Basework on slope/ cabin.

[zoothorn]

1 minute ago, joe90 said:

 

Was the pun intended @Onoff ???. I think between us we can establish if it’s needed or not, with @zoothorn,s neighbours we have to make sure it’s done properly ?

 

 Nope it wasn't. such a golden opportunity for a tremendous joke.. all been missed joe90.

 

Listen don't count my brain into establishing xy or z, I think it just doesn't do portals. Wasn't your paragraph below your links, to do with extentions, rather than outbuildings though-?

[joe90]

Just found this from government permitted development document.

 

Height’ - references to height (for example, the heights of the eaves on a house extension) is the height measured from ground level.3 Ground level is the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question. Where ground level is not uniform (e.g. if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building.

 

yes this is referring to extensions but the document also includes sheds etc so the term of ref above is applicable. Let’s see what @zoothorn,s planners reply with, if ambiguous it might be worth a diagram and quote the above and get him to agree with us and keep that as evidence when the neighbours kick off.

 

i hate planners generally and once when in Bristol I proved the planners wrong on a point and got a reversal of a planning decision ?

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by joe90

[zoothorn]

@joe90 thanks for this. Great- these few lines gives me confidence. Good plan to email this to my PP dept.

 

Slight panic as we half pencilled chap for friday to do stream footings you see. Mind you he hasn't got back to me yet on materials estimate, but be good to get this confirmed asap so I'm set ready.

[zoothorn]

..mind you I know you mention 'government permitted development doc' which implies its national: but could these rules change from country to country, region to region even I wonder-?

[Temp]

The height of the building might be ok but a verranda would count as a "raised platform". Raised platforms over something like 30cm high usually need planning permission. 

 

I'm not sure how they measure the height on sloping ground but if it's above the stream it sounds like it will be more than 30cm above ground everywhere.

 

 

Edited July 10, 2019 by Temp

[Temp]

54 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

..mind you I know you mention 'government permitted development doc' which implies its national: but could these rules change from country to country, region to region even I wonder-?

 

Which country are you in?

[zoothorn]

24 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

Which country are you in?

 

Hi Temp. Ceredigion, Wales.

[Temp]

This is about England and possibly dated (2010) but..

 

https://www.gardenlaw.co.uk/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=13067

 

Our Local Planning Authority (we're in England, though, not Scotland) has resolved a case with us recently - in fact the letter arrived this morning.

snip

Perhaps the legislation was carelessly drafted, or perhaps the intention was there all along to impose stricter controls over all decks, including those over sloping land. Either way, you do require planning permission if ANY part of the deck is 30cm or more above existing garden height... the fact that you're covering a slope is irrelevant.

 

So it seems the height of decking on sloping ground is NOT measured the same way as an outbuilding.

 

[Temp]

and here is an enforcement notice (again in England)..

 

https://www3.havering.gov.uk/Documents/Planning/Enforcement-notices/2014/3-austral-drive-hornchurch.pdf

 

5. WHAT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO DO

(i) Remove the Decking in its entirety OR reduce the height to bring it within the permitted development criteria of 0.3m to the immediate adjacent ground level.

[zoothorn]

Hi Temp. But I'm not doing a decking job (am I?) any cabin will need a platform whether on a flat, slight slope or bigger slope, but whether the word 'decking' is appropriate.. I'm further confused than I was before. Are you only referring to my 'additional' ideas of some sort of "decking" surrounding the cabin here maybe?

 

I just don't know how on earth I'm going to find the answers- as soon as you jump in, the complexities just grow exponentially.. but its just a big shed at btm of my garden, with no n'bors house visible from it, & unregistered land across the stream from it. How the dickens it should require any PP in the 1st place seems ridiculous to me.

[zoothorn]

7 minutes ago, Temp said:

and here is an enforcement notice (again in England)..

 

https://www3.havering.gov.uk/Documents/Planning/Enforcement-notices/2014/3-austral-drive-hornchurch.pdf

 

 

 

 

Apologies Temp but I don't understand where we are. Remove (remove what?) decking (what decking?). Is this meant to show me what a "worse case" might be or something? I don't understand the reason for your post(s) because I have no context in which to put them.

[zoothorn]

It seems I missed a post of yours a few back (how can I get notification of replies via email?). I think I understand the nature of your last few posts now, you're responding to when I referred to a decking surrounding the log cabin.

 

Ok I need to discount this for now, as its confusing & complicating the answer I'm trying to find out: where the cabin H is measured from in my case (my fault I tempted fate by suggesting a surrounding bit of platform).

 

[joe90]

@zoothorn just post up what your planner replies with, also can you do a rough section sketch with rough dimensions of the stream, bank, Slope and where you want your Cabin, we can go from there.

[Temp]

I think we need a diagram of what you would like to build. Here is my interpretation of the situation. If it's way off have a go at producing one yourself..

 

 

 

 

 

[Temp]

6 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

It seems I missed a post of yours a few back (how can I get notification of replies via email?). I think I understand the nature of your last few posts now, you're responding to when I referred to a decking surrounding the log cabin.

 

Not just decking. If the platform (4x4) is bigger than the cabin (3x3) the extra bit will look like decking to the planners. So that area must just be open beams no decking on top.

[zoothorn]

@Temp many thanks for this, very useful diagram- what a fab tool to have (or a trained robotoid I don't know). It ain't far off at all! but for..

 

1) Shift LHS pillar over the stream, & plonk it where your word "POOR" is (that L side of stream not my property, but unreg'd land).

2)  Shift the platform & cabin down ~2 ft, so platform touches the ground RHS.

3) Steepen the slope gradient to a bit less than 45 degrees (yup that steep).

 

[zoothorn]

16 minutes ago, joe90 said:

@zoothorn just post up what your planner replies with, also can you do a rough section sketch with rough dimensions of the stream, bank, Slope and where you want your Cabin, we can go from there.

 

Just in from my Ceredigion planning officer: sorry its a bit long (its incomprehensible to me reading it 1x so far)..

 

Permitted development

E. The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—

(a) any building or enclosure, raised platform, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building, enclosure, platform or pool; or

(b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas.

 

Development not permitted

E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if—

(a) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures, raised platforms, pools and containers within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);

(b) any part of the building, enclosure, raised platform, pool or container would extend beyond a wall comprised in the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse;

(c) any part of the building, enclosure, raised platform, pool or container would extend beyond a wall comprised in a side elevation of the existing dwellinghouse, and would be nearer to the highway than—

(i) the wall comprised in that side elevation which is nearest to the highway; or

(ii) any point 5 metres from the highway;

whichever is the nearer to the highway;

(d) the building would have more than one storey;

(e) the height of any part of the building, enclosure or container, measured from the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to that part, would exceed—

(i) 4 metres in the case of a building having a roof with more than one pitch;

(ii) 3 metres in any other case;

(f) any part of the building, enclosure or container would be—

(i) within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse; and

(ii) exceed 2.5 metres in height above the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to it;

(g) the height of the eaves of the building, measured at any point along their length, would exceed 2.5 metres;

(h) any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would —

(i) be situated within 2 metres of the dwellinghouse; and

(ii) exceed 1.5 metres in height above the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to it;

(i) the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of a listed building;

[zoothorn]

@joe90 @Temp here's an approx sketch. This is looking back at the house, behind the cabin. LHS of stream is unregistered land.

 

Stream is prolly a bit away from my side than this tbh.

[Onoff]

Assuming the stream forms a boundary between zoot's and the unregistered land then isn't it that any part of the building like the proposed supports need to be at least 2m from the boundary?

[Onoff]

Another thing...if that land is unregistered can you not lay claim against it?

[Temp]

1 hour ago, zoothorn said:

 

(e) the height of any part of the building, enclosure or container, measured from the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to that part...

 

That sounds more restrictive than in England. Normally the height is measured from the highest point of the ground. This says from the ground adjacent. In effect the height restriction slopes with the ground.

[zoothorn]

56 minutes ago, Onoff said:

Another thing...if that land is unregistered can you not lay claim against it?

 

I  wouldn't know the reason for doing so, let alone whether I could..

[zoothorn]

3 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

That sounds more restrictive than in England. Normally the height is measured from the highest point of the ground. This says from the ground adjacent. In effect the height restriction slopes with the ground.

 

But equally it could be interpreted as from the ground nearest the RHS point of the platform (in our sketches).. & what I think joe90 interpreted the H rule as measured from, right back beginning of conversation.

 

This is what I mean, its nigh on impossible to comprehend this jargon. I call the PP chap himself to get clarity on it.. but instead gives me this info. If I cant understand it.. its catch22.

[Temp]

25 minutes ago, zoothorn said:

 

But equally it could be interpreted as from the ground nearest the RHS point of the platform (in our sketches).. & what I think joe90 interpreted the H rule as measured from, right back beginning of conversation.

 

It's says "any part of the building" (the left hand corner is a part) .."measured from the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to that part"(eg adjacent to the left hand corner).

 

I'm sure the wording in England is different and in England it would be measured from the right hand side.

Edited July 10, 2019 by Temp

[zoothorn]

4 minutes ago, Temp said:

 

It's says "any part of the building" (the left hand corner is a part) .."measured from the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to that part"(eg adjacent to the left hand corner).

 

Partially understood, but the word adjacent here though could be interpreted thus(?): the ground "immediately adjacent" to the LH corner in my sketch, is not directly below it, but on a 45* diagonal line in to the bank disecting at a point directly below the centre of the structure instead. This call it 2 ft discrepency could span below & above the 4M figure.

 

Is my brain actually working? it feels kind of hurty & strange.