You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Do you ever do this, or do you consider such people local busybodies with too much time on their hands?
I've just reported someone for their fence, and last year I reported someone for building a drive.
That drive was subsequently broken up and now it's back to grass. 😀
When we lived in Brum, a restaurant that backed onto our garden erected a massive metal chimney which was directed right towards our house, and which was venting all manner of smells and noise.
We queried it with planning as it seemed quite intrusive, and they investigated, and it transpired to have been erected without planning consent and breaching planning rules, so enforcement notices were served.
We moved (we'd been planning to before it happened) but the planning dept kept writing to us to tell us about it!
The chimney pumping out all sorts of shite, aye, I get that.
A fence? unless it was blocking my view, I wouldn't bother. What was the issue with the drive? Drives get cars off the street.
i take a view on this, depends if it really is something i can see being an issue. I've had loads of isues myself, which werent breaches, just peoples view that they didn't like it - this costs lots of money and heartache.
Lets take my neighbour for instance - he's in his 90's, wife just died and was advised by garnders that he should really look at getting his tree cropped as there was a lotof deadwood etc. He gets a local firm in to asses, they put planning in to reduce crown by 1-2 meters (its a massive old oak) - and they refuse. Yet, just up the road they've happily let a developer razz to the ground shit loads of oaks so they aren't in the way. They also let the local posh school do what they want, as they want to "spruce the palce up" - ££££ talks -its disgustingly obvious as well...
i hate our local council, full of see you next tuesdays.
What was the issue with the drive?
Water run off probably.
. He gets a local firm in to asses, they put planning in to reduce crown by 1-2 meters (its a massive old oak) – and they refuse.
I've posted a very similar story on here about an elderly neighbour.
I get that rules exist for a reason, but an element of pragmatism has to come into how they are enforced. Dead bit of tree falls on someone, landowner liable. But if the council prevents the landowner doing the sensible thing?
See also building protection. Do you want listed buildings in use and being looked after, or do you want the cost of doing so made so prohibitively expensive it's easier to let it fall into ruin. Or suffer an unfortunate fire.
See also building protection. Do you want listed buildings in use and being looked after, or do you want the cost of doing so made so prohibitively expensive it’s easier to let it fall into ruin. Or suffer an unfortunate fire.
yep, had a very similar thing when doing my build, planning officer got narky becasue building control said the state of the wall wouldn't support the structure that was going on top. It wasn't listed, just not specified in plans it was being replaced like for like with materials that wont buckle..
Also, my other neighbour as you said above was told that branches proved a liability by council, so he puts in planning to crop tree, they deny it, then tell him if he doesn't fix it he's liable - bonkers - also, heard about the oe where you cant touch parts of a tree if a BT pole is there - apparantly it's BT's airspace!?? WTF..
Oh yes i have a right old battle going on with my planning department, i am reporting breach of conditions, breach of planning permission in respect to my neighbours (not their fault)
Looks like i have found out that a planning officer has not followed protocol and failed to engage building control on a technical issue.
Shit is hitting fan as i write this, lodged Subject Access Request and FOI.
Also got trading standards involved who have also highlighted failures by the Planning Department.
My District Councillor has s**t his pants and head of planning is silent.
Next step is the Ombudsmen...
They are a bunch of spineless t**ts and they are paying he price
Happy days
What were the rough particulars?
A folk band popular in the 60s I think.
That gets a like from me Cougar
Our local building control finally acted when next door but one went off-plan with his garage extension. The 6' high stretch of brickwork had to come down and be rebuilt. He had put a one brick return to the existing structure that wasn't on the plan.
It's fair do's as the last 3 planning requests have not been built to plan and it's caught up with him.
Our local Chinese takeaway operates from the ground floor shop frontage of a large, early 17th century Grade II listed, timber-framed building with much of the building lying above & behind the 'shop' part. At the back, a first-floor window fell out some years ago, so what was the solution? Build a half-tonne brick wall directly onto the floor just inside the window aperture. Unpointed joints and 'shabby' to say the least, as well as being built straight onto the wooden floor below the window, which certaibly won't be engineered to taka that sort of mass... Yes, I have made the local council's historic buildings control officer aware, as I'm quite certain that was done withoyt listed consent, and certainly won't improve the structure of the place. Nothing's changed in the last few months, of course.
The problem is planning department don't want to or are not allowed to talk to you, so those developers that already have a relationship and know exactly how to lay out a application win and normal people who miss including one tiny detail get refused as the planning department will not pick up the phone to check.
know exactly how to lay out a application win and normal people who miss including one tiny detail get refused
See also.the I'm refusing to pay for an architect thread.
Wonder if the developer did his own drawings
Reported a place at the end of our road for unauthorised change of use which also didn’t comply with local development plan,shop to a parcel and international shipping drop off. It was making the junction there a bit sketchy with vans and cars dumped everywhere. Presume council did nothing as it’s still trading.
We have a green triangle at the end of the our cul de sac - roads on two sides, houses on the third.
One of the houses decided to fence off the triangle and claim it as his own - there was a queue to report it to the planning department. Council made him take it down immediately and then about a month later they came back and insisted he dug out the concrete he had set the posts into.
His response was "well it was worth a try".
Years ago I lived on a newish estate that had lovely little rectangles of "common green areas" all over the place - typically on corners between houses and garage blocks for example - where kids could sit and play.
On my last trip back to the UK I happened to drive through the same estate and almost without exception, every one of those little green common areas have been grabbed by the adjacent house. The fav method seems to have been to plant a row of little fir trees (at night perhaps??), then never trim them so that they grow into a 15 foot high hedge and then break through from your actual garden into the previously common area and plant your flag . . . .
A fence? unless it was blocking my view, I wouldn’t bother. What was the issue with the drive? Drives get cars off the street.
Sure, drives *might* get cars off the road. But drives built without drainage and rainwater management increase rainwater runoff speeds and contribute to flooding.
Especially when it’s a thousand driveways across a town. Built because “everyone’s doing it”. A drive specced & built with all the requirements is fine, but will likely cost more.
I wonder why the drive builder without permission didn’t do that? 🤔
Do you ever do this, or do you consider such people local busybodies with too much time on their hands?
I’ve just reported someone for their fence,
You need to publicise any retrospective planning application for the fence to get objections, it's probably a land grab?
Nah the fence replaced a hedge. My argument that it is next to a highway so should not be as tall as it is. The rules say no more than 1 m unless given premission.
The drive was a land grab. The owner put a drive down on an adjacent bit of land which was owned by highways. At least that was my belief looking at the red line.
Nah the fence replaced a hedge. My argument that it is next to a highway so should not be as tall as it is. The rules say no more than 1 m
Someone did that grabbing a verge as well near the GFs. The planning notice even said it was on third party land. Enterprising objector put some notices up on nearby footpaths for people to review (and object to ) the application
Someone did that grabbing a verge as well near the GFs. The planning notice even said it was on third party land. Enterprising objector put some notices up on nearby footpaths for people to review (and object to ) the application
In this case, there is nothing in planning re the fence. It could be possible that a retrospective application has been made but it's not been registered yet I suppose...
Sure, drives *might* get cars off the road. But drives built without drainage and rainwater management increase rainwater runoff speeds and contribute to flooding.
Especially when it’s a thousand driveways across a town. Built because “everyone’s doing it”. A drive specced & built with all the requirements is fine, but will likely cost more.
I wonder why the drive builder without permission didn’t do that? 🤔
Which is why I asked the question.
Someone did that grabbing a verge as well near the GFs. The planning notice even said it was on third party land. Enterprising objector put some notices up on nearby footpaths for people to review (and object to ) the application
Loads of folks along the railway line near here have done that, been going on for years, and they seem to have got away with it. A work colleague of mine tried it, putting a line of beech hedging out beyond his fence into land behind, woke up one morning and had a look, the local deer had munched the lot. 🙂
Nah the fence replaced a hedge. My argument that it is next to a highway so should not be as tall as it is. The rules say no more than 1 m unless given premission.
And what impact did it have on you ?
Do you ever do this, or do you consider such people local busybodies with too much time on their hands?
Too much time on their hands. Find something more productive to do if you want to help the community.
Nah the fence replaced a hedge. My argument that it is next to a highway so should not be as tall as it is. The rules say no more than 1 m unless given premission.
And what impact did it have on you ?
A few near my parents are dangerous;
block line of sight where footpath meets road (no pavement)
block line of sight at T junctions
And what impact did it have on you ?
Line of sight at a T junction with a bridleway and busy rd.
Find something more productive to do if you want to help the community.
Road safety campaigner?
Line of sight at a T junction with a bridleway and busy rd.
And the hedge that was there before didn't ?
Because I realise your original post was vague and designed to get as much reaction as possible.
You'd look less of a busy body/NIMBY if you included many of these details in the original post.
Because clogging up council planning with tit for tat complaints like this does prevent them tackling the bigger issues such as developers taking the piss.
And the hedge that was there before didn’t ?
Must've been one of those 1970s hedges, about a foot high.
A hedge isn't a structure. 🙂
Structure or not. Your line of sight doesn't change.
Around 20 years ago I bought a house in Spain. I had some land to the front which gave me great views down the valley.
The day after I moved in the ex mayor,hated in the village as he was a Franco man,came down,pointed to my land and asked if I wanted to buy it. Obviously I told him it was mine but over the period of a year he persisted.
Then a woman turned up and told me to keep off the land as it was hers.She said she would build a house smack in front of mine and erected a fence across my gates.
Off we went down to the "catastro ",council deeds office,only to find boundaries had been redrawn and part of our land had been annexed.
The ex mayor had "arranged " this then sold the plot on.The deeds office wouldn't even look at our proof and said to take it further ,myself and 2 other neighbours would have to go to court. My neighbours refused as the fear of Franco men still lingers on.
After threats and police visits the fence was " vandalised" over time and I think the woman was given her money back by the ex mayor's family. It has calmed down but I will never be able to reclaim the land.
Structure or not. Your line of sight doesn’t change.
That's just the rules.
Otherwise, you'd just be able to build anything by growing a tall hedge, tree or shrub there in the first place then 'replacing' it with a structure.
While I agree with your logic.
The point still stands the situation that you deem affecting you hasn't changed so it is somewhat petty.
Years ago I lived on a newish estate that had lovely little rectangles of “common green areas” all over the place – typically on corners between houses and garage blocks for example – where kids could sit and play.
On my last trip back to the UK I happened to drive through the same estate and almost without exception, every one of those little green common areas have been grabbed by the adjacent house.
This is quite a common trick that developers pull. They keep ownership of those common green areas, then after all the houses are sold for a nice premium due to the green areas and people have moved in they give all the householders a quick letter asking "Hey, why not buy that nice green area by your house and extend your garden?". Extra profit for the developer and either the owners that take them up wreck the area for their neighbours if they get planning permission, or effectively give the developer free money if planning permission is refused. Either way, unhappiness ensues.
For many years, there was a landfill site on the edge of our town. The planning permission said that when it closed, the capping should be landscaped with public footpaths and bridleways across it. Eventually, paths were built, but not dedicated as public. Come lockdown, the tip owner closed it to the public - just when we need as much open space for exercise as possible. Reported the planning breach and the planners seem to think that making a physical path meets the conditions, even if it's not public and can be closed by the landowner.
For many years, there was a landfill site on the edge of our town. The planning permission said that when it closed, the capping should be landscaped with public footpaths and bridleways across it. Eventually, paths were built, but not dedicated as public. Come lockdown, the tip owner closed it to the public – just when we need as much open space for exercise as possible. Reported the planning breach and the planners seem to think that making a physical path meets the conditions, even if it’s not public and can be closed by the landowner.
Opportunity for fame as one of those "angry people in local newspapers"
Not planning but I have reported local landowners for blocking bridleways. One put concrete blocks and rubble over the entrance at either end and another put gates up which were supposed to be kept open but were always tied shut with bailing twine and knotted so it was impossible to open without a knife.
I am pleased I did as it would have been a shame to lose access to them.
also, heard about the oe where you cant touch parts of a tree if a BT pole is there – apparantly it’s BT’s airspace!?? WTF..
Never heard of this, in my opinion Openreach would not have a problem with landowners pruning trees near their line plant as it reduces the incidence of faults.
Its much more likely to have come from tree cutters who are unwilling to do tree pruning near wires as they've either brought cables down and they've been charged for the damage, or because they'd rather just fell large branches at the trunk and don't want the bother of cutting branches in stages above the wires.
The other possibility is confusion between telecoms and power lines, for power I believe the power companies insist on doing all tree cutting around their wires for the safety of the public and also the safety of the supply\customers.
Reported the planning breach and the planners seem to think that making a physical path meets the conditions, even if it’s not public and can be closed by the landowner.
A footpath that the public can use (at the discretion of the occupier) isn't the same as a public footpath 😀
A footpath that the public can use (at the discretion of the occupier) isn’t the same as a public footpath
That's my point. The planners seem to think it is the same.