If he's too thick to pile soil up to the first floor, hiding the ground floor, he deserves all he gets
On the other hand what about the guy on the Somerset levels who built an embankment to protect his house from flooding (flooding caused in large part by government policy) and was threatened with prosecution for importing soil onto the site without a permit? If ever there was a case for turning a blind eye and leaving the poor sod alone....
The house out the back of mine applied to build a property to rent out in their back garden, flush against mine and neighbours fence which was turned down. They applied for a single story shed which was approved, the shed is made of bricks. They have since been granted a second floor. It now has a fitted kitchen, 2 bedrooms and a bathroom. It blocks all the light from our gardens and the bedrooms look straight down into my kitchen. Planning permission is a joke, I hope he gets to keep his house, and I hope whoever sleeps in the room behind my house likes really bright spot lights shining through their curtains all night!
Presumably (you don't say) you lodged objections to the applications for planning permission. If so the planning authority would have had to consider each application and the objections to it, and decide what was best. They might impose conditions or restriction on the permission, if granted. And a dissatisfied party would be able to appeal to the courts, and/or apply for compensation. Presumably the outcome of this process was not to your liking, and the decision was in someone else's interests but not in yours. So that means "Planning permission is a joke", does it?
Like a lot of things there has been some deregulation of planning laws and now certain developments, I am thinking extensions here, can go ahead without consent, where that leaves potential objectors I am not sure.
Well OK, I was just using Tokyo vaguely as an example of a vast built-up city without many green spaces. By all means substitute the megalopolis of your choice. If London was nothing but solid buildings from Reigate to Hertford and from Slough to Thurrock, that would not be a good thing, I suggest.
True. A few years ago I added a loft conversion to the top of my house, but the planning regulations at the time limited its size quite narrowly. Subsequently the regulations have been relaxed, and if I was building it now the loft floor could be larger and more conveniently arranged. I am not moaning about this; that's the way it goes.
They had objections from the surrounding houses, mine included. That was the grounds for not being allowed to build a 'house' what they have been granted since has allowed them to build the exact building they were denied previously. How is that anything other than ridiculous?
you can always complain to the Local Government Ombudsman if you feel there has been maladministration or worse....
I sympathise. Everyone likes privacy and no-one likes to be overlooked. Unfortunately though millions of properties are overlooked by other properties in the UK, especially in cities. Realistically this is something people find they have to put up with.
