Permitted Development checks and approach for large garage/office?

[Pabbles]

Hi everyone.

 

We plan on putting up two buildings in the garden: one large oak 4-bay garage (12mx9m = 108m2) and one large oak garden office (9mx4m = 36m2).

 

I have been through every planning wizard, the PlanningPortal checks and the Householder (technical) Guide for Permitted Development and I believe we can build both buildings easily under permitted development - our oak building supplier has confirmed that he can design to suit.

 

The drawings are being prepared now (after just switching away from steel on saturday for the garage due to the price vs aesthetics balance) and we're pushing to be able to start groundworks within 4 weeks. Until that point we will continue to be paying for an unsustainable level of storage for our classic cars, tools, garden office furniture etc. so we need to complete the buildings quickly.

 

Given the investment involved we would of course prefer to get a Lawful Development Certificate in advance. However the local planning office is currently overwhelmed and has closed their permitted development enquiries service and have advised that it would take 4-6 months for an LDC application to even be assigned to an officer to review, plus they would then need to process the application - so we could be looking at anything up to 8 months to get the certificate... plus builder availability and material lead time, etc.

 

Our understanding is that an LDC is a nice-to-have and that provided we stick firmly within the boundaries of permitted development that it isn't strictly necessary unless we plan to sell the house, which we don't, and could be gained retrospectively if we ever do sell and if it is requested by a buyer.

 

So we're currently (and uncharacteristically, given our aversion to risk) leaning towards building straight away without going through the LDC process. I wondered if experienced members of the board might cast their eyes over our checklist to see if they can see any issues with this approach?

 

 

Here are the checks carried out and design/location decisions made:

 

Through our solicitor and our property searches we have confirmed:

• is the property in any type of designated land? (national parks and the Broads, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation area or World Heritage Sites) - NO
• is the property in greenbelt? - NO
• is the property or any part of it listed? - NO
• is all of the garden correctly recorded as residential garden land rather than agricultural? - YES
• are there any restrictive covenants re: outbuildings or Permitted Development on the property title itself? - NO
• have any restrictions been put in place on the property as a result of a previous planning decision? - NO
• are there any Article 4 directions in place on the property itself or in the surrounding/wider area that would affect Permitted Development rights? NO
• is there any other factor you can think of that might restrict Permitted Development rights upon purchase? NO

 

The design of the buildings is as follows

• The buildings will form outbuildings #2 and #3. #1 is an existing single garage that was built to the front of the property with full planning approval some years ago.
• Both new buildings will be situated far to the rear of the property at the end of the garden which is bordered by fields on two sides and a single neighbour on the other.
• Each building will be positioned >2m from any boundary
• The eave height on the garage is set at just under 2.5m from natural ground level of the flat garden.
• The ridge height on the garage has been designed at just under 4m from natural ground level of the flat garden.
• The eave height on the garden office is set at just under 2m from natural ground level of the flat garden.
• The ridge height of the garden office is at 3.4m from natural ground level of the flat garden.
• Both buildings will have simple dual pitched, man-made slate roofs.
• Neither building will have any form of second story, platform, balcony, porch or veranda nor any living space.
• Both buildings will be built to building regs and building control will be consulted throughout the process.
• The buildings will be approximately 10m from each other and 50m from the nearest highway.
• Neither building is in the sightline of the one neighbouring property.
• The combined footprint of the proposed (108+36m2) buildings, added to that of the existing outbuilding/garage (36m2) is 180m2. The available curtilage around the house is 1,900m2. Which means we're proposing to end up with less than 10% of the available curtilage covered in outbuildings.

 

If we have missed any sort of check or if anyone can see a problem with proceeding without an LDC, I would be very grateful for their feedback.

 

I have been anecdotally told by a number of non-expert people that there is a max square-meterage area limit for any building under permitted development - this varies from person to person. But when I've tried to research this and have challenged planning consultants on the same, no one has heard of any limit in the area beyond the '50% of available curtilage' rule. The only square meterage threshold we are aware of is 30m2 for building regs, which we are already planning to include.

 

Thank you very much.

 

Edited January 16, 2023 by Pabbles

[Russdl]

We’re going to use PD for similar. It looks to me like you’ve covered every base, I can’t think of anything you’ve overlooked.
 

I am interested in your comment:

 

34 minutes ago, Pabbles said:

Neither building is in the sightline of the one neighbouring property.

That’s not a requirement is it? I sincerely hope not for my sake!

[Pabbles]

Thank you buddy.

 

No - its not a requirement as far as I'm aware, I've never seen it mentioned.

 

The only reason I flagged it is to mean that there would be no reason for any neighbour to complain about the building - PD or otherwise.

 

Apologies for the scare.

[DevilDamo]

Although quite rare, the size(s) can come into it.

[Pabbles]

Thank you. That’s some useful background information on a past decision. Could you share the source/planning authority involved?

[DevilDamo]

That was Guildford, Surrey.

[Temp]

Keep an eye on the roof pitch. I think it will be somewhere between 15 and 18 degrees depending on the eaves and ridge detail. I think 15 degrees is the minimum for man made/interlocking slates is 15 degrees. 

[Temp]

I think you should also avoid dividing walls between the bays of the garage or it might be hard to open doors of some cars wide enough to get out.

 

[Pabbles]

Damo. Thank you - I’ll look it up. That may actually influence the decision of how to proceed (permitted development appears to be black and white whereas a LDC seems to introduce some level of judgement/discretion).

 

Temp - thank you very much. That’s some pretty accurate guesswork! It took all of my GCSE maths to work out that it is going to be 18.5-degrees subject to build tolerances. For exactly the reason you’ve described, we agreed earlier today with the designer that we’re going to have man-made slates and picked one that is OK down to 15-degrees. They’re also lighter which helps with the odd forces on the ridge beam/purlins compared to a more traditional pitch.

 

yes - while there’ll be doors on each of the bays, the interior is going to be open plan. The only concession we’ve had to make in moving to oak is that there is going to be three pillars inside the garage supporting the central ‘front to back’ beams as the max span the designer is comfortable with is about 5/6m rather than 9.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Pabbles

[Deejay_2]

Just something to check which may not apply if your Local Authority does not impose the Community Infrastructure Levy.  If it does, then your new square meterage is over 100 m2 which would attract CIL and the need to apply for exemption. 

 

We are in a similar position ie double garage including granny flat area - all ground floor - 12 m x 9 m externally.  As a point of interest if we decided to use the roofspace (albeit tight) and put in a staircase we would have to count this space which would incur CIL hassle (regarded as habitable space).  However, if we use a loft ladder then the loft space is not counted!  So many things to research and consider.

 

You have probably already checked this out but worth a mention.

 

[Pabbles]

Hi - I hadn't come across this before, so thank you for flagging it.

 

I've just found the CIL policy for my local area. At this stage, I could drop the size down if I need to and the buildings are for incidental use rather than residential however I will thoroughly read the policy first.

[Temp]

You should qualify for the cil expedition BUT its very important to follow the correct process to apply for it. Do not start work until you have completed the application process. Some people have been caught out by the planners saying they will be exempt but that's not enough.

 

The four step process is outlined at the top of "Form 7: Self Build Exemption Claim Form - Part 1"...

 

https://www.planningportal.co.uk/planning/policy-and-legislation/CIL/download-the-forms

 

Note that the last step is done after completion.

[Deejay_2]

If you end up having to exempt yourself from CIL because the m2 is over 100 m2 it really is important to read up the rules very carefully and to find some examples of where people have come a cropper. 

 

There is a very strict process to follow and if you get it wrong there are no concessions from the Local Authority.  Basically the LA charge a fixed price per square metre for the CIL contribution to support local "infrastructure".   Our LA charges over £70 per m2 which is relatively cheap when compared with other LAs.   Exemption relieves you of this cost, but put a foot wrong and you will have to pay it and it could cost you thousands of pounds.

 

Also if you obtain exemption you have to live in the property for 3 years after its completion.   

 

As long as you are fully conversant with the procedure, and possibly seek advice from the CIL officer (ours was very helpful) then the process is not that arduous, but remember not to start any work until you have the exemption certificate in your hand.   Amazing that no information whatsoever is provided at the point of submitting a planning application. 

 

Good luck

[Pabbles]

thank you - I'm off to research it all now.

 

[mr rusty]

Sometimes you have to just do it. Even in @DevilDamo quote above the building is "deemed to be" rather than it actually was proven to be outside any regulation, which puts it firmly in subjective territory. The description of "store, study/games room and shower" is somewhat incompatible with the size and the smallish footprint of the house , which does suggest the applicant was possibly trying it on, and the rejection was possibly justified - nor is there any indication how controversial this development was generally.  It is very easy for a planning authority to impose an "opinion" when asked, ahead of works starting - there is no downside for them. It is something of a bigger challenge for a LA to be so confident they are on such solid ground that they can initiate enforcement after the event which might entail going to appeal.

 

The law makers went to the trouble of writing in all the restrictions for Schedule E. If they had wanted to impose a restriction in size as a proportion of the main dwelling, it would have been a one liner in the Act. They didn't, so IMHO it is challenging for a LA to try and interpret a restriction as existing when it isn't actually part of the law governing developments.

 

The garden office @36sqm is very small in comparison to the plot size and I can't see there would be any reason for it not to be incidental, even if it has a use as a study. A garage is a garage, and if not used for anything commercial is literally that by definition - incidental. I am no expert, but from my own personal research for my own garden room, my opinion FWIW is just do it.

Edited January 20, 2023 by mr rusty

[mr rusty]

In fact, when you read the decision from @Devildamo, it is a nonsense. "The physical scale....is  excessive and is therefore not incidental". How on earth can scale which is about size, shape and form be related to "incidental" which for the purposes of planning is related to purpose and use. For this decision to conflate the two in the context of planning law surely would not stand closer scrutiny?