LG John

Interesting/funny planning department story for you all.

A number of months ago I got a fairly straightforward planning application for a single storey flat-roofed extension to the rear of a two storey four in a block flatted building. The neighbours above the applicant’s property wrote in and objected to the application and one of the grounds of objection was that part of the (gently sloping) flat roof would attach to the wall of their property. Judging by the indicated floor levels on the drawing it did appear that the extension would indeed attach to the wall at such a level that it would be above that which the applicant owned. I raised this with the applicant who had declared they owned all the land comprising the application site in their forms and they agreed to drop the height of the roof as soon as they had established exactly how high up the exterior wall their ownership extended.

The file lay for months collecting dust as I awaited their revised application to supersede it. In that time they showed me revised drawings that appeared to be within the area in their ownership and again awaited the new application.

Today I got a letter from the solicitors representing the applicant saying that their understanding of the ownership in title deeds was that the drawings they had seen showed the extension in a position wholly within the applicant’s ownership and that therefore there can be no basis to the objection to the application.

I dug deep and found the file to look through drawings and re-familiarise myself with them. Imagine my shock when I realised that the letter of objection was actually from the same solicitors who were representing the aggrieved neighbours of the flat above

I took great delight in quoting “therefore there can be no basis to the objection” from today’s letter to the author and then politely pointing out that his company had made that objection

What he said isn’t repeatable Talk about not knowing your **** from your elbow

Taff107

So would that constitute a 'conflict of interest', do you think?

LG John

He, he...I suspect it might! The funniest bit would be if the two partners of the solicitors firm ended up in court defending their corner. Either way, win or lose, they'd both take a nice fee

Brendan Hughes

...or having to answer uncomfortable questions from the Law Society...

LG John

That too

Dougster.

At least he didn't get fuel surge.

Just think of the business you could create fighting yourself though!!??!!

pslewis.

Saxo Boy[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
You are an immature boy who is not worthy of the Subaru brand. Get back to your XR2[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

LG John

Er why are you posing as pslewis? What is your point? I've never had an XR2? In fact all through uni I couldn't afford a car I ran a 1.3 Polo CL for 6 months then got the VTS at aged 21 (didn't modify it, didn't go to cruises and don't have caps) ?

pslewis.

Posing ar pslewis?
Have you gone mad boy?

LG John

Yes pslewis (not pslewis.) the well respected (somewhat aged ) scoobynetter - not just some fanny that uses a hybrid login name just to make some **** pointless point! And whilst at aged 24 I am just a boy to pslewis I'm not exactly fresh out of school [img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]

pslewis.

Saxo boy, don't you insult me. I've been here for ages. At 24, 3 years ago when this board was set up YOU were only 21 and DIDN'T own an Impreza. Now you think you know it all[img]images/smilies/mad.gif[/img]
Ask me a question about Subaru and I WILL be able to answer because I am a Subaru GOD. I worship the very tarmac these beasts roll upon

Pavlo

oh the humour...

not

LG John

Know it all?! Eh, half my posts are questions to John Banks!!

I do know one thing though - your either a total w@nk or your bored and on a wind up!

cletterridge

Saxo Boy,

Quick Edinburgh property related question - what has been the most profitable (for the applicant that is!) planning permission you've ever seen?

I'll start things off with the story of the guy who bought that tower that looks over the bay by the Cramond Inn. He bought it off the council years ago and turned it into a (unique!) house. Now worth upwards of £300,000. Original cost? £1,000. Bargain.

Oh, cheekiest application too! Just curious....

LG John

Hmmmm?

We seldom find out about the profits made as a result of any development but you can often spot when people are applying to do something that is clearly profit motivated as opposed to increasing the size of a house for family purposes. Getting a house in the Barnton area for a grand is surely not going to be beaten....what a steal!!!

I recently refused an application for a massive extension to a house that had already been massively extended! It started life as a small single storey cottage and was extended with a large two storey extension to the rear. This took advantage of a drop in ground levels and whilst big wasn't harmful to neighbours/not an over development,etc. That first extension more than doubled the floor area of the house and the one I refused was a futher two storey extension that doubled it again The original house would have looked like a pimple on the side of a mansion!! Better yet, all 7odd bedrooms had en-suite facilities but the applicant maintained it wasn't for commercial purposes - I smell B&B

Our council policy doesn't support new build housing in the countryside but some smart cookie tried to build a house inside a massive agricultural building. His plan was to hide it there until it could no longer be enforced (4 years if I recall) and then remove the building around it!! Someone rumbled him

AND

There was one guy that had a single storey cottage in the countryside with about 7 farm buildings and outbuildings dotted around. His idea of an extension was to play join the dots with the outbuildings and convert them all to living accomodation. The house would have looked like a snake from above and would have had about 10 bedrooms