Is a gym considered a habitable room for planning purposes?

[Loz100]

Hi

Thank you so much.

The land has been an open space for decades so in all honesty we never believed it would be built on hence our side elevation windows. 
That aspect has had a right to light for many many decades. 
 

 

 

 

 

It was used as my yoga room but I am unable to do that now and when covid hit my husband started working from home and needed a study. No ulterior motive at planning just circumstances have changed. 

[Loz100]

They referenced this part of our planning acceptance saying that a room usage cannot be changed without planning approval ie gym to a study.

[AliG]

OK, I am going to try to help here.

 

I know you are frustrated and these things are quite upsetting.

 

You have posted three threads about this with slightly different variations on the theme. It is best to keep everything to one thread so that people can help you.

 

Firstly - Right to light - The extension was only approved in 2017, so there is no right to light. The window is what matters, not the aspect.

 

However, you have confused me and I suspect other people by consistently calling your house a bungalow. It seems that it is a two storey house and always has been. You also built a two storey extension This could make a big difference. Often councils will say just build a fence at ground floor level. This is why you had to apply for planning permission that includes the gym/study. The approval does say that the layout has to be exactly as shown on your plans.

 

See this thread which has plans for your house.

 

 

I found the planning application for the houses next door from the info in the various posts. I am not going to link to it, but I suggest that you post it as it is the best way for people to see what is going on and help you.

 

Originally they proposed houses with habitable windows facing you which would not have been approved, but they have now revised this. The house proposed closest to yours has no habitable room windows facing you, they are only bathroom/utility room windows. So in normal circumstances this elevation of the new house can be 1m from the boundary which is what they propose.

 

According to the plans, there is already a 1.8m fence between the plots. If this is the case then that fence would only be 1m from your window, if not I would pull them up for the error in the application although there is nothing stopping them building such a fence. The proposed bungalow is 5.3m high, but this is at the peak of the house, which is 5.5m away. The eaves that will be 2m away are 2.5m high. This means that the bungalow will create little more overshadowing than the current fence does. If you derew a 45 degree line from the window to the top of the fence it would be higher than the new house.

 

Your best bet for a planning objection is that you do have upper floor bedroom windows facing the proposed house. The rule usually is that in a principal window to gable situation then the minimum distance is 12m. The question is do you have principal windows on the side of your house, as said side or back does not matter it is principal windows.

 

However, there are two issues. One is that you have built 1m from the boundary, so there is a strong argument that it is your own fault, and if you can build 1m away someone else can. The other argument is that the two bedrooms upstairs have front and rear facing windows and these new side windows are secondary. Looking at the plans, you might be able to argue that the side window in bedroom 2 is the main window. Also there is no issue of you being overlooked by the bungalow, the issue would actually be are you overlooking them and as they have no habitable rooms the answer is probably no. So your best argument against planning for the bungalows may be you overlook them, not they overlook you.

 

I really think there is nothing you can do about the study window. It is not appreciably worse off with a house there than it was with the fence there. If the fence is 1m away, then a house 2m away will be considered to make little difference. It will neither be overshadowed nor overlooked. Whether it is a study or a gym makes little difference to this.

 

To put a more positive spin on things, if the bungalows had already been built you would likely not have been allowed to build the upstairs windows. You would still have been allowed to build the study and it would be in the same situation as it is now.

[joe90]

@AliG well done you for putting this in context 👍

[Loz100]

Hi

Thank you for you response. 
I have posted several threads as they keep changing their development plans and layout etc and I am not sure how to delete update existing posts so apologies.

I have never referred to my home as a bungalow just that a bungalow is to be built next to us.

The classification of a habitable room is very important as our local council stipulates a minimum distance from a habitable room window to a blank wall of 12m. Therefore if the gym qualifies as a habitable room then a 2m gap is insufficient from that window. 
With regards to bedroom 2 a stud wall was put up to create a dressing room where the en-suite ends to the outer wall. This was checked with the building’s inspector at the time of the build and he advised that we did not need to do anything as it was a stud wall and was not near any stairs and each room had a window so we did check at build stage. We have always tried to ensure we follow guidelines etc. The council are now saying that the would have required planning consent which I do not understand. The room layouts are exactly as they are when the completion certificate was provided so surely if that wall was not compliant why was a certificate granted?

Also, we are not opposed to the development of 3 bungalows and have even offered for them to obscure glaze 2 of the side bedroom windows to offer them more flexibility when siting their habitable rooms so we are trying to be flexible. We have put forward a plan we would have no objections to at all but a wall or roof line 2m from our bedroom and study is oppressive and greatly impacts the outlook which all habitable rooms should be offered. 
 

Therefore, I am trying to find guidance on:

*Is a gym considered a habitable room?

*Would we require planning permission to change a room usage from a gym to a study? Based on note 2 in the planning acceptance.
*Should the build have been issued a completion certificate if it did not exactly mirror the plans sited? 
*As the wall has been there for over 5 years are there are regulations or exemptions that would mean it is a valid wall? (Hope that makes sense).

*Would we require planning permission to have built that wall after the extension? 
 

I am very grateful for you taking time out of your day to offer me guidance.

 

Kind regards Lorraine

[AliG]

On 19/10/2023 at 16:49, Loz100 said:

The original bedroom window sills are 180mm deep and the new bedroom windows are 230mm deep. 
 

It is a bungalow so overlooking is not a concern but the lack of light and oppressive feel are more of a concern. 
This is not a landing or bathroom window but a room where my husband can spend 10 hours a day. 
🥹

Sorry I misread this line "it is a bungalow" as talking about your house, but I now see you were talking about the new houses.

 

You also at no point in this thread mentioned anything other than the ground floor or the fact you had extended the upper floor of the house which is quite pertinent.

 

Anyway, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

 

[AliG]

42 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

Is a gym considered a habitable room?

TBH it is not clear from what I have looked at. I think probably not as a habitable room is considered a room that you use for living, sleeping or eating and a gym would not come under that. Studies are also considered habitable rooms and they have to be a room you would expect to spend an extended period in. Gyms would be a grey area. Also the rules are not that black and white and one habitable room at the side may not be enough to stop the building of a house close by anyway. My architect's view is usually that ground floor is not relevant as it can be mitigated by fences and planning only cares about upper floors. You are also not helped by your architect showing the gym as having the same wall depth as the garage. This suggested that it was not an insulated habitable room, irrespective of what was built. It is a shame as I suspect that you would have got permission for a study at the time with there not being anything to the side, but the actual room applied for appears to be an unheated gym within a garage. It suggests that the architect thought you wouldn't get permission for a habitual room so didn't apply for one.

 

42 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

*Would we require planning permission to change a room usage from a gym to a study? Based on note 2 in the planning acceptance.

 

The planning acceptance says that it has to be built exactly as on the ground and first floor plan, see below. It also says that you need to do this to adhere to policy DM10 which includes consideration of neighbouring amenity. Interestingly they did not mention the ground floor window as affecting neighbouring amenity which suggest they don't think it is a habitable room, or think it is irrelevant as there is a fence there. However, that does not mean to say they were correct, nor is it clear if building according to the floorplan includes room usage or just the position of walls and windows. Unfortunately planning just isn't that prescriptive.

 

1. The development hereby permitted shall not be carried out otherwise than in complete accordance with the submitted application details, as follows: Site Location Plan and Block Plan Drawing No. Lee-002 and Proposed Ground Floor Plan Drawing No. Lee-010 Revision B received by the local planning authority on 28 April 2017 and Proposed First Floor Plan Drawing No. Lee-011 Revision C and Proposed Elevations Drawing No. Lee-020 Revision C received by the local planning authority on 7 June 2017.

   Reason: To ensure a satisfactory appearance and impact of the development to accord with Policies DM1 and DM10 of the adopted Site Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (2016).

 

0. Impact upon neighbouring residential amenity

1. 8.6.  Policy DM10 of the adopted SADMP requires that development would not have a significant adverse effect on the privacy and amenity of nearby residents and occupiers of adjacent buildings.

2. 8.7.  By virtue of the position of the application dwelling between a club, a public house, a community centre and a church the proposed scheme would not have any significant adverse impacts on the privacy or amenity of the occupiers of any neighbouring residential properties. The proposed first floor side elevation windows in the existing dwelling would face only the adjacent club beer garden and parking areas.

 

8. 8.8.  The proposal would therefore be in accordance with Policy DM10 of the adopted SADMP.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

*Should the build have been issued a completion certificate if it did not exactly mirror the plans sited? 

 

This is a popular misunderstand. Building control has nothing to do with planning. They can sign off a house as correctly built only for it to be knocked down due to being built in the wrong place. They never would check to see if it contravened planning.

 

42 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

*As the wall has been there for over 5 years are there are regulations or exemptions that would mean it is a valid wall? (Hope that makes sense).

