phykell

Yes, I can use the roof space but it isn't enough - I need a large garage (floor) area.

Looking at the rear of the property, the maximum depth of the garage would be between the main dwelling's rear elevation and the rear boundary, and the maximum width would be from the side boundary to the apple tree - and I subracted the required distance from the boundaries and the main dwelling. As I understand it, there's a maximum height for the eaves and the roof but the only restriction on area is the 50% curtilage.

I can wait for the balcony (and we already have permission for a Juliet balcony) but we really need the garage ASAP - we submitted the original planning application back in January expecting to have the garage done mid-summer! It's worrying that you say the appeal process will be no more "rational" and I have tried to engage the LPA informally but they're really not interested in dealing with me as the "householder" - they certainly don't respond to any emails from me. As an example though, we had a site visit, and the case officer said we'd have to agree on disagreeing about the proposed garage being a better alternative to the existing garage (revisit the earlier picture for context) - it's hugely frustrating. Yes, the 150msq would be a little excessive (!) - I don't intend on moving the apple tree and I'm sure they wouldn't let me but I'm going to use that as an example of how unreasonably large the garage could be under permitted development if they force me down that route.

Regarding the appeal process, can anyone say how long it would take? I know that's a tricky one but I'm looking at an appeal for a balcony and now the garage by the looks of it. Luckily, I applied separately to avoid dependencies - I've also applied for a change to my driveway entrance which the conservation officer has objected to but the highways officer has supported due to the need to improve sight lines, etc.

Thanks - I'll bear that in mind. Just a shame the planning people don't appreciate the same. The planning officer said the very same to me and my response was that the conservation officer had insisted on us having a wrought iron gate with no security panels as it would affect the openness - the current garage sits in front of the planned gates and obscures everything. I also pointed out that the new garage would be placed in a corner of the plot, effectively hidden from view from the road which would be much less "clutter" but they wouldn't have that either even though the neighbour's outbuildings and driveway are over the other side of a small hedge/fence.

That's almost exactly what our design looks like but we do need the three bays as we're desperate for storage (no attic space in the main house). If we do need to build just two bays, the car port would be an identical design but without doors as you say. I've been trying to work out an alternative where we "demolish" the existing (disused) swimming pool and we're then able to build with permitted development. The irony is that the existing garage is around 30sqm, the one we want will be 60sqm but if we went the PD option, we'd be able to have 100sqm and that's if we don't move an apple tree that's in the way - if we did, it would be more like 150sqm, bearing in mind we'd have to keep it under the height/eaves limit.

Apologies for any confusion but I have submitted an application - they just won't let me increase the garage size. In my opinion, they're being completely unreasonable - the current garage is a real eyesore and is in the centre of the "front" garden, obscuring the views across the open countryside - I've attached a picture. The design I submitted for the replacement garage is a huge improvement but nothing particularly novel - slate roof, black timber cladding, oak framing at the front, three bays, and black timber doors. Once the old one's demolished, it will really open up the front garden space which promotes the "openness of the greenbelt", etc. I've even suggested that the larger garage will allow me to have solar panels - not much point for the smaller garage and may force me to have the panels on the roof of the main dwelling instead, assuming they don't find a way to object to that as well. As an aside, if you look to the LHS at the back, that's a disused swimming pool - not sure what to do about that yet

Sadly, whilst I have submitted a planning application, they won't allow me to build anything bigger than the existing one and they've told me to move it well away from the road and reduce the height to less than the current garage so I'm getting even less than current have plus I doubt they'll let me build a carport or add any other outbuildings. For the record, there's a 7' hedge so you can't see much from the road and the "conservation area" itself isn't exactly the Cotswolds. There are no trees that are in scope.

Unfortunately, I have to concur: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance E.3 In the case of any land within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse which is article 2(3) land, development is not permitted by Class E if any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land between a wall forming a side elevation of the dwellinghouse and the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. It looks like I'll have to build it at the rear of the property if I want anything larger than the existing garage then but at least it can be via permitted development. The confusing issue is that it can be argued that the south elevation is the original front of the property and the north elevation is the "new" front of the property but I can't find any guidance on whether the roadside elevation, in this case, trumps the old/new fronts as the "principal elevation". I knew there would be issues and went to huge effort, time and expense to renovate the main dwelling. Unfortunately, I then thought it would be OK to build a decent garage instead of the undersized, ugly, badly positioned one I have.

Yes, there's one neighbour at the side - the garden to the south extends a long way to the end of the road. It's a block diagram and is far from accurate regarding the turn in to the garage. If PD does apply in this case, it worries me that the LPA didn't tell me I didn't need planning permission; further, I need not have paid out for bat surveys and arboricultural reports

Sorry about that - yes, it's supposed to be in line with the principal elevation. It's definitely a conservation area and in the greenbelt. For the main property, I had to jump through all sorts of hoops, using reclaimed slates, specific bricks, specific types/materials for the windows, etc. I had to use flush sash UPVC windows in the original bit and aluminium in the new bit - you can't make this kind of nonsense up! The existing garage is a 1950s-70s style with rendered brick, a slate roof and steel up and over doors. For the new garage, they're insisting on reclaimed slate, timber doors/cladding and even cast iron rainwater goods - I think we'll be able to forego the latter though as the main property used a cast-iron effect aluminium.

Hi, I've just had an extension completed after a great deal of wrangling with the LPA and managed to achieve a slightly less than 50% increase in volume. I now want to demolish my existing garage and build a 50% larger version to the corner of my plot but the LPA has complained that it's disproportionate to the size of the one it's replacing and they're insisting I use timber for the doors/cladding - hardly ideal in terms of maintenance. I've attached a basic diagram which will hopefully illustrate the issues and my arguments are that: 1. The existing garage is disproportionate to the (extended) house. 2. It's in the middle of the front garden area and effectively obscures a view of open fields to the east - not great for greenbelt "openness". The LPA seems to disagree with this and would prefer me to keep the garage where it is - makes no sense to me at all. 3. The existing garage is too small for solar panels but the larger version would allow me to have up to 10 panels. Using the garage for a roof-integrated PV array is better than using the main (historic) house. 4. I should be able to build any size garage I want as long as it fits in with Permitted Development - the curtilage is huge so no problem there and the maximum roof/eaves height I want is fine plus there's no Article 4 directive in place - according to this article I should be fine but how does the conservation area affect this? https://urbanistarchitecture.co.uk/green-belt-permitted-development/ Can anyone offer any insight into how PD would work in my example? Would I have the option of just building a three-bay garage and forget about planning permission? Thanks