Planning permission (or lack of)?
Discussion
Just to clarify the 50% element in the GPDO...
Comments such as 'As long as it doesn't use up more than 50% of the garden, it can be as big as you like', are incorrect. (sorry to single that one out)
Yes, the GPDO does state the 50% figure, however there have been Appeals (allowed and dismissed) where outbuildings have been deemed to be outside the scope of being 'reasonably required', even when less than 50%.
So, if you just crack on and build something and the LPA feel that it is not 'reasonably required', then they will take enforcement action.
So, if you have a potentially contentious scheme (perhaps like the OP neighbour) then it is always advisable to go the Lawful Development Certificate route.
Comments such as 'As long as it doesn't use up more than 50% of the garden, it can be as big as you like', are incorrect. (sorry to single that one out)
Yes, the GPDO does state the 50% figure, however there have been Appeals (allowed and dismissed) where outbuildings have been deemed to be outside the scope of being 'reasonably required', even when less than 50%.
So, if you just crack on and build something and the LPA feel that it is not 'reasonably required', then they will take enforcement action.
So, if you have a potentially contentious scheme (perhaps like the OP neighbour) then it is always advisable to go the Lawful Development Certificate route.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
I'd be interested to know where the planning notices were erected etc. Surprised you didn't see any and I'd be asking rationale for such a large build I.e. does its actual measure upto the plans?
There were no notices. There was no planning application submitted by the neighbours as it seems that the Government has already given them planning permission by virtue of the General Permitted Development Order. Seems you missed that part.
poo at Paul's said:
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.
Are you sure that is permitted development, being 2 storeys? 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.
.Bear in mind the 4m is from the highest ground, so it 'might' be possible... although, PD Class E for an outbuilding, doesn't allow 2 storeys so it couldn't have been PD, for that reason alone.
However... it might have been the basis for an argument to put to the LPA to state 'I can have this volume of building under PD, so I propose to put some windows in on the lower space, will you support it?'
I/we bought a small 2 bed 1850's cottage on a slope... so you enter in the front at road level and go to the back of the house (5m away) and you are 1.5m above ground level in the living room... so the current build is 'business at the front and party at the back' (single storey nominal appearance from the road elevation and two storey at the back.
Planning should have been a 10min discussion to 'show' that I could achieve the same principle through PD rights, however Covid and a reluctance for the LPA to discuss anything meant it's been three separate applications... PD garage, Prior Notification 8m extension and then the final 'grand scheme'.
However... it might have been the basis for an argument to put to the LPA to state 'I can have this volume of building under PD, so I propose to put some windows in on the lower space, will you support it?'
I/we bought a small 2 bed 1850's cottage on a slope... so you enter in the front at road level and go to the back of the house (5m away) and you are 1.5m above ground level in the living room... so the current build is 'business at the front and party at the back' (single storey nominal appearance from the road elevation and two storey at the back.
Planning should have been a 10min discussion to 'show' that I could achieve the same principle through PD rights, however Covid and a reluctance for the LPA to discuss anything meant it's been three separate applications... PD garage, Prior Notification 8m extension and then the final 'grand scheme'.
Koyaanisqatsi said:
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,
For what it's worth (not that it will make any practical difference to you), the wording of that decision is clearly from an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness, not a Planning Application, which means that the design is actually compliant with the rules for Permitted Development, explained by various posts above.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,
They didn't even have to apply - they could have just gone ahead and built it - but the Certificate of Lawfulness gives them written confrimation that it doesn't need Planning Permission.
Richard-390a0 said:
Heaveho said:
I was told by Eastleigh borough council that I could build a double garage 30m2 and I think 4m high without permission or regs as long as it was a certain distance from the house. The council simply weren't remotely interested in it.
Typical EBC until the whole borough is built upon they won't care. I'm sure Keith House must have shares in Readymix or a Brickworks lol!The halfwit I dealt with when I built the extension was an idiot 20 years ago, so typically he ended up running the planning department some years later. If you can't do the job at ground level you end up in management.
Edited by Heaveho on Monday 27th March 06:40
Heaveho said:
Richard-390a0 said:
Heaveho said:
I was told by Eastleigh borough council that I could build a double garage 30m2 and I think 4m high without permission or regs as long as it was a certain distance from the house. The council simply weren't remotely interested in it.
Typical EBC until the whole borough is built upon they won't care. I'm sure Keith House must have shares in Readymix or a Brickworks lol!It was some halfwit called Les Batten I dealt with when I built the extension, he was an idiot 20 years ago, so typically he ended up running the planning department some years later. If you can't do the job at ground level you end up in management.
They have no powers to 'care'... they cannot lawfully determine a Planning Application or grant Building Regulations approval for something that doesn't need it. If they did, they would be acting ultra vires, which means they'd be breaking the law themselves.
Equus said:
Heaveho said:
Richard-390a0 said:
Heaveho said:
I was told by Eastleigh borough council that I could build a double garage 30m2 and I think 4m high without permission or regs as long as it was a certain distance from the house. The council simply weren't remotely interested in it.
Typical EBC until the whole borough is built upon they won't care. I'm sure Keith House must have shares in Readymix or a Brickworks lol!It was some halfwit called Les Batten I dealt with when I built the extension, he was an idiot 20 years ago, so typically he ended up running the planning department some years later. If you can't do the job at ground level you end up in management.
They have no powers to 'care'... they cannot lawfully determine a Planning Application or grant Building Regulations approval for something that doesn't need it. If they did, they would be acting ultra vires, which means they'd be breaking the law themselves.
parish, admittedly having strayed somewhat off topic.
Heaveho said:
My issue obviously isn't with what you accurately describe the garage I built falling under the permitted development umbrella. As you say, within those parameters, if followed properly, it's none of their business. I and the other poster had moved on to commenting on what else goes on in that particular
parish, admittedly having strayed somewhat off topic.
Which is why I emboldened the text from the earlier part of your discussion.parish, admittedly having strayed somewhat off topic.
The accusations of corruption in the Planning system from people who don't have the faintest clue how it works do become very tiresome though, and when you start naming individuals, you stray dangerously close to libel.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 26th March 21:57
poo at Paul's said:
Are you sure that is permitted development, being 2 storeys?
How is a Storey defined ? I'm seeing a single storey with the upper level being built into the eaves of the roof, rather than two storeys. I'd suspect this PLUS the height being measured from the original ground level ( the building appears to be sunk into the site ) allow this to work.
Chozza said:
How is a Storey defined ? I'm seeing a single storey with the upper level being built into the eaves of the roof, rather than two storeys.
I'd suspect this PLUS the height being measured from the original ground level ( the building appears to be sunk into the site ) allow this to work.
It's defined as a useable floor level, so in planning terms that building is 2 storey (hence cannot be Permitted Development under any circumstances).I'd suspect this PLUS the height being measured from the original ground level ( the building appears to be sunk into the site ) allow this to work.
Even if you use the architectural parlance of 'one and a half storeys', the definition in the legislation prohibits outbuildings with 'more than a single storey'.
Furthermore, the kitchen, bedrooms and shower room referred to (the bedrooms in particular) are not 'incidental' uses... even when not used as an indendent dwelling, they are classed as 'ancillary' accomodation, which has a different and specific meaning in Planning terms and is excluded from PD.
LBS is getting confused or mislead somewhere along the line: they may have granted it retrospective Planning Permission; they may have granted it a Certificate of Lawfulness under the 4 year rule if it had been there long enough before they found out; they may even (though it seems unlikely) have simply decided not to take enforcement as not being in the public interest, but there ain't no way it could have been deemed PD.
Equus said:
LBS is getting confused or mislead somewhere along the line: they may have granted it retrospective Planning Permission; they may have granted it a Certificate of Lawfulness under the 4 year rule if it had been there long enough before they found out; they may even (though it seems unlikely) have simply decided not to take enforcement as not being in the public interest, but there ain't no way it could have been deemed PD.
Thank you for that, but you don't know what you're talking about - I'm neither confused or been misled.The Local Planning Authority allowed it under Permitted Development - end of !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
LordBretSinclair said:
I couldn't give a stuff about your profile.
I'm just telling you what occurred - rightly or wrongly.
OK, do you fancy a little wager? Put your money where your considerable mouth is?I'm just telling you what occurred - rightly or wrongly.
I will bet you, oooh, shall we say £5,000, that the Local Planning Authority did not confirm that the building in question - as you have described it, with two floors and sleeping accommodation - was Permitted Development as an outbuilding under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E ('buildings incidental to the enjoyment of a dwellinghouse') of the General Permitted Development Order?
roscopervis said:
Is there a popcorn emoji on here?
What I would like to know - is there an application number so I can see what it was adjudicated as.
We've also got at least one Appeals Inspector on here who I am sure we can persuade to adjudicate in the event of dispute.What I would like to know - is there an application number so I can see what it was adjudicated as.
If Lord Brett's neighbour is South West, as per the location he lists on his profile, there's a better than average chance that I can get direct access to the Council's internal information, too - my Planning Director was a Senior Planner with one of the Authorities down there until fairly recently, and you know how incestuous Planning Authorities are with Planners playing musical chairs in the local area.
Edited by Equus on Sunday 26th March 21:56
I wonder.......original Certificate of Lawfulness granted under PD for the original submitted plan.
Has the building deviated from what was submitted to gain the ok?
At face value from how it was described then this could well be the case?
Not a case of minor alterations due to the number of floors, habitability of rooms.
A casual observer might not realise the implications.
The C of L might be used to confuse/ hoodwink someone querying it.
Has the building deviated from what was submitted to gain the ok?
At face value from how it was described then this could well be the case?
Not a case of minor alterations due to the number of floors, habitability of rooms.
A casual observer might not realise the implications.
The C of L might be used to confuse/ hoodwink someone querying it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff