by Simon Zohhadi on Monday, 16 May 2011 at 17:10 ·
Around 3/4 million planning applications are made each year.
1. (a) PP not normaly needed for a shed but this one has a bathroom in it. Planning enforcement officer's role to deal with buildings without PP. Prevent substandard & unsafe buildings & slums of Victorian London coming back again. New domestic building in garden (in Brent)used as a dwelling but owner claims it is a shed (toilet & shower removed). Council has right to demolish building if they don't do it themselves & charge them for the cost. Building in v.poor structural condition (safety hazard). Bill £5,000 pound for demolition. Police in attendance.
(b) Unlawful conversion of house into flats. Must have PP. No application for planning nor building regulations application. Developer could end up in a magistrates court & issued with a fine of upto £5,000 & issued with an enforcement notice reconverting the flats with a potential costs of £10s of thousands. (c) Extension application. Rule: 45 degree line for light. Councillors (not planning professionals) will make the final decision. Application: Refused - Development too big.
Appeal: Overturned the decision (7 months later).
(d) Conversion of outbuilding into house. Permission & approval for use. It was approved as a dry goods store, not somewhere to live. Using unsuitable buildings for living puts peoples' lives at risk. Environmental Officer also in attendance - issued a Prohibition Notice preventing anybody sleeping (living) in the building.
2. Garden-grabbing. (a) Junk removed from front garden after repeated warnings and fine. Council forced to remove junk themselves (Bill £1500). To be kept in store for 3 days and destroyed if owner does not find alternative storage.
(b) Tree Preservation Order. Climate change & buildings built on shallow foundations have led to an increase in applications for cutting down trees. Tree Officer. 2 mature Oak trees ( a mile apart)blamed for causing cracks in an conservatory and the other for damaging an extension. Insurers applied to cut them down but owners of the buildings want them to stay. Both currently protected by tree preservation order. Tree Officer has to decide. If answer is No:
Privately owned trees but Council could pick up bill of £6,000 for removal or £25,000 if retained. To save trees, owners must disprove findings in the report. Age of tree ?OCA Report: 76-100 years old. Most oaks grow 2.5 cm (diameter)every year. Other oak: over 100 years. Argument that conservatory not built properly. Council Decision: 1st Oak saved. 2nd Oak: Previous HC decision re: tree protection. If underpinning building can be carried out then tree must remain even if cheapest option is the removal of the tree. Both applications to fell the trees rejected. Insurance Co. appealing both decisions.
3. How not to build. (a) 1 end of terrace house in Barnet has planning permission to extend house and conversion into 4 flats. Building Control application not submitted though ! Causing damage to neighbouring house whose foundations have been exposed. Building Inspector & Planning Officer in attendance with Developer. Nor is building in accordance with planning. Building Control application now submitted & court action avoided. Building work being monitored. GL reduced to below the drain. Concrete block below steel beam not fitted properly. Additional storey not in original plans.
Danger structure notice issued. Scaffolding removed by Council (Bill £8,000). Also putting on a flat roof at rear which developer does not have permission for. 2 days later scaffolding back up but it is a Saturday & not allowed to work past 1.00pm. Roof changed to meet original planning application. 50 visits. Developer appealing against 1 Enforcement Notice. Practical Completion Certificate not issued.
(b) Planning also responsible for Landuse. Instruction for land not to be used for parking otherwise Enforcement Notice to be issued with potential for a fine. Planning permission not requested.
(c) 4 flats to be built above showroom. Opposition: Sunlight restrictions & obstrusive overlooking. Council Planning Meeting: Application rejected. Appeal: Decision overturned & development granted.
4. Planned replacement of 3 houses with retirement flats refused.
5. Extension Nightmares: New "hay store" built on greenbelt land. Roof & upper storey removed, permission given for one storey. Extension on another property: depth 4.145 whereas council policy on a boundary depth limit is 3.65m; therefore, extension depth contrary to council policy. Additional depth opressive & unfairly impacts on light to neighbouring property.
(b) Unlawful conversion of house into flats. Must have PP. No application for planning nor building regulations application. Developer could end up in a magistrates court & issued with a fine of upto £5,000 & issued with an enforcement notice reconverting the flats with a potential costs of £10s of thousands. (c) Extension application. Rule: 45 degree line for light. Councillors (not planning professionals) will make the final decision. Application: Refused - Development too big.
Appeal: Overturned the decision (7 months later).
(d) Conversion of outbuilding into house. Permission & approval for use. It was approved as a dry goods store, not somewhere to live. Using unsuitable buildings for living puts peoples' lives at risk. Environmental Officer also in attendance - issued a Prohibition Notice preventing anybody sleeping (living) in the building.
2. Garden-grabbing. (a) Junk removed from front garden after repeated warnings and fine. Council forced to remove junk themselves (Bill £1500). To be kept in store for 3 days and destroyed if owner does not find alternative storage.
(b) Tree Preservation Order. Climate change & buildings built on shallow foundations have led to an increase in applications for cutting down trees. Tree Officer. 2 mature Oak trees ( a mile apart)blamed for causing cracks in an conservatory and the other for damaging an extension. Insurers applied to cut them down but owners of the buildings want them to stay. Both currently protected by tree preservation order. Tree Officer has to decide. If answer is No:
Privately owned trees but Council could pick up bill of £6,000 for removal or £25,000 if retained. To save trees, owners must disprove findings in the report. Age of tree ?OCA Report: 76-100 years old. Most oaks grow 2.5 cm (diameter)every year. Other oak: over 100 years. Argument that conservatory not built properly. Council Decision: 1st Oak saved. 2nd Oak: Previous HC decision re: tree protection. If underpinning building can be carried out then tree must remain even if cheapest option is the removal of the tree. Both applications to fell the trees rejected. Insurance Co. appealing both decisions.
3. How not to build. (a) 1 end of terrace house in Barnet has planning permission to extend house and conversion into 4 flats. Building Control application not submitted though ! Causing damage to neighbouring house whose foundations have been exposed. Building Inspector & Planning Officer in attendance with Developer. Nor is building in accordance with planning. Building Control application now submitted & court action avoided. Building work being monitored. GL reduced to below the drain. Concrete block below steel beam not fitted properly. Additional storey not in original plans.
Danger structure notice issued. Scaffolding removed by Council (Bill £8,000). Also putting on a flat roof at rear which developer does not have permission for. 2 days later scaffolding back up but it is a Saturday & not allowed to work past 1.00pm. Roof changed to meet original planning application. 50 visits. Developer appealing against 1 Enforcement Notice. Practical Completion Certificate not issued.
(b) Planning also responsible for Landuse. Instruction for land not to be used for parking otherwise Enforcement Notice to be issued with potential for a fine. Planning permission not requested.
(c) 4 flats to be built above showroom. Opposition: Sunlight restrictions & obstrusive overlooking. Council Planning Meeting: Application rejected. Appeal: Decision overturned & development granted.
4. Planned replacement of 3 houses with retirement flats refused.
5. Extension Nightmares: New "hay store" built on greenbelt land. Roof & upper storey removed, permission given for one storey. Extension on another property: depth 4.145 whereas council policy on a boundary depth limit is 3.65m; therefore, extension depth contrary to council policy. Additional depth opressive & unfairly impacts on light to neighbouring property.
No comments:
Post a Comment