phykell

Without going into too much detail (sorry OP), I originally went for a full application for a three-bay garage which they refused (and I'd already extended the main dwelling by just under 50%). I said I'd go the PD route (they hadn't realised it was the back of the house), and they then "offered" to approve a 2.5 bay but located 8m from the boundary which encroached onto my existing outdoor pool. It was then I decided to go the whole hog, leveraging PD, covering the pool and combining it with the garage. Checked with my one neighbour and he was happy. The LPA "strongly recommended" me to go for an LDC. Met all of the PD metrics such as distance from boundary, height, within 50% curtilage, etc. and thought it would be straight-forward. Mind you, it's the same LPA that rejected my balcony because they said they could see it from the road (I'd just coppiced the badly-maintained hedge) whilst allowing a development down the road to have balconies on both sides of their property in full view of a more major road.

In my case, the outbuilding is actually 183.3sqm but with an 800mm roof overhang (so 206sqm) as a kind of "porch" due to the council wanting me to have timber doors (!). Crucially though, it also incorporates a three-bay garage (with workbenches/storage and solar equipment), a plant room for the pool filtration, heating and MVHR, changing/shower room, and the pool room - it all adds up. For any pool, you need a suitably sized walkway which means 1m - my pool's 11x4 but there's a 1.5m area at one side and a 1m walkway all around it (could be flush with the wall but not great for maintenance) plus the outbuilding's double-skinned which reduces the internal dimensions. From my perspective, but also based on reasonable requirements, observations and recommendations, the outbuilding is no larger than it needs to be. The outbuilding, as I planned it, takes up substantially less area than the sum area of the original two-bay garage and the original pool and surrounding decking and pool house.

PD requirement is for <=50% of the "curtilage" (area of land around a house and forming one enclosure with it). In other words, 50% or less of what's left after the main dwelling's area is subtracted. Yes, "subordinate to the main dwelling" is a potential minefield - it can apply to scale but not necessarily. As an example, whilst my outbuilding may have a larger footprint than the main house, the outbuilding is a single storey and doesn't look like a primary dwelling (primary dwelling also has a greater volume). Also, crucial to ensure it's “for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse“.

The property is well over an acre in size so the outbuilding's less than 5% of the available space. Indoor swimming pools are typicaly PD and don't require PP. Just under 180sqm so the outbuilding is bigger but understandable if the latter's housing a swimming pool. I would add that it's worth the OP justifying his workshop's area perhaps by giving some detail on the machinery/storage, etc. that the workshop is intended to include - I think the lack of detail on my original application gave my LPA the excuse it needed to reject my lawful development certificate, costing me a a great deal of time, inconvenience, effort and money.

It's under appeal, all the documents have been submitted so I'm just waiting for a decision from the Planning Inspectorate. I was refused a certificate of lawful development for an application which met all of the criteria for Permitted Development, yes. The outbuilding I want to build is just over 200sqm but it's to incorporate a three-bay garage and an existing 68sqm (reduced to 44sqm) swimming pool. The only PD metric which applies to the overall size of an outbuilding is the 50% curtilage rule. Unfortunately, what you say you want the outbuilding for, how you're going to use the space, and so on, is all rather subjective from the LPA's perspective and it's this weakness that some council planning officers will leverage to refuse an application.

Just wanted to confirm this as that's exactly what's happened to me despite my planned outbuilding conforming (and confirmed by the LPA) to all of the permitted development rules. Here's the well-used (Planning Inspectorate) Emin example (there are a couple of others): https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewDocument.aspx?fileid=31950647#:~:text=In the Emin case it,dwellinghouse provides for primary purposes. Skip ahead to the appeal conclusion which includes: "I conclude that the outbuilding would not be required in its entirety for incidental purposes. In addition, the size of the building would be much larger than would genuinely and reasonably be required to serve its specified incidental purposes. As such it would not be permitted development by virtue of Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the GPDO." Makes a joke of the PD rules really and allows for a potentially vexatious planning officer and/or planning department to impose its subjective opinions on domestic permitted development.

It's certainly the same in my situation. We're in a conservation area and, to be in keeping with the main dwelling, my outbuilding will need to be roofed in reclaimed Welsh slate. The conservation officer even had an opinion about the specific shade, e.g. blue, purple, etc! Anyway, having re-roofed the main dwelling, I can be certain than integrated/in-roof solar panels will be a cheaper option.

It wasn't my intention to suggest that it was anything you were involved in but I shouldn't have limited my suggestion to corruption only - my emphasis would have been on unethical behaviour because I suspect that's far more common, hopefully, than outright corruption such as bribery. Perhaps I should have said, "If people do suspect unethical behaviour and/or corruption for a given planning application/appeal, interested parties could try exercising the right to a subject access request.

Approaching this from another angle, what about a subject access request for all details of internal correspondence, e.g. emails, minutes of meetings, recordings/transcripts of telephone conversations regarding a given planning application/appeal? If you do suspect corruption, this might be a place to start.

Good on them ignoring the council 👍 The council said I'd have to gain planning permission to demolish my existing (now previous) garage which I duly did. They then refused my LDC leaving me without any garage space for the past 18 months. House has no loft space so the main lounge is full of garage stuff. That's what happens if you follow the council's advice to demolish existing structures and then seek an LDC which they had no intention of granting.

Thanks - I saw the appeal process diagram for a section 78 appeal: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5d555366ed915d08d3325bff/Inquiry_appeal_overview_diagram.pdf Based on your experience, it's very optimistic! Mine's a section 192 appeal but I can't find a specific process diagram so I assume it's much the same as for section 78.

A question for those who have been through the appeal process - I've submitted a questionnaire and a statement, and I may have to submit final comments. Does the LPA have to submit a corresponding questionnaire, statement, final comments and do I get to see them at any point, e.g. once the deadline for each state has expired? There's lots of information on the government web site about the process, but it doesn't suggest/confirm anything about the above that I can find.

On that basis then, I might ask my planning consultant about resubmitting a parallel one. The problem is (and I don't know if you recall my LPA's spurious reason for refusing) that it's nothing really concrete (npi) that needs addressing - they simply refused it due to the "scale" of the development, even though all of the PD-specific requirements were met. As such, it's very difficult to deal with as I could only make a completely arbitrary reduction in scale, i.e. with no metrics supplied by the LPA on what would be acceptable. I've asked them already about being more specific and demonstrated that the scale was non-arbitrary, but, as ever, no reply. I understand their department is probably overloaded with work, especially as the council is busily developing everything they can (other than brownfield) but they're not doing the job that I paid for with respect to the exorbitant application fee.

Agreed - hope the backlog is a bit better now and it doesn't take that long - that's madness. Can I ask though, if the appeal was refused on a different point, did that then *validate* the rest of the application? What happens then, do you have to resubmit an application with just that one issue addressed?

Thanks - that's exactly what I did. There's no access to the site other than via some gates and I need to be there with them to point out some hazards such as the old swimming pool (drained). I'll leave out some warning signs/cones as well. I don't think I'm permitted to interact with them other than if they have questions and/or they arrange for the LPA's case officer to be on site as well. Thanks again for the information regarding timing - it sounds then, like I might have a decision either way around May/June. I'm going to prepare for the worst though and continue trying to get a response from the LPA on considering the additional information I supplied. If I end up with a negative decision and no word from the LPA (most likely in my cynical opinion), I guess I'll have to resubmit my application but it's just a crap shoot - as their decision on the scale being unacceptable is clearly so subjective (all PD requirements were met), I have no idea what size would be acceptable and any reduction in scale would be completely arbitrary with no metrics on which to base my design on. It's all frankly ridiculous.