NSS Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Feel sorry for them but the council are, IMHO, right to refuse retrospective approval. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-44068562 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temp Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Can't say I like the all tarmac front garden either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 So how do you build a house "30" too tall"? Were the foundations too high? Is there an extra storey? Is the roof pitch wrong? Not enough detail. As for £200K to replace the roof to make it right, utter tosh. I am bullding a whole house for that, a new compliant roof won't cost that much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Punter Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Easy enough to get planning then find you need bigger joists, taller roof buildup or whatever. 30cm and they would probably have been OK, but 30 inches was no mistake. I wonder if the building is taller or just not set down enough - the drive slopes up a fair bit. Either way they are screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToughButterCup Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 23 minutes ago, ProDave said: [...] As for £200K to replace the roof to make it right, utter tosh. [...] Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russell griffiths Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 And I’ve got a twitchy bum because I want to lift ours 100mm. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhome Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) Here you go: Original approved site plan (bearing in mind there seems to have been a lot of focus on the height of the house relative to the house next door during the planning application ) https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/online-applications/files/70FCAE28E96150419C9C72FD09150469/pdf/59699_FUL-AMENDED_DRAWING-198440.pdf It was always going to be higher than next door but the dormer windows were expected to end up lower than the house next door. In the BBC photo what they have built has the bottom of the dormers more or less starting at the same height as the top of next door's roof. Given the fuss made about the height of the house you would have thought that there would have been some care taken. Or he just thought he would get away with it anyway. Edited May 10, 2018 by newhome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan52 Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Don't think the original plans had the dormers in the roof either. Was there not an episode of grand designs where a guy made a big mistake with his levels and made the house to tall and just cut the peak straight across and put a small flat roof section on to get it below whatever the max height was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_MK Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 ha they have taken the document down Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhome Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) Even in the first application (different applicant) in 2013 it looks like there were dormers in the roof https://planning.stoke.gov.uk/online-applications/files/03C3CEB17F9FFCFD5FC882C8AA2BCF9C/pdf/55746_FUL-PROPOSED_PLAN-108715.pdf Edited May 10, 2018 by newhome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhome Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Weird, I can open the documents on the laptop but not on the phone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ProDave Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Looking at the plans in @newhome post above, the house is set too high on the plot. The gutter level of the new house should have been pretty much the same as next door but it is a lot higher. So no easy fix. I wonder at what stage of the build the planners noticed the error and started trying to enforce it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferdinand Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) Looking at the PP, there was lots of work wrt soil contamination etc (former brickyard) and I wonder if they were just trying to save the expense of digging out all that ground and getting rid of potentially contaminated earth. It is a big erection for the plot, so it would be difficult to absorb all that earth on the site even if not contaminated. The attempted variation seems to me to be a little over-imaginative in its argumentation - and is attached. I note that the media reports quote the applicant's 0.75m alleged height increase, rather than the Council's 1.1m - presumably they didn't bother checking. The Council seem to me to have done a really professional job here. I would say that fixing the roof will be seriously expensive, since I think he would have to chop the top off that double storey central gable thing right through the middle of that (10k+?) two storey window, which would mean redoing all of that, then there's the two dormers which are wrong, and the bay windows are also above the original eaves line. Perhaps not £200k, but not far off, as the internal heights etc would also be buggered., and he would need full scaff again. Have attached the Council Report and the applicant's highly technical argument. F stoke-planning-demolition-case-62006_VAR-COMMITTEE_REPORT-262816.pdf stoke-planning-demolition-case-62006_VAR-TECHNICAL_NOTE-250219.pdf Edited May 10, 2018 by Ferdinand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newhome Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, ProDave said: Looking at the plans in @newhome post above, the house is set too high on the plot. The gutter level of the new house should have been pretty much the same as next door but it is a lot higher. So no easy fix. I wonder at what stage of the build the planners noticed the error and started trying to enforce it? It says in the blurb that the house was still under construction when the retrospective permission was sought but that the owner pressed on and completed the build and occupied the building in the interim. Retrospective permission was applied for in July last year but they only made the final decision this week. This photo clearly demonstates the issue. The decision did also say that excavation was a condition of the planning permission to enable the height to be achieved as per the approved plans. Edited May 10, 2018 by newhome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizzie Posted May 10, 2018 Share Posted May 10, 2018 Ugly place whatever the height Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nickfromwales Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 Another attempted piss-taker, clearly. Should have dug down and lived in peace. Tit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Onoff Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 I bet with unlimited funding you could support the as built house, excavate underneath and "drop" the house... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_MK Posted May 11, 2018 Share Posted May 11, 2018 20 hours ago, lizzie said: Ugly place whatever the height agreed I would level it on the grounds of a crime against architecture. It looks like a 1990's office entrance ..that some donkey has added a few bay windows by accident. and as for them dorma's ..they look "stuck on" ...they appear to be manufactured with the same material as a stealth aircraft ...(intentional?) ...but sadly it failed will this be on grand designs ? ....not as long as i have a hole in my ass-phalt suggested improvement option 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now