Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2005
- Posts
- 12,710
I find it stupid that one needs to get permission to build things on land they supposedly own, it's not like the house is an eye sore
WWGDD?: Knocking down a home for being slightly too tall
- Thread starter kindai
- Start date
Because it affects other properties, it needs basic checks to make sure it's safe (none of the Spanish loophole*), fits the local area (I'm sure you wouldn't be happy with a neighbour building a small block of flats next door), and because basically if you don't set out rules you will have people being utterly stupid about what they build.
Besides anything else, the council usually have a better idea of what is under the surface of your property than you, or your builders, and will specify certain things to be required in the planning application.
It's also something that most people rarely have an issue with, and the councils are often fairly reasonable about minor, honest mistakes, but when someone is obviously extracting the liquid waste they tend to (quite rightly) come down to the absolute letter of the rules and the granted permission with no leeway.
I have zero sympathy for people who try to get around planning laws, as although they can be annoying there are some very good reasons for them.
I would also suggest that the house may not be an "eye sore" but it's of a very different style to the neighbouring ones, which is often something that is not meant to happen.
*IIRC where if it's built within a certain time frame every year (or so many years) planning permission isn't needed, which results in some utterly stupid builds)
IIRC all applications have to be (at the minimum)
Signposted nearby (I think outside the property/on a lamp post)
In the local paper (usually there is a dedicated section), and probably online these days.
Neighbouring properties given individual notifications.
They vary depending on the type of application and where it is but that is the minimum from memory, I vaguely remember my father going through a lot of it when he wanted to build a double garage about 25 years ago.
Not everybody owns the land they build on and you can build certain things without planning consent
If people were allowed to build whatever they liked without limit then that’s what some people would do
The issue isn’t about what the house looks like , it’s about people flaunting the regulations.
We've been notified of plans to build 5 dwellings on part of our neighbour's land - it includes extensive details on planning including things like what is/isn't in keeping with the character of the area and stuff like they have to leave 5 feet between any designated parking space and our boundary and also advises to check covenants, etc.
So I went to view the publicly accessible planning applications and it seems to boil down to this:
The 2013 drawing actually has a note on it to specify that the house would be constructed at a ground level half a metre lower than the neighbouring house. The 2016 version of the application which was the last one before construction revises the windows and draws the house even lower than in 2013.
Then the retrospective application in 2018 shows that they didn't dig it down at all. There is an attempt to suggest it is lower but it's not very convincing.
Complaints about the windows are wishy washy since the redesign of those was present in the 2016 application.
The 2013 drawing actually has a note on it to specify that the house would be constructed at a ground level half a metre lower than the neighbouring house. The 2016 version of the application which was the last one before construction revises the windows and draws the house even lower than in 2013.
Then the retrospective application in 2018 shows that they didn't dig it down at all. There is an attempt to suggest it is lower but it's not very convincing.
Complaints about the windows are wishy washy since the redesign of those was present in the 2016 application.
I think the windows look a lot nicer - the side ones probably should have been a bit shorter horizontally possibly (EDIT: It is more the thickness of the brick work around them actually - the windows themselves are about the size I'd expect) to be considerate and in keeping with the area. So many new house styles look so uninspired and boring these days.
They've completely not built it at a lower level though and either the home owner or the builder should be responsible for that and IMO should have to completely rebuild to dissuade other people from chancing it these things are there for a reason.
They've completely not built it at a lower level though and either the home owner or the builder should be responsible for that and IMO should have to completely rebuild to dissuade other people from chancing it these things are there for a reason.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,481
- Location
- ST4
Loads of the Pakistani families around here do that. They either have family & friends in the council or know them via the local Mosque and so just build what they want and then apply retroactively for planning permission which, unsurprisingly, get approved 99% of the time. There was quite an uproar some years back because of this preferential treatment when a bloke was ordered to demolish his conservatory, despite his neighbour building a massive two story extension and double garage without permission and then getting it approved retroactively.
Guess this fella tried his luck and lost.
Guess this fella tried his luck and lost.
As harsh as it seems I think the Local Authority are correct in this instance, not enforcing the rules would totally undermine the approval process. Having had a look on streetview the property, whilst in its own right is a decent looking dwelling, is very overbearing on the adjacent properties (even though these are substantial executive properties). I have a suspicion that the original approved dwelling was already on the limits allowed, and the reduced level dig was crucial to this to reduce the overall height, a factor that they appear to have ignored at their peril.
