phykell

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.

Quick update on my project: After waiting almost six months* for an at least constructive response from my LPA, I gave up and hired a planning consultant who submitted an appeal on my behalf - this was in mid-September last year (2024). The appeal was successfully validated and is now listed on the Planning Inspectorate's web site as starting on the 7th January with the Questionnaire due on the 21st Jan, statement(s) due on the 18th February, interested party comments due on the 18th February and appellant/LPA final comments due on the 11th March. I'm fairly sure that the case officer will have to arrange a site visit as the area in question can't be viewed from the road but I have no idea when this will be - will it be after the final comments? Can anyone suggest when a decision might be made after the final comments? I get the impression my planning consultant just wants the appeal process to go ahead with no further input and the implication is that they can't add anything to the case now unless the case officer has any questions. Does anyone know if there's any opportunity to submit any further information? I see a "Make Representation" option on the portal but it's not clear what that is unless it's for third parties. * I supplied them with extra information and asked if there were any changes I could make to be able to resubmit for a positive response. They kept either ignoring me or promising an internal meeting to consider the extra information - this never happened of course and shortly before my appeal window expired, I finally had a phone call (first one I've ever had from them) asking whether and when I was intending to submit an appeal (I'd already previously confirmed I would do so when my application was refused). Again, they said they'd discuss internally and try and get back to me before I had to appeal and I wonder if they were just hoping I'd give up or run out of time. It's a shame as I genuinely thought they were at least willing to consider the extra information I'd supplied.

I suspect many of us have been told the planning officers are overworked and the departments are understaffed, people are on holiday or extended sick leave - it seems likes it's an epidemic since the the pandemic (!) as they blithely miss validation, decision and determination dates. I'm not saying that the individuals are not doing their job but something's very wrong and it's unlikely to change in the short term in terms of funding, extra staff, better allocation of resources, etc. However, the one thing that seems to get lost is the fact that we are not "asking" the council to consider a planning application as just another member of the public, we are customers, paying them a substantial amount of money to do so and we should be treated as such. There should be a much clearer route for handling complaints and a published service level agreement. Based on my own experience, I wouldn't wait any longer than I have to. I'd escalate as you suggest, by copying in your case officer's manager and the LPA's general inbox email address with a clear plan of further actions as you suggest and make sure you document every call, email or action taken.

The case law that they cited is very well known when an applicant has met all the PD requirements but (in my anecdotal experience) the LPA has a particular interest in stopping the development. The two cases they mentioned were: Emin case [Emin v SSE & Mid Sussex DC [1989] JPL 909] - held that regard should be had not only to the use to which the Class E building would be put, but also to the nature and scale of that use in the context of whether it was a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse. Their basis for citing this was that, "There is no statutory definition of 'incidental' in the GPDO." Wallington case [Wallington v SSE & Montgomeryshire DC [1990] JPL 112; [1991] JPL 942 (CoA)] established that it is necessary to consider whether the relevant purpose is incidental to the particular dwellinghouse in question rather than any dwellinghouse. They did mention a further case, for an aircraft hangar built under PD - it was an odd case to cite as the applicant was successful! Apparently, it's OK to build an aircraft hangar on your property if you say it's a hobby but my outbuilding for a garage and pool, was still rejected!

