Double Standards
Removing the Requirement for Enforcement
The owner of 71 Greens Place had replaced a fence with a wall for 4-5m and not only that, there was some question about its height. A complaint was entered while the wall was being built but it was ignored.
Eventually, a retrospective planning request ST/0749/13/FUL was recieved in July 2013 but by August the fact that it was retrospective had been removed:
Consent sought for the construction of a wall to the west side boundary of the patio above the ground floor extension as a substitution of the approved fence under application reference ST/0966/12/FUL.
By December 5th, “ground floor extension” was subtly repaced : Retrospective application of parapet walls around the first floor patio above the ground floor rear extension and etc.
What should have been a retrospective application for the substitution of the approved fence by a wall had disappeared and the fact that it was retrospective had reappeared and ST/0749/13/FUL had gone and was replaced with . . /HFUL.
The Senior Enforcement Officer should get a mention becauseof his double standards. Compare the action, just outlined, with the enforcement notice handed to the owner of No 70.
Listed buildings 68-70, Greens Place. The thing to notice is that the listing just concerns the view from the street and it seems that the conditions 3 and 4 were applied in error when the planner specified the Listed Building Condition to a first floor addition to a extension to the rear or the house.
In February 2013 the Council was advised (HL on 4247408) that condition that should not have been applied in the first place but anyway they issued an enforcement notice anyway. This occurred about the same time the same building inspector had turned his blind eye to the fact that the owner of 71 Greens Place had reverted to his original wish and built the wall.
The grant allows a fence 71GP, October 2012 and the the building inspector made himself unavailable while a wall was being built!
The Planning Officer who originally specified the metal rainwater goods on the rear of the building was same who helped the Planning Manager rig the outcome of ST0749/13/FUL by ensuring it was replaced by one that omitted all mention of the fence/wall issue thus ensuring she escaped censure as well as the building inspector and the enforcement officer.
By the 5-Dec-13, ST0749/13/FUL had been completely overwritten by ST0749/13/HFUL and permission was granted. A second notice of the grant was sent the same day but with drawings 000, 00, 17, 12 removed, presumably by request of the owner of 71 of Greens place to avoid the cost of removing the wall and replacing it with a fence.
It also saved the Council having to reprimand the Planning Officer, the Planning Manager, the Building Inspector and possibly the Senior Enforcement Officer for their dereliction of duty and they knew they were safe because they would always say the complaint had been exhausted.
To put it simply, ST0749/13/FUL was deleted and ST0749/13/HFUL put in its place so that the Senior Enforcement Officer, Mr Martin Egginton did not need to ask Mr Haig, the owner of 71 Greens Place to replace the wall with a fence of the permitted height.
It also meant that diciplinary action need not be taken in respect of the conduct of the Building Inspector, Mr Mike Telford and the evidence his misconduct in 2013 is still visible today.
The subtext to this is that the Planning Officer, Chris Matten disregarded the guide, SPD 9: Householder Developments when she promoted Mr Haig’s Development and when this was pointed out to the Ombudsman, the Executive turned round and said that she had followed the guidelines, and so the Ombudsman was set up to fail in her duty.
This would have been exposed had ../FUL been investigated and in saving her own skin Ms Matten also saved that of Messrs Telford and Egginton.