Advice sought. Planning regs.

[Levo-Lon]

Is the 3m pile the house sits on just a soil heap or imported stone? You could argue it's the equivalent of an additional storey in height?

My thoughts straightaway.
They don't build on scraped up soil.
This will be moved as building site progresses.
Space is at a premium when building a few houses.

If the general lay of the land is flat then All the new builds will be similar height give or take a course of brick .

 

[colly]

My thoughts straightaway.
They don't build on scraped up soil.
This will be moved as building site progresses.
Space is at a premium when building a few houses.

If the general lay of the land is flat then All the new builds will be similar height give or take a course of brick .

OK that's very interesting. The field as it was actually slopes away from the existing houses. Maybe 7% average. My pals house sits right at the top of the field and the natural slope was away from his place. The house concerned (and another yet to be started ) really are set on raised land. I'll ask him if any rock was used under the soil. From when I have visited in recent weeks and see general progress I think it is just bulldozed soil.
Work was stopped at one stage because they were digging up and pushing about peat. I'm not sure that is relevent or not.

Google Earth pic of the site. You can see the lower mound of Earth which is yet to be built on. The house being built right behind the existing houses is the one in question at the moment. You can't tell from the photo but it stands maybe 3m/4m higher than the existing.

 

[Dave7]

Right to privacy is the main one, for me.


The only other things that might be brought into it are the right to light and the right to a/the view. The second isn't covered/considered in planning regulations. There is no legal right to it.

The right to light, get some pictures taken around two hours either side of noon, if it's possible that he might .

When "they" decided to build 15 houses directly opposite our front, our own soicitor told us "you cannot buy the right to a view".

 

[Milkfloat]

With a bit of 'birds eye' viewing you can see that the land has been built up / leveled, but I don't think they have changed the nature of the slope hugely. It looks like the field sloped parallel to the house, rather than away.

 

[alicat]

All your friend can do is get advice from a planning law solicitor or check out the consent granted including the plans to see if what has been built is in contravention of that.

 

[colly]

Im off there now so we will see what we will see.

 

[Darren Gregory]

@colly

Hello

I am a full time planning enforcement officer so what you describe is my everyday work.

I can't go into the specifics of this case as I have no personal involvement but might be able to help in some respect, I gather that you may have done elements of what I shall write.

Typically when planning permission is granted it is expected that the recipient of the permission or the developer carry out the development in accordance with the approved plans. If you do not then you do so at your own risk.

As a amember of the public if you suspect that a breach of planning control has occured then you may report it to your local planning authority's (LPA) enforcement team. Some Council's call it planning compliance or similar but they all do the same job.

Any new allegation will be investigated and brought to a conclusion.

The alleged breach that you describe would potentially sound like the buildings and/or site levels are higher than approved. If I were investigating this, and I have dealt with many cases of this nature, I would be providing the approved plans to a surveyor who would then go out and measure the levels and heights. Usually the surveyor will return the approved plans with his measurements annotated on the plan. If the measurments are the same then there is not breach of planning control and the LPA will not be able to take enforcement action.

If one still has concerns relating to privacy light, amentity at this point it is frankly too late. The application process has a consultation period and it is at this point for theses issues to be addressed.

Coming back to the survey, if the measurements are different to the approved plan then you have a breach of planning control. What happens next is dependent on what sort of error has occured, clearly if the height of a building is supposed to be 5 metres and is instead 15 metres it probably is unaceptable and the route will be to have this rectified, either volunatarily of with the COuncil serving an enforcement notice. If the building is supposed to be 5 metres in height but instead 5.2 metres then the officer should be encouraging the developer to rectify this retrospectively and there are different mecahnics to achieve this dependant on the specificas of the breach. If the developer is unwilling then the Council will have to "write the case up" for non expediency. WHat this means essentially is writing it off in a formal report. The purpose of planning enforcement is ultiumately to regularise harm, if the breach is not causing suficient harm (and that harm is based on the LPA's development plan, the National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] and any other material considerations) then the LPA should not take action. Enforcement action is not punative, it is not there simply to punish someone for their error, regardless of intentional or otherwise.

Your local authority will have done their job properly if they have gone through the steps above (admittedley cut down for a lunch time post on cyclchat!). When LPA's decisions are challenged by a claim to the ombudsmann they will be looking at whether the COuncil has procedurally done the correct thing, they will not be questioning the actual decision.

Hope this helps, if you have any direct questions I would be happy to try and help.

Darren

 

[twentysix by twentyfive]

If, as a buyer of a house built on "scraped up land", I'd want to know about the possibility of future settlement. Indeed I'd "put it about a bit" that the builders had done this scraping up. That might make the builders consider their position.........

 

[Salar]

I doubt very much the properties will be built on scraped up land.

On poor ground sites properties are normally constructed on raft type foundations bearing on consolidated hardcore and or engineered fill or pile and suspended beam construction.

The developer would I expect have had a site investigation report carried out advising on ground conditions for the engineer to design the foundations.

The foundation designs would also need either NHBC and or local authority approval.

 

[Archie_tect]

It's not for me but for a friend of mine. There is a development going on behind his house, which he isn't all that happy about but he understands that that is the way of these things.
The issue is that one of the houses ( and possibly another one thats yet to be started ) is being built on land thats been scraped up and the house stands over 3m higher than it otherwise would have done....

Any information as to what the actual planning laws allow.

It's very short notice I know but I've only just been asked.

As planning approval has been granted the only thing you can challenge is to ensure the developer has submitted all the pre-start p[lanning conditions attached to the planning approval certificate and that any conditions which limit the development have been complied with, COMPLETELY in compliance with the plans and elevations and details approved and referred to in the application.

You can go onto any Council's planning website and search for any planning approval by address or planning application reference to find a copy of the approval certificate and the approved drawings linked to it. Worth reading and downloading all that before the meeting.

If the Council haven't approved all the details and reports submitted [including the floor levels of the proposed houses, the proposed ground levels at the perimeter of the site, the methods for preventing surcharge of the ground where retaining walls are required or the prevention of surface water surcharge over adjacent land then the developer is in breach of the planning approval and the work should be stopped by the Council's Planning Enforcement Officer until the approval of the details or thank work started has been put right...

It may be worth speaking to the Enforcement Officer straightaway if you have any doubts that the developer is proceeding with work that is different to the planning approved drawings or reports or the planning conditions or if the application to discharge the pre-start planning conditions has not been separately applied for/ or not approved.

Hope this helps in the short term... Gateshead Enforcement Officer once stopped a massive house being built with planning approval when the house was built about 500mm higher than shown on the planning approval... so the system does work!

 

[Archie_tect]

Looks like a failed quarry, so all the houses may be being built on a raft/ piled founds- very unlikely to build on piled up soil- they may either have designed an earth bund or it just temporary storage of top soil to redistribute across the site later. It'll be clear from the approved drawings what's proposed and then compare that to what's being grubbed up to start building.

 

[Archie_tect]

'filled' not 'failed'!!

 

[colly]

Thanks to all have replied and offered advice. Particularly @Darren Gregory and @Archie_tect for their 'educated' offerings. Being on the inside gives a different perspective.

SO. Said meeting went off OK but I fear my pal will get not much satisfaction at the end of it all.
So there were a couple of bods from the Housing Association, the construction guy in charge of the site, a local councillor, me and my pal. The Planning Dept. and the MP's sidekick never showed up.
It was plain from the off that the people involved who had any dealings were keen to say ' not me guv'. Which I can understand. The contractor stated right from the off he had followed the plans to the letter with regards to placings of buildings, roads, levels etc. The housing people said pretty much exactly the same in that the site had been checked and re-checked and the construction was as per the plans submitted and approved.
Lots of discussion about privacy issues and so on and the fact of being over-looked but it all hinges around the plans submitted and approved by the planning committee.
Even the councillor said as much in that if the plans had been approved by the planning committee the construction company and the housing association were duty bound to abide by the appoved plans.
The issue is now that if my pal can prove the council didn't take sufficient cognisance of the levels of the site with regards to existing dwellings then he might just possibly be able to take them to court for compensation.
Well lets face it unless you have a very deep pocket that is not going to happen. He can write in and ask them to have look at their previous decision but I doubt very much any council will own up to an error if it's going to cost them money.
To be fair to the Housing Association were sympathetic and have offered to provide fencing which will offer some degree of privacy but they wouldn't suggest what might be offered, they wanted my pal to write in, possibly with diagrams, and they would meet the cost of what could be provided. That won't be inexpensive because of the layout and the strength of winds along the side of the valley.

So it's one step forward to be back where you were. Well almost.

I guess the lesson is that whatever is going to be built near you be sure to get your details objections in to the planners in good time and to attend any and all planning meetings.

 

[Slick]

Pretty much what would be expected.

As an aside, why didn't he object at the planning stage?

 

[ClichéGuevara]

A long shot, as it should be picked up as part of the application process, but have you looked at what the land consists of? By that I mean, is there any potential contamination? As a greenfield site, there could be an infilled part, and if it's a peaty area, it's possible they could need gas protection for methane?

As I say, it's a long shot.