Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • PeteW
    • By PeteW 13th Jun 17, 11:06 PM
    • 1,162Posts
    • 1,808Thanks
    PeteW
    Permitted Development Outbuilding - distance from property
    • #1
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:06 PM
    Permitted Development Outbuilding - distance from property 13th Jun 17 at 11:06 PM
    Our council have just refused a certificate of lawfulness for an outbuilding with a 150mm gap from our house. The permitted development guidance for outbuildings does not specify a minimum distance from the main house, and we have heard of others having gaps as small as 25mm deemed lawful.

    As such, we're looking to appeal, and so I am looking to find examples where a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for any outhouses 150mm or less from the main house. I have found one but it would be good to find any more.

    Anyone know of any examples, or have been through this yourself?

    Thanks

    Pete
Page 1
    • the_r_sole
    • By the_r_sole 13th Jun 17, 11:12 PM
    • 2,328 Posts
    • 1,172 Thanks
    the_r_sole
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:12 PM
    • #2
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:12 PM
    It would likely be easier and cheaper just to get planning permission for it rather than trying to appeal a technicality on the permitted development legislation...
    • PeteW
    • By PeteW 13th Jun 17, 11:26 PM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 1,808 Thanks
    PeteW
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:26 PM
    • #3
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:26 PM
    That's where we started, and planning permission was denied.
    So we scaled it down to just what you can do under permitted development.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 13th Jun 17, 11:55 PM
    • 2,816 Posts
    • 5,030 Thanks
    EachPenny
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:55 PM
    • #4
    • 13th Jun 17, 11:55 PM
    Did the council actually state the grounds for refusal of the certificate? If it is the 150mm gap have you asked them to quote the relevant policy/regulation/guidance?

    Did you need and/or apply for building regulations approval?
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • the_r_sole
    • By the_r_sole 14th Jun 17, 6:43 AM
    • 2,328 Posts
    • 1,172 Thanks
    the_r_sole
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 6:43 AM
    • #5
    • 14th Jun 17, 6:43 AM
    Why have the gap at all? 150mm isn't a practical gap to have between two buildings, it'll just get filled with rubbish!
    Why was your planning application turned down? And why didn't you appeal that?
    There's clearly more to this than a gap between two buildings
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 14th Jun 17, 7:50 AM
    • 2,816 Posts
    • 5,030 Thanks
    EachPenny
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:50 AM
    • #6
    • 14th Jun 17, 7:50 AM
    Why have the gap at all?
    Originally posted by the_r_sole
    If it is 'attached' to the house it cannot be Class E and would be treated as Class A instead.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • the_r_sole
    • By the_r_sole 14th Jun 17, 8:09 AM
    • 2,328 Posts
    • 1,172 Thanks
    the_r_sole
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:09 AM
    • #7
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:09 AM
    If it is 'attached' to the house it cannot be Class E and would be treated as Class A instead.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    And the only real difference then is how big it could be in footprint (off the top of my head) so sounds very much like there is some "playing of the system" going on, if it's already been refused planning permission and they are refusing a certificate of lawfulness, there's more going on than we know
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 8:10 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:10 AM
    • #8
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:10 AM
    What was the refusal reason. They would have given a reference to a schedule and class which it does not conform to in the permitted development legislation. Provide a planning reference and which borough it is in, happy to take a look.

    I would avoid appealing as this could take 6 months. You could submit 2-3 other applications in this time.

    There are hundreds of examples in London Boroughs where gardens are obviously a lot smaller.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 8:13 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:13 AM
    • #9
    • 14th Jun 17, 8:13 AM
    And the only real difference then is how big it could be in footprint (off the top of my head) so sounds very much like there is some "playing of the system" going on, if it's already been refused planning permission and they are refusing a certificate of lawfulness, there's more going on than we know
    Originally posted by the_r_sole
    I know many planning officers and local authorities who do not agree with the developments that are allowed under PD. Many of what is allowed is actually against their local policies so if they can find the smallest of reason to refuse a PD application they will. I have often had cases where between two boroughs they interpret the PD rules differently.

    Google 10 worst permitted development loopholes to give you an idea.
    • PeteW
    • By PeteW 14th Jun 17, 10:25 AM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 1,808 Thanks
    PeteW
    Why have the gap at all?
    Originally posted by the_r_sole
    Because without it it's a Class A application which could be (and was) refused on basis of it being too large an increase of footprint over the original house (it's already been extended quite a lot).

    With the gap it's a Class E application where this consideration does not apply.

    However after some dithering, our council decided to evaluate it as a Class E application and so reject it. From what I've heard this is very unusual and not what other councils have done in similar conditions - hence I am looking for examples of this that I can reference in an appeal.

    The full officer's report is here: http://imgur.com/a/0EZHB

    But this is the pertinent bit:

    "It needs to be established which Class of Part 1, of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 the proposed development shall be assessed against. The separation distance between the proposed outbuilding and the existing two storey side extension would be 100mm. The Local Planning Authority considers that this would not not be a material gap and, as such, the proposed development would be considered as an enlargement of the dwellinghouse and therefore must be assessed under Class A, which allows for the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. rather than Class E. it is also of note that the dwellinghouse has benefited from previous extensions which the current proposal would abut. Therefore the 'enlarged' part of the dwellinghouse would comprise the current proposal and those previous enlargements."
    Last edited by PeteW; 14-06-2017 at 10:27 AM.
    • ProDave
    • By ProDave 14th Jun 17, 10:38 AM
    • 401 Posts
    • 479 Thanks
    ProDave
    Nobody has asked yet what the intended use of this otbuilding are? or why it can't be sited further away from the house so the council consider it as a separate building/.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 10:44 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    However after some dithering, our council decided to evaluate it as a Class E application and so reject it. From what I've heard this is very unusual and not what other councils have done in similar conditions - hence I am looking for examples of this that I can reference in an appeal.
    Originally posted by PeteW
    That is quite an interesting case. The council have used the phrase 'material gap' which is a subjective comment and as I mentioned in my previous post the council will often try and find any way to refuse a permitted development application if they do not agree with the proposal.

    As it is subjective it is likely that the planning inspectorate would take a different view. However precedent applications are never that useful as planning officers and the planning inspectorate will take each application on its own merits.

    My suggestion would be to increase the gap to 0.5m or even 1m if possible. Then there is clearly a 'material gap'. You could potentially even do this whilst the appeal process is going on (may be worth double checking you can do this as the council may have a case to claim costs if the appeal fails due to the additional work).


    A 100mm gap isn't really a good idea anyway as you will likely have overhanging roof eaves which in reality could mean that the two buildings do in fact touch. Just a guess of course without seeing the drawings.
    • EachPenny
    • By EachPenny 14th Jun 17, 10:48 AM
    • 2,816 Posts
    • 5,030 Thanks
    EachPenny
    Before doing anything else I would ask the council to explain their definition of a 'material gap', why the proposed gap is not 'material' - and what the minimum gap would be in this case for them to consider it sufficient to be 'material'.
    "In the future, everyone will be rich for 15 minutes"
    • PeteW
    • By PeteW 14th Jun 17, 10:55 AM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 1,808 Thanks
    PeteW
    Nobody has asked yet what the intended use of this otbuilding are? or why it can't be sited further away from the house so the council consider it as a separate building/.
    Originally posted by ProDave
    It's a utility room - somewhere for the washer, dryer etc. So obviously as close to the house, the better. The proposed site is down the side of the house, out of the way. With the 1metre gap the council have asked for, it wouldn't fit there and would have to go down on the lawn which would be undesirable for numerous reasons.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 10:57 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    Before doing anything else I would ask the council to explain their definition of a 'material gap', why the proposed gap is not 'material' - and what the minimum gap would be in this case for them to consider it sufficient to be 'material'.
    Originally posted by EachPenny
    I wish councils were that easy to get info from. It's very unlikely the council will give any of this kind of information out without a pre-planning enquiry or another application. Both of which cost and most councils do not offer pre-planning advice on permitted development.

    It sounds like an exaggeration but unfortunately planners very rarely give out specific advice.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 11:00 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    It's a utility room - somewhere for the washer, dryer etc. So obviously as close to the house, the better. The proposed site is down the side of the house, out of the way. With the 1metre gap the council have asked for, it wouldn't fit there and would have to go down on the lawn which would be undesirable for numerous reasons.
    Originally posted by PeteW
    worth remembering that what the council asks for and what they have to give under PD are two different things. I would increase the gap so in elevation they are clearly not touching and re-submit whilst appealing. I think you could have a strong case. Worth checking out the planning jungle website which has numerous appeal cases. There may be some of a similar nature and could give you an idea who the planning inspectorate sided with.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 11:05 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    worth remembering that what the council asks for and what they have to give under PD are two different things. I would increase the gap so in elevation they are clearly not touching and re-submit whilst appealing. I think you could have a strong case. Worth checking out the planning jungle website which has numerous appeal cases. There may be some of a similar nature and could give you an idea who the planning inspectorate sided with.
    Originally posted by lwhiteman88
    I just did a quick check and there are a couple of cases where the gap was actually only 25mm. The local council refused it for a similar reason to yours but then the planning inspectorate sided that this is a gap nonetheless and approved the application
    • PeteW
    • By PeteW 14th Jun 17, 11:13 AM
    • 1,162 Posts
    • 1,808 Thanks
    PeteW
    I just did a quick check and there are a couple of cases where the gap was actually only 25mm. The local council refused it for a similar reason to yours but then the planning inspectorate sided that this is a gap nonetheless and approved the application
    Originally posted by lwhiteman88
    Would you mind sending me the planning references for those please? Would hopefully help with an appeal. Thanks.
    • lwhiteman88
    • By lwhiteman88 14th Jun 17, 11:18 AM
    • 84 Posts
    • 63 Thanks
    lwhiteman88
    Would you mind sending me the planning references for those please? Would hopefully help with an appeal. Thanks.
    Originally posted by PeteW
    Unfortunately they are from the planning jungle which is a paid for website. So, without sounding selfish, I probably can't share without breaching their websites terms. I will see if they allow this but it may be worth you just joining as in the grand scheme it would be cost effective. I believe its £60. There are 4 cases which are identical to yours all of which were approved on appeal.
    • Doozergirl
    • By Doozergirl 14th Jun 17, 11:30 AM
    • 23,959 Posts
    • 66,521 Thanks
    Doozergirl
    I was going to say that it's probably worth joining the Planning Jungle website as it is full of permitted development case history!

    I've benefitted from it in the past. It's worth the money.
    Everything that is supposed to be in heaven is already here on earth.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

362Posts Today

4,745Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • I believe I can boldly go where no twitter poll has gone before https://t.co/HA0jC92gAK

  • OK I'm wilting to public pressure and there will be a star trek captain's poll at some point next week

  • I can get that. My order is 1. Picard 2. Janeway 3. Kirk. Too early to say where Lorca will end up (or would you? https://t.co/kawtCOe9RA

  • Follow Martin