Tweet
What residences/businesses come under Class A, Part 2 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Amended)?
I have a strange situation where my neighbour had a 3m screen (1m wide) connected to his boundary fence. It was dangerous and would regularly damage in the wind. About a week prior to an inspection, he ripped it from the screws connecting it to the fence and propped it up with shovels. It is still leaning against the fence in exactly the same position, but the council have said it is now free standing so it does not come under Class A, Part 2 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Amended).
Obviously, it is now more dangerous and towers over our property because we are lower.
What rules were in place when it was connected to the fence?
What rules now apply now it is being classified as free standing?
It is a massive tarpaulin (acting like a sail) connected to the ground on flimsy bean-sticks. It cannot stand freely without the aid of the fence.
Extra Notes: The screen is just over 1m wide and 3.36m high. This means it exceeds the 2m fence by a further 1.36m. Originally it was connected to the fence by screws. It got battered in the wind regularly. About a week before the inspection the neighbour ripped it away from the fastenings on the fence. It is leaning against the fence and is propped up by shovels the other side, to make it lean against the fence. It would be impossible for the structure to remain standing except for the fence. It is more dangerous now than before.
Extra Notes: The landlord lied and said it was erected over 4 years ago. That was the council's original excuse to allow it when they initially shut the complaint down. We have a vast amount of evidence, included evidence submitted to a court for a separate case of criminal damage by the neighbour against our property, that shows the screen did not exist 4 years ago. We also have in-frame/time-stamped evidence of the date of construction. We have in-frame/time-stamped evidence of police on our property investigating another act of harassment by the neighbour against us which shows the screen did not exist a few days before the construction. Once the council knew we had all this evidence, they changed their reasons from being over 4 years old to allowing the screen because they claimed it is not expedient to pursue.
Note: Both he and his landlord are connected to the council and have likely been coached.
I have a strange situation where my neighbour had a 3m screen (1m wide) connected to his boundary fence. It was dangerous and would regularly damage in the wind. About a week prior to an inspection, he ripped it from the screws connecting it to the fence and propped it up with shovels. It is still leaning against the fence in exactly the same position, but the council have said it is now free standing so it does not come under Class A, Part 2 Schedule 2 of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (Amended).
Obviously, it is now more dangerous and towers over our property because we are lower.
What rules were in place when it was connected to the fence?
What rules now apply now it is being classified as free standing?
It is a massive tarpaulin (acting like a sail) connected to the ground on flimsy bean-sticks. It cannot stand freely without the aid of the fence.
Extra Notes: The screen is just over 1m wide and 3.36m high. This means it exceeds the 2m fence by a further 1.36m. Originally it was connected to the fence by screws. It got battered in the wind regularly. About a week before the inspection the neighbour ripped it away from the fastenings on the fence. It is leaning against the fence and is propped up by shovels the other side, to make it lean against the fence. It would be impossible for the structure to remain standing except for the fence. It is more dangerous now than before.
Extra Notes: The landlord lied and said it was erected over 4 years ago. That was the council's original excuse to allow it when they initially shut the complaint down. We have a vast amount of evidence, included evidence submitted to a court for a separate case of criminal damage by the neighbour against our property, that shows the screen did not exist 4 years ago. We also have in-frame/time-stamped evidence of the date of construction. We have in-frame/time-stamped evidence of police on our property investigating another act of harassment by the neighbour against us which shows the screen did not exist a few days before the construction. Once the council knew we had all this evidence, they changed their reasons from being over 4 years old to allowing the screen because they claimed it is not expedient to pursue.
Note: Both he and his landlord are connected to the council and have likely been coached.
