cheaper to build nice wood garage or rendered breeze block?

[Steve H]

I don't think you'd have a problem repairing the existing garage, even if those repairs were substantial........

Would a builder know about this? I very much doubt it.

[V8RX7]

rfisher said:

So what is the requirement pp wise if, as in my situation, there's a 4m high garage already existent on a boundary?

Can I leave it at 4m for the 1st 2m and rebuild it higher after that?

Would I have to demolish the whole thing and new build in accordance with current pp regs?

Would a builder know this?

Bit reluctant to ask the pp department just yet.

Don't want to get the aroused, as it were.

You are getting confused between what you can do WITHOUT planning - ie PD and requiring Planning consent.

So you CAN'T knock it down and rebuild under PD.

You MAY be able to with Planning Consent.

A builder wouldn't know a Planner / Architect can take an educated guess - best option is to read your Local Plan and talk to a Planner.

If they don't support you, find local examples that do.

[IATM]

Renovation said:

Steve H said:

Wombat3 said:

Steve H said:

rfisher said:

Or should I just ignore all these interfering jobsworths and build wtf I want on my land?

You could try that for sure, four years without anyone bothering and it's yours!

That's (mistakenly) what the bloke down in Reigate with his castle thought.....

I thought he got nabbed within the time allowed? Or did they decide that hiding it in a hay stack counted as cheating?

They decided that despite him passing the 4yrs as he had deliberately hidden it, it didn't count.

It seemed a harsh decision to me.

+1 I thought it was harsh too

[sjj84]

I thought it was harsh too, especially as they changed the wording of the rules to prevent it from happening again, pretty much admitting that he hasn't broken the rules that were in place at the time. Pretty impressive that he built it all himself too.

[Wombat3]

sjj84 said:

I thought it was harsh too, especially as they changed the wording of the rules to prevent it from happening again, pretty much admitting that he hasn't broken the rules that were in place at the time. Pretty impressive that he built it all himself too.

Might well be harsh but the decision is not aimed at him IMO, its about stopping developers trampling all over the green belt - and they would given half a chance.

[Renovation]

Wombat3 said:

Might well be harsh but the decision is not aimed at him IMO, its about stopping developers trampling all over the green belt - and they would given half a chance.

The large developers build mostly in the greenbelt and they haven't the time / ability to hide homes for 4 years.