Planning decision

[Quovadisuk]

Hi all,   Having built this house 18 years ago myself I was able to design exactly what I wanted, however 19 years later I decided to consider adding a small conservatory to the rear. Rather than cause any issues, I enquired with the council the ruling concerning conservatories as most searches indicate that planning permission is not now normally required.  Knowing how “normally” can be so misinterpreted, I undertook a planning enquiry as to whether planning would need to be made or not . Having paid the fee, the response was that as I had already extended the property some 15 years ago , the boundary line of building permission would be taken from the old building at the time, therefore as I had extended the property I technically had used up the area of ground that could now be built on 

 

My issue is that where the proposed conservatory ( which was initially to be in brick, but could also be undertaken in Aluminium and glass) already has a tiled patio area with a fall to Acco drainage with a small retaining brick wall 1 metre high and pillars so in this instance the base has been in place for many years, so that it can never be used for agricultural gardening etc as  it has been tiled to complete the patio area.

When the reply came back from planning everything was positive ie, where it was , it didnt upset any neighbour areas or boundaries etc , but the recommendation would be a refusal as the proposal exceeded the building area of the original building that was there 15 years ago?  I the asked if this could be undertaken in aluminium and glass, and again the likely outcome would be a refusal. Taking the matter further, I then asked about an awning and to their knowledge the awning didnt seem to be an issue . Whilst I could appeal against the refusal, it would mean a formal application being made with plans that would see a fair cost being out laid for a refusal which appears to already been concluded and no doubt lays on a file waiting for an appeal to be made.

 

My question is that . With the patio already established as being an area that forms part of the garden design, to me by just allowing an awning to cover the patio is the same as having a roof or conservatory taking up the same  volume area and roof area ? So for me it doesnt make sense for this to be refused . The size is 6 metres wide 2.5 depth, so no great shakes here. It may be a case I will just have to accept it, as being over 70, I just dont want the expense and hassle of fighting, for little outcome 

 

Thought I post this , as many people think that they can put up a conservatory without permission, which doesn’t seem the case in this instance . Although disappointed, I am glad I checked otherwise it could have caused me real problems had I gone ahead. Be interesting to see the views of others on this …Thanks for reading and kind regards 

 

[Alan Ambrose]

>>> So for me it doesn't make sense for this to be refused

 

Ah, you were not expecting the regulations to make sense, surely? You do know that we did away with all common sense in the '60s (and it was rarely used then)? Obtuseness and fragile, opaque and confusing laws are the order of today. Welcome to 2024.

 

 

>>> the proposal exceeded the building area of the original building that was there 15 years ago?

 

Sounds like you are falling foul of:

 

Conservatories (including previous extensions) and other buildings must not exceed 50% of the total area of land around the original house. Sheds and other outbuildings must be included when calculating the above 50% limit.

 

Given that:

 

The term ‘original house’ means the house as it was first built

 

See e.g. https://ecab.planningportal.co.uk/uploads/miniguides/conservatories/Conservatory.pdf

 

Perhaps you can work backwards to figure out he max sized conservatory you could build under PD rules and then see whether that works for you? Or go with the awning if you prefer - as that doesn't 'count' at all?

 

Otherwise, a full planning application if you're set on the initial size you have in mind.

 

Was the LPA guidance formal response to a pre-app or a confirmation of PD rights ('certificate of lawful development') or what?

 

 

[DevilDamo]

Are you basically saying any enclosed and attached structure requires Planning? If so, why not just apply formally? 

[Quovadisuk]

Thank you for the reply . It was a response from the planning  department , post pre application ie the outcome  decision having made a pre application request. They refer to the original plan of the old building, the new build undertaken and referred me to your quote “ Conservatories including extensions must not exceed etc “

I am wondering as I do have a large frontage if indeed it does exceed 50%, but no doubt they have already checked this before replying 

[DevilDamo]

To be PD, you’d have to meet all the PD rules. As it sounds like you’ve already extended the max. depth, the area around the property is irrelevant.

[Quovadisuk]

I was thinking the area around the old  building in relation to the new build and then consider if the difference is less than 50%  

[Temp]

11 hours ago, Quovadisuk said:

the boundary line of building permission would be taken from the old building at the time, therefore as I had extended the property I technically had used up the area of ground that could now be built on 

 

 

Is that the exact wording they used?

 

It appears to confuse the max depth and max area rules in one sentence.

 

There are a bunch of rules..

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/permitted-development-rights-for-householders-technical-guidance

 

But they seem to be confusing these two...

 

"line of building"...

Quote

 

(f) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and:

(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 3 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or

 

Snip

 

(g) for a dwellinghouse not on article 2(3) land nor on a site of special scientific interest, the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and:

(i) extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than 8 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or 6 metres in the case of any other dwellinghouse, or

 

 

That could be an issue if already extended. It's to prevent you adding one small extension after another to get a really massive house without permission.

 

"area"...
 

Quote

(b) as a result of the works, the total area of ground covered by buildings within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse)

Extensions (including any extensions to the original house under Class A or under a separate planning permission) and other buildings must not exceed 50% of the curtilage.

The 50% limit covers all buildings so will include existing and proposed outbuildings as well as any existing or proposed new extensions to a house. It will exclude the area covered by the original house but will include any later extensions or any separate detached buildings, even where they were built prior to 1948, or if the house was built after that date, built when the house itself was built (for example a detached garage or garden shed).

 

.

That's only normally an issue if you have a large house on a small plot.

 

Perhaps you do run foul of both.