Green Building Forum |
Home Books GBEzine Subscription News HelpDesk Your Cart Register |
Welcome to the Green Building Forum. Reading any of the public conversations is free but if you want to join in the discussions then you need to register first to obtain a code for which there is a small charge. Please follow the link on the left. OR:
Logout | ||
© Green Building Press |
||
Comments
PD in Scotland is completely different from England. Wales and NI are more like England but I think they're slightly different.
I think we may be able to manage with the 3m on the lowest level, however the principle elevation and visible walls would only measure 2m which is a pain as doors will look a little odd. Perhaps it is worth going for a full planning application after all!
There are a lot of different opinions on this in the planning world.
Here's Leeds Council in your favour: http://www.leeds.gov.uk/docs/130109 Permitted development for householders - technical guidance.pdf
Others differ. In practice it is pretty tactical. Measuring from the top of a pile of soil wouldn't convince, but equally there is ambiguity in the measurement (so everything is arguable). Questions:
Have you been inspected?
Can you do something about the ground level? is it lower than it naturally used to be because someone reduced the level previously?
How far are you pushing it? If you just do it is there any reason why someone would complain? Are you building on the boundary, overshadowing a neighbour, have bad relations etc so someone will want to spite you?
If not obviously taking the P or exploiting something, you may well get away with something within the ambiguity. It might be worth a conversation with a Duty Planner to establish their attitude without mentioning who or where you are.
Enforcement or not will probably be complaint driven if you haven't been obvious with the Council.
Your call :-).
Ferdinand
Could you do something as simple as extending your eaves to give sheltered storage, with or without a vertical screen at the outside ?
I always have infinite amounts of things lying around that would benefit from that setup - from brushes to bikes to bricks to birdboxes (location for).
Ferdinand
Ground is naturally that way, however if I was needing just 100-200mm I could build up the rear pathway.
The building is already there, and althought a metre from the boundary it is no way near other properties so neighbours are no problem. The highest/main ground level is the same level as the front drive, main road and front elevation so the issue is that the garden is naturally lower behind.
The above quote is what I read too and there are even diagrams stating the same highest level principle. So confused!
May have another chat with planning anyway and try and clarify.
Look at this link, the situation we are talking about is noumber 2
http://planningjungle.com/wp-content/uploads/Part-1-of-the-GPDO-The-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf
Also the PD Techincal Guidance issued by the Department of Communities and Local Governement also agrees with the measurement from the highest ground level. See page 4 under the definition of "height".
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf
I find it immensely frustrating when the planners don't have clue about the rules they are meant to apply. There is no reason why Nick Parsons scheme wasn't PD - if the planner was quoting the 3m from the lowest ground level he needs to go and get retrained.
At least with PD there is only the rules and no subjectivity. I had to withdraw a planning application for a 2 two extension to my house because the "modern flat roof design and contemporary exterior and would be considered out of character with the existing dwelling and so have a determenatal impact on the street scene. Never mind the extension design matched the modern contemporary monpitch and flat roof dwelling they approved the week before in the rear garden. Or the fact that their guide lines say that extensions should show a clear delineation between old and new, but this apparently translates to mean the same materials with a set back in the walls and a drop in ridge and eaves.
They have said they would be likely accept be putting a hipped pitch with a flat area on the top out of site, even though this will add about 1.5m in height.
On a related query, the permitted development allows for a single story side extention. Although we are not actually extending, just adding a pitched roof to an existing building, does this allow for an attic area? I.e does 'single story' prevent a room/storage area in the roof space?
As the existing building is within 2m of the boundary we can only build the eaves to 3m from ANY adjacent ground level. As this will not give headroom for an attic space we are going to move the end wall all of 500mm so that it is 2m from boundary and therefor allow us to go higher. 3m form highest adjacent ground level.
However going through permitted development appears to have opened up some other issues. The current building is rendered and was done under PP in the 50's, however now we are building the walls up and pitched roof it appears we will have to face the whole thing is stone to match the house!
Does this sound like it could be the case?
"Materials to be similar in appearance to the existing house"
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/extensions/
There is a definition of "original house" but not of "existing house". Existing house might include the extension. I would discuss this with your planning officer.
The planning portal is also only a guide. The actual legislation might have to be consulted.
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf
“Original” - means a building as it existed on 1 July 1948 where it was built before that date, and as it was built when built after that date.
“Existing” - means a building as it existed immediately before any permitted development (eg a house extension) is undertaken. The existing house will include previous development to the house, whether undertaken as permitted development or as development resulting from a planning permission from the local authority.
I will get in touch with planning and go through the details as it doesn't sound as straight forward as a new PD extension from scratch.