority planning portal online shows a record of a complaint/enquiry being received. No details of the complaint, just the date received. It also shows that the named officer has closed the case, that the decision was 'no further action' and the reason for the decision was 'justification from officer'

We've not received anything from the council whatsoever. The builder told us about the visit after the fact and we only know about the complaint because I happened to check the 'portal'.

If you have been subject to a planning complaint and officers have entered your home, I find it bizarre that you have not received any contact before or after the visit with the proposed investigation and the outcome. That in itself would warrant a compliant by you, which would be upheld .

As you are aware that the planning complaint has been closed with no action, that would appear to be the end of it. However you may want to at least know the detail and the findings, and you are entitled to receive those.

 

[tony1851]

@woody, shouldn't the OP just let sleeping dogs lie, instead of opening up the issue again?

 

[^woody^]

@woody, shouldn't the OP just let sleeping dogs lie, instead of opening up the issue again?

I would suggest that they need to know whether

- the work is lawful and so no further action can be taken

- the work is unlawful but no further action will be taken

- the lawfulness is undetermined, but no further action will be taken to determine it's status.

Not just for peace of mind, but for reference in any future sale. As it stands, the property history now shows that the development has been investigated and the lawfulness is unknown and reasons unknown. There needs to be something more definitive.

 

[jeds]

There's more to enforcement than technical breach of requirements. Two of the criteria are that pursuing enforcement must be in the public interest and must be a reasonable use of public funds. The officer is perfectly entitled to conclude that enforcement would not satisfy those two criteria and that is most likely what has happened here. Technically, the case could be reopened at a later stage but that would only happen if some other issue came to light. But that won't happen because the LPA has given it the all-clear and has not issued a stop notice, which means they could now end up liable for your further expense. Just forget it and move on.