Deejay

OK, so here's what happened. Planning approval was granted today. It's been an absolute sham in my view. I had to really persist about getting the applicationform amended to either remove the statement under the Parking section, or change it to "alternative on road parking on the main bus route". I particularly kept emphasising that as it stood the application form did not meet validation requirements as the information was incorrect. I continued to copy all emails to the Parish Council (for record purposes as I have realised they have little clout) and latterly to higher up planning officials. So on Tuesday this week they emailed saying the application form had been amended and when I checked the portal this was the case and the amended wording was OK. However, the Highway Officer's response was ludicrous and reads "Whilst the revised site plan indicates that no car parking can be provided, I note that no additional bedrooms are being created. In the event that the proposed study was to be used as a third bedroom, I would not consider this to create a road/pedestrian safety concern given the available on street car parking on xxxx Road." You couldn't make it up. The on-street parking referred to is on a very busy main road/bus route, is quite narrow and approaches a busy roundabout. There are several businesses in this congested area with no parking facilities as well as properties with no parking facilities. The Highway Officer's advice is almost encouraging on street parking. Totally irresponsible in my view as it's an accident waiting to happen. However, I am just mentioning this as an aside as it is not what my post was about. Many thanks for the advice I received, which I took on board.

Thank you. I am not against the proposal as it appears in its description. I also think the Highways Officer will only be concerned with the removal of the only parking space resulting in further ad hoc parking on a busy main road/bus route. However, the item re "additional" parking does appear under Parking on the application form and I don't trust the planning department enough to risk it being included in an approval. I feel I've done all I can to be honest. I agree about approaching the District Councillor but I'm housebound at the moment with a broken leg - under other circumstances I would have done that at the start. Many thanks for responding.

Update. There's been quite a lot of to-ing and fro-ing with emails. Planning Assistant not agreeing to redact the said information from the planning application even though the originally submitted block plan to which it refers has been amended and the parking space removed. I eventually, in desperation, copied in a senior planning officer to my email. He has responded today saying that the decision will be made until all the matters I have raised are looked into. As I said previously, I am not objecting to what I believe is the reason for the planning application. I am concerned that the "additional" parking space referred to in the Parking section of the application will get included in the approval if given. I'll update when I have more information. Happy Christmas and thanks to those who have taken the time to respond.

Thank you and that makes perfect sense. Unfortunately, from previous experience I don't quite share your confidence in the workings of our local authority although I would like to. I have decided to email the planning assistant regarding the removal or disregard of the parking description on the application form so that it receives further attention at least. I shall copy in the Parish Council who have also objected to the proposal and are clearly also confused about the additional parking space mentioned on the planning application. This will hopefully draw further attention to the matter and also provide a record for all concerned.

Thank you. I have raised an objection about the proposed parking space but now am questioning whether the planning application actually includes this for approval, or whether it was just "additional information" on the form. I am not against the conversion of the garage. Owner of cottage not yet resident and I am nursing a broken leg and housebound. My concern is for safety at the entrance of the access road and should permission be granted for the additional parking space it will inevitably lead to haphazard parking encroaching onto access road which would prevent an emergency vehicle entering. I have said all of this in my objection. I would really like to establish before a decision is made whether in fact it is possible for approval to somehow include this parking space. It is quite worrying. According to the planning portal, a planning assistant is dealing with the application.

I'm not sure whether anyone can help with this. Neighbour owns small cottage at the entrance to our private road. It has a garage but no other parking is allowed on the right of way on which the cottage sits. He has applied to convert the garage to living space which will in effect mean them having to park on a busy bus route - something the Highway Officer will have to consider. My question is about the Householder application form that has been submitted. I have copied extracts from the form: Description of Proposed Works Please describe the proposed works Has the work already been started without consent? Conversion of garage into living area Much further down the form Parking Will the proposed works affect existing car parking arrangements? If Yes, please describe: Yes garage converted however an additional parking spot is to be provided within the curtilage The first block plan provided showed the area within the curtilage where the additional parking space would be provided with an outline of a vehicle. I could see immediately that the boundary was incorrect and provided an up to date Land Registry Plan as evidence. This was accepted as correct and the block plan changed to show that there was now not enough space for even the smallest of vehicles to park within the amended curtilage. The outline of the parking space with vehicle had been removed from the amended block plan. However, the description on the application form which I have copied above has not been changed although this is now incorrect in my view as it is clear that it would not be possible to fit a car space within the property's curtilage. I feel strongly that the written description on the application form should also be removed to marry up with the block plan. I am not sure what information on the application form will be considered for approval when the proposal is considered and am worried that somehow the proposed car parking space will end up being approved even though there is nowhere to put it. I'm not sure whether I'm being overly cautious in that it may be that the only thing that is being considered for planning permission is contained within the Description of the Proposed Works section (copied above) and any other information on the form is for information only. Can anyone help with my dilemma - I am considering writing to the planning department tomorrow asking for the parking space description to be removed from the application form as it no longer matches the block plan. If I don't, then I am worried the parking space will get swept up in the approval. Many thanks for any advice/help.

On further review of our approved plans and looking on Google Earth at approved “outbuildings” in other people’s gardens in our Conservation Area (everyone seems to want to have an annex of some sort), I am surprised that our approval has been so generous, particularly with regard to roof height (5.4 m to ridge). On that basis and returning to the approved plans (which already look like a bungalow) we could: Try for variation of condition and resubmit site plan with a red line change to outline the plot. If/when this is approved start the physical build but try for a further minor amendment by changing the double garage to single and using the other single garage space for accommodation - not sure they would allow this as the application is basically for a double garage with space added on lengthwise for dependent relative accommodation. (We could always change this at a later date I suppose). If that is approved then complete the project which now has its own defined plot, and apply for change of use to a separate dwelling, not necessarily immediately but sometime in the near future. Split the title deed – not sure whether this should be done before or after the Change of Use application. We would miss out on the VAT reclaim. Not sure where this would leave us as regards CIL in that if Planning agreed change of use, would CIL say this in effect has been a self build and you should have claimed exemption, but as you didn’t and you can’t claim retrospectively, then you have to pay it. That would be a major blow. Can anyone see a glaring problem with any of the above or even better suggest a better way of doing this. I would check things out with the CIL officer in due course but at the moment I'm trying to establish all options.

This is interesting. If we just red line the plot, apply, get approval for new dwelling and then start the build having filled in the initial CIL forms, the LA will want to put the charge on the title deeds as stated in the rules in my previous post. The only title deeds we will have if we have not split the plot are the ones on the original bungalow and we don't want CIL involved with our original bungalow because we may wish to demolish it in the future and if we already have a charge on our title deeds we will have used up our CIL exemption allowance . In your case if you know 100% that you will never demolish your original property, then it won't matter. I hope you can understand that garble! The application for the annex was approved but we managed to keep the m2 below 100 m2 so CIL not triggered. We could have built the annex without involving CIL and then, say in a few years, decide to demolish original bungalow and would have been able to apply for CIL exemption on its replacement. I laboured all of this at length with the CIL officer in 2021 before we applied for annex, who was brilliant and he advised me the way to go. So in our case, in order to get 2 CIL exemptions, the plot will need to have its own title deeds before we fill in any CIL forms. I can't ever see us being in a position to demolish our existing bungalow but at least it leaves the door ajar. Thank you for being so helpful. You have really helped me focus.

Definitely have no plans to sell ever as we love it here although shared private road which comes with issues. Original application double garage with extension for granny annex - my son and I currently live in the original bungalow which is jointly owned by us and my younger son who lives elsewhere. The plan was that when I pass on my older son could move to the annex and my younger move into the bungalow to "keep an eye on him". Costs became prohibitive so shelved. Reconsidered when change of gov in July - had not even considered separate dwelling before. This would make it more financially viable as we will be able to reclaim VAT and the sizes are the same but single garage instead of double - second garage space becomes increase in accommodation. CIL not a problem and no worries re land charge as 3 years not a problem. I do think though that after getting planning permission we shall need to split the title before applying for CIL exemption. Everything will then be separate from existing bungalow which will be able to have its own self build exemption should it be needed. The best way forward would seem to be to submit a completely new application which could/would attract objections. We had only one last time, but with change in property owners around us I would anticipate more. However, new legislation might make this less prohibitive. Will have to wait and see on that one. This seems the best way to go unless anyone has any alternative ideas to suggest. Today considered whether Change of Use application might work if we built annex as approved first. But then no VAT reclaim which would be a big loss to us. Thank you for helping.

OK so from further research I can now see we shall have to submit new planning application with plot within red line and remainder within blue line. CIL is sticking point for us but the following is pretty clear - “Private homebuilders can apply for an exemption to their local council at any time, as long as their development has not started or ‘commenced’. This includes demolition and other minor groundworks, the digging of trenches, laying of pipes and changes to the use of the land”. We dug a trench to say we had started current planning and building regs approvals for annex so that we were within Bldg Regs before changes in July 2022. So it would seem we definitely need a new planning application. Private homebuilders who want to claim the exemption must take two steps before commencing their development: – Firstly, they must commit to pay the levy on the home they want to build. This is done by completing an ‘Assumption of Liability’ form. Secondly, they must certify that their project meets the qualifying criteria by submitting a ‘Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1’ to the council. On receipt of the ‘Self Build Exemption Claim Form – Part 1’, the council must notify the private homebuilder in writing as soon as practicable to confirm that the exemption is to be granted. The council will then register the chargeable amount (i.e. the levy that would have been payable if the exemption had not been granted) as a ‘local land charge’ on the property for three years from its completion. Mortgage providers need to be notified of this and approve it. This was what we were trying to avoid on submitting our annex application as we were unsure of our future plans. This seems to indicate that we can wait to see whether we get approval and if we do split the plot from our title deeds before filling in any of the forms, otherwise I assume the charge will go on our home mortgage as the plot is still part of it. So complicated. If the private homebuilder starts the development before they have received notification from the council, the levy charge must be paid in full within the time period specified by the council. Before starting the development, the private homebuilder must submit a ‘Commencement Notice’ to the council. This must state the date on which the development will start. If this is not done the private homebuilder will become liable for the full levy charge. On completion the private homebuilder must submit an ‘Exemption Claim Form – Part 2’ to the council which provides supporting evidence to confirm their project qualifies for relief (this must be done within six months of formal completion of the home). Private homebuilders applying for an exemption have a right to appeal to the Valuation Office Agency against the amount of levy exemption granted. There is no scope to appeal against a council’s refusal to grant an exemption. This has all come back to me now and how important it is to follow the procedure to the letter. So I am assuming from the above that we can submit our application with red line around plot and blue line round the rest, and complete required CIL forms at this time. We need to ensure Hopefully get planning permission and then sort out the split from the title deeds. The thing is NOT TO START ANY WORK until we have submitted a Commencement Notice and the Council have confirmed we are eligible for exemption. Sorry it's so long but thought it might help someone else in the same situation. Thanks for everyone's help.

Never a truer word spoken. We already have a shared access which we own (thank goodness as that was down to the excellent solicitor we had, not us). Three other properties have right of way (two newish builds and one cottage at the entrance which has very limited right of way). The problems always arise when there is a change of ownership with the two cottages at the road entrance. I am always the bad person as I have to stipulate no parking etc. I would never choose anything "shared" ever again if we ever move.

The current red line on the approved plan includes our bungalow that we live in and the area on which the outbuilding is to be built, together with the private access road. So we own all of this. If we separate the "plot" do we show the access road and proposed plot with a red line border and the remaining area containing our bungalow and remainder of garden outlined in blue, even though we own it. This information is really helpful.

Thank you - that is really helpful about the planning requirement. I think we would have to separate the plot before applying, otherwise the original bungalow still standing will get swept into the calculations and we would not be deemed to be building a separate self build. Could we just separate the "plot" with a red line when we apply without having to change anything on the title deeds at this stage. It would be good if we could.

Planning approval granted on 2 Feb 2003 for outbuilding at bottom of garden - double garage with dependent relative small extension - Conservation Area. Only conditions were 3 year start and to be built as plans, and materials (copied at end of this post). Nothing else. Building Regs approval received. Site marginally prepared with one trench dug and confirmation project had commenced from both Planning and Building Control Changes of design in the planning stages ended up with this looking like a bungalow. I refilled the trench myself (we needed to keep it open to say we have started) as it was very near an old wall and the rain since would have brought the wall down. Will need to re-open trench if we resume work. After the commencement the energy crisis, rise in material prices kicked in so put on hold as not financially viable. Plus complications with CIL, no VAT reclaim etc as not self build. Re-think with new planning legislation expected. To become viable we need to change it to a self build. The plans will change a little in that the garage will become single instead of double and living space extended into that space. A self build will be CIL exempt and we can reclaim VAT. Will section site off from main bungalow and new build will have own address. We wonder whether we could just re-apply under request for Variation of Planning Condition to make the small design changes but I'm not sure what impact there would be as regards changing from outbuilding to self build bungalow, and presumably we would have to define the plot as separate to existing bungalow before applying so that we don't get bogged down with CIL complications. We don't want to lose the CIL exemption on the original bungalow in case we decide to demolish it and rebuild. The quote at the end of the post indicates we would have to do a completely new application but I am wondering whether this might change with the new legislation as we would be providing a sustainable extra dwelling. Has anyone had experience of this and if so do you have any advice. Description and Location Demolition of garage and erection of a detached outbuilding to rear at ............ Condition(s) imposed: 01 The development hereby permitted shall be commenced before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Reason In order to comply with the requirements of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 02 The permission hereby granted shall relate to the area shown outlined in red on the approved site plan and the development shall only take place in accordance with the submitted details and specifications and as shown on the approved plans (as set out below) Site Location Plan, received 09 December 2022 AES-0641 – Site Layout Plan, received 09 December 2022 AES-0641 -Elevations, received 09 December 2022 Reason To define the permission and for the avoidance of doubt. 03 The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted shall match those used in the existing building. Reason In order to ensure a satisfactory appearance in the interests of visual amenity and in accordance with Core Strategy Policy CS28. Quote from Officer's Report Finally, a neighbouring resident requested whether or not separate utilities from the main house would be fitted into the building. However, even if the utilities were separate from the main dwelling house this would not allow the outbuilding to be used as a separate dwelling and would not negate the requirement for planning permission. In conclusion, it is considered that the proposed single storey outbuilding is acceptable in terms of neighbouring amenity, highway safety and would not harm the character and appearance of the property or the Conservation Area, subject to the recommended conditions. As such, the proposal complies with relevant adopted Local Plan policies and is recommended that planning permission be granted for the scheme for the aforementioned reasons set out in the report. We are just looking at the options currently and trying to establish whether it's worth pursuing. Any thoughts much appreciated.

The photos I have posted are of plans already submitted which the LA want changing to single storey. The revised plans going in this week have no usable space other than for storage in the attic, no rooflights and no stairs access to the attic. So we hope this will satisfy the Planners on the single storey aspect. This will leave us with a single storey double garage and attached ground floor granny flat. Personally, I think the Planners will still want this changing somehow but I will post back on the outcome. Thank you for your input which has been really helpful.

Yes, it does look huge doesn't it. Do you think it would appear so huge if it was a triple garage because basically that's what it is with one garage extended forward by 2 m for the flat. I agree the design with the extended part makes it look like another dwelling. The revised drawings are going in this week with the roof lowered to 4.95m or lower, rooflights removed, staircase removed. The double garage is for use by the existing bungalow which sits in a more prominent position further up the garden. It is hoped in the (probably distant now) future to replace the existing bungalow with a house which, because it will not have a double/triple garage attached (because we will have already built it) will not be so bulky and obtrusive and will therefore sit much better in the Conservation Area facing the Grade 11 Listed Church. The garage site is much less visible. We have basically split the original plans because at this moment in time the need is for the granny flat and in the future it may become a flat for son A if my other son B decides to replace the existing bungalow with a house for him and his family.

Right, I have photos

Hi I'll try and get my son to photograph the plans (I have been waiting since yesterday) so that you can see what we are working with now. The original submission was more of a "coach house" building with double garage and extra space for gym (or whatever) on ground floor with flat above. It was 6.7 m high and the roof did not impinge on the room sizes. Planningsaid too high as did objections and asked for revision to single storey but no suggestion of acceptable height. We submitted revised drawings with the ridge height down to 5.7 but changed the shape ie long rectangle 7m x 12m but at one end there is a projection of two metres making a 6 m x 7 m double garage and a 6 x 9 m granny flat all on the ground floor. This had a central separate staircase to attic in which we managed to put a gym area (which could be anything) and a shower area. Planning said no, needs to be single storey - still no hint of acceptable height. We now intend to submit revisions with 4.95 roof, remove all rooflights, remove staircase, put WC at back of garage. So nothing in roof. Approx same dimensions as last submission for garage and granny flat on the ground floor, minus the separate staircase to the attic. It's difficult to visualise without plans so I'm off to try again.

