• 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!

Specific Permitted Development Question

T

the bear

Nordic Pine
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
513
Reaction score
13
Location
Surrey
I live in an AONB which is defined in planning as a designated area and subject to different rules with regard to planning and permitted development. My question refers to one specific part of permitted development rights. Item 3 on the attached PDF

http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upload ... ldings.pdf

It states that if the outbuilding is more than 20m from the house, it can have a maximum size of 10m2. However it does not state and I can't find anywhere any info as to what size building can be built if it is less than 20m from the house.

There seems to be 2 possible answers here. Either nothing. Or something bigger than 10m2 (and if so how big).

I am aware of the other restrictions such as height, distance from boundaries, % area of garden covered and which side of the house it needs to go on, my question refers just to the footprint in this scenario.

I have phoned the council who have asked me to put it on an email so who knows how long that will take to be answered.

Cheers

Mark
 
Mark,

paragraph 5 covers that, with the proviso of para's. 1& 4, 7 & 8. My advice would be to give a rudimentary drawing to the Planners and ask them to confirm that you can build it without benefit of Planning Permission. Some councils may charge a fee for this service.
 
Let me add that if any Planning Permission has been granted in recent years for anything at all at the property it is worth checking that included in that the Council haven't removed Permitted Development rights. This is done extremely commonly, particularly in rural areas and in sensitive locations. The Council did it with me on my current project, but, luckily, they made an administrative cock up, removing only certain sections not including outbuildings. They think they've stopped me building outbuildings without permission, but they haven't.
 
Thanks for the reply Mike. The paragraphs you refer to are from the document I attached or something else? If its the doc I attached that you refer to it sounds like theoretically (with the other caveats) I can build any size up to 50% of the area in the 20m immediately round the house?

If thats the case I have another question if I may? (my site is far from straight forward even without it being AONB)

Also the council have replied quite quickly already but basically tell me I have to apply for a certificate of lawful development and pay for the application. I will obviously do that if I think it will come under PD but want to be sure as I can first that I think it does comes under PD.

Mark
 
The way the rules are set out it appears to be an additional consideration that applies only to AONB, i.e. it says all conditions must be met. Therefore, in an AONB if you are building within 20m I would say that condition does not apply, but you must still abide by the others. So the lmit would be 30m2 unless within a metre of the boundary and not made of non-combustable material when it would be 15m2. Does that make sense?

I get the logic, if it is near a house it is not really in the countryside, but if somebody had many acres the powers that be would not want 30m2 buildings popping up hundreds of metres from anything else built.

There is though another question I would have. It does not state if the whole building has to be more than 20m from the house or just one part of it. So if you build something that straddles that 20m boundary, but say only 9m2 of a larger building is more than 20m away, is that OK. But maybe this is not relevant to what you are considering.

Terry.

Edit: just remembered there is a more detailed document on the portal http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/upload ... idance.pdf

Look at E.2 page 42 which I think confirms what I said above. But also note it is not per building, it appears the 10m is a total for development.
 
Mike

I have just got planning permission to extend and remodel the house, but it did not come with any conditions other than be started within 3 years. So as far as I am aware from this and the research I did on the planning history of the house I did for that I still have my permitted development rights.

Terry
I don't have any of the concerns you raise. Thanks for the doc, the council sent it me as well although it appear to be a different edition (both April 2014 but slightly different diagrams about this condition).

Mike again

The 2nd concern I have if we agree I can build more than 10m2 if its within 20m of the house is this.
It states I cannot build at the front or side of the house in the AONB. This seems to be aimed at houses built with road frontage and the diagrams in Terrys linked document show on page 40 the highway is always shown when describing the condition. My house cannot be seen from the road which is my address, it is hidden behind a large telephone exchange building, only my drive going up the side can be seen. At the back of my house I can see a different road across a field. I would like to put it at the front, out of sight or inconvenience of anyone. I can put it at the back under PD it would seem but that would be seen by my neighbours and the public in the other road. So does the can't build it at the front or side apply if my house does not front a road? Any idea?

Mark
 
If there is a front door, I think most councils would probably count this as the front of the house. If there is any doubt, I revert to my earlier advice: write to the council with your proposal in outline, and seek their opinion. If necessary, do a Planning Application. They really aren't anything to be worried about, and with a shed, you may be able to do this yourself with some basic drawing skills.
 
There was a not dissimilar situation in my village, the council followed exactly the approach Mike describes, i.e. if it has a front door then it is the front of the house, simple, no debate irrespective of orientation to various roads. But I know different councils interpret things differently, so I think there is little choice but to stump up for the lawful development fee.

Terry.
 
Thanks all

Mike I think the approach will have to be to apply formally for a certificate of lawful development. There is no informal way to get advice at my local council, I've tried. In that I shall try to explain how I meet all the conditions and how I believe the "cant build on the front/side" should be irrelevant to a house with no road frontage and if I put it at the back it is counter productive as to what the condition is trying to achieve. Not sure they'll buy that though.

If that fails then it will be apply for the same building but as planning permission. I'm trying to avoid that as my local planners get very bent out of shape if the permissions on a house take it over a 50% uplift (which has no basis in law, they say that themselves. They use it as a guide to openness of the greenbelt, and adding too much bulk and mass). This building would take my whole house slightly over 50% (the house PP takes it up 43%). Just about everyone who wants over 50% has to go to appeal.

If that then fails I have 2 options. Upset the neighbours and build it on the back under PD, I'm unlike to do this as I don't want it there either because it will stand out and in everyones view. Only other option would be to convert and use the garage, which I don't want to do as that creates other problems.

How does that sound for a plan of attack?

Mark
 
Forgot to say, I'll be doing the application myself complete with my own dodgy drawings! Now I'll have to see what I can remember from O level tech drawing, I got a A though!

Mark
 
I'm not sure if you necessarily need to pay a fee.

When I built my workshop under PDR, I took a site plan down to the local planners and they gave me a verbal indication that there was no problem with my proposal.
Knowing that I have a PITA neighbour, I asked if I could have a letter to confirm the conversation but was told they would have to charge for that. However he then said that if the neighbour gave me any grief then just to send him down to the planners and they would confirm that I was within my rights.

In the fullness of time the neighbour did come round and was told that I was within my rights and he stomped off saying he was going to the council. We never heard him complain about it again so presumably they confirmed my position.

I never had to pay out any fees.

Bob
 
Bob
That was my experience with a different Surrey borough council 10 years ago when I built the workshop at my old house. Rough sketch, cover letter, letter back telling me it was OK. No fee. (I could pay and get the certificate if I wanted, I didn't). New buyer also happy with this letter when I sold the house.

New house, new borough council and they will only comment through a formal application (or formal pre-planning advice - but I don't know if I need planning, its not permitted development advice!). Told that on the phone this morning. :cry:

Mark
 
the bear":42slodzv said:
Bob
That was my experience with a different Surrey borough council 10 years ago when I built the workshop at my old house. Rough sketch, cover letter, letter back telling me it was OK. No fee. (I could pay and get the certificate if I wanted, I didn't). New buyer also happy with this letter when I sold the house.

New house, new borough council and they will only comment through a formal application (or formal pre-planning advice - but I don't know if I need planning, its not permitted development advice!). Told that on the phone this morning. :cry:

Mark
Click to expand...


Mark, My experience dates from a similar period ~2005. I guess what you are now experiencing is the result of budget tightening and many years of zero/minimal increase in council tax income.

Bob
 
the bear":30gkewyk said:
Thanks all

Mike I think the approach will have to be to apply formally for a certificate of lawful development.......
How does that sound for a plan of attack?

Mark
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I have very limited experience of these. Would you propose making this application prior to building the workshop, or afterwards? The worse that could happen, I guess, is that the council would require you to make a Planning Application (retrospective in the case of you building the shed before applying).
 
Mike G":1w63ubpg said:
the bear":1w63ubpg said:
Thanks all

Mike I think the approach will have to be to apply formally for a certificate of lawful development.......
How does that sound for a plan of attack?

Mark
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, I have very limited experience of these. Would you propose making this application prior to building the workshop, or afterwards? The worse that could happen, I guess, is that the council would require you to make a Planning Application (retrospective in the case of you building the shed before applying).
Click to expand...

this reminds of an Irish chap building a castle type dwelling on Grand Designs who did not ask for all the relevant permissions. He said with a glint in his eye and with a wilting accent "better to seek forgiveness than ask for permission".
 
Andyp":20vkqv55 said:
.....this reminds of an Irish chap building a castle type dwelling on Grand Designs who did not ask for all the relevant permissions. He said with a glint in his eye and with a wilting accent "better to seek forgiveness than ask for permission".
Click to expand...

If this is the one I am thinking of, he has lost all his legal battles and is required to demolish it, or have it compulsorily demolished then receive the bill from the council. I would never, ever, advocate the approach of "get on and do it, and hope that no-one notices for long enough for its status to become legal".
 
I don't know if it's the same person but one idiot built a mock Tudor Mansion hid behind a massive stack of straw bales without permission.
He lost his battle to have it pulled down and quite right too.
A few people in our village have been trying it on and got caught out - neighbour's are not stupid.
One person built a small farm/holding in between houses with pigs, sheep, goats and Rheas.
Most escaped and one Rhea is still free, running wild in the area with occasional sightings!

