Clarify 2.5m height planning rule for outbuildings
Discussion
ecs said:
I found this video to be helpful in explaining permitted development rules - he ended up applying for permission for his shed so he could go higher than 2.5m and drew the drawings himself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsTrMDn3f6k
Just watched every video regarding his build back to back.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fsTrMDn3f6k
Not sure whether to thank you, or be mad at the lack of productivity in the office today!
LDC application accepted as valid, so that's the first hurdle overcome. Decision should be made by 23rd October.
Application has gone up on the authority website which is slightly suboptimal as I was hoping to keep it under the public radar.
Cost was £117 + £25 cost of applying through their portal, which is a JV with a private company and a bit of a cheek IMO.
Application has gone up on the authority website which is slightly suboptimal as I was hoping to keep it under the public radar.
Cost was £117 + £25 cost of applying through their portal, which is a JV with a private company and a bit of a cheek IMO.
PhilboSE said:
Application has gone up on the authority website which is slightly suboptimal as I was hoping to keep it under the public radar.
Any application that is entered onto the Planning Register (which is a formal and legally required record) will usually go on to the Authority's website, these days.Has it been advertised (notice on lamp post) is the question? Unless your neighbour is in the habit of checking the Planning Lists weekly, the chances of him spotting it on the LPA's Planning Portal are slim.
FWIIW:
Government guidance on LDCs said:
There is no statutory requirement to consult third parties including parish councils or neighbours. It may, however, be reasonable for a local planning authority to seek evidence from these sources, if there is good reason to believe they may possess relevant information about the content of a specific application. Views expressed by third parties on the planning merits of the case, or on whether the applicant has any private rights to carry out the operation, use or activity in question, are irrelevant when determining the application.
(my bold)... and I wouldn't normally expect an LPA to advertise the application or to consult with neighbours or Parish unless they felt there was a need for them to confirm certain points.
PhilboSE said:
Cost was £117 + £25 cost of applying through their portal, which is a JV with a private company and a bit of a cheek IMO.
That's nothing compared to some other aspects of commercialisation of the Planning Portal. They've recently signed up to deal with one particular Architects and Planning Consultancy to give quotes on domestic projects across the whole country. Promotion of monopolies, anyone?The current Government is a bent as a nine bob note..
Equus said:
Has it been advertised (notice on lamp post) is the question? Unless your neighbour is in the habit of checking the Planning Lists weekly, the chances of him spotting it on the LPA's Planning Portal are slim.
No lamp posts down our road (private), don't think any public roads are within distance. As you say, I doubt the neighbour will come across it in time, but you never know. I've checked that the application has gone in as an LDC not PP so they shouldn't be sending out letters.Equus said:
FWIIW: ...Government guidance on LDCs...
Thanks, I have no concerns about any comments as I believe it falls within PD, as long as site levelling groundworks are acceptable. The neighbour's comments about my previous application were risible, the Officer was most put out when he was forced to come to the property to assess. "Don't see what he's ****ing complaining about" he announced very loudly...Equus said:
PhilboSE said:
Cost was £117 + £25 cost of applying through their portal, which is a JV with a private company and a bit of a cheek IMO.
That's nothing compared to some other aspects of commercialisation of the Planning Portal. They've recently signed up to deal with one particular Architects and Planning Consultancy to give quotes on domestic projects across the whole country. Promotion of monopolies, anyone?PhilboSE said:
For clarity, it was the £25 additional portal cost which I think was cheeky.
Yeah, I got that and I agree.It used to be 'free' to the end user, in that the cost of maintaining the national Planning Portal was charged back to the LPA's.
I now have to explain to every client why, no, it isn't £206/£462 or whatever, as it says on the fee shedule they've Googled themselves, that there's an extra £25 for submitting it via the Planning Portal, and that yes, we could save that £25 by submitting it direct to the LPA but that the extra admin cost it would incur in our time faffing about with it would destroy any saving...
Why they can't just build it in to the individual fees so that it's transparent to the end user is beyond me.
Your local planning department is more efficient than mine. Submitted 8th Aug from memory, confirmation email they have it from the planning portal but not yet validated or case officer given. Back in march it took 10 days from submitting to valid, now nearly 30 days. Architect said all his applications are slow.
To be fair, my LA planning are pretty good (although they aren't doing house visits for BC signoff so I haven't got a completion certificate yet for works finished in January...their backlog must be huge).
My application was validated the day after I submitted it according to the planning portal.
My application was validated the day after I submitted it according to the planning portal.
Condi said:
Your local planning department is more efficient than mine. Submitted 8th Aug from memory, confirmation email they have it from the planning portal but not yet validated or case officer given. Back in march it took 10 days from submitting to valid, now nearly 30 days. Architect said all his applications are slow.
Needless to say, there are things your architect can do to prod things along. But perhaps he needs a prod himself...Well, super fun times, planning enforcement turned up today because of a neighbour complaint, measured the height from the lowest adjoining ground level, and proclaimed the building built to 2.5m from the highest adjoining ground level non-complaint.
Thought I would post this so various could say told you so!
Thinking a retro application may be easier (officer indicated this is likely to be passed while obviously not committing!), rather than trying to argue the point on where to measure from.
(And yes I did point out it’s from the nearest adjoining ground level, not the lowest but he was convinced otherwise).
Go hum, better go YouTube how to draw an elevation plan!
Thought I would post this so various could say told you so!
Thinking a retro application may be easier (officer indicated this is likely to be passed while obviously not committing!), rather than trying to argue the point on where to measure from.
(And yes I did point out it’s from the nearest adjoining ground level, not the lowest but he was convinced otherwise).
Go hum, better go YouTube how to draw an elevation plan!
Bummer.
You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
PhilboSE said:
Bummer.
You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
Yeah outraged probably not the best path, as Equus has told us before the PD rules are rules and it either complied or it doesn’t, and to be honest I don’t think ending up at the planning ombudsman is going to be expedient vs just getting planning (providing they grant it!)You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
Not the best image I know but you can see the original ground level is the edge of the path, I’ve then dug down next to accommodate the foundation block and frame. Measuring from the path it is easily <2.5m, but the rest of the building isn’t as the site slopes across and down from that corner away.
If you genuinely believe that the measurement is compliant (I CBA reading back through the thread to see whether we thought it was or not), then it's worth a professionally set out and measured written response - preferably from a Planning Consultant - as first step before the Planning application.
Planning applications can be refused, and submitting one is tantamount to accepting that the breach has occurred.... if it is refused, you can't really go back afterwards and say that you submitted it with your fingers crossed and never believed you required PP in the first place.
Enforcement Officers do make mistakes, sometimes, an a letter of rebuttal will usually escalate the matter to the EO's line manager for a second opinion. There have been many instances where we've submitted a letter and the response has been: 'oh, OK... yes, you're right... forget about it then'.
Planning applications can be refused, and submitting one is tantamount to accepting that the breach has occurred.... if it is refused, you can't really go back afterwards and say that you submitted it with your fingers crossed and never believed you required PP in the first place.
Enforcement Officers do make mistakes, sometimes, an a letter of rebuttal will usually escalate the matter to the EO's line manager for a second opinion. There have been many instances where we've submitted a letter and the response has been: 'oh, OK... yes, you're right... forget about it then'.
Equus said:
If you genuinely believe that the measurement is compliant (I CBA reading back through the thread to see whether we thought it was or not), then it's worth a professionally set out and measured written response - preferably from a Planning Consultant - as first step before the Planning application.
Planning applications can be refused, and submitting one is tantamount to accepting that the breach has occurred.... if it is refused, you can't really go back afterwards and say that you submitted it with your fingers crossed and never believed you required PP in the first place.
Enforcement Officers do make mistakes, sometimes, an a letter of rebuttal will usually escalate the matter to the EO's line manager for a second opinion. There have been many instances where we've submitted a letter and the response has been: 'oh, OK... yes, you're right... forget about it then'.
Hey, yes I am considering that option, didn’t realise I couldn’t retroactively say we’ll hold on I was doing this to placate you really.Planning applications can be refused, and submitting one is tantamount to accepting that the breach has occurred.... if it is refused, you can't really go back afterwards and say that you submitted it with your fingers crossed and never believed you required PP in the first place.
Enforcement Officers do make mistakes, sometimes, an a letter of rebuttal will usually escalate the matter to the EO's line manager for a second opinion. There have been many instances where we've submitted a letter and the response has been: 'oh, OK... yes, you're right... forget about it then'.
It is borderline, but only because of some firring strips which make measuring it complicated in the extreme, but I believe it to be complaint, but I’m not sure I want to get into an argument with them about it.
I have asked the planning officer to clarify why they believe it to be non compliant and why they’ve measured from the lowest ground level adjacent - they where very insistent this was wrong because otherwise you could have an 8m tall PD building.
I will message you offline to see how much said letter would cost.
Pheo said:
PhilboSE said:
Bummer.
You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
Yeah outraged probably not the best path, as Equus has told us before the PD rules are rules and it either complied or it doesn’t, and to be honest I don’t think ending up at the planning ombudsman is going to be expedient vs just getting planning (providing they grant it!)You could of course get all outraged about it and be prepared to fight them on the documented methods for measuring, but you sound well balanced and I would agree that the PP path is probably the most pragmatic.
Did you do any groundworks to level the site? How did you evidence the original higher ground level?
My LDC application still awaiting a decision.
Not the best image I know but you can see the original ground level is the edge of the path, I’ve then dug down next to accommodate the foundation block and frame. Measuring from the path it is easily <2.5m, but the rest of the building isn’t as the site slopes across and down from that corner away.
It is difficult to see from your photo where the actual ground level is (Well on my phone at least).
My garden slopes so I took these when we dug the ground out preparing for the base as we dug down to level everything , the measure showing the original and new ground level.... just in case someone complained . Have you anything similar?
The decking does not constitute original ground level. If that last pic shows some point which you wanted to be considered for the measurement then it isn’t terribly obvious and it’s possible that the EO decided he CBA to work it out and just took an easier measurement.
He’s wrong about the height issue as well - there’s a well known picture of a theoretical ridiculously tall building on a slope which is legal because the shortest measurement is <2.5m.
On balance, as the point of measurement is extremely clearly defined in the PD regs, a formal letter querying their position and quoting the Regs might be the best route before, as Equis says, admitting the breach by going for PP. I’d also suggest preparing the best evidence you can for the original ground level you want taken into consideration.
He’s wrong about the height issue as well - there’s a well known picture of a theoretical ridiculously tall building on a slope which is legal because the shortest measurement is <2.5m.
On balance, as the point of measurement is extremely clearly defined in the PD regs, a formal letter querying their position and quoting the Regs might be the best route before, as Equis says, admitting the breach by going for PP. I’d also suggest preparing the best evidence you can for the original ground level you want taken into consideration.
He measured from the other end of the building where the ground level is a good 50cm lower, so I know he’s measured from the wrong place.
The original ground level was just below that kerb stone. I know the deck doesn’t count, not trying to measure from there. This corner of the building was on the highest point of ground (hence a single block is the foundation stone for the corner as I didn’t want to dig down silly far!)
It’ll depend on if they measure from here:
Or here:
As to whether the building is compliant, although we are talking +/ 2cm difference it’s enough.
However they’ve measured down here:
Which is clearly the wrong place.
I’ve chased the officer and they say they will respond formally next week as they have not had a chance to look at the file yet.
The original ground level was just below that kerb stone. I know the deck doesn’t count, not trying to measure from there. This corner of the building was on the highest point of ground (hence a single block is the foundation stone for the corner as I didn’t want to dig down silly far!)
It’ll depend on if they measure from here:
Or here:
As to whether the building is compliant, although we are talking +/ 2cm difference it’s enough.
However they’ve measured down here:
Which is clearly the wrong place.
I’ve chased the officer and they say they will respond formally next week as they have not had a chance to look at the file yet.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff