In Caravaggio's Painting, "The...
Arts & Literature2 mins ago
who is best to handle problem with council?
i wrote into answer bank about two months ago asking if anyone could advise on a matter involving enforcement ( building standards ). i'm still struggling with this matter as both the owners and the council are refusing to remove the offensive development or convert it back to it's original workshop status and use., opting just to leave the enforcement notice on it. the unauthorised development is incongrous ( their word ) with the other properties in the area but having procured a certificate of lawfulness from the development section of planning ( 4 year rule ) the development side of planning cannot put an enforcement notice on it. there's more to this but if anyone follows what i've said so far i'd be grateful for their comments. thank you
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bunty39. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
http://www.theanswerb...l/Question873663.html
original q in case anyone can help
original q in case anyone can help
I'm not sure what more you are hoping for. It was Bushbaby and me who responded initially with some info for you (although Bushbaby seems to know more about the nuances of how this 'system works than me).
We are both saying the same thing (I think).
The period of time that has to elapse is 4 years and this has elapsed. This allows the owner of the site to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of the existing structure - which he has done. This is a PLANNING issue - nothing to do with Building Control. Planning is about permission to put structures on virgin land.
Building Control is about whether the structure is suitable to be regarded as safe structurally (not fall down on someone or something) and (if a dwelling) acceptable to be occupied (aka habitable).
If a building is unsafe, Building Control may get involved and force the owner to take action or do it themselves.
I would try your local councillor next - he/she might be willing to put pressure on the situation. I believe that the local authority process has not been followed correctly by the officials, I'm afraid.
We are both saying the same thing (I think).
The period of time that has to elapse is 4 years and this has elapsed. This allows the owner of the site to apply for a Certificate of Lawfulness in respect of the existing structure - which he has done. This is a PLANNING issue - nothing to do with Building Control. Planning is about permission to put structures on virgin land.
Building Control is about whether the structure is suitable to be regarded as safe structurally (not fall down on someone or something) and (if a dwelling) acceptable to be occupied (aka habitable).
If a building is unsafe, Building Control may get involved and force the owner to take action or do it themselves.
I would try your local councillor next - he/she might be willing to put pressure on the situation. I believe that the local authority process has not been followed correctly by the officials, I'm afraid.
thankyou buildersmate, i was hoping you would notice my question and get back to me. what i'm hoping for is advice on what i can do to challenge building standards discretionary decision to leave their enforcement notice, to bring the development up to building standards, on the owners instead of enforcing the conversion back to it's original workshop status or removal altogether, which is what they, building standards said on numerous occasions would happen if building standards requirements were not complied with. i hope i have put the punctuation in all the right places so that i'm making sense.
Your problem is that the Planning Department have closed the case on this matter, as far as they are concerned.
Building Control, literally, sign-off their responsibilities when the Building is 'completed', i.e. before it is due to be inhabited/occupied.
If that stage has yet to be reached, there is little that Building Control wil, or can, do. Each stage of development HAS to confirm to the Regulations, however, there is NO time imperative or limitations on how long this has to take.
Building Control, literally, sign-off their responsibilities when the Building is 'completed', i.e. before it is due to be inhabited/occupied.
If that stage has yet to be reached, there is little that Building Control wil, or can, do. Each stage of development HAS to confirm to the Regulations, however, there is NO time imperative or limitations on how long this has to take.
Sorry - the last line should say the correct process HAS been followed by the officials!
Here's another thought - focus on what the perpetrator of this mess might be seeking.
Unless he enjoys making dwellings out of unconventional materials or is some green fanatic, want he probably wants is legal authority to put a biggish house up there - something that would not be achievable by conventional planning application (because your area is a sensitive landscape site or the structure is vast compared to what is around).
So what he has done is put up a cheap structure that cost him little and waited the necessary period of time so it can't be forcibly removed. Then he will probably want to angle for a deal with the planning authority that allows him a slightly smaller dwelling that looks better, is built correctly - to maximise the value increase on the site.
At the end of the day, what you presumably want is to avoid an eyesore close to your patch. Perhaps your best bet is to encourage him to apply for a proper dwelling. At least what way you can comment and try and influence the eventual outcome. As I said before, I can't see this being demolished anytime soon. With proper OPP, he'll probably sell the site to someone who wants to live there in a conventional dwelling.
Here's another thought - focus on what the perpetrator of this mess might be seeking.
Unless he enjoys making dwellings out of unconventional materials or is some green fanatic, want he probably wants is legal authority to put a biggish house up there - something that would not be achievable by conventional planning application (because your area is a sensitive landscape site or the structure is vast compared to what is around).
So what he has done is put up a cheap structure that cost him little and waited the necessary period of time so it can't be forcibly removed. Then he will probably want to angle for a deal with the planning authority that allows him a slightly smaller dwelling that looks better, is built correctly - to maximise the value increase on the site.
At the end of the day, what you presumably want is to avoid an eyesore close to your patch. Perhaps your best bet is to encourage him to apply for a proper dwelling. At least what way you can comment and try and influence the eventual outcome. As I said before, I can't see this being demolished anytime soon. With proper OPP, he'll probably sell the site to someone who wants to live there in a conventional dwelling.
My response above was developed before I saw either your response or JTH's comments.
