• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Susan61

  • Rank
    New Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. This reference was made to them in the context that we were surprised they had gone straight to enforcement rather than reply to our original email which would only have taken 5 minutes , given the possible impacts as mentioned above.
  2. When we finally managed to speak to someone on the enforcement team, but not the compliance officer dealing with our case who wasn’t available, his first words were that the Permitted Development criteria requiring visual matching to the existing roof is very subjective. He didn’t seem to have a problem with the brown cladding but we are subject to the opinion of the other compliance officer. We had used the brown cladding on these visual matching grounds and also because our own compliance officer told us that in times of supply issues they had granted leeway but at the time she stipulated tiles she didn’t think there was a problem. The materials shortage had by this time made national news. The point is she gave us an email address to write to if we had a problem and we followed this instruction and asked if we could use the brown cladding. It would have taken 5 minutes to reply and say no. We then wouldn’t have used it. We waited a month for a reply. Why issue is with an instruction to email and then completely ignore the email, leaving ourselves and the builder in limbo. We tried to find a telephone number but none were on her email or on the Council’s automated switchboard. We genuinely believed that as we hadn’t used white cladding as instructed we would be ok to use brown as the PD rules actually state the type of materials used don’t have to be the same only visually similar. We have pointed out the impact on the environment, the carbon footprint and also the council’s resources on something which is in the words of their own team member very subjective.
  3. They do have a white cladded dormer on both sides of their roof but they are much smaller dormers than ours. There are several cladded dormers on our estate of a similar size to ours in various colours.
  4. Thank you for all your replies. We have already been turned down for planning permission and advised to go down the Permitted Development route by the Council. There are other dormers in our area but these have probably been constructed some time ago if that makes any difference.
  5. This is the tile they want us to use on the dormer
  6. Thanks for your replies. We originally applied for planning permission but this was refused in the grounds of the impact on the streetscene. They then suggested we go down the route of Permitted Development. The compliance officer said we should use plain tiles for the cheeks and face of the dormer to match the roof. The roof is brown Double Roman tiles. The flat tiles don’t match the profile of the roof tiles either. We couldn’t source the roof tiles due to Covid supply problems but used brown cladding rather than the white cladding we thought would be ok as the front of the house is already clad in white. Condition B2 of Permitted Development criteria states materials should match the existing roof but not necessarily the same material.
  7. Hi - apologies for the long post but has anyone any advice on this issue - we have erected a side dormer on a detached house under Permitted Development. A planning compliance officer unexpectedly visited our property at the stage when only the timber framework was up. Assuming a neighbour had reported this. The planning officer asked the builder to see the plans as we weren’t present. She asked what the dormer would be faced with which he replied white cladding. Compliance officer then ring to say it had to be tiled. We pointed out that a recently completed almost identical dormer near us was cladded to which she replied ‘we don’t go looking for work’ . We told her the builder was unable to source the tiles and she said leeway had been granted during Covid due to materials shortage but she believed this was now resolved. She also emailed the next day to say windows had to be obscure and non opening below 1.7m. She went on holiday but said to email the compliance team with any problems or issues and they would pick it up. We tried multiple suppliers but could not source the tiles. We emailed the compliance team to ask if we could use brown cladding as PD criteria was the material didn’t have to be the same only visually similar to the existing roof and also sent a screenshot to evidence supply issues. We waited a month but got no response. We tried to ring but no option for planning on the menu. The builder couldn’t wait any longer and the scaffolding needed to go so we went with the brown cladding. Two days after installation the compliance officer visited the site and we received the notice of intention to go to enforcement with no further communication as we had ignored advice and used brown cladding and that the windows weren’t opaque. We emailed again saying we hadn’t had a response from them after a month and the builder couldn’t wait any longer but would not have used the brown cladding if they had said no. We also told her the windows are opaque. Still no response two weeks later. We understood that government guidelines state there should be negotiation before enforcement but they have gone straight to enforcement. At the time they advised us about materials there had been no breach. We feel we haven’t been given any chance to negotiate. We did manage to speak to another officer on the team when we eventually found a number to ring and their view was matching materials is very subjective but he could see the enforcement notice was being prepared . So far we have been unable to speak to the relevant officer as she is out of the office most of the time. We are not sure what our chances would be if we appealed so would prefer to be given the chance to sort this out prior to enforcement but are hitting a brick wall. We are not sure whether to now let it go to appeal but would have to employ a planning consultant and we aren’t sure what the chances of success are. We would appreciate any views on this. Many thanks.