Please excuse me, I'm off to build a 200ft tall vagina.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2009
- Posts
- 19,893
- Location
- Wales
The article made it seem like they had built the house without permission then tried to seek retrospective for the whole thing, which would quite obviously raise objections..So I went to view the publicly accessible planning applications and it seems to boil down to this:
The 2013 drawing actually has a note on it to specify that the house would be constructed at a ground level half a metre lower than the neighbouring house. The 2016 version of the application which was the last one before construction revises the windows and draws the house even lower than in 2013.
Then the retrospective application in 2018 shows that they didn't dig it down at all. There is an attempt to suggest it is lower but it's not very convincing.
Complaints about the windows are wishy washy since the redesign of those was present in the 2016 application.
However this makes it look like it will end up being the fault of the builders as surely they would have had the plans to work from and just decided to be lazy and not dig down? Gonna cost them a bit more than a few days labour now
Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,279
- Location
- Woking
Exactly. They're probably the typical sort of people who decide that they don't give a ****. There is a building where my parents live that's one of the most historically valuable in that town.
Some house builder purchased the land, and just started knocking it down to build housing before they'd received planning permission. They were stopped, but due to the council being money grabbing cretins, they were allowed to continue without impingement. That's ******* disgusting.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2014
- Posts
- 23,552
- Location
- Hertfordshire
They are brown, neighbours are complaining as 7 of them moved in. 
My experience of builders is that they won't deviate from the architect plans without jumping through hoops and getting sign off.
Unless they well and truly cocked it up however.
When I mentioned builders above I was kind of lumping architects, other drafting, planning and so on into that - I expect some of the other posters are doing the same.
No sympathy from me. Looks quite garish anyway, down with this sort of thing
Personally I quite like it - there are 1-2 elements I'd have gone a little less ostentatious but personally don't find it too gaudy otherwise and way nicer than so many of the uninspired/insipid or on the other hand trying too hard to be different by just throwing lots of random elements at it designs that seem to be most residential properties built now.
EDIT: Doesn't make a difference though to that it doesn't fit in with the area with the way they've ignored the planning guidelines and that allowing it sets an unfortunate precedent.
Last edited:
To clear a few things up, you can deposit a planning application on any land, even land you don't own. The local authority have a set number of weeks to determine an application (longer if it's a major application) but all applications go through a statutory consultation period where public opinion is gathered and professional input obtained (highways / utilities etc).
What this is is an example of cost saving during the construction phase. It's expensive to remove earth and start retaining works and tanking so I would guess that they've simply raised it and hoped no one noticed, when they have they've applied (and failed) to gain retrospective planning permission.
200k sounds steep to me but I suppose you need to factor in that it's complete and decorated and they are living in it. You can't simply lower a roof either, it needs fully scaffolding and taking down and the timbers (if not trusses) cutting. If they are trusses they need replacing, either way v.expensive.
The bigger question for me is, would reducing its height make it look any less of a monstrosity? I personally think the answer is no.
What this is is an example of cost saving during the construction phase. It's expensive to remove earth and start retaining works and tanking so I would guess that they've simply raised it and hoped no one noticed, when they have they've applied (and failed) to gain retrospective planning permission.
200k sounds steep to me but I suppose you need to factor in that it's complete and decorated and they are living in it. You can't simply lower a roof either, it needs fully scaffolding and taking down and the timbers (if not trusses) cutting. If they are trusses they need replacing, either way v.expensive.
The bigger question for me is, would reducing its height make it look any less of a monstrosity? I personally think the answer is no.
At a guess 200K is gonna be conservative on that design if they need to actually take out trusses, etc. lowering or reworking the roof in any fundamental way. I am kind of hoping the builders were lazy and decided to cut corners not lowering the ground properly, etc. in the first place and get slapped for it. I'm kind of tired of the half-arsed approach so many companies like that seem to have these days - it almost looks like they've decided to shift some of the drainage problems onto the neighbours rather than properly implement it on their side as well.
I'm going with clients decision based on builders cost proposal for the ground works.