Morning John

thanks for replying, i have drafted out all details below if you could please read and advise,i need to return Monday morning, regarding the orignal drawings they were detailed on the basis they showed existing front and then a layout of a new front which involved major removal of soil (20ton) as the houses on bunkers hill are elevated, but there was no detial of materials or specific sizes dimensions.

H. GROUNDS OF APPEAL

Application No DC/027051 on the 9^th July 2007 was submitted and received full planning permission 29^th August 2007.

Works began October / November 2007 to the front of the garden creating the new drive area, walling and steps, this allowed easy access for building materials, deliveries and skips, all walling was completed with the drive way left in a “MOT” state finish. 12^th November then resulted in the starting of the main building works to the two storey extension to the side of the house. All major building works were completed approx March / May 2008.

May 2011, the front drive way was finished with an Indian stone paving flag, and the top garden (the garden is tiered) was reconfigured with new stone walling and steps completed with Indian stone paving flags and fencing to either side of the garden.

30^th June 2011, I received a letter from Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council (Ref: CA008648) stating a compliant had been made against 18 Bunkers Hill, Romiley and the LPA had visited site, and that Retrospective planning permission was required as no previous planning permission had been submitted, I contacted the LPA and advised them of planning application No DC/027051, I received a phone call within 7 days after advising that all was in order and no further action was required.

7^th September 2011, I received a further letter following a second compliant against the property and that retrospective planning permission was required, following another telephone call to the LPA I was advised that there was not enough detail on the “fully approved planning permission” DC/027051 for the front drive way and steps access

The above resulted in employing a design and building consultant, who drafted up drawings of the front of the property and took ownership of the retrospective planning form, the original drawing was refused as a non permeable surface had been used to the driveway resulting in surface water running to the road. Following numerous phone calls to the LPA and highways we was advised only a pump to the front property would be acceptable with the surface water collected and pumped up hill to the house and into a private drain, this was drawn and submitted to be rejected again by Highways who now requires the 4year old “plus” front wall which exceeds the height of 1metre, to be lowered and altered to allow visual access to the highways, numerous phone calls again and emails as the Highways representative was unable to attend the property to discuss issues, resulted in the third drawing submitted for approval.

15^th December 2011 planning permission was approved with terms and conditions (DC048384)

9^th January 2012, I advised the LPA I wish to appeal and applied for an appeal form

Conclusion

As DC/027051 was approved with no restrictions or guidelines put forward for building materials to the front area and no requests from the LPA or Highways was made for additional detail or information at that time (2007), it is unreasonable for the LPA and Highways to request “ current guidelines” to now be followed, this was again highlighted following a complaint against the property June 2011, where a site visit had been performed by the LPA resulting in an inspection of approved planning DC/027051, again no reference was made to lack of detailed drawings or building materials used and the LPA advised “all was in order”.

It is unreasonable for me to now incur additional costs exceeding £2000.00 to implement a pumping system to the front of the property, and reconfigure walls which follow the trend of all Bunkers Hill Properties

A pumping system contradicts “climate change and sustainability” and doesn’t support reducing emissions, as per attached (United Utilities surface water plan) a local drain within 20metres collects all surface water from Bunkers hill and disperses into a natural soak away.

I believe that due to all the circumstances as described above the requirements as requested by the LPA and Highways are inappropriate and unreasonable and the additional costs already occurred to myself could have been avoided.

Kind regards

James