Works to an existing access - PP required?

[Piers]

Does anyone know whether planning permission is required for making alterations to an existing access?

 

I have a rural house with 2 accesses - the main one which has gates, tarmac etc and a secondary entrance straight into the garden.

 

This secondary entrance had originally been made of crushed hardcore but after years of leaf-fall was a bit muddy and our car would get stuck in winter. So, about a month ago as I had a digger hired, we dug out the mud and put down some fresh hardcore. At the same time we took down a pair of holly trees on one side of the entrance and removed the stumps, widening the access by around a metre.

 

Today I received a letter from the LPA telling me I'm being investigated for a potential breach *gulp*

 

The allegation is that I've created a new access and laid a hard surface. I know