Outbuildings - planning permission and use

newsgroupmonkey_

I quite agree with this.
Many people own a house with an integral garage as designed as part of PP and later turn it into a bedroom, playroom or other incidental purpose.

Doesn't need planning.

I don't see why that would be any different.

Section62

newsgroupmonkey_ said:

I quite agree with this.
Many people own a house with an integral garage as designed as part of PP and later turn it into a bedroom, playroom or other incidental purpose.

Doesn't need planning.

I don't see why that would be any different.

Sometimes it does, it depends on the details of the planning consent originally given. Quite often the conversion of garages into something else are done unlawfully.

OP, have you checked the consent for the garage to make sure there is nothing in there about only using it as a garage?

I also don't understand why the planners said consent wasn't required for the unheated space.  Whether (and how) a space is heated isn't usually a relevant matter for planning consent. Did they elaborate on why no heating made a difference?

Section62

secla said:

im pretty sure in planning theres no stipulation as to what a room is to be used for, its either habitable or its not. you could change your dining room into a bedroom for instance and your not breaking any rules. As long as planning was given and building regs were adhered to i think your ok.

...

Not entirely correct.

Some aspects of planning decisions may relate to the number of bedrooms in the dwelling - for example the number of parking spaces and/or the size of garden. There may also be a limit on the total number of bedrooms on a development as a whole.

Using a bedroom for some other purpose - for example a gym - is unlikely to be an issue.  But converting rooms intended for other use into bedrooms could potentially need planning consent.

For example converting/using a dining room of a 3-bed house as a bedroom so it is occupied as if a 4-bed property might be an issue if the planners get upset about it.  The chances of it becoming an issue may be low, but it is wrong to suggest there are no rules (potentially) broken by this kind of change.

Converting a garage can be particularly problematic if it adds another bedroom and results in the loss of a parking space.

BonaDea

Converting a garage can also be problematic if it's leasehold.  The lease might prohibit changes in use or require freeholder approval.

Soozegirl

Hi - thanks for the comments.  Just to be clear, the garage is a garage and is still a garage and will always be a garage (for us!).  It is the 'incidental' use of the other rooms that was the issue.  However, the case I have detailed above clears it up (I believe).  The original pp was for garage and the other rooms to have incidental use, but after several years it has effectively been changed (because of one room becoming a bedroom) as far as I understand it.  According to the case I cited, this appears to be ok and does not require a change of use.  The garage still is a garage and all of the other rooms (bar one) are still incidental.  It would appear (looking at the case cited) that I could change all of the incidental rooms into primary living accommodation (which would include bedrooms, kitchens etc) and it would be ok.  The only other stipulation was that the building was not to be used for carrying out a business or trade.
As for the link/covered area, I think as the other person said, it fell under permitted development because it was effectively a conservatory.  I know my brother upgraded his conservatory and was told that he didn't need pp but could not put internal doors into it (from their dining room) and had to leave them as external type doors.  I thought it was something to do with insulation/fire regs or something??

Section62

Soozegirl said:

Hi - thanks for the comments.  Just to be clear, the garage is a garage and is still a garage and will always be a garage (for us!).  It is the 'incidental' use of the other rooms that was the issue.  However, the case I have detailed above clears it up (I believe).  The original pp was for garage and the other rooms to have incidental use, but after several years it has effectively been changed (because of one room becoming a bedroom) as far as I understand it.  According to the case I cited, this appears to be ok and does not require a change of use.  The garage still is a garage and all of the other rooms (bar one) are still incidental.  It would appear (looking at the case cited) that I could change all of the incidental rooms into primary living accommodation (which would include bedrooms, kitchens etc) and it would be ok.  The only other stipulation was that the building was not to be used for carrying out a business or trade.

So the floorplan of the garage block is exactly as it was when the planning consent was granted, it is just that the use of some of the rooms (but not the garage space) has changed?

