• Hi all and welcome to TheWoodHaven2 brought into the 21st Century, kicking and screaming! We all have Alasdair to thank for the vast bulk of the heavy lifting to get us here, no more so than me because he's taken away a huge burden of responsibility from my shoulders and brought us to this new shiny home, with all your previous content (hopefully) still intact! Please peruse and feed back. There is still plenty to do, like changing the colour scheme, adding the banner graphic, tweaking the odd setting here and there so I have added a new thread in the 'Technical Issues, Bugs and Feature Requests' forum for you to add any issues you find, any missing settings or just anything you'd like to see added/removed from the feature set that Xenforo offers. We will get to everything over the coming weeks so please be patient, but add anything at all to the thread I mention above and we promise to get to them over the next few days/weeks/months. In the meantime, please enjoy!

Permitted Development Rights

RogerS

RogerS

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
15,492
Reaction score
1,223
Location
Somerset
This is really a question for Mike G but I post it here as, if correct, it surprised me and may not be widely known.

In conversation with our solicitor, he mentioned that Permitted Development Rights were a 'one-time-only' event. That were I, say, to add a conservatory to a house under PDR then if some years later I wanted to erect one of those garden buildings I would have to apply for Planning Permission as I'd used up my one-time PDR.

If true it came as a surprise to me.

Mike ...is he right ?
 
I’d be surprised if that were true. Were they trying to describe how the 50% thing works? (That you can’t keep filling in 50% of the unbuilt land; you can only go to max 50% of land not covered by original dwelling; so if your conservatory + garden building pushed it over the limit, the second of those would need permission). Or one of the other ways in which limits apply to both new and existing extensions? My understanding is that PD rules are constructed so you don’t get additional abilities by performing the work in two stages, but that there is no limit on the number of stages in which work can be performed. I’d love to know if that is incorrect.
 
I think Windows has it; they're talking about the rule that all permitted development is relative to the original building (or the building in 1948) and you can't chain PD on top of PD to go beyond the limits. Either they've got confused about it or they've communicated it in a confusing way.

That link has several examples of multiple extensions happening at different times; the key point is that a new extension is only permitted if it meets the rules when combined with all previous extensions.
 
Mmmm...I can sort of see the logic when applied to an extension but I'm still not convinced that if you, say, built a single storey extension under PD and then five years later decided to add a second storey that you could go ahead under PD and not require planning permission.
 
If you could add a two storey extension in one go matching the final dimensions under PD, I think it likely that you could add a single storey extension and then raise the height under PD. But note that there are different limits on 1 and 2 storeys, so some care would be needed in planning the first storey to allow this.

There’s an example where a 2nd storey addition to a single storey extension is not permitted development because the rules for 1 & 2 storeys are different. Not because the work is done in two parts.

“The enlarged part could be a two storey extension to a house, or might comprise the addition of a storey onto an existing single storey extension. Where a new extension is joined to an existing extension, under paragraph (ja) the limits in (h) apply to the size of the total enlargement (being the proposed enlargement together with the existing enlargement). The following example, showing a side view of a detached house, would not be permitted development. If a detached house has an existing, single storey, ground floor extension that was not part of the original house, and which extended beyond the rear wall by more than 3 metres, then it would not be possible to add an additional first floor extension above this without an application for planning permission – this is because the total enlargement of the house would then consist of more than one storey and would extend beyond a rear wall by more than 3 metres.“
 
That's very encouraging and it looks as if my solicitor is wrong.
 
So it might be different for different councils, but speaking from my experience with Warrington BC, PD is as described above and based on amount of land used, but so long as you haven't exceeded that then the info you've been given is wrong, you can still go ahead and do something else under PD, however...

...we had the issue where WBC had previously agreed to work being done on our house (prior to us owning it) and despite that work being below PD thresholds, to allow it they caveated that if they were to pass it, it was on the proviso that the previous owners gave up their PD rights going forwards. This obviously meant we had no PD rights so had to ask for PP for my new workshop. Luckily I'd been very involved with a local planning app for a gypsy camp and the Green Belt planning criteria they had to confirm to, so I managed to write a case addressing every one of those points, thus meaning they had no leg to stand on to turn me down.

Long way of saying, I think you've been given a blanket statement and the reality is a little more nuanced than that.
 
Windows said:
Were they trying to describe how the 50% thing works? (That you can’t keep filling in 50% of the unbuilt land; you can only go to max 50% of land not covered by original dwelling; so if your conservatory + garden building pushed it over the limit, the second of those would need permission).
Click to expand...
The property developers are slowly but surely filling up our countryside and open spaces with dwellings and they don't seem to be restricted. I suppose turning a garden into one big shed might upset a neighbour but no more than filling up there view with houses.
 
RogerS said:
This is really a question for Mike G but I post it here as, if correct, it surprised me and may not be widely known.

In conversation with our solicitor, he mentioned that Permitted Development Rights were a 'one-time-only' event. That were I, say, to add a conservatory to a house under PDR then if some years later I wanted to erect one of those garden buildings I would have to apply for Planning Permission as I'd used up my one-time PDR.

If true it came as a surprise to me.

Mike ...is he right ?
Click to expand...
No. Not even close to being right.

For a start, an extension is a very different category of PD compared with outbuildings. Outbuildings, so long as you haven't had PD rights removed or are within a National Park etc, can cover 50% of the original land around a house (behind the line of the front elevation). You can keep going with outbuildings until you reach that 50% limit, so long as you stay under the sizes given (30sqm and 15 sqm depending on distances from boundaries), and under the height limits. The outbuilding limit has no effect whatever on the extension limit, so conflating the 2 is as egregious an error as you could imagine in interpreting PD rights.

It's essentially the same with extensions. The limits are set by the original house (and/or by proximity to boundaries). You can keep going until you fill that limit.
 
Last edited:
Spectric said:
The property developers are slowly but surely filling up our countryside and open spaces with dwellings and they don't seem to be restricted. I suppose turning a garden into one big shed might upset a neighbour but no more than filling up there view with houses.
Click to expand...
I’m not following your logic - building new houses requires planning permission and as such is restricted by the planning rules?
 
Spectric said:
The property developers are slowly but surely filling up our countryside and open spaces with dwellings and they don't seem to be restricted.
Click to expand...

They are of course restricted, but those restrictions are being loosened. And they don't build under PD rights.........new dwellings require Planning Permission.

Spectric said:
I suppose turning a garden into one big shed might upset a neighbour but no more than filling up there view with houses.
Click to expand...

I get that this is hyperbole, but just for the sake of clarity, outbuildings can only fill 50% of the original land around a building, and are height-restricted........so the impact on views of neighbours is tightly controlled in that respect.
 
Mike G said:
so the impact on views of neighbours is tightly controlled in that respect.
Click to expand...
That is the daft thing about these laws, as a home owner you cannot obstruct your neighbours views too much but a property developer can push planing through and fill a whole field with houses and block many existing residents views.

Blackswanwood said:
building new houses requires planning permission and as such is restricted by the planning rules?
Click to expand...
But that only works when the people uphold those rules and are not swayed by something like " we will build you two affordable houses "
 
StevieB said:
Slightly tongue in cheek follow-up - Unless you live next to somewhere where they build a mega-shed at the bottom of your garden.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c2kgvdgeq1yo
Click to expand...
I don't want to sound like a pedant, but we're getting two separate things confused here. That massive industrial shed was built with Planning Permission. In other words, it went through a lengthy process of providing information to the council for their consideration, and the views of the locals were at least heard, if not given any weight. That is an entirely different thing from the system I was talking about in that quote, which is the Permitted Development of garden outbuildings within residential curtilages.,
 
Spectric said:
That is the daft thing about these laws, as a home owner you cannot obstruct your neighbours views too much but a property developer can push planing through and fill a whole field with houses and block many existing residents views.


But that only works when the people uphold those rules and are not swayed by something like " we will build you two affordable houses "
Click to expand...
As I understand it there is a longstanding legal principle (dating back several hundred years) that a property owner does not have a right to maintain a view. Giving such a right would unduly restrict the rights of neighbours to build on their land.

Planning policy seeks to balance different interests and ensure development is beneficial for the wider community. I feel quite strongly that the inclusion of affordable housing is a good thing that should influence whether planning permission is granted and indeed it is often a requirement of the local planning policy in rural areas.

I should disclose an interest in this as my wife is a director of a small house builder who specialise in small “infill” developments.
 
Mike G said:
I don't want to sound like a pedant, but we're getting two separate things confused here. That massive industrial shed was built with Planning Permission. In other words, it went through a lengthy process of providing information to the council for their consideration, and the views of the locals were at least heard, if not given any weight. That is an entirely different thing from the system I was talking about in that quote, which is the Permitted Development of garden outbuildings within residential curtilages.,
Click to expand...
I know, hence the tongue in cheek reference. It amused me anyway!
 
It's a typical example of a professional misunderstanding and quoting inaccurate advice on a subject that's outside their field of experience. The solicitor should have done some research or pointed you in the direction of the LA or .gov website for advice.

You would need to be more specific Roger as depending on other factors planning or/and building control could still be involved though from memory what I've seen of the house you're buying it's unlikely. Are you thinking of an orangery like the one you're leaving?
 
No to both. Just a 'garden building' which will be my study/reading room/man cave without sawdust.
 
Just starting the process of applying for permits to enable me to do the work on building an insulated shell/building inside of the barn.
Let’s just say that it appears to be a whole lot more intrusive than just getting on and building a shed type construction in the uk. Everything is specified, right down to the size of nails to be used, so it all has to be done right. The guy mentioned air conditioning, I hadn’t really considered that but it might be a nice thing to have I suppose, a good bit hotter than Somerset at times, and certainly a lot colder in the Winter.
 
That must be the famous American freedom that I keep hearing about at work.
 
Cabinetman said:
Yes that’s what I was expecting! Does depend where you are though, unfortunately this is in a very Liberal/Left area so control is second nature.
Click to expand...
Which other areas have you looked at building codes for? My impression has been that US cities of all political persuasions tend to adopt standardised codes then apply amendments and the codes are pretty specific to start with. Are the building codes applied at city level where you are?

To verify, I just checked Plano, TX and Seattle, WA codes. These cities aren’t politically aligned, but both base their building codes on the International * Codes.

Maybe the nail size thing is an amendment to the international code that only applies in your area?
 
Last edited:
Cabinetman said:
Yes that’s what I was expecting! Does depend where you are though, unfortunately this is in a very Liberal/Left area so control is second nature.
Click to expand...
Wow.... so what you are saying is almost akin to them dictating what wallpaper to use.
 
Windows said:
Which other areas have you looked at building codes for? My impression has been that US cities of all political persuasions tend to adopt standardised codes then apply amendments and the codes are pretty specific to start with. Are the building codes applied at city level where you are?

To verify, I just checked Plano, TX and Seattle, WA codes. These cities aren’t politically aligned, but both base their building codes on the International * Codes.

Maybe the nail size thing is an amendment to the international code that only applies in your area?
Click to expand...
Nail size is a minor issue. Can you imagine being told what you can and can't do inside your garage ? That is my understanding of his situation.

There is a very good UK phrase....JFDI.
 
Governments in the UK also tell you what you can and can’t do inside your garage though? Maybe they’re less specific, but you can’t turn your detached garage into a living space without permission, you don’t have free rein with the electrics, etc.

I believe that building codes that are very specific are mostly an American thing, not a left/liberal thing.

To speak in favour of their specificity, builders in the US have to deal with hurricanes, termites, earthquakes, frost heave, snow weight, wildfire, land slips, and litigious homeowners. Maybe the specifics have evolved to deal with the environments, physical, legal, and social? It would be a bit much to expect individual builders to each be an expert in earthquake mitigation for example.

The US is absolutely chock full of rules and regulations and if you’re used to the regulatory environment of another country, you will notice the ones that are different.
 
Last edited:
Windows said:
Governments in the UK also tell you what you can and can’t do inside your garage though? Maybe they’re less specific, but you can’t turn your garage into a living space, you don’t have free rein with the electrics, etc.
Click to expand...
Maybe not. But if you wanted to build, like Ian, a thermally efficient inner unit as a workshop then it's nothing to do with building control. Electrics ...not a problem...run an extension cable in.
 
Some of the properties we stayed in while in the US wouldn't have passed the regs in the UK for an oversized shed. :rolleyes:
 
Yes, just feeling a bit aggrieved and wanting to crack on with it, I was thinking more about the backwoods areas, easy to see why a lot of people find a patch and live off grid. One can only dream lol.
 
Mike G said:
And yet they still build lightweight houses (4x2s with cladding), and have sheet roofing. I have simply never understood the logic.
Click to expand...
It’s totally unbelievable how fast they can get a house built, the only thing that takes time is digging out the basement and pouring the concrete. I will keep an eye out next time and see how long it is to get to roof and siding on after finishing the basement, 7 days?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top