Rod
 
Mike
It is my intention to apply first before building.

Coincidently regarding the farmer who built under the straw bales and has lost his final battle and is required to pull it down - I can see it from the window where I work in Redhill and I can confirm it is still very much standing and being lived in at the moment

Mark
 
There is a large two storey house in the middle of a field in our village. Chap built it with no effort to get permission, not sure what his logic was. It has never been pulled down, but nor has it been lived in, well not by humans anyway. It is currently being used as a very nice barn and they keep cows in it :lol: .

Bear, if you apply for a certificate and the answer is you need planning permission do you need to pay the full application fee? Given that (in my view anyway) the point about building in front is so black and white in the rules if there is a risk of doubling up on fees I would be tempted to just put in for planning permission. You could then get the neighbours who would not want it behind your house to write letters of support saying they would much rather it built there than for you to use PD to build it behind. If I recall Mike said that one of the points which convinced the council to approve his extension was when he showed them a model of what he could do under PD.

Terry.
 
Terry, I'm more concerned about applying for PP and losing my PD or getting in a battle with the planers over their arbitrary 50% uplift gripe (seemingly a local guide) than I am about the fee. Hence if there is a way to go through PD I would prefer that. But I do accept PD is more black and white and I would seem to stumble on the nothing on the front/side - even though it is bonkers in my situation because at the side its hidden from everyones view but at the back its visible to all the neighbours and the public from the other road. Exactly the opposite of what the spirit of the restriction is trying to achieve. Its clearly written for houses with road frontage, which my house does not have. I'm currently trying to find any precedent where a house without road frontage has built an outbuilding anywhere other than the back on PD, but thats difficult other than trawling the council website.
So I believe it is more likely achieved by PP, just want to bottom this PD out first.
If I end up going PP, yes I also remember mikes post and his models on using the "I could do this under PD but this under PP would be smaller and surely more acceptable" argument and will be utilising it. Though its a fine balance between persuasion and blackmail which will have the opposite effect I'm sure.
I'd just like to get my workshop out of storage!


Mark
 
I have come across the 50% enlargement limit as well when a house is outside of any settlement boundaries, but at the time I was alway looking at extending the actual houses so did not realise it also applied to outbuildings.

However, it does make sense thinking about it. There was a tiny bungalow near us buried in some woods, which was bought by some very smart people. They noted there were a lot of outbuildings in the garden, in many cases I think these were built without any permission but ended up as legitimate due to no enforcement for many years. They argued that the footprint of the bungalow and the outbuildings needed to be considered, proposed a massive increase in the size of the bungalow but at the same time demolishing the outbuildings. The application was reject, but overturned and approved on appeal as the inspector agreed with their logic. So I guess your local council is trying to guard against similar scenarios.

Good luck however you decide it is best to proceed.

Terry.
 
Different local authorities have different limits, and many have no formal limit at all. They are perfectly entitled to make such local decisions, but they are necessarily arbitrary, and they have to justify those arbitrary limits when they face a Planning Inspector at appeal. I find these limits deeply frustrating, particularly as I deal with so many local authorities, and they're all different. I've got one local one which has a 40% limit, and right next door is a council with no limit at all.
 
There was a tiny bungalow near us buried in some woods, which was bought by some very smart people. They noted there were a lot of outbuildings in the garden, in many cases I think these were built without any permission but ended up as legitimate due to no enforcement for many years. They argued that the footprint of the bungalow and the outbuildings needed to be considered, proposed a massive increase in the size of the bungalow but at the same time demolishing the outbuildings. The application was reject, but overturned and approved on appeal as the inspector agreed with their logic/quote]

Terry we have many examples of the same locally with no apparent pattern or consistency as to whether they get approved.

I find these limits deeply frustrating, particularly as I deal with so many local authorities, and they're all different. I've got one local one which has a 40% limit, and right next door is a council with no limit at all.
/quote]

Mike I can see this in action locally as well, I can see the borough boundary from my kitchen window and the 2 boroughs have different views on whats acceptable.

Finally to help others, if you have any planning or permitted development Q's I have found an organisation called Planning Aid, basically citizens advise for planing. They will speak to you and give an opinion when the borough planners won't. Obviously it is just advise and the planners may have different views based on local policy but can help explain and clarify confusing issues and rules.

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/planning-aid/wha ... -guidance/

Mark
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Mark

One phrase that's always good to use is 'visual amenity' in your circumstances. If you can convince the planners that your proposal to build at the 'front' poses less impact to or loss off 'visual amenity' of the locale then they are far more likely to approve it. Visual amenity encompasses a number of things such as openness, visual impact, annoyance to neighbours by increase in the latter etc.

HTH

Cheers
Mark
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top