What it will come down to is the exact wording of the original consent and what restrictions this imposes on other uses for the rooms.  If you want to be sure you might need to employ a planning consultant to advise you.  The problem with planning is that each case is considered on its own merits - so looking at a similar case and saying 'this one applies to me' only works to a certain extent.

The differences between 'incidental', 'ancillary' and 'primary' are complicated (hence all the case law) and what can and can't be done may vary case by case.  For example, by the description you've given, if you now changed one of the rooms in the garage block into a kitchen then it may be considered to be a self-contained unit - which is unlikely to be allowed under the PD rules.  The rules (and enforcement action) focus very much on preventing the creation of a separate dwelling by stealth.  You are aiming to do the opposite, but from the planner's point of view the 'conservatory' link could easily be demolished leaving the garage block as a self-contained dwelling.

Soozegirl said:

As for the link/covered area, I think as the other person said, it fell under permitted development because it was effectively a conservatory.  I know my brother upgraded his conservatory and was told that he didn't need pp but could not put internal doors into it (from their dining room) and had to leave them as external type doors.  I thought it was something to do with insulation/fire regs or something??

Again, it is probably going to be the specifics which make a difference here.  Conservatories are not always allowed as permitted development, and a 'conservatory' which is primarily a link between two buildings won't necessarily be classed as a conservatory.  If the original planning consent for the garage had a clear gap between the dwelling and the block then you need to be sure that having this gap wasn't an explicit or implied requirement of the consent (if it had been linked or the gap was below a certain minimum the council may then have considered the application as an extension to the house, not as an outbuilding).

Soozegirl

Section62 - thank you.  That is very interesting and has caused even more confusion!  I totally get your comments about putting in a kitchen and creating a separate unit - something we definitely do not want to do.  The original planning permission was for a 'garage/workshop/studio and link extension'.  If you can imagine the front and rear elevations of the two buildings are in line with a gap in between (effectively, two boxes side by side).  But, there has been a proper pantile roof section which connects the two buildings at the front (and a gate attached/between both the garage and the bungalow) So, the two buildings were always connected (and detailed in the pp plans and consent).
What the previous owners  have done is simply 'fill in' the rest of the gap, putting doors at both front (behind the gate) and rear ends, and extended the roof section with large rooflight.  

The planning proposal (which was obviously granted) was for a 'replacement...garage/workshop building to side with link extension to bungalow..'

The use is then stipulated as:
'The garage/workshop/studio extension hereby permitted shall only be used for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the dwelling house as such and not for, or in connection with any trade or business'

It had not registered with me that the building has been referred to an 'extension' and has always both physically and in planning terms been 'connected' to the main bungalow.  Not sure if this is good news or not!  I know planners have to think about the property going into the future, but we feel this is our forever home and have no desire to create a separate unit.  Is it in our favour that the garage building is actually referred to as an 'extension'?  

Ps - yes, the footprint of the garage block, external elevations etc etc are all exactly as they were at the time the permission was granted.  The previous owners have put up a couple of internal partition walls to create a couple of smaller spaces, used for 'incidental' uses eg what they called a gym.  

dander

If it was my house I'd just put the heating in and not worry about it. You're not changing anything external so whether it's technically allowed or not you're not bothering anyone and no-one will notice. Honestly think you're over-thinking this.

I'm assume that all the building work to the garage was done to regs, so is perfectly fine and safe and you may as well just crack on.

Soozegirl

Thanks - yes that’s pretty much the conclusion I’ve come to!

FreeBear

Section62 said: The differences between 'incidental', 'ancillary' and 'primary' are complicated (hence all the case law) and what can and can't be done may vary case by case.  For example, by the description you've given, if you now changed one of the rooms in the garage block into a kitchen then it may be considered to be a self-contained unit - which is unlikely to be allowed under the PD rules.

And if the garage+rooms is considered a self contained unit, then it would probably attract its own council tax banding (and bill).