Building expert fined after flouting planning laws (From Sutton Guardian)

The government's plans to relax the planning rules are mind-bogglingly ridiculous.

The UK is already economically and socially on-route for disaster, the Shanty-Town look will be the ext step.

people can be so petty. So he knocked down and old garage with an asbestos roof and put up a nice looking fancy shed, that is 4ft longer, 4ft, not 20ft, not 2 storey high...... get a life and stop maoning people............

I think your reporter has been misled by Mr Woodward as I am one of those neighbours who complained about the property.

Mr Woodward built a bungalow in his back garden, what he intended to do with the property I don’t know. I do know that it has a kitchen area, a bathroom, a lounge area and bedroom area. I know this because the windows on the property look directly into my bedroom and have done for the last six years.

Before Mr Woodward built the bungalow in his back garden my bedroom was not overlook by any other property, for six years this bungalow has invaded my privacy and the privacy of others.

When the bungalow was built it had a pitched roof and I have sent some photo to your reporter showing the size of the original structure in comparison to a garage, the pitched roof was removed so we his neighbours were left with a bungalow sized building with a flat roof.

I have seen various faces in the building over the past six years (yes I am that close that I can see faces) and I can’t help seeing those faces because his bungalow looks directly into my bedroom.

I am not being petty or complaining about a “fancy shed”, not many sheds have a bathroom and a kitchen, not many sheds have a mains water supply.

I and many of Mr Woodwards neighbours want this bungalow removed and I know personally of 4 other neighbours who have complained so that makes at least 5 neighbours who have complained.

Mr Woodward is not the victim in this story, we his long suffering neighbours are the victims, we are the ones who have had our privacy invaded and this has only taken so long to resolve because Sutton Council and the judicial system seem to care more about the “rights” of Mr Woodward than they do about the privacy rights of his neighbours.


This is not and was not a garden shed or a “games” room it was a bungalow built in a suburban garden, perhaps if your reporter had taken some photos inside the structure your readers would not be misled into believing Mr Woodward was the victim in this whole affair.

Now he lost court case after court case cost thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, I want to know WHEN we he will remove this bungalow and when will I get my privacy back.

So, the council gave planning permission for the block of flats we see in the background and now those ‘long suffering’ flat dwellers are experiencing ‘misery’ because a resident in one of the older houses has increased the size of his garage by a few feet. Is that worth fighting over for 6 years? Whose bedroom is overlooked? I know that area and it is only gardens and garages.

Vanilla

I believe the flats were built about 50 years ago and if it were a garage I wouldn't be complaining, it's a garage with a kitchen and a bedroom and a bathroom and windows that look directly into my bedroom - I have sent photos to the reporter taken from my bedroom window (which the paper may or may not publish), just to show how intrusive this property is.

I don't want your sympathy and I am sure I don't have it - I just want my privacy back

You may or may not "know" the area, I live there so whether you believe me or not doesn't matter - you are entitled to your own opinion but you are not entitrled to your own facts.

WalRes - why don't you just put up net curtains?

Vanilla

I had privacy before Mr Woodward built a bungalow in his back garden without planning permission. He didn't apply for planning permission because, I guess, he knew he would not get planning permission because building another dwelling in one's back garden will almost invariable invade the privacy of ones' neighbours.

I could put up nets or blinds but why should I?

Surely the more pertinent question would be, why does Mr Woodward think it is OK to build another separate dwelling in his back garden?

You obviously believe what Mr Woodward has done is OK, the judicial system, the local council, the Planning Inspectorate (central government) and at least 5 of his neighbours disagree.

I don't know the location in the story but people who flout planning and parking laws are a damned nuisance who spoil the living environment of other people and they deserve all the grief they get. It's their own fault; they need to learn to be more considerate and less selfish.

My flat looks directly at this development. The windows in the side of the development look directly into my flat. The previous garage had no windows in the side. If Mr Woodward were a ‘building expert’ surely he would not construct something in his garden which does not comply with planning! I also rent a garage adjacent to this development. The garage has cracks in the wall that were not present before this development was built. When the water was connected to the development it flooded my garage! I reported it to Sutton Water, they wrote to him. The flooding stopped. The development is poorly built. At one point in the legal dance with Sutton Council Planning Department Mr Woodward I’m sure attempted to be smart and tried to class this development as a caravan! The tactics used by Mr Woodward in the last six years in a fumble to flout planning have been nothing short of appalling, inconsiderate, artificial and uncouth. In fact I dread to think of the amount of money Mr Woodward has spent trying to circumvent planning law. His ego has been exposed for thinking he could beat the system and the fine on top of his own legal expenses must really hurt. It’s a shame the press release conceals the full story but it still makes for interesting reading;