Thank you for your reply Charlie K LP. I don't have Photoshop and do my best with limited tech knowledge. We will do as you suggest and try for what we think is next highest try at 4.95 m ridge height as Planning have recently passed a similar garage/sunroom nearby at this height. However, this is not self contained accommodation, is not in a Conservation Area, does not have a Grade 11 Heritage Church nearby, and does not have a public footpath running right next to it. I think if the Planning Officer rejects this then the next submission (if offered) will be our last so we'll have to think carefully about what we submit. Thanks again.

Tried to send over the scanned plans but apparently larger than 5.86 mb. They are just on A4 paper so not sure what else I can do. I have just emailed the architect my revised copy OK (which I had scanned to my PC) so not sure what the problem is.

We had two objections, one from a neighbour (about the height) and one from the Parish Council who quoted local policy and also the local neighbourhood plan which comes into force this month. Not sure whether we would have any chance with an Appeal. I shall think about it though.

Thank you. Yes you are correct. We are in a conservation area and next to a public footpath. Do you have a copy of your design that you could post to give me some idea of how it looks. I don't think my architect who is almost retired is entirely conversant with his software. I have to go with what he tells me as I can't visualise anything with regard to roofspace. For example, he has drawn up a design for a replacement house on the site of our existing bungalow and the roof is 10 m high, even though the two new builds on the same site are only 8 m high or thereabouts - I really don't understand it (we shall probably never build this and have only stayed with him thinking the garage would be easier). He did say he could reduce the garage ridge to 4.6 m but has never said he could go lower. WE are now only looking at storage in the roof. Thank you for your help.

We hope to build a double garage with additional granny self contained accommodation. Initial submission too high for planners at 6.7 m (I agree with them). We revised the plans and reduced height to 5.7 m but still utilising usable space in roof for gym area and storage so included rooflights and separate staircase. Planning officer has come back saying "Our previous concerns remain and though the amended plans are a considerable improvement, we still think it is excessively large. I would suggest amending it further to reducing it to single storey only." I am not sure why they can't be clearer but perhaps are not allowed to commit themselves. I thought we had reduced it to single storey. Anyway the architect is about to email the Planning Officer and suggest a roof height of 4.95 m, remove all rooflights and remove the staircase - so any space available will just be for storage. I think this is quite a big change from the original plans. My questions are 1 Does anyone think there will be a problem sending an email asking these questions - it was my suggestion to save everyone's time but now I'm wondering whether this is inappropriate and the architect should send in revised plans. I don't want to offend the Planning Officer. 2 If the Planning Officer still thinks the building is too high, will he give us another opportunity to try and get it lower or are the opportunities to revise the plans limited. The architect doesn't seem to know the answer to this. 3 I find the Planning Officer's description of excessively large confusing. Large is large in my view, but the architect says he is referring to the height (and the PO does use the words "excessively large"). Thank you for any help.

When we applied for the NMA in 2014 for the house on Plot 1 it was by accident rather than design in that we had never intended building the house ourselves. Lack of buyers of the plot forced us to re-think. I suppose I am now aware of manipulating the situation. If we remove the rooms on the top floor and the staircase we are left with a 3 bedroomed house with views only from the first floor, which the OAP'S on the estate I am sure would not object to - however I think their attention would be drawn to the rooms in the roof. Our immediate neighbour, who bought their plot from us, may object to rooms in the roof, although all overshadowing etc requirements will be met. Others around us may also object as may the Parish Council - some prob thinking they should have objected more profusely the first time around (no objections last time from Parish Council). If I can avoid the application going to Committee then I would prefer this, and I really don't want to face an appeal. The architect is retired and inexpensive and between us we are trying to make the road to approval as smooth as possible, hence my considering the NMA route. If, as you say, Planning only consider what's in front of them, then my removing the top floor rooms shouldn't "be held against me". They gave approval in 2014 for the house on Plot 1 for exactly the same thing so is there any reason to not allow it this time. I would have said Plot 1 was less likely to obtain approval to the NTA because of surrounding properties so we were surprised how smoothly it went through.