JTH is correct, of course. Structures larger than 30 square metres in floor area have to conform to the part of Building Regs that demonstrate their structural stability - but little else. It is only in this area that BC might act - if it isn't yet regarded as a habitable dwelling. Though what about sanitation? - if it is being lived in, one wonders how this is being done? Health / environmental hazard could be another angle
JTH is correct, of course. Structures larger than 30 square metres in floor area have to conform to the part of Building Regs that demonstrate their structural stability - but little else. It is only in this area that BC might act - if it isn't yet regarded as a habitable dwelling. Though what about sanitation? - if it is being lived in, one wonders how this is being done? Health / environmental hazard could be another angle
thankyou again. let me assure you that i appreciate being able to discuss this nightmare with interested people.
building control have indeed demanded a completion notice., knowing full well it wont happen. the two storey structure, which does definitely have a footprint at least 40 square metres, is so far short of building standard requirements, it is economically unviable to comply. they obviously must consider the structure to be safe, but not habitable. the owners have now vacated it, 20 months after the enforcement notice was issued, and are now living in an unauthorised static caravan a few yards away from it. planning are aware of this fact and have told them they need permission for the siting of the caravan. they had 28 days to attend to this but so far nothing is happening. in the meantime their cottage and ground have been sold to a relative.
is it time to give up?
building control have indeed demanded a completion notice., knowing full well it wont happen. the two storey structure, which does definitely have a footprint at least 40 square metres, is so far short of building standard requirements, it is economically unviable to comply. they obviously must consider the structure to be safe, but not habitable. the owners have now vacated it, 20 months after the enforcement notice was issued, and are now living in an unauthorised static caravan a few yards away from it. planning are aware of this fact and have told them they need permission for the siting of the caravan. they had 28 days to attend to this but so far nothing is happening. in the meantime their cottage and ground have been sold to a relative.
is it time to give up?
Probably not the time to give up - it sounds like progress steps are being made by the council. But they have to follow a set process - or run the risk of the owner calling foul and their progress being compromised. It will probably work trough to a compromise but might take years.
So he knows he can't live it - uninhabitable on BR grounds.
He knows he can't get PP for a caravan - the only likely grounds for that would be that temporary PP during the time a self-developer needs for a (legally granted) demolishment/rebuild. Council planners aren't likely to welcome that application since he abused the planning system to get so far. And anyway he doesn't have permission for a change to make it a 'proper build' - only to keep the structure he has (and try to make it conform to Building Regs if he wants to live in it).
That's why I reckon, if I was him, I would try for a deal with the planners to legalise for a smaller building, properly built. Would that be acceptable / better for you?
So he knows he can't live it - uninhabitable on BR grounds.
He knows he can't get PP for a caravan - the only likely grounds for that would be that temporary PP during the time a self-developer needs for a (legally granted) demolishment/rebuild. Council planners aren't likely to welcome that application since he abused the planning system to get so far. And anyway he doesn't have permission for a change to make it a 'proper build' - only to keep the structure he has (and try to make it conform to Building Regs if he wants to live in it).
That's why I reckon, if I was him, I would try for a deal with the planners to legalise for a smaller building, properly built. Would that be acceptable / better for you?
yes, buildersmate, a smaller, properly built development would be a lot better!! granted, it would niggle for a time that he should get permission for this, when other people have been turned down when they went through the proper channels. (this is a green belt ), but i believe it would be better for me. the other problem might be his reluctance to pay for anything.,( it is more than possible that his electricity supply was taken from the underground cable )., even a smaller building in this area would have to be congrous ( planners word ) with the other stone built properties, and it would not be cheap.
Good luck.
What he probably wants is just the Planning Consent - quite valuable in Green Belt for a new development.
It probably doesn't matter if he doesn't have the resources or inclination to develop a decent looking house with quality materials. He'll take the money and run elsewhere - unless he has strong family connections to the area.
What he probably wants is just the Planning Consent - quite valuable in Green Belt for a new development.
It probably doesn't matter if he doesn't have the resources or inclination to develop a decent looking house with quality materials. He'll take the money and run elsewhere - unless he has strong family connections to the area.
Hi there, sorry I'm a little late getting back on this one. The reason I know so much about the situation is that I am a planning officer and have previously worked as an enforcement officer. I am afraid there is nothing more you can do now. Building control will be leaving the notice because unless there is something imminently dangerous, there is no way for the building to comply with building regs given the way the planning status was secured. In local government terms, it is not expedient to enforce - its basically not in the public interest.
hi bushbaby
thanks for getting in touch. Like I said to buildersmate it helps some how to hear someone's opinion, even if it isn't what I want to hear. Although unofficially the bs told me that it was a financial decision to do nothing except to retain the enforcement notice, an official reply to my MP said the following " The power to enter the premises to either complete the work or to revert the premises back to it's original use is discretionary. Because of the considerable work required for either option, bs are of the opinion that such an approach is neither merited nor the best way to proceed in this instance." I wish I could learn to live with what I see as an injustice, I keep on thinking that common sense will dictate the removal of an accepted eyesore, as well as another large construction he built in his garden but I won't hold my breath. thanks once again, bushbaby_de.
thanks for getting in touch. Like I said to buildersmate it helps some how to hear someone's opinion, even if it isn't what I want to hear. Although unofficially the bs told me that it was a financial decision to do nothing except to retain the enforcement notice, an official reply to my MP said the following " The power to enter the premises to either complete the work or to revert the premises back to it's original use is discretionary. Because of the considerable work required for either option, bs are of the opinion that such an approach is neither merited nor the best way to proceed in this instance." I wish I could learn to live with what I see as an injustice, I keep on thinking that common sense will dictate the removal of an accepted eyesore, as well as another large construction he built in his garden but I won't hold my breath. thanks once again, bushbaby_de.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.