A six year case to remove a building, built without a planning permission, has been won by the council following a third successful prosecution against a man who continually flouted planning laws. Sutton Council made its case against Mr Neil Woodward of Hawthorn Road, Wallington, after originally issuing an enforcement notice to demolish a building erected within his garden during the summer of 2006. However, after six years and numerous court appearances, the building remained in place. Mr Woodward faced a single count on an Indictment at Croydon Crown Court for the failure to comply with the terms of an enforcement notice, issued by the council following the erection of the building in the garden area of the property known as 16A, B and C Hawthorn Road. Mr Woodward was convicted of the same offence in April 2009, and July 2010 but failed to take the appropriate action to demolish his development. After pleading guilty to the offence of failing to comply with the enforcement notice, Mr Woodward was fined £8,000 and ordered to make a £12,000 contribution to the prosecution costs. He was also ordered again to adhere to the notice and ensure the building is removed immediately. The council is currently considering whether or not to take direct action in this case should Mr Woodward continue to breach the outstanding enforcement notice. The judge, HHJ Baucher made it clear that as a result of his defiance of planning law, Mr Woodward caused the council to spend funds which could have been used elsewhere to the detriment of Sutton's Council Tax Payers. Cllr Jayne McCoy, Chair of the Housing, Economy and Business Committee, said: "We take a dim view of developers who flout planning laws and seek to circumvent the proper process causing misery to their long suffering neighbours in the meantime - in this case for six years. For their sake we have felt that it is important to see this case through to the end, and we are considering taking direct action which would involve the council removing the structure and recouping its costs through placing a charge on the land concerned."

Do not feel sorry for this man. He has been busted. We local residents look forward to the removal of the development……

The Coalition Government's crazy idea to weaken planning laws to enable a building free for all must be resisted to stop countless more such cases that can result in harm and injury to the individuals caught up in these building wars.

Could be worse- if we had people over to stay we would have to put them in tents in the garden- as there is nowhere in our place for them to sleep-and I'm sure our neighbours wouldn't be very happy about that, especially as both my mother in law and myself have large extended families- which would involve children of all ages as well- modern houses are even smaller- I could not even think of some of our furniture let alone our 6'+ son and all his stuff in some of them without guests as well! yes he should have asked, though and been a bit more considerate in both the design and his communications with his neighbours,maybe a compromise could have been reached before his got as far as it has, and been a lot cheaper for all concerned- we'll never know, because the whole story in cases like these never comes out

London Borough of Sutton V Woodward

Planning dispute – Hawthorn Road

The letter is to clarify some of the miss information being placed on the Guardian website by a couple of people alleging their lives have been made a misery by the rebuilding of a games and hobbies room at Hawthorn Road, a comment replicated by Liberal Councillor Jane McCoy. These comments have no genuine basis.

Summary

The justification for the complaints is based on loss of privacy by two residents of Burns Court who claim their bedroom windows are overlooked by the timber building thus causing them misery, and that this did not occur prior to the structure being erected.

The previous building, the current one replaced was only slightly smaller had planning consent for a games and hobbies room, it had eight windows, four faced north towards Burns Court, and four facing south. It is false to claim the current structure has led to a loss of privacy, none existed before, and Burns Court has communal areas and an access area to garages between Burns Court and the timber building. This means people including children walk within a few feet of the windows, alleged to have had privacy destroyed by the disputed structure. It is also difficult to give credibility to people claiming they object to blinds or curtains on bedroom windows that can be looked into by other residents (including their children) whilst garaging their cars, particularly when bedrooms are used for dressing and undressing, not to mention other private activities that may take place in a bedroom?

It is also worth pointing out the statement made in the Inspectorate of Planning’s report dated in which he makes it quite clear there is no material loss of light or privacy to any residents.

Inspectorate of Planning Appeal decision - N.P Freeman, dated 14.11.2007
Page 9 – Paragraph 39

“Having regard to my observations on site, I am satisfied that the building is sufficiently distant from the windows of any neighbouring properties to cause any demonstrable loss of privacy within these properties. I estimate that the distance from the windows on the west elevation of Burns Court is about 24 m, which I consider to be a reasonable degree of separation. I also do not consider that any material loss of light to neighbouring properties has occurred and that outlook from within these properties has not been significantly prejudiced.”

It may also come as a surprise to many Sutton residents that the London Borough of Sutton solicitors, made three expensive applications to the Crown Court to prevent the writer from disclosing details of the Council’s malpractices that lay behind the protracted dispute. They sought to allege the information would interfere with any trial; this was rejected by the Judges who refused to make any form of gagging order. With litigation still in progress I am still unable to disclose much of the serious Council misfeasance that has been an integral part of this case.

General Points:-

My family have lived in Hawthorn Road for 25years without any disputes with neighbours (current dispute accepted) and have been engaged in unpaid charity work within the community for many years as indeed has other members of my family. There is a article in the Daily Mail 2nd October, 2012 on Rosemary Woodward (my first Cousin) who has acted unpaid and successfully obtained crucial drugs for 292 cancer patients denied them by National Health Trusts. The Judge in the recent case made complimentary comments on my own character having seen evidence from third parties. I would not erect any building that inflicted misery on neighbours.

