Missing planning permission

slightlychilled

If you can't tell the difference between an 8 year old garage and a 35 year old garage, I suggest you get someone to help you (or post a picture of it here). What does your surveyor think about it?

Yes I can tell the difference, I was merely answering your question factually. The garage is in perfect order according to the surveyor.



No, but if you're planning to demolish the garage anyway then I wonder why you're bothered about the planning permission - given that the worst case scenario would be the council telling you to demolish it?

It's only a plan at the moment. I thought it prudent to assume that if a garage was not allowed then a single storey extension would also be denied. I don't want to be left with neither.

davidmcn

slightlychilled wrote: »

Yes I can tell the difference, I was merely answering your question factually. The garage is in perfect order according to the surveyor.

I was meaning your surveyor's opinion about its age. How old does it appear to be? If closer to the 1982 end of your range than 2009 it's daft for anyone to be worrying about lack of planning consent now.

EachPenny

slightlychilled wrote: »

I planned in a year or two to build a single storey extension incorporating the footprint of the detached garage. Will this be compromised in any way due to the current situation?

This would be the kind of thing that might make a previously passive neighbour suddenly complain.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Garage has clearly been there several years, so surely if it was going to be a problem, the neighbour would have contacted the council as soon as it was built. In any event the council can't take any action as the garage is well over 4 years old

If the garage has definitely been there for more than 4 years, and the Council have taken no action so far then it is a reasonably safe assumption. But the mere fact the building is over 4 years old doesn't mean that action cannot be taken to have it removed.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

The presence of the garage would actually increase your permitted development potential

Not according to my understanding of the way permitted development works. The garage will (probably) have used upsome of the permitted development allowance. Demolishing the garage and building an extension may be considered a swap of permitted development, assuming the extension qualifies as permitted development in its own right and doesn't need an application for consent.

There may also be no permitted development rights for the site, which could be a change from the situation when the garage was built.

The benefit of having the garage there is that arguments against the extension in terms of bulk and position will be weakened by the existence of the curent structure. If the garage is unattractive then it can also be argued that replacing it with an extension will improve the appearance of the house.

RLH33

Establish whether the garage has been there for more than 4 years - if it has it is unenforceable so please don't waste your money on a worthless indemnity policy. (I'm a Local Authority Planning Officer)

slightlychilled

If the garage has definitely been there for more than 4 years, and the Council have taken no action so far then it is a reasonably safe assumption. But the mere fact the building is over 4 years old doesn't mean that action cannot be taken to have it removed.

Well which is it ? Safe or not ?, do you have a link to support the latter ? The link lincroft1710 posted states that if a building has stood for more than 4 years it becomes immune from enforcement.

slightlychilled

This all came to my attention in the first place because I read there was a covenant on the property requiring planning permission for any buildings on the land and I had noticed the garage wasn't shown or mentioned on any searches or plans.
Does the 4 year rule still apply in this case ? I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of covenants or permitted developments.

EachPenny

slightlychilled wrote: »

Well which is it ? Safe or not ?, do you have a link to support the latter ? The link lincroft1710 posted states that if a building has stood for more than 4 years it becomes immune from enforcement.

Same link - read it and see if it actually does state "that if a building has stood for more than 4 years it becomes immune from enforcement".

If the tone you are adopting towards people trying to help you out wasn't so 'unchilled' you might get better advice.

EachPenny

slightlychilled wrote: »

This all came to my attention in the first place because I read there was a covenant on the property requiring planning permission for any buildings on the land and I had noticed the garage wasn't shown or mentioned on any searches or plans.

Maybe something to have mentioned in post #1.

slightlychilled

EachPenny wrote: »

Same link - read it and see if it actually does state "that if a building has stood for more than 4 years it becomes immune from enforcement".

If the tone you are adopting towards people trying to help you out wasn't so 'unchilled' you might get better advice.

It states,
Development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken:

• Within 4 years of substantial completion for a breach of planning control consisting of operational development;

Why do you say my tone is "unchilled" ? I only asked for you to back your statement in the same way lincroft1710 did. You can't both be correct when giving opposing advice and I need concrete facts for further discussions with my solicitor.

EachPenny

slightlychilled wrote: »

Why do you say my tone is "unchilled" ?

Starting posts with "Yes I can tell the difference, I was merely answering your question factually." and "Well which is it ?" is hardly friendly, and the odd 'thanks' here and there might be appreciated by the various people trying to help you here.

slightlychilled wrote: »

It states,
Development becomes immune from enforcement if no action is taken:

• Within 4 years of substantial completion for a breach of planning control consisting of operational development;

Which isn't the same as "In any event the council can't take any action as the garage is well over 4 years old"

RLH33 would hopefully advise you that when it comes to planning it is wise never to make assumptions, and always read the small print.

Before deciding you are in the clear because the garage looks "well over 4 years old" you need to establish if the council have already taken any enforcement action the vendor might have forgotten to tell you about, plus establish the substantial completion date, preferably with some kind of evidence to support it.

You've seen the garage and know what it looks like. lincroft1710 said "It is most likely too late for the council to do anything about it" without having a clue how old it was. That's the kind of assumption which causes people to have planning problems.

The advice you've been getting also only relates to planning - councils do more than just planning, there are other reasons why they could require you to remove the garage and if you want a proper answer to your original question then you need better advice than 'its over 4 years old so no problem'.

You've also now raised the issue of a covenant - who is it in favour of?