Another VoC. Take a punt and just start?

[flanagaj]

I've been asleep at the wheel on this one and should have realised I need to put in another VoC.  Due to a pain in the xxxx neighbour, I put the steels in for our retaining wall set forward 400mm to avoid ripping out all of their hedging to the boundary.  This has meant that to maintain a reasonable width path (900mm) on the far corner of the property, I need to pull one corner forward 400mm.

 

At the same time, I'd like to raise the ridge height 200mm so that FFL is a bit higher than the surrounding ground level.

 

The houses on the land are all orientated differently and set back from the road by different distances.   So I don't suspect it will be refused, but I suppose I don't have any options but to wait the 8 weeks for it to be processed, before making a start?

 

[Big Jimbo]

If you have got a pain in the butt neighbour it would be safer. However, you can always ask for forgiveness if it gets pulled.

[kandgmitchell]

I doubt if the height one would even get noticed. Not easy for a planner/man in the street to measure to the ridge when completed. I got planning with stated height of 7580mm, the final design when engineered out was nigh on 7900mm. I didn't go back to revise. It's been 18 months since completion and no-one has commented, indeed everyone has been complimentary.

 

As for pulling the corner forward I'd probably just do it and say you were supporting the neighbour by doing it. 

 

I think one has to consider the circumstances carefully. Would there be a reasonable objection to either of these minor changes that if proposed originally would have jeopardized the approval of the scheme? If not then in the worst case a revised application should deal with it. If it might, then I would be more circumspect. My detached garage for instance was approved with a pitched roof. We thought of buying a kit which my wife liked but it was a modern style (as the house is) and had a flat roof. Since it sat close to the road and may have raised a few eyebrows in this rural parish, I varied the condition that said build as per the approval so as to include the flat roof design just to be cautious. 

 

@DevilDamo will rightly say that by not complying with the condition to build as per the approved drawings, could put the approval at risk but what's life without a little jeopardy?

[Mr Punter]

I would just go ahead and do a retrospective if it crops up.

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> At the same time, I'd like to raise the ridge height 200mm so that FFL is a bit higher than the surrounding ground level.

 

Don't most elevation drawings have ridge relative to ground level anyway so FFL is generally unimportant?

 

Agree VOC's are a bit odd, also the question of whether to file them for inconsequential stuff. Currently my planners want me to do a VOC for a dumb clarification on the elevations. Nothing changes (i.e. it's not a 'variation') - it will just massage the ego of a junior enforcement person.

 

 

 

[Nickfromwales]

We're dropping DPC by 500mm on a current knock-down, but retaining (or slightly raising) the original ridge height. At +200mm ridge height, I doubt anyone would a) notice, or b) give a shit. 

 

If the old biddy next door can see the church tower clock before you know down, and cant see it afterwards, expect trouble, for eg, so each case is completely unique in being able to advise for / against "pushing one's luck".