Conservation and green belt

[LauraD]

hi everyone

We own a cottage in a conservation area and greenbelt. 

 

We understand there is a 50% rule. I am little confused about what this actually means as I have read variations of this.

 

You can:

1. Extend 50% of the size of the original house 
2. but also heard it comes from the size of thecland the house is on minus the size of the original house. Then it’s 50% of that.

 

The cottage is small so option 1 wouldn’t give a big extension. But it is on a nice bit of land so if it was 50% of the land minus the existing house area that would give us much more to play around with. 

 

Which is correct?

 

Also, in conservation areas I understand that it removes PD rights. Does it remove all or just some?

I.e if want to add a wooden garden room. Would that need to be calculated in the above 50%

 

Does it affect things like adding a driveway? Do we have to ask permission about everything we want to do with the house?

 

thanks

Laura

[DevilDamo]

Is the 50% something your Local Planning Authority have stated as in… extensions within the Green Belt?

 

Properties within CA’s have additional Permitted Development restrictions. In some cases, an Article 4 direction may remove all PD rights.

 

You would be better off speaking to and engaging the services of a local Planning Consultant.

[kandgmitchell]

Have a read of the this document published by the government. You house is on what is known as Article 2(3) land as it is a conservation area. You still have some permitted development (PD) rights i.e development that can be done without obtaining planning permission but those rights are more restricted than those for the rest of us outside such areas. If you find what you want to do cannot be done under PD then planning permission will be required and you will find that your local authority may apply stricter controls over your proposal because it is a conservation area. If you are still unsure then take professional advice.

190910_Tech_Guide_for_publishing.pdf

[phykell]

In my experience (in a conservation area and greenbelt), you can't assume the right to have 50%, it's more likely to be "up to" 50%. You can even go larger but you'd have to convince the local planning authority that it was in keeping with the original development. I was able to build up to 48% of my original dwelling: a two-storey side extension and a single storey extension to the rear but it required full planning permission with a huge amount of effort from myself and my architect to have it all approved - it took years to do it and I'm still not finished!

 

With regards to permitted development, I would immediately seek confirmation from your LPA that an article 4 doesn't apply as DevilDamo mentions. From experience, it's worth getting this in writing if at all possible. Also make sure that your "principal elevation" is identified - it's probably fine but many older houses were built with the PE to the south for the sake of maximising sunlight into the front of the house or were built side-on to an original road/track whereas more modern houses have their front to the road. I had to argue my case for PD that the original dwelling's front was now the rear of the property so that I could build my outbuilding in the most appropriate location.

Again from experience, if you want an outbuilding and article 4 doesn't apply, PD should apply with some caveats such as limiting you to build to the rear (i.e. not the sides) of the main building. Also consider applying for a "lawful development certificate" from your LPA. Note that this may take as long as a full planning application - I'm currently trying to have my own outbuilding approved for lawful development via PD after my original planning application was refused - I'm optimistic I'll get it but even though my planned outbuilding conforms to all of the obvious constraints such as overall height, eaves height, distance from boundaries, etc. the council have cited case law regarding the size of the structure in terms of whether it's reasonable and falls within the definitions of being incidental (as opposed to ancillary) to the enjoyment of the main house, i.e. you can't just have a massive outbuilding with no reasonable incidental use planned for it.

 

There are lots of relevant resources on YouTube but one of the better ones is this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/@efkor/videos

 

 

[efkor]

@phykell thanks for recommending my Permitted Development videos. In a previous life I did some planning consultancy, submitting appeals on dubious planning decisions. Nowadays I lurk on BuildHub when not progressing my own selfbuild