A homeowner has avoided planning enforcement action after a large lean-to canopy that he originally attached to the house, was altered to detach it.
The timber framed canopy was built without planning permission and bordered the homeowner and a neighbour's property, prompting an enforcement notice from the council.
However, alterations were made before a site visit could take place and by the time of the inspection it was deemed the canopy no longer needed permission as it was a separate structure and the council voted unanimously to drop the case.
Why was planning permission needed for the canopy?
Often planning permission for a canopy is not required as they can qualify under permitted development rights.
However, if the canopy is larger than 50% of the floor space of the property or the canopy is closer than 3.5 metres to a road then planning permission is required.
In this homeowner's case planning would have initially been required as, according to the council: "It was found that the canopy had been added to an existing projection of solid form and the flat roofed form of the extension, use of materials (timber and felt roof) failed to respect the traditional architectural form and appearance of the main dwelling."
What work was done to make the canopy compliant?
Southend Council were alerted to the property after a complaint was made and an enforcement notice was issued.
However, council though discovered during a site visit that the canopy was detached from both the neighbouring and homeowner's house, the felt roof was replaced with a clear plastic roof and all timber cladding was removed.
Planning offers concluded the original breach had been addressed and the canopy would now "be considered under Class E of the General Permitted Development Order as a detached building or enclosure and not under Class A as an extension to the dwelling, which formed the basis of the original assessment".
How did the man avoid punishment?
Despite the alterations, some officials still called for further punishment for the homeowner due to the disturbance towards a neighbour.
Carole Mulroney, Lib Dem councillor for Leigh Ward, stated: "The fact that we close the case but don’t withdraw the enforcement notice means that should they go back to whatever it was before means that we can immediately reactivate it and take action."
Martin Berry, Labour councillor for St Luke’s Ward, lamented the lack of consequences for the homeowner's flouting of the law, stating: "Even though the applicant in this particular case decided he was above the law and decided to completely ignore the enforcement notice there’s not been any action taken against him for that.
“Significant harm has been done to his residential amenity. It’s a massive extension from how it used to be. It was putting his garden into shade. The neighbour, it was overlooking him. He couldn’t sit outside and do the crossword or use the garden during the summer because it was all in shade and he had the neighbours peering across the fence at him all the time.
He expressed disappointment, adding: "It’s a shame that the guy has done this and has got away scot-free.
Despite his concerns, Berry acknowledged the current compliance with permitted development rules, stating: "He’s put it back now to permitted development level so I’m not going to be churlish and vote against this recommendation."
Despite the protestations the council voted unanimously to keep the to not pursue the enforcement.
