Permitted development and replacement

[Randomiser]

I mentioned on another thread I have some friends currently looking to utilise Permitted Development Rights as negotiating leverage to help secure planning permission for a large extension on their cottage.  They asked me another question on Permitted Development Rights that I do not feel confident about answering, so I thought I would put it up here to see if anyone has any thoughts.

 

There is an old single size garage on the property build before they bought the cottage, it is not really in keeping with the rural area, constructed of concrete panels with a metal roof.  Because of the orientation of the cottage on the plot it is at the back of the house, though one of the cottage's sides actually fronts the road.  It is only behind the side elevation fronting the road in part, some of it is in front of that side elevation which to my understanding means it is not Permitted Development.  However, they can demonstrate that it has been on the property for well in excess of four years, so my understanding is that they can secure a Certificate of Lawfulness (CoL) for the garage.

 

They would like to replace the garage with a larger one, the replacement would sit on the same part of the property as the existing one but extend back further onto the property.  All of the additional part they want to build would be behind the side elevation fronting the road.

 

What they are wondering is whether, having secured a CoL on the existing garage, can they replace it with a larger one where the additional area of footprint would all be on a part of the property where it would be Permitted Development.  If they can, are they limited to the height of the existing garage that they can get a CoL for, or as long as it meets the requirements of Permitted Development can they build a more attractive one which has a higher ridge height?

 

I guess the alternative is to just make an application to replace it with a larger one with a design more in keeping with the area.  However, they are concerned that as soon as they put in a planning application any approval will come with a condition that takes away all their Permitted Development rights, and so scuppers their plans to use PD rights as negotiating leverage with the planners.

 

Any thoughts?

[bassanclan]

I think in this instance a picture (and plan) paints 1000 words

[Temp]

See page 7 and 42 in here..

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

 

Page 7 says..

 

Quote

“Principal elevation” – in most cases the principal elevation will be that part of the house which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house (the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house concerned). It will usually contain the main architectural features such as main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually, but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to be the front of the house. 

 

 There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation, for example on a corner plot, a view will need to be taken as to which of these forms the principal elevation.

 

 

 

Page 42 say planning permission is needed if..

 

Quote

any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwelling house.

 

 

So assuming the front of the house is the principle elevation. Then the garage would not need planning permission if built now. It might be in front of a side elevation that faces a road but it's not in front of the principle elevation and that's what matters.

 

However in the past I think a house could have more than one principle elevation. So it might have needed planning permission back then.

 

Edited May 12, 2020 by Temp

[Randomiser]

10 hours ago, Temp said:

See page 7 and 42 in here..

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/830643/190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

 

Page 7 says..

 

 

Page 42 say planning permission is needed if..

 

 

So assuming the front of the house is the principle elevation. Then the garage would not need planning permission if built now. It might be in front of a side elevation that faces a road but it's not in front of the principle elevation and that's what matters.

 

However in the past I think a house could have more than one principle elevation. So it might have needed planning permission back then.

 

That's really helpful, thank you.  I had confused myself because of the discussion of side elevations fronting a highway on page 16, but it seems from reading Class E again, as referenced by you, that particular aspect of Class A is not relevant for Class E.  Because I was wrongly taking account of the side elevation fronting a highway considerations of Class A I was getting into a much more complex analysis than is needed.  It seems simple, the new garage they want to build is at the back of the house so as long as it complies with the other criteria it will be permitted development.  I'll pass that on (I have tried to persuade my friends to join this forum as it is so helpful, but for whatever reason they seem to have an issue with much the internet has to offer).

[Temp]

Yes it's crazy. I believe if the garage was attached to the house it would count as an extension needing planning permission (page 7 & 16) yet if its detached its considered an outbuilding and doesn't ( page 7 & 42).

 

I think there once had to be a 1m gap for it to count as detached? Not sure if that's still the case.