The summary was that the LPA's argument was poorly founded as the main issue, that of it being solely for incidental use, was a straightforward case to make as far as they were concerned. It was clear that none of the anticipated activities supported by the outbuilding could be reasonably viewed as being anything other than incidental, e.g. a garage, swimming pool, plant room, shower/WC/changing area. I agree that the reduction in space, and the existing pool, shouldn't have anything to do with PD but, in this instance, the LPA cited case law to backup their claim that, although all of the formal PD requirements were met, the overall scale of the outbuilding was unreasonable or, to put it another way, wasn't proven to be "reasonably required for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwellinghouse". It was therefore necessary to prove that the overall size of the outbuilding was based on reasonable requirements which is why the existing pool was mentioned, i.e. here's the original pool, and its size is the basis for the new pool (in terms of length at least). We went into additional detail regarding the size of the plant room, and how it was based on a suggested size from a pool installation specialist. We also discussed the amount of walkway room around the pool, again referencing pool specialists, and the need for an area to house the pool cover (under the walkway) and the skimmers and associated pipework. The aim of all this was to show the LPA that the outbuilding's size wasn't in any way arbitrary, and was, in fact, based on good practice and industry recommendations. Regarding the garage, I provided a detailed plan showing all of our current vehicles, drawn to scale on the plan, to demonstrate genuine and complete utilisation of the available space. In the end, although I'd written my own Statement of Case, I decided, on reflection, to have the planning consultant handle the appeal process for me. The appeal was validated successfully and is now lodged with the Planning Inspectorate, just before the six-month deadline, luckily.

I think I spoke too soon (often happens) - the line manager immediately emailed me back with the missing form. It might not have been included on the portal listing in the first place but they're resolving that now. OK, onto my appeal, which is now being handled by a professional planning consultancy - wish me luck 😎

The latest update to my particular saga is that I'm a couple of weeks away from the appeal deadline and it seems that I need the original application form. Unfortunately, it's mysteriously "disappeared" from the LPA's planning portal. All the other documents, including plans, etc. are all there, just the one I need, the one that's automatically generated (I believe) on submitting the application. Tried to contact the LPA and the case officer is out of the office - asked to escalate to the line manager but I doubt I'll hear back.

It seems to be taking the PI a long time to process appeals. I hope mine isn't going to take as long or, that the LPA will eventually engage with me during the appeal process - this is something which the PI guidance suggests. However, it is at least reassuring to see that someone else is experiencing similar treatment so perhaps it isn't just me!

That's really helpful - did you already know of it? I looked at the statement of case and it's very clearly written but also very "concise". Many such documents are far more substantial versions, and this is the issue - where's the guidance on what should and shouldn't be expected from one of these documents? The whole point of PD was to reduce the load on council planning staff but all it's done is create another micro-industry and shifted the load, with much more overhead, onto the planning inspectorate, introducing further costs and delay to the Appellants. [edit] Also noted that the case referenced case hasn't been decided yet - I wonder if it will be approved and how long it's going to take.

Unfortunately, you're right - and the LPA's refusal was despite me highlighting that the pool is an existing feature and, with a required "walking/access" area around it, its area is a substantial amount of the total requested space. In fact, I'll actually be reducing the area of the existing pool by around 20% to fit it into the outbuilding as it's currently within 2m of the neighbour's boundary. And yes, it's hardly an Olympic size pool

Thanks - I've started looking at other LPAs as mine doesn't really have a lot of similar, successful appeals - bodes well !!! The use of the planning consultant was only after trying to write my own and finding that there wasn't really a useful template or example out there in the ether. I'm reasonably adept at writing in-depth, technical, legal and business process documents so I thought I could make a good stab at something as limited in scope as this: it's only an outbuilding and the council have agreed 95% of the various points of interest with just the subjective one about the development failing to show that it's genuinely subordinate and reasonably required. I have my initial meeting with the planning consultant next week so I'm also hoping a best stab at a statement will help explain my perspective.

Perhaps "dominance" might be an issue but two buildings means a more expensive development and less energy efficiency plus I want to have a PV array extending across the entire roof which will satisfy much of the pool's requirements together with the main dwelling. It's only the area (206 sqm) which is almost as large as the main dwelling but the latter is two storeys and is very distinctive with white lime-washed render on 1/2 of it sandstone for 1/4 and old farmhouse replica brick for a side extension (looks nicer than it sounds). The outbuilding is going to look like a garage with a large glazed area and won't even be visible from any public land/road.

That's an interesting question - it's a little smaller than the main dwelling house in terms of area, so that sounds huge with no other context. But of course, the outbuilding is single-storey and its total area will be less than the combined area of the original two-bay garage and the original pool including the decking around it. To be fair to the LPA, this wasn't highlighted in the original application for the LDC.