Shed on side of property

Desolation_row

Hi,

A family member has installed a shed on the side of their property where a grass area was. This has been done with a concrete base to fit in their trike. The council have since been out and said that it needs to be removed in its entirety or they need to apply for planning permission. They say it is on land of amenity value. They would rather apply for planning permission as they wish to keep it. Not sure on the likelihood of the permission being granted. Does anyone have any experience with this? The shed is less than 2.5m in height but is a double shed to allow the trike to fit in it.

born_again

From 1 October 2008 the permitted development rights (see Glossary) that allow householders to pave their front garden with hardstanding without planning permission have changed in order to reduce the impact of this type of development on flooding and on pollution of watercourses.

You will not need planning permission if a new or replacement driveway of any size uses permeable (or porous) surfacing, such as gravel, permeable concrete block paving or porous asphalt, or if the rainwater is directed to a lawn or border to drain naturally.

If the surface to be covered is more than 5 square metres planning permission will be needed for laying traditional, impermeable driveways that do not provide for the water to run to a permeable area.

So is the shed? or garage more than this?

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permeable-surfacing-of-front-gardens-guidance/guidance-on-the-permeable-surfacing-of-front-gardens

Section62

born_again said:

....So is the shed? or garage more than this?

If "...on the side of their property" means attached to the house then the shed/garage would be treated as an extension rather than outbuilding.

Although that doesn't completely explain the "amenity value" comment - I think there has to be more to this that the planners haven't explained fully.

OP, when was the house built? Is it in green belt or a conservation area?

comeandgo

Is the shed on their land or a strip of land adjacent?

koalakoala

comeandgo said:

Is the shed on their land or a strip of land adjacent?

I’m thinking on public land!

Desolation_row

comeandgo said:

Is the shed on their land or a strip of land adjacent?

It is on their land

Desolation_row

Section62 said:

born_again said:

....So is the shed? or garage more than this?

If "...on the side of their property" means attached to the house then the shed/garage would be treated as an extension rather than outbuilding.

Although that doesn't completely explain the "amenity value" comment - I think there has to be more to this that the planners haven't explained fully.

OP, when was the house built? Is it in green belt or a conservation area?

The house was built in the early 2000s and it is not green belt

FreeBear

Section62 said: OP, when was the house built? Is it in green belt or a conservation area?

Could be an Article 4 directive is in force - That would remove any permitted development rights and require a planning permission application.

Section62

FreeBear said:

Section62 said: OP, when was the house built? Is it in green belt or a conservation area?

Could be an Article 4 directive is in force - That would remove any permitted development rights and require a planning permission application.

Agreed, hence the question about when it was built to see if it was in the era when Art4 directions might be used on individual properties (which it is).

If it isn't something like an Article 4 direction then my next best guess would be there could be a planning condition requiring the garden to be retained as garden (could explain the "amenity value" comment).

Or another possibility is if it exceeds the PD limitations for extensions - either due to the position, or possibly the size (e.g. if built big enough for a trike).