Neither was the building deliberately erected to circumvent planning laws; it was believed to come within the “Permitted Development Act” that allows garden buildings to be erected without planning and it replaced one that existed constructed in banned material asbestos. All house owners have rights to erect garden buildings and the basis of the Councils objection was that a part of the main building had a small flat, housing a terminally ill ex employee of the owner, and therefore they categorised the building as flats? Thus depriving the land of Permitted development Rights.

The previous building was only slightly smaller and contrary to comments registered on the Guardian website did have windows, four in the east elevation and four in the west elevation. It had planning consent as a games and hobbies room. If the Council felt the building would have a detrimental impact on adjacent residents they would not have passed the original planning consent for this building. Reference to the Planning Office records will confirm these points. It should also be noted that the Inspectorate of Planning in his decision notice made it quite clear that in his view it did not materially affect the privacy of neighbours.

The resident complaining the new structure destroyed his privacy has made a flawed statement, presumable to manufacture a grievance to justify his complaints. The previous building overlooked his windows, as do some of the windows in Stag Court, in addition the windows facing the disputed structure are separated by communal gardens and access area to the garages, and therefore any person in these communal areas can look into his windows and from close quarters, not from 25 Metres away. He also states it overlooks his bedroom window, what kind of person has no blinds or curtains on a bedroom window, when people will be undressing and engaging in other private activities in a bedroom?? People, including children entering the garages of Stag Court and garage area at Burns Court would have a similar view into his bedroom as the windows from the disputed building.

The building is not a bungalow, it does not come within such a definition nor does it have any rights as a separate dwelling, and has never been used as such. The building description is nearer to a summer house or caravan. It is very common for house owners to erect these buildings in their gardens for ancillary use by their children or members of their family.

With many young people unable to afford to purchase homes and elderly parents needing to be near their families they can provide much needed space for family members and ease pressure on depleted housing stocks.

The building is smaller than many caravans, and a caravan could replace it on the site. The site also no has now acquired “Permitted Development Rights” these allow home owners to erect buildings, summer house etc within certain limits. The original building was constructed in asbestos a banned substance unsightly and in a bad state of repair, that is the reason it was replaced, it was believed it did not require planning, and that view would have been correct had the Council not classified the main dwelling as flats due to a small part of the building being let to a terminally ill ex employee..

There have been a number of anonymous emails sent to the Council alleging the building has been used as a separate residence, these were investigated by Council officials and established as unfounded. I regard these emails as malicious because the building was unoccupied, and only used for storage, the person who sent the emails would have had no evidence to base such an allegation.

The occupier of Burns Court who suggests their life has been made a misery by being overlooked, failed to disclose their flat has always been overlooked including the main residence at Hawthorn Road, and most of the flats in Stag Court. They also fail to tell you that ground floor flats at Burns Court are surrounded by a communal area and Garage access that directly faces their windows. They have no privacy if they choose to leave windows without curtains or blinds. The reality is that no one has occupied the disputed building, which has been used only for storage since 2007, and therefore has had no impact on their privacy during the period of the litigation.

The Planning Inspectorate made comments in his report issued in 2008; these make it quite clear that there is no loss of privacy, loss of light or any material detriment to the views from the windows of any adjacent properties.

It may also surprise people to know that the Councils lawyers have used substantial public money, making a number of special Court applications to prevent information on the Council’s concealment of evidence, breaches of procedures, false statements, and other malpractices that have led to the extensive delays in a settlement. This is in effect an attempt at a gagging order to conceal Council malpractice. It is also worth pointing out the Council have approved a building of similar size two doors away also used for ancillary use to the main building, why the inconsistency?

I made considerable efforts to seek a settlement to prevent the public expense, meetings were refused by Council officials and when they agreed under pressure from Tom Brake MP they sabotaged the meeting, preventing any discussion that could have resolved the dispute.

In conclusion I would like to thank the 70 odd flat owners and my immediate neighbours who overlook the building, who have been open minded and have not raised any complaint, I am grateful for their fairness in not manufacturing false grounds for opposition.

It is hoped the above information provides a balanced view of the dispute.
Neil Woodward

Neil Woodward is a serial abuser of planning laws and a deeply delusional character. I live a few doors away from a development he built near Camber Sands in East Sussex. He managed to replace a small bungalow with an enormous 3 storey building, a log cabin and changed a garage into a dwelling. Adverts for this development claimed it could accomodate 27 people. He lied continuously about his intentions. Pulling the 'Games Room' stunt, only showing 2 floors on the plans of the enormous gerry built monstrosity and building 3. Blocking light and views of his neighbours.

So glad the Sutton planners got the measure of this deceitful man. Unlike the incompetents at Rother who were scared of him and let him get away with his blatant lies.

Now he has liquidated his property empire and has left a collection of over sized shoddy blights built by Romanion builders on our landscape.

He is a notorious slum landlord who let out a string of garages adjacent to his Sutton house to students illegally.

I feel very sorry for his Sutton neighbours and hope his 'Games Room' is demolished ASAP