Again having building control approval is not relevant. You would not normally need planing for an internal wall, but as they said you have to build exactly to the plans then they could argue that in this case you do. The reason for this is that building that wall changes the side window from a secondary window to a primary window which affects your neighbours. In normal circumstances it would never come up and nobody would care.

 

I don't think 5 years would make a difference. The statute of limitations for a breach of planning conditions is 10 years.

 

42 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

*Would we require planning permission to have built that wall after the extension? 

Theoretically yes as it was a condition of your planning approval, in practice no one would have cared if this had not become a contentious issue.

 

 

Overall because of the fact that you applied for what looks like an unheated gym within a garage, and there is a fence 1m from the gym window anyway, I think arguing about the gym is a waste of time.

 

By far the best argument is that you overlook the proposed house from your upstairs side windows and they are not 12m from them.

[Loz100]

Honestly no need to apologise. My posts are pretty lengthy so totally understand. The developers have also now submitted several plans which confuses me every time as I have to start again. 
 

Thank you so much, the way you word things are far easier to understand than our local planning officer.

 

The gym / study room is fully heated and has all the appropriate insulation etc as any other room within our home. It had to have special boarding etc as it was next to the garage. To be fair when it was a gym I used it several hours a day for yoga & meditation and my husband & eldest daughter also used for another hour or do a day. Surely that is a used and lovable space? 

So my best option is to argue that the side elevation is the principle light source for the bedroom making it the primary window ? The front window allows light more into the dressing room and therefore a 12m distance should be present for the side elevation one? 
Is this because the roof apex will only be 5.5m away from that window?

 

Kind regards Lorraine

 

 

[AliG]

9 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

The gym / study room is fully heated and has all the appropriate insulation etc as any other room within our home. It had to have special boarding etc as it was next to the garage. To be fair when it was a gym I used it several hours a day for yoga & meditation and my husband & eldest daughter also used for another hour or do a day. Surely that is a used and lovable space? 

It is just unfortunate that the architect did not show it like this on the plans. From the plans it looks like ti will be an unheated room as the wall thickness is the same as the garage.

 

You are perfectly within your rights to say that you used it for yoga and meditation many hours a day and nowhere did it say on the plans that it would be an unheated room so it was in your opinion a habitable room, but they may or may not accept this. I cannot find much reference to gyms from a planning perspective. I just think that in the normal scheme of things because it appears that it is right next to a fence already they won't consider putting a house on the other side of the fence an imposition. But it is always worth a try. I know it feels bad to you at the moment, but the amount of light among through the window should not really change.

 

14 minutes ago, Loz100 said:

So my best option is to argue that the side elevation is the principle light source for the bedroom making it the primary window ? The front window allows light more into the dressing room and therefore a 12m distance should be present for the side elevation one? 
Is this because the roof apex will only be 5.5m away from that window?

 

I think so, thus you have a situation where they are principal windows on your house and the side elevation the bungalow so it should be that they are 12m away.

 

Unfortunately from what I can see they might push back that the principal windows for the bedrooms are the ones on the front and rear elevations that were there originally. You cannot use the dressing room wall to help you as that was not on the original approved plans, however, even with those plans that window was in a corner next to a wardrobe and you could therefore argue that the side window at that point became the principal window.

 

You can argue it impacts your outlook from upstairs and you will be overlooking the bungalow but it all be hard going as those rooms have windows on two aspects.

 

 

[Loz100]

Once again many thanks x

[kandgmitchell]

Frankly I would argue that Condition 2 fails at least two of the 6 tests that conditions have to satisfy to be valid, if used to control the gym. These tests are:

Necessary,

Relevant to planning,

Relevant to the development to be permitted,

Enforceable,

Precise, and ,

Reasonable in all other respects.

 

Is control of the use of the rooms within a dwelling "necessary" and is it "enforceable"?  Why would it matter in planning terms if the gym space was used as an art room, a yoga space, a store room or a spare bedroom? Equally how would the planning authority find out what the space was used for and enforce the condition? Clearly the condition is unnecessary and unenforceable when used to control the internal use of rooms. For the planners to suggest they will not consider room uses because they have been "fixed" by the condition is stretching things just a bit too far...

 

Furthermore, Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act makes it quite clear that works affecting the interior of a building do not constitute development for the purposes of the Act. That condition cannot be used to prevent future internal alterations especially if not relevant to the original approval.

 

However, AliG sums up the situation for you in their last post. That gym window was always at risk being so close to the boundary and the upper rooms have double aspect windows. It may be a lost cause I'm afraid.

[Loz100]

Thank you for your clarification it is greatly appreciated.

x