Planning permission (or lack of)?
Discussion
Long story short, a property opposite us has a fair bit of land and the owners have begun constructing what appears to be a large double garage. The existing property is a nice little cottage, probably late 19th century, not a listed building. I can't find any trace of planning permission for the work whether it's a notice which usually appears on the nearest lamppost around here, or on the council's online interactive tool thing which does seem to accurately list all other local planning notices, active and historic.
The building being erected has the front of a large double garage but walking down a footpath next to the land, one can see the property stretches back probably 3 times as large as it's front width. The construction work is clear for all to see thanks to the largely bare trees at the moment and work vans coming and going. Some fairly substantial plumbing and foundations were being installed for just a double garage, and there is clearly a bespoke kitchen being installed.
It's an old couple living in the existing property with their younger family, so one would assume that they are going to move into the new property all together and either demolish the old cottage or their kids will live in the new place. It's not exactly the Cotswolds but it's just a bit of a shame our view of the fields opposite will now have a large double garage in the middle of it with apparently zero consultation.
It's not our intention to see it torn down brick by brick and get a contravention notice served, but can/will they just erect whatever they want and apply for retrospective planning permission, or is that a gamble?
The building being erected has the front of a large double garage but walking down a footpath next to the land, one can see the property stretches back probably 3 times as large as it's front width. The construction work is clear for all to see thanks to the largely bare trees at the moment and work vans coming and going. Some fairly substantial plumbing and foundations were being installed for just a double garage, and there is clearly a bespoke kitchen being installed.
It's an old couple living in the existing property with their younger family, so one would assume that they are going to move into the new property all together and either demolish the old cottage or their kids will live in the new place. It's not exactly the Cotswolds but it's just a bit of a shame our view of the fields opposite will now have a large double garage in the middle of it with apparently zero consultation.
It's not our intention to see it torn down brick by brick and get a contravention notice served, but can/will they just erect whatever they want and apply for retrospective planning permission, or is that a gamble?
A quick look on the planning portal info suggests that if it's genuinely an outbuilding then the below are the only restrictions that are likely to apply, however there's nothing stopping you getting in touch with your local planning authority and reporting a potential breach, they'll normally send someone out to inspect and check if there is in fact a breach.
We had this occur locally when a farmer came and cut down a large section of trees and hedging which were subject to a preservation order, a neighbour reported it and following the inspection it was confirmed that the farmer had merely reinstated an access gateway which had long been overgrown but he was still entitled to do so - Obviously a different situation but still a potential breach that was reported, inspected and resolved within about 10 working days.
"Outbuildings are considered to be permitted development, not needing planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:
No outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
We had this occur locally when a farmer came and cut down a large section of trees and hedging which were subject to a preservation order, a neighbour reported it and following the inspection it was confirmed that the farmer had merely reinstated an access gateway which had long been overgrown but he was still entitled to do so - Obviously a different situation but still a potential breach that was reported, inspected and resolved within about 10 working days.
"Outbuildings are considered to be permitted development, not needing planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:
No outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
Just before I moved house (was sold subject to contract) one of our neighbours erected a very large garden office right up to our fence boundary. The top of it over 3.8 meters high sitting very proud over our fence. I asked the builders whether they had any planning in place and assured me that they didn't need it. Spoke to a few contractor friends in the business who suggested otherwise..
After much discussion with the builder, as they clearly become worried and did not understand the rules around permitted development got an architect to apply for retro planning. The new owner of our property moved in and complained to council about this garden office. After several months it got rejected by local council and their subsequent appeal also got rejected. I no longer live at the property, however they will have to modify building to make it legal.
These individuals will just do what they want and have no care for others or the laws. No courtesy of showing us their plans, where we might have agreed or negotiated. They just hope no one complains and they can get away with it. In your specific case it will depend how close they are to your boundary, however building something that size these days may not need planning, there are lots of different factors.
I would just politely ask them if they have planning first..
G
After much discussion with the builder, as they clearly become worried and did not understand the rules around permitted development got an architect to apply for retro planning. The new owner of our property moved in and complained to council about this garden office. After several months it got rejected by local council and their subsequent appeal also got rejected. I no longer live at the property, however they will have to modify building to make it legal.
These individuals will just do what they want and have no care for others or the laws. No courtesy of showing us their plans, where we might have agreed or negotiated. They just hope no one complains and they can get away with it. In your specific case it will depend how close they are to your boundary, however building something that size these days may not need planning, there are lots of different factors.
I would just politely ask them if they have planning first..
G
A friend of mine built this "garage" on a part of his extensive property. It's well away from any boundaries and partly shielded by trees.
Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
We regularly check our local council’s planning portal. We have been aware and successful opposed a crammed in house that in-fills in a conservation area.
I would suggest OP checks the local planning and see what was granted, and the buildings plans. From what has been described this seems a piss-take of a building.
Some local near us had a large metal barn built for agricultural vehicle storage. He was grante permission but conditions of position and colour were imposed. My wife has chatted to his wife before and she said ‘he just wants it for his toys, really’. He is a retired farmer, well, as much as any farmer retires.
Sometimes it’s a case of ‘live and let live’, you never know when you may what something a bit ‘unusual’.
ETA. Always worth having the local council, and local flood maps as a bookmark.
I would suggest OP checks the local planning and see what was granted, and the buildings plans. From what has been described this seems a piss-take of a building.
Some local near us had a large metal barn built for agricultural vehicle storage. He was grante permission but conditions of position and colour were imposed. My wife has chatted to his wife before and she said ‘he just wants it for his toys, really’. He is a retired farmer, well, as much as any farmer retires.
Sometimes it’s a case of ‘live and let live’, you never know when you may what something a bit ‘unusual’.
ETA. Always worth having the local council, and local flood maps as a bookmark.
Edited by Pica-Pica on Wednesday 22 March 11:39
Koyaanisqatsi said:
It's not our intention to see it torn down brick by brick and get a contravention notice served, but can/will they just erect whatever they want and apply for retrospective planning permission, or is that a gamble?
If you dont want it torn down, what is the intension of the thread ? Just to vent annoyance? Over 80m/sq I think,needs permission. fred bloggs said:
Over 80m/sq I think,needs permission.
Rubbish !!!!Depends totally on size of land and original building to be OK for permitted development.
"the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers
within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50%
of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original
dwellinghouse)"
LordBretSinclair said:
A friend of mine built this "garage" on a part of his extensive property. It's well away from any boundaries and partly shielded by trees.
Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
That looks amazing. Would love something like that. Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
LordBretSinclair said:
A friend of mine built this "garage" on a part of his extensive property. It's well away from any boundaries and partly shielded by trees.
Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
I'd be very happy with it if it was mine. Cars and motorbikes downstairs - 2 bedrooms, shower room and "kitchen" upstairs. Not technically a kitchen though as no cooker is permanently connected.
This was all done under permitted development and despite the local NIMBYS getting involved the planners were completely happy with it.
Grumps. said:
PAUL.S. said:
So from the front it's just a double garage but is you snoop around the back when the trees are bare its bigger which affects no one anyway?
Nice neighbors you are.
I wonder what land the ops house was built on and how many had their ‘view’ spoilt by it.Nice neighbors you are.
That's the point
J1990 said:
"Outbuildings are considered to be permitted development, not needing planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:
No outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
I think this needs a re-quote for the OP as it seems to have been missed, and I think its pretty standard unless you are in some specially designated areaNo outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
If you can point out where his building contravenes this?
J1990 said:
"Outbuildings are considered to be permitted development, not needing planning permission, subject to the following limits and conditions:
No outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
That is missing the key point that the outbuilding must have a purpose incidental to house, which does not usually cover rooms used for living in.No outbuilding on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation.
Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
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.
No verandas, balconies or raised platforms (a platform must not exceed 0.3 metres in height)
No more than half the area of land around the "original house"* would be covered by additions or other buildings.
On designated land* buildings, enclosures, containers and pools at the side of properties will require planning permission."
Okay well I've been directed to the decision document, drawings and plans by the local planning office, who aren't sure why it isn't appearing on the city council's interactive map. It states:
Complies.
The Council are satisfied that the outbuilding would be sited within the residential curtilage. The garden area
is immediately adjacent to the west side of the dwelling.
MHCLG Permitted Development for Householders Technical Guidance (2019) gives examples of permitted
outbuildings which could include garden sheds, storage buildings and garages, so long as they can properly
be described as having a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house.
It is for the applicant to show that what is proposed is genuinely and reasonably required or necessary for a
purpose incidental to the use of the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse. The onus of proof, on the balance of
probabilities, is on the applicant.
The submitted information, which includes the description of the intended use and the proposed floor plan,
shows that proposed use would be for personal enjoyment of the occupants of the dwellinghouse.
Complies.
The Council are satisfied that the outbuilding would be sited within the residential curtilage. The garden area
is immediately adjacent to the west side of the dwelling.
MHCLG Permitted Development for Householders Technical Guidance (2019) gives examples of permitted
outbuildings which could include garden sheds, storage buildings and garages, so long as they can properly
be described as having a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the house.
It is for the applicant to show that what is proposed is genuinely and reasonably required or necessary for a
purpose incidental to the use of the dwellinghouse as a dwellinghouse. The onus of proof, on the balance of
probabilities, is on the applicant.
The submitted information, which includes the description of the intended use and the proposed floor plan,
shows that proposed use would be for personal enjoyment of the occupants of the dwellinghouse.
fred bloggs said:
If you dont want it torn down, what is the intension of the thread ? Just to vent annoyance? ...
Pretty much, yes.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff