Lawful Development: Proposed Use - Driveway

[Paul Lazzaro]

Hello All

I'd like to install a driveway. I understand I need to use permeable paving or include drainage. I'll likely opt for the permeable paving option.

We will need to change about 50% of the area from soft landscaped to hard landscaped. The other 50% already has brick paviours (although we'll need to replace them).

My local authority Highways department requires a Certificate of Lawful Development before they'll consent to a dropped kerb. On the Planning Portal website, one of the questions is "Does the proposal consist of, or include, the carrying out of building or other operations?".

Googling what "building" operations means returns this from the TCPA:

(1A)For the purposes of this Act “ building operations ” includes—
(a)demolition of buildings;
(b)rebuilding;
(c)structural alterations of or additions to buildings; and
(d)other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder.

So, does the bloke I'm likely to use to put the drive in class himself as a builder? No, he doesn't. But others might, I don't really know?

Is there an accepted position as to whether a driveway install constitutes "building or other operations"?

I don't want to automatically generate a computer says no response if I say it's building operations when it isn't, but equally I don't want the Planning Officer to reject my application because it's not accurate.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

[smokey mow]

Paul Lazzaro said:

(d)other operations normally undertaken by a person carrying on business as a builder.

So, does the bloke I'm likely to use to put the drive in class himself as a builder? No, he doesn't. But others might, I don't really know?

The question isn’t asking whether the person carrying out the works is a builder.

It is asking whether the work being carried out is of a nature that a builder might normally undertake.

[Equus]

Paul Lazzaro said:

Is there an accepted position as to whether a driveway install constitutes "building or other operations"?

In terms of Planning (which is what the Certificate of Lawful Development relates to, that Highways is asking for) the statutory definition is given by Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

But I can tell you that the works you propose certainly represent 'development', under the terms of the Act, so to prove that they are Permitted Development, you'll need the Certificate of Lawful Development that Highways are asking for.

[Paul Lazzaro]

That's great. Thanks for the advice.

[Paul Lazzaro]

I've done some more research and have a supplementary question.

I can now see that the previous owners of our house applied for and were refused planning consent in the past. The reason given was because of inadequate visibility splays. Since that application, the speed limit has reduced, so the required visibility has reduced as per the Local Authority's guidance doc for dropped kerbs. The visibility is still less than the distance required in the guidance, though.

More recently, planning consent has been given for a couple of small developments just up the road. These developments included driveways that have less visibility than mine would and they clearly don't meet the LA's distance requirements for visibility. As well as having less visibility, they also without doubt are in a more dangerous location, one being on a blind bend and the other exiting directly out onto the adjacent A Road.

Is there any such argument of precedent in putting forward an application to the Planning and then Highways department for my proposed drive? The planning policies and dropped kerb guidance haven't changed since the two new developments were given consent, and the Highways department were consulted on these applications at the time.

I'm really quite desperate for a drive, as my next company car has to be electric and the car allowance in lieu of a company car is awful.

[Equus]

Paul Lazzaro said:

I can now see that the previous owners of our house applied for and were refused planning consent in the past

What exactly was refused - a Planning application, or permission from Highways to install a dropped kerb?

Note that a Certificate of Lawfulness is not the same as Planning Permission. A Certificate of Lawfulness is merely formal confirmation that the work doesn't require Planning Permission.

If the proposed work complies with the rules for Permitted Development, then the LPA cannot 'refuse' a Certificate of Lawfulness.

Whether or not the Highways Department is willing to allow you to install a drop kerb across their public pavement is a different matter.

There is no such thing as 'precedence' in terms of Planning decisions. There is a principle of 'consistency', but you need to be very sure that the circumstances are directly and fully comparable before claiming that decisions are 'inconsistent' with each other.

It sounds as though it's time for you to engage a Planning Consultant: there's a limit to the free advice you can sensibly glean from an internet forum: someone who knows what they are doing needs to go through the paperwork properly.