Double Garage

gazb_2

We recently moved into a home and would like to build a double garage in the front garden. I know planners don’t usually like people building in front of the building line. Our house is set a few meters further back from the rest of the houses on the road.I checked the planning portal as the house opposite a few doors down has a double garage built in the front garden. This was approved in 2002. Would this go in our favour? Has anyone had any experience with this sort of thing? Thanks  

Bendy_House

Check out that other garage on the Planning Portal. If it's fully legit, then good chance that's set a precedent, and that should help your cause.

But you won't know until you ask

zagubov

It could vary from county to county and  borough to borough.

They're tightening up on regulations all over the place but inconsistently so more geographical precision might help a bit.

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Check out that other garage on the Planning Portal. If it's fully legit, then good chance that's set a precedent, and that should help your cause.

Individual planning decisions don't set a precedent in that way. It is one of the great planning myths.

Each application has to be considered on its own merits, against the plan-led policy framework which applies at the point the decision is made, also having regard to emerging policy.

If the council's current policy is to resist overdevelopment of front gardens, the previous decision to allow a front garden garage for another property doesn't bind the planning officer/committee to make the same decision in another case.

Section62

gazb_2 said:

I know planners don’t usually like people building in front of the building line.  

That isn't necessarily the case.  There are very few examples where permitted development applies  to development in front gardens, but that only means a full application would need to be made.  The reasons for requiring a full application is because development at the front of a property typically has a greater impact on the streetscene, the neighbours, road users, and parking.

If development can take place at the rear or side of the property then many authorities have policies which would tend towards a presumption development should be sited in those positions instead.

But it doesn't mean development isn't allowed in front gardens.

One exception is where the planning and highway authorities have declared a 'building line' for a road or street - this is where there is a restriction on building closer to a road than the declared building line and is done to facilitate planned road improvements.  In planning terms 'building line' usually refers to this kind of situation, rather than the more general line of the face of the building closest to the road.

jonnydeppiwish!

We had to go through full planning for a double garage at the front in 2018 - we had a large front drive and had it approved as long as we grew a 2m hedge in front of it from a native UK species.

Bendy_House

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Check out that other garage on the Planning Portal. If it's fully legit, then good chance that's set a precedent, and that should help your cause.

Individual planning decisions don't set a precedent in that way. It is one of the great planning myths.

Ish.

The 'impact on the streetscene' objection is about the only one that holds any sway around here when neighbours try to object to someone 'overdeveloping' their house (often a bungalow). However, as soon as one house has got through this conundrum for whatever reason, as far as Planning is concerned - who are minded to approve such developments - then they use that 'precedent' to dismiss the 'streetscene' claims.

Clearly, a precedent is not set in concrete, but especially if in the recent past, is surely not without some influence?

Section62

Bendy_House said:

Section62 said:

Bendy_House said:

Check out that other garage on the Planning Portal. If it's fully legit, then good chance that's set a precedent, and that should help your cause.

Individual planning decisions don't set a precedent in that way. It is one of the great planning myths.

Ish.

The 'impact on the streetscene' objection is about the only one that holds any sway around here when neighbours try to object to someone 'overdeveloping' their house (often a bungalow). However, as soon as one house has got through this conundrum for whatever reason, as far as Planning is concerned - who are minded to approve such developments - then they use that 'precedent' to dismiss the 'streetscene' claims.

Clearly, a precedent is not set in concrete, but especially if in the recent past, is surely not without some influence?

Not "ish".

Planning law is clear on this point.  Each case on its own merits is the thing which is 'set in concrete'.  There is a hierarchy of factors which form a planning decision, starting with national guidance at the top.

Any 'impact on the streetscene' objections are just comments made by people or organisations with entitlement to do so.  The planner's job is to weigh all the material considerations.  The streetscene may be an important factor, but it doesn't automatically override everything else. If there is a need for more/larger housing in the area then the planner has to balance that against the impact it might have on the neighbourhood.

On the whole there is currently a presumption in favour of more/larger homes being built, hence planners being minded to approve suitable developments unless there are very good reasons not to.

It may be that the planner can point to another property which has had similar development completed and use that as a comparator ("look, it isn't so bad") but that isn't the same thing as a "precedent".

Not least because in the next application it may be that whilst the previous one didn't look so bad, in the circumstances of this case doing the same thing would be problematic. Or that planning policy has changed. 

Each case on its own merits

Returning to the OP's situation, the other garage was built around 20 years ago.  20 years is a long time in planning.  This doesn't mean the OP wouldn't get consent if they apply for it, but should be prepared to justify the development in its own rights, rather than attaching too much weight to what someone else did a long time ago.