MrForest

Garage PP with no dropped curb

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

My neighbour built a garage with no PP. he is applying for retrospective permission.  The council has rejected the application for a dropped curb as it’s too close to a junction. Will this make planning permission for garage less likely/not possible? It’s attached to a house so not PD

Edited by MrForest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Asking for a friend? 😉

Sounds unlikely to be granted retrospective permission for a garage I suspect. Maybe 'outbuilding' that doesn't require vehicular access has a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Object on the basis you have described, including road safety etc, and make sure that you specifically draw the attention of your Highways Authority (who may not be the LPA) to the same issue on the same basis.

 

If PP has not yet been requested, put in a complaint and request enforcement on the same basis.

 

Contact your local councillor, and write to all members of the Planning Committee.

 

If you behave like a doormat on this, you will be treated like one.

 

F

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is you who built the garage, turn it into a workshop or a snooker room.

 

And don't be so silly next time.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MrForest said:

? It’s attached to a house so not PD

 

Side extensions can be PD. Must be some other reason? Forward of the front elevation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 16/07/2021 at 21:49, Roundtuit said:

Asking for a friend? 😉

Sounds unlikely to be granted retrospective permission for a garage I suspect. Maybe 'outbuilding' that doesn't require vehicular access has a chance.

No. on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47289714

 

so they failed years back for garage. Then in dec 2019 they started to build a garage etc. The6 applied for retrospective permission. Which failed.  They have just had another opportunity to apply(1 year ago) .

 

https://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning%20Applications%20On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=1071347&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Birmingham/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning%20Application%20Details&PUBLIC=Y&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=


 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not sure how relevant the dropped curb permission is.

 

Could easily claim it is just for storage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrForest said:

No. on https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-47289714

 

so they failed years back for garage. Then in dec 2019 they started to build a garage etc. The6 applied for retrospective permission. Which failed.  They have just had another opportunity to apply(1 year ago) .

 

https://eplanning.birmingham.gov.uk/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/Generic/StdDetails.aspx?PT=Planning Applications On-Line&TYPE=PL/PlanningPK.xml&PARAM0=1071347&XSLT=/Northgate/PlanningExplorer/SiteFiles/Skins/Birmingham/xslt/PL/PLDetails.xslt&FT=Planning Application Details&PUBLIC=Y&DAURI=PLANNING&XMLSIDE=

 

 

Would the neighbours prefer he parked his van on the road outside his gates as that looks like his alternative if the dropped kerb access is refused. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Temp said:

 

 

Would the neighbours prefer he parked his van on the road outside his gates as that looks like his alternative if the dropped kerb access is refused. 

Well yes.  Because there’s a postbox in front of gates. At present they just drive over non dropped curb anyway. Which is illegal. This is Farage. 

1AB8A17B-61F3-4937-BB55-1557C1E6DDD3.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is Farage"

 

I'd happily run a van into it a few times then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a case where I lived as a boy.  Someone built a garage without PP and the access was refused.  They did not enforce demolition of the garage, but they did concrete some cast iron bollards into the footpath to prevent access.

 

I guess you could still get a motorbike into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't want to compromise the OP's privacy by posting the links here, but Google Streetview is quite amusing - one view from 2019, and one from 2014 a little further down the road.

I'd suggest the the nearby retirement homes may benefit from an additional bench next to the letterbox, with a litter bin next to it, too.

 

More seriously, contact your local councilors (your elected representatives), show them photographs, invite them to come and see for themselves.

 

I can't see how they could grant PP for a garage if it is not lawfully accessible across the curb. And there seems to be plenty of parking available at the front of the house.

 

Is the house an HMO? Or converted into flats? The number of vehicles parked in the curtilage visible on the satellite view suggests so. If so, how many flats, have they all got PP, is the HMO registered, etc., and is there a danger of the garages becoming more comfortably appointed, with bathroom and cooking facilities?

 

I'm not up on PD rights, but the property already looks to be extended, and the garages seem to be built rearwards right up to your boundary. How lawful is that? I think PD rights are more limited in the case of flats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I didn't realise that was the link to their application.

 

Looking at the previous refusal in 2019 it appears that every piece of work they have done has come with an enforcement notice for not keeping to their original permission. A total of nine enforcement cases.

 

There appears to be an outstanding enforcement notice from 2018 on the side extension 2018/1775/ENF. This would normally be permitted development, but because the house is on a corner it is not and they did not apply for planning permission. It was outstanding when the report was written in 2019, I cannot look it up. I would try and find out what has happened to this. I don't see how they can't have to apply for retrospective permission.

 

Planning was already refused for the garage last year. I would be enquring why this has not been enforced and they are being allowed to apply again. As nothing has changed, it should be refused again.

 

It also appears that the council owns a strip of land between the pavement and the gates, so they do not actually have legal access. There is also a post box that they have built the driveway around. This I note is not shown on their plans and would again suggest that they don't actually own the land.

 

It looks to me as if they are just chancers and have figured out that the Council is not willing to fight them to enforce things, so they just do whatever they like.

 

Also that gazebo type thing in the garden would need planning permission as it is in front of the house.

Edited by AliG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, AliG said:

I didn't realise that was the link to their application.

 

Looking at the previous refusal in 2019 it appears that every piece of work they have done has come with an enforcement notice for not keeping to their original permission. A total of nine enforcement cases.

 

There appears to be an outstanding enforcement notice from 2018 on the side extension 2018/1775/ENF. This would normally be permitted development, but because the house is on a corner it is not and they did not apply for planning permission. It was outstanding when the report was written in 2019, I cannot look it up. I would try and find out what has happened to this. I don't see how they can't have to apply for retrospective permission.

 

Planning was already refused for the garage last year. I would be enquring why this has not been enforced and they are being allowed to apply again. As nothing has changed, it should be refused again.

 

It also appears that the council owns a strip of land between the pavement and the gates, so they do not actually have legal access. There is also a post box that they have built the driveway around. This I note is not shown on their plans and would again suggest that they don't actually own the land.

 

It looks to me as if they are just chancers and have figured out that the Council is not willing to fight them to enforce things, so they just do whatever they like.

 

Also that gazebo type thing in the garden would need planning permission as it is in front of the house.

Yes. They started this build in December 2018. Failed initial retrospective application. But council allowed them to put in another application citing “they didn’t provide Information on postbox and gates”. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's just bizarre, they hardly make things better!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The extra strip of land looks to me like Highways Land designated for the expansion of  the junction / traffic island in the future.

 

Perhaps tickle Highways and see if they will make representations. They will be in your County or Unitary or similar authority.

 

I think I would argue that he second drive to serve an unlawful development is unnecessary as they already have a drive capable of holding 7 or 8 vehicles at the front with an entrance a safe distance from the roundabout. Also the local school and traffic may be useful if the road is busy around that period. While that drive i closer I am not sure it is close enough to be a problem - needs a check.

 

And I would be writing a careful objection based on the list of Relevant Planning Considerations (anything else will be ignored, but you can relate a lot to Residential Amenity).

 

Is it worth requesting that the site has its PD rights removed? I am not sure if that can be done in these circs, but Council's do it to retain control.

 

The shout to check the status of the Gazebo is a good one, as the house has two 'principal elevations'.

 

F

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/07/2021 at 09:47, Ferdinand said:

The extra strip of land looks to me like Highways Land designated for the expansion of  the junction / traffic island in the future.

 

Perhaps tickle Highways and see if they will make representations. They will be in your County or Unitary or similar authority.

 

I think I would argue that he second drive to serve an unlawful development is unnecessary as they already have a drive capable of holding 7 or 8 vehicles at the front with an entrance a safe distance from the roundabout. Also the local school and traffic may be useful if the road is busy around that period. While that drive i closer I am not sure it is close enough to be a problem - needs a check.

 

And I would be writing a careful objection based on the list of Relevant Planning Considerations (anything else will be ignored, but you can relate a lot to Residential Amenity).

 

Is it worth requesting that the site has its PD rights removed? I am not sure if that can be done in these circs, but Council's do it to retain control.

 

The shout to check the status of the Gazebo is a good one, as the house has two 'principal elevations'.

 

F

Just another one I wanted to check. It’s attached to a side extension and buts onto new extension.

from original rear of house it comes out now about 8-9 meters? (Because it’s already been extended) I thought the rules for detached house was 5-6 meters?  Also when it’s next to a boundry what is the max a single story height can be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, MrForest said:

Just another one I wanted to check. It’s attached to a side extension and buts onto new extension.

from original rear of house it comes out now about 8-9 meters? (Because it’s already been extended) I thought the rules for detached house was 5-6 meters?  Also when it’s next to a boundry what is the max a single story height can be?

 

See..

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/17/extensions

 

You have to work through all the rules to see if one triggers the need for PP. It seems likely from what you say.

 

However if you do apply then there are no rules on what you can apply for but the planners are likely to refuse some things more than others.

Edited by Temp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now