Herbert, On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 14:54:45 -0400, Herbert Graf wrote: > On Sat, 2006-09-02 at 13:18 +0100, Howard Winter wrote: > > Jack, > > > > On Fri, 01 Sep 2006 12:15:24 -0400, Jack Smith wrote: > > > > > Not the same situation. The county decided promptly, once asked to > > > review the case, that the permit was issued in error. By then, the > > > building expansion was completed. (I think it may have been at the time > > > an occupancy permit was requested, and it was not granted due to the > > > complaint.) > > > > Surely in this case the home owner was granted a permit, and did the permitted work, so he is not to blame. > > Wrong. Just because you get a permit doesn't mean they've checked to > ensure you've complied with every building code. The permit simply means > the work can begin. It is up to the builder to ensure they are complying > with the code. So what the hell are they getting paid for? Are you saying that you have to have a permit just for the sake of it, and that it does not carry any authority beyond "you can't do anything unless we say so"? > > The person/department who issued the > > permit is in error, so it should be their responsibility to correct - and pay for - that error? > > No. It is NOT their responsibility to ensure every bit of the work being > done will conform with code. See above! :-) Here we have two sets of "permission" needed for building work, either of which may be unneeded under certain situations, usually related to the size of the job. The first is "Planning Permission", which has no technical content and relates to whether the new building/extension/whatever fits in with the local planning policies, whether it's right for the neighbourhood. Building a skyscraper in a sleepy little village would not get planning permission (I hope! :-). Things like small extensions to the house (less than 10% increase in floor area) and garages less than 20m^2 (if I remember rightly) are exempt. Any planning application must be published to the neighbours, and they have a period of time to object. Once this time has expired, no further objections will be heard, although the planning committee meeting to consider it will be open to the public, and anyone can ask to speak at that meeting, for or against the application. Building Regulations Approval is purely technical, and are to ensure that things are built soundly, safely, and with energy requirements that meet the current regulations. Standards of structural integrity, insulation, wiring, personal safety, are all covered by the Building Regs. and if the application doesn't meet them, it will be rejected. In both cases the building as-built must match the applications, or have approved variations from it, and if not then the council may require it to be remedied, up to and including demlition (there was a case where a large block of flats was found to have been built about a metre too close to an adjacent row of houses, and it was demolished). So granting the planning permission and the Building Regs. approval mean that as long as the builder does what was approved, there can be no comeback afterwards. The two approvals are separate, and deal with different things. Building too close to a neighbour would be decided by the planning application, and there are no hard and fast rules, although there are policies, and if the application is granted the neighbours can't do anything about it, but they do have the right to object beforehand. > > And was the neighbour not given the chance to object > > before the permit was issued? (This happens here - I have received a notice from the council about an application to build a rail freight terminal > > about half a mile away - it tells me how long I have to raise any objections - if I miss that boat, I don't get another chance). > > So you are expecting the neighbour to check to ensure what is being > built is according to code? No, only whether there is an effect of the building that is to their detriment - being too close would qualify, but if they didn't object at the planning stage, that's it! > While I deplore the situation this person is in, unfortunately the only > blame can be laid at them. They did not conform to code. As builder, it > was their responsibility to ensure the work WOULD conform to code. This is what confuses me - the plans as approved would have shown things like distances to boundaries, so the people doing the approving would have been able to determine whether that should be allowed or not. I say again: isn't that what they are being paid for? > The neighbour deserves NO blame IMHO. Even if the neighbour had said > nothing, it is very likely that eventually when the house would have > been sold the problem would have been discovered and the addition would > have had to be removed anyways. But he complained at the wrong time - he should have done so when the application was made, and not because of technincal breach of regulations, but the fact of the encroachment on his boundary, and its detriment to him. Planning and building regs. change over time, and it's not usual to expect existing buildings to be brought up to date. In many cases it's impossible (my staircase is too narrow, too steep, and with too little headroom to be built now, but I didn't have to rebuild it when the regs. changed). In the case of neighbour-proximity, it would obviously not be possible to move houses apart. When you buy a house you do so as it is, not how you'd like it to be, so I don't see that as a problem, beyond the fact that people may not want to buy it because next-door's house is too close, but buying a house expecting legal remedy against something that clearly exists is not on! IMHO, obviously... That reminds me, I need to write a letter objecting to the proposed rail depot! Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist