Clarify 2.5m height planning rule for outbuildings

[kryten22uk]

Been reading the planning portal and got my head in a twist about the wording.

For an outbuilding (ie my shed) it says:
"Maximum height of 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within two metres of a boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse."

Does the 2.5m restriction just apply to the part of the building within 2m of the boundary? For example if a shed starts at 1.5m from boundary at 2m height, and the pitched roof increases the height of the building but doesn't break 2.5m height by the time you get 2m away, but does continue on to a max height of 3m, is that not permitted?

If not it seems odd, as you could have a situation where a building is permitted which is higher at a closer distance than one that is not permitted.

[Andy RV]

2.5m max regardless of where it occurs.

[kryten22uk]

Andy RV said:

2.5m max regardless of where it occurs.

Thanks, I thought it might be that. It's a bit odd though.

[Equus]

kryten22uk said:

Does the 2.5m restriction just apply to the part of the building within 2m of the boundary?

That's the case in Wales. Not in England.

[Evoluzione]

I always wondered if you dug down inside you could get more height and still pass the reg as it's measured outside.

[Equus]

Evoluzione said:

I always wondered if you dug down inside you could get more height and still pass the reg as it's measured outside.

You can if you don't mind spending ten times as much building a tanked basement structure as it would have cost you to apply for Planning permission.

But as I've said many times on this forum, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of expense, inconvenience and ingenuity people are prepared to apply just to avoid a simple application process...

[kryten22uk]

Hmm, so where is the measurement taken from? Is it from the floor of the shed, or the top of the concrete pad (or whatever foundation you've used) ie if you've used those adjustable risers to sit the building, does that count against your height?

[Equus]

kryten22uk said:

Hmm, so where is the measurement taken from?

It's taken from the highest (pre-existing) ground level immediately adjacent to the structure.

the technical guide said:

“Height” - references to height (for example, the heights of the eaves on a house extension) is the height measured from ground level. (Note, ground level is the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question, and would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. Where ground level is not uniform (for example if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building.)

[kryten22uk]

Equus said:

It's taken from the highest (pre-existing) ground level immediately adjacent to the structure.

Thanks. So its important to properly plan/dig-in the foundations then rather than slapping on top.

I thought it might just be the height of the structure, but if you built a concrete pad on top of the existing ground, and then added risers and then chunky bearers, your shed could be 50cm high before you start

[PhilboSE]

There’a been a thread on this within the last week. One of my posts even included a diagram showing how to calculate the 2.5m limit.

On a phone so I can’t find it for you but just look back a few days, you should find it.

[BobSaunders]

Equus said:

But as I've said many times on this forum, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of expense, inconvenience and ingenuity people are prepared to apply just to avoid a simple application process...

It's probably because the planning process is steeped in pain and suffering, and you never hear the good stories just the bad.

Also quite frankly one does not like it when others interfere in one's grand plan with their own perculiar vision of how one's castle should look (Planning, and NIMBY included).

[Equus]

BobSaunders said:

It's probably because the planning process is steeped in pain and suffering, and you never hear the good stories just the bad.

Also quite frankly one does not like it when others interfere in one's grand plan with their own perculiar vision of how one's castle should look (Planning, and NIMBY included).

I get the 'weekly lists' from a number of Local Authorities.

As an example from one that just happens to be sitting in my inbox at the moment: last week North Devon Council determined 51 applications; only 5 (ie. less than 1 in 10) were refused. A further one was withdrawn. Two of the refused ones literally made me laugh out loud when I opened the drawings to view. Two of the others were very clearly against national policy (so the agent, if not the applicant, should have known better). The remaining one, I actually had to look at all the drawings and think about it for more than 10 seconds, but having done so concluded that the LPA's decision was correct.

The reason I get the weekly lists is so that I can drum up business by looking at the refusals and contacting the applicants to say 'we can help you with that', if we think it's been a bad decision or something that could have been easily fixed.

9 times out of 10 my assessment is that it doesn't have, and never did have, a hope in hell. For that reason I firmly believe that the Planning system is necessary: it may be your 'castle', but that doesn't give you the right to inflict inappropriate and intrusive development on your neighbours.

Edited by Equus on Wednesday 26th August 09:44

[ecs]

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

[Evoluzione]

Equus said:

Evoluzione said:

I always wondered if you dug down inside you could get more height and still pass the reg as it's measured outside.

You can if you don't mind spending ten times as much building a tanked basement structure as it would have cost you to apply for Planning permission.

But as I've said many times on this forum, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of expense, inconvenience and ingenuity people are prepared to apply just to avoid a simple application process...

You don't need to quote such extremes, going down a foot or two and clearing the land around it would be enough do the job in certain circumstances. We're talking about outbuildings which would include workshops and garages. What does a healthy PHer want in his car workshop? A vehicle lift
It cost me about £1k to have drawings done, PP applied for and knocked back on a workshop. The reason was it looked like a workshop and not a house. They wanted it to look like a house as that is now what is around me, but not when I moved here.
It would have been cheaper/easier just to do the above and dig down a bit plus remove some topsoil from around it to comply.

[dhutch]

Equus said:

I get the 'weekly lists' from a number of Local Authorities.

As an example from one that just happens to be sitting in my inbox at the moment: last week North Devon Council determined 51 applications; only 5 (ie. less than 1 in 10) were refused. A further one was withdrawn. Two of the refused ones literally made me laugh out loud when I opened the drawings to view. Two of the others were very clearly against national policy (so the agent, if not the applicant, should have known better). The remaining one, I actually had to look at all the drawings and think about it for more than 10 seconds, but having done so concluded that the LPA's decision was correct.

The reason I get the weekly lists is so that I can drum up business by looking at the refusals and contacting the applicants to say 'we can help you with that', if we think it's been a bad decision or something that could have been easily fixed.

9 times out of 10 my assessment is that it doesn't have, and never did have, a hope in hell. For that reason I firmly believe that the Planning system is necessary: it may be your 'castle', but that doesn't give you the right to inflict inappropriate and intrusive development on your neighbours.

Sounds good to me, and highlights ever more why the currently plan to short it out of the loop is awful.

[dhutch]

Equus said:

Evoluzione said:

I always wondered if you dug down inside you could get more height and still pass the reg as it's measured outside.

You can if you don't mind spending ten times as much building a tanked basement structure as it would have cost you to apply for Planning permission.

But as I've said many times on this forum, it never ceases to amaze me the amount of expense, inconvenience and ingenuity people are prepared to apply just to avoid a simple application process...

I guess it depends what it is.

Makes no sense for a substantial building, or change in level, but I can see why if you want another foot for a shed, somewhere free-draining, you might scollop it out a bit maybe? Certainly as before, maybe sense to dig out for the foundations/slab rather than build on top.

But as you say, very quickly gets to the point where the number of times it is going the help you is limited!

Daniel

[TA14]

kryten22uk said:

Equus said:

It's taken from the highest (pre-existing) ground level immediately adjacent to the structure.

Thanks. So its important to properly plan/dig-in the foundations then rather than slapping on top.

I thought it might just be the height of the structure, but if you built a concrete pad on top of the existing ground, and then added risers and then chunky bearers, your shed could be 50cm high before you start.

I'm with Equus on this one. Just design the building that you want; if that design is then a tiny bit different to the permitted development rules it may be worth altering it. Don't start with the rules and see what you can squeeze in.

In your example above do you really want a 500mm step up to your shed? Better to consider the topography, drainage, waterproofing, access etc. and design a suitable building.

For those advocating digging down, these people have some great products https://gcpat.uk/en-gb/solutions/waterproofing-sol... but building them into your project will come at a significant price.

[Equus]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Not sure if serious...

[hunton69]

You can go 4 meters high if it is dual pitch and 2 meters from boundary.
I though the 2.5 meters was single pitch and 1 meter from boundary

[PhilboSE]

hunton69 said:

You can go 4 meters high if it is dual pitch and 2 meters from boundary.
I though the 2.5 meters was single pitch and 1 meter from boundary

Almost...

If >2m from (all) boundary then limit for highest point of roof is 4m for a dual pitch roof and 3m for all other cases and max eaves height is 2.5m.
If <2m from boundary then limit for highest point of roof is 2.5m.

And then you need to understand where the measurements are taken from, for ground level and eaves height.