Replacing big shed/garage without planning
Discussion
To the side and back of my property, there is a wooden garage, it’s 3x10m but construction quality is closer to what I would call a shed (2x2 framing, plywood roof with felt)
In the next year or so I want to replace this with something with the same footprint (as it sits on a decent concrete slab).
The issue arises in that the current garage is approximately 2.8m high to the ridge from the base, and it’s only 1m from a boundary.
It’s been there at least 15 years so I’m not worried being I trouble for not seeking planning, but at what point would replacing it mean it’s a new structure and therefore would need planning?
I will reuse the existing weatherboarding once its replaced by wanted to go from a dual pitch roof to a single so will be pretty different in overall look once its complete.
If that would be considered new and therefore need planning, does the fact something over height has been there for years make my chances of success easier?
In the next year or so I want to replace this with something with the same footprint (as it sits on a decent concrete slab).
The issue arises in that the current garage is approximately 2.8m high to the ridge from the base, and it’s only 1m from a boundary.
It’s been there at least 15 years so I’m not worried being I trouble for not seeking planning, but at what point would replacing it mean it’s a new structure and therefore would need planning?
I will reuse the existing weatherboarding once its replaced by wanted to go from a dual pitch roof to a single so will be pretty different in overall look once its complete.
If that would be considered new and therefore need planning, does the fact something over height has been there for years make my chances of success easier?
Rather more questions than answers I’m afraid. How close to the boundary is the existing garage, because that will determine the maximum height you can do under Permitted Development.
If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if “it depends”, based on the history of the existing building, and location.
If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if “it depends”, based on the history of the existing building, and location.
Does it make a difference if you don't completely demolish the old before erecting the new?
Repairing the walls and putting on a new roof is just 'maintenance'?
If you were forced to apply for retrospective planning, worst case they can only insist you go back to some semblence of 'how it was'?
The cladding and proximity of the boundary bring in building regs issues distinct from planning?
Repairing the walls and putting on a new roof is just 'maintenance'?
If you were forced to apply for retrospective planning, worst case they can only insist you go back to some semblence of 'how it was'?
The cladding and proximity of the boundary bring in building regs issues distinct from planning?
PhilboSE said:
Rather more questions than answers I m afraid. How close to the boundary is the existing garage, because that will determine the maximum height you can do under Permitted Development.
If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
OP said it is 1m from the boundary.If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
GasEngineer said:
PhilboSE said:
Rather more questions than answers I m afraid. How close to the boundary is the existing garage, because that will determine the maximum height you can do under Permitted Development.
If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
OP said it is 1m from the boundary.If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
If it's been there many years without planning and no objections or action, then it can stay. And be repaired. And possibly upgraded.
Also, the PD rules may have changed over the years, more when places are in AONB or conservation areas or whatever.
When does 'refurbishing' a shed become 'replacing' it?
Around here sheds can be like Trigger's broom.
The roof and cladding often need replacing in 10 or 20 years.
Has anyone ever suffered from planning enforcement when Google Earth etc shows there's 'always' been a building there of that footprint?
PhilboSE said:
Rather more questions than answers I m afraid. How close to the boundary is the existing garage, because that will determine the maximum height you can do under Permitted Development.
If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
Yes I was suspicious it isn’t a directly answerable single question.If Planning Permission was required, and granted, before then a same-footprint building with similar max height would probably have no issues a second time around.
If it was built unapproved (ie PP needed but not sought) then the duration the current building has been there justifies it staying there, but not replacing it, although a presumed lack of objections from neighbours might be supportive of PP being granted.
So IMO the answer is kind if it depends , based on the history of the existing building, and location.
I’m not afraid of planning as we have just built a large extension (and feel an idiot for not putting the garage on it!) but it feels like £500 and lots of admin time I’d rather not spend.
I guess the second response is what I am asking, at what point is replacing a rotten frame on the existing with a new one and using the same weatherboarding considered maintenance and what point is it a new building!
If I was keeping the same roofline I think I would truly just risk it, but moving to the single pitch feels like risky ground.
The easier option would be to move to the single pitch and have the roof lower but I’d rather the extra headroom
The existing structure is timed out for enforced removal even if it needed PP originally but wasn’t sought.
As an existing structure you’re perfectly entitled to maintain it, so as long as it’s not changing footprint you could argue that you replaced rotten structural bits piecemeal (legal) and then replaced/maintained the roof (legal, if the key datum points like apex height don’t substantially change).
It’s ever so slightly debatable (but like the ship of Theseus) but if you’re reusing some of the existing materials I’d say crack on. Even if you had a particularly antsy neighbour who dobbed you in, I can’t see how an enforcement officer would regard it as a new building in that situation. I suppose if he caught you with nothing but a slab and a pile of timber then it’s a bit more debatable but even then it would be a harsh reaction to treat it as new if it was essentially the same and reused old materials.
As an existing structure you’re perfectly entitled to maintain it, so as long as it’s not changing footprint you could argue that you replaced rotten structural bits piecemeal (legal) and then replaced/maintained the roof (legal, if the key datum points like apex height don’t substantially change).
It’s ever so slightly debatable (but like the ship of Theseus) but if you’re reusing some of the existing materials I’d say crack on. Even if you had a particularly antsy neighbour who dobbed you in, I can’t see how an enforcement officer would regard it as a new building in that situation. I suppose if he caught you with nothing but a slab and a pile of timber then it’s a bit more debatable but even then it would be a harsh reaction to treat it as new if it was essentially the same and reused old materials.
JD said:
Thanks guys, the idea of doing it bit by bit is stumped by the possible replacement being a big SIP kit!
I think I ll likely just risk it and make sure to not make it any taller.
Many years ago - been there done that. Had a 1940's wooden shed, about 160 sqm. Demolished and replaced with concrete base and breeze block walls. Council tried to do something a couple of years later, so a solicitor suggested I may have done it bit by bit rather than demolish it all in one go.I think I ll likely just risk it and make sure to not make it any taller.
As council couldn't show the building hadn't existed for a few days, there was nothing they could do.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff