Garage Development in Greenbelt/Conservation Area

[phykell]

On 03/10/2023 at 12:33, DevilDamo said:

Do you “need” a triple garage? Can you not make do with a nicer designer double garage or carport that would therefore be a similar size and height as the existing? If you went for an open fronted garage, then you could achieve something like this. But note they would condition the approval that it could not be fully enclosed so you may want to include doors for the submission so you have option of having them or not.

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. 

[phykell]

On 03/10/2023 at 12:56, joe90 said:

Include a photo of that 7’ hedge in your appeal to show that from the road little will be seen.  Also point out that a well designed oak framed garage is less of an eyesore than vehicles parked on the drive 🤷‍♂️.

Thanks - I'll bear that in mind. Just a shame the planning people don't appreciate the same.

On 03/10/2023 at 18:13, kandgmitchell said:

Be aware that "openness" in the green belt for planners is not so much about long views but lack of "clutter". They tend to like buildings grouped together rather than spead out and "dotted" about. That'll explain their desire to see you keep the garage closer to the house. The open view for you and the "openness" for them will then be between the garage and the side boundary.

 

I do like DevilDamo's idea though.....

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.

[phykell]

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. 

[Temp]

As for maintenance..

 

Sawn timber cladding painted with barn black is pretty long lasting finish. We repainted ours last year and the original lasted 12+ years.

 

For the oak.. If you let it go black then silver that's maintenance free but can look ugly for upto 5 years. If you want to keep it honey oak I recommend sanding off any black marks then one coat of exterior grade Dainish oil and three coats of Osmo UV Protection Oil. That's good for 4 years and the Osmo is easy to recoat without sanding just cleaning. Avoid horizontal surfaces though.  

Edited October 8, 2023 by Temp

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> Regarding the appeal process, can anyone say how long it would take?

 

There are government stats by LPA for LPA performance. Also, overall appeal stats by LPA with 'appeals turnover rate'. Also an appeals portal where you can e.g. see the appeal decision notices in your area. I remember it's about 6 months for full applications on average - it should be less for 'householder' appeals.

 

I looked at some appeals in my area and concluded that the results were about as random and opinionated as the original results from my LPA. There's a thread somewhere here on BH. So, my conclusion was: by all means go for an appeal, but it's probably just another throw of the dice - don't anticipate a 'more rational' process.

 

I would try to engage the LPA informally in a last ditch effort to find some common ground. Assemble all the evidence you can in advance and be prepared to 'negotiate'.

 

>>> 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

 

I don't understand - 150 m^2 is the floor area of a medium size house?

 

  

[DevilDamo]

4 hours ago, phykell said:

we're desperate for storage

Why can’t you use the attic/roof space of the proposed garage? Or if you want something at ground floor level, you could introduce a log store type element to the side or rear like this. Obviously you could enclose it for security purposes.

 

[DevilDamo]

4 hours ago, phykell said:

if we went the PD option, we'd be able to have 100sqm

How did you arrive at that figure?

[joe90]

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

and concluded that the results were about as random and opinionated as the original results from my LPA.

 

1 hour ago, Alan Ambrose said:

I would try to engage the LPA informally in a last ditch effort to find some common ground. Assemble all the evidence you can in advance and be prepared to 'negotiate'.

I found my case different, I tried to negotiate with the planner, I got her to concede on two out of four refusal points (because I proved their evidence was not true) but she would not budge on the last two but told me if I went to appeal I would probably win 🤷‍♂️. I found the appeal procedure less painful than applying for planning and a more practical approach.

[phykell]

19 hours ago, Alan Ambrose said:

>>> Regarding the appeal process, can anyone say how long it would take?

 

There are government stats by LPA for LPA performance. Also, overall appeal stats by LPA with 'appeals turnover rate'. Also an appeals portal where you can e.g. see the appeal decision notices in your area. I remember it's about 6 months for full applications on average - it should be less for 'householder' appeals.

 

I looked at some appeals in my area and concluded that the results were about as random and opinionated as the original results from my LPA. There's a thread somewhere here on BH. So, my conclusion was: by all means go for an appeal, but it's probably just another throw of the dice - don't anticipate a 'more rational' process.

 

I would try to engage the LPA informally in a last ditch effort to find some common ground. Assemble all the evidence you can in advance and be prepared to 'negotiate'.

 

>>> 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

 

I don't understand - 150 m^2 is the floor area of a medium size house?

 

  

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. 

[phykell]

18 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

How did you arrive at that figure?

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.

[phykell]

19 hours ago, DevilDamo said:

Why can’t you use the attic/roof space of the proposed garage? Or if you want something at ground floor level, you could introduce a log store type element to the side or rear like this. Obviously you could enclose it for security purposes.

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

[kandgmitchell]

Be aware appeals can be slow. There is a "standard" procedure to get through first where documents are exchanged between the parties. That runs to a set timescale of 8 weeks or so. Then comes the allocation to an individual Inspector. These Inspectors can come from well out of the area. I met one in deepest commuter Buckinghamshire who lived north of York and another in Essex who came from Nottingham. I suspect the Inspectorate wait until a number of appeals in an area makes it viable to allocate them to an Inspector who makes all the site visits across a couple of days. I'm helping someone with an appeal in north Essex that was ready for it's site inspection in February and it still hasn't been done.

 

All I'm saying is an appeal may get you the decision you want but don't assume it's a quick process for bypassing an obstructive planner.................

[BigBub]

I agree with @kandgmitchell. If you look at the current appeal timescales (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/appeals-average-timescales-for-arranging-inquiries-and-hearings) you'll see that the average Householder appeal is taking 22 weeks at present.

[joe90]

However if the LPA will not let you build what you want then an appeal is the only way forward. Yes could be 22 weeks or whatever but surely worth starting it ASAP. Clock  ticking……

[kandgmitchell]

Well to get to an appeal situation you will need either a refusal (which will at least crystalise the issue at dispute) or be beyond the determination date. I guess if the planners have clearly told you they will not let have what you want, then as soon as the date on your acknowledgement letter has passed go for a non-determination appeal. You could try the "well I'll go to appeal if you refuse this" approach but frankly they get paid every month whether you appeal or not so it rarely works. You could try getting your local councillor have the application referred to the planning committee (procedures for this vary between authorities) - odd decisions do get made there. However, all this takes time (and blood pressure!). Good luck.

[phykell]

First of all, thanks for everyone's comments and for sticking with this post - it's really appreciated 

 

The case officer used examples of the road side (west) elevation and the front of the house (north) elevation each being the "selected" principal elevation to rule out the addtional car port(s) to the side in either case and I based on the advice in this thread and the cited documents, I have to concur. Unfortunately, this demonstrates that the principal elevation is in doubt and I'm a bit mystified as to how to make the case. 

 

The north elevation would rule out any PD outbuildings to the north of the property line so I don't want to accept this as the principal elevation under any circumstances - no doubt, they'll prefer this for that very reason. Note that the "current front"  also has the bathroom window and used to have corresponding soil/wastewater pipes running down the wall. Other than the basic porch, there are no other features to show that this is the front and the original stable from the 1700s sticks out from the rest of the property as though it was a rear extension.

 

The west elevation (the road side as people here have suggested as the most likely) would be OK as we can then build using PD up to 100sqm at the far north-east - note that the west elevation has no windows so other than it being parallel to the road, can't be considered the "front" under any circumstances, nor does it have any architectural features.

 

The south elevation, the original front of the house, is the best choice for flexibility and I see no clear rules on establishing the principal elevation other than in the simpler cases. My house is a "heritage asset" and is registered accordingly as having the architectural front to the south elevation - there are pictures from as far back as 1926 showing the front of the property and its front door. I've tracked down a document written by the conservation officer which cites the original front as being the "architectural front" (she used this to deny the balcony on the extension) so I'm leaning towards the PD route and a Certificate of Lawful Development - and appeal if that doesn't work.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kandgmitchell]

The west elevation being designated as the principal elevation will be of no use, as then the north elevation will be a side. If you are in a conservation area then: 

 

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.

 

If the south is the principal elevation then the north elevation is the rear and the above doesn't apply. The technical guidance states:

 

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.

 

From your description the obvious choice would be the west but with the north being a closely argued alternative. If you need to persuade both the planners and an Inspector to accept the south as the obvious principal elevation you may need to "enhance" matters to make it much more of what the man in the street would describe as the front (entrance door, letter plate, doorbell, house name etc). 

 

 

 

 

[phykell]

On 16/10/2023 at 12:23, kandgmitchell said:

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.

 

From your description the obvious choice would be the west but with the north being a closely argued alternative. If you need to persuade both the planners and an Inspector to accept the south as the obvious principal elevation you may need to "enhance" matters to make it much more of what the man in the street would describe as the front (entrance door, letter plate, doorbell, house name etc). 

 

Having looked at lots of information on the subject, I'm sure I can make the case for the south elevation being the principal elevation - as I've said, we have pictures going back to 1926 and the southern elevation has more of the primary architectural features befitting the main elevation of the property; for example:

 

1. The windows on the south elevation are larger than those on the north

2. They have triple sashes rather than single or double.

3. The original front door, shown on the picture in 1926, is very much apparent after the render was removed.

4. The chimneys are positioned on the south side of the roof and they are routed down into the main living areas.

5. Lastly, we have a full archaeological/heritage asset report which clearly defines the southern elevation as the "main elevation" citing records going back to the mid-1700s which document the room layout as typical of double pile cottages in the area, i.e. the main living rooms were positioned at the front of the dwelling to optimise available light and take advantage of the extensive gardens to the front of the property.

Looking at the government's "Permitted development rights for householders - Technical Guidance", the point (section E.1(c)) about outbuildings being positioned beyond the principal elevation is worded as follows: "any part of the building ... would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse".

So we know that the southern elevation was the front/main/principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse and the rules regarding the positioning of outbuildings under PD relate specifically to the layout of the original dwellinghouse. 

Another valuable resource I found was on YouTube -  some of the examples in the following videos cover the position I'm in and should be of interest to anyone trying to understand how the principal elevation can/should be determined:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edfJc_zgCTo - Patchy assessment of candidate elevations is unacceptable

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KjPRoTpl2s - Consideration of "original" house can go back centuries

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IxcMKttPSk - Mixed results when deciding the Principal Elevation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnNG-SmJC-A&t=337s - Councils wrongly interpret "fronting a highway"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jszJpoamsA - Planning Inspector fails to apply the correct test

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q04K-CMCeqQ - Inspectors confused when identifying Principal Elevation

[joe90]

28 minutes ago, phykell said:

we have pictures going back to 1926 and the southern elevation has more of the primary architectural features befitting the main elevation of the property;

Great, this is your evidence use it and don’t back down, despite my planners arguing about my development I presented similar evidence (facts) and they backed down on similar grounds.

[kandgmitchell]

Agreed. Make sure your application for a certificate of lawfulness (and I wouldn't build the garage without one) makes it absolutely clear where the principal elevation is and hence the garage is in the "back" garden. Add all the info you have and go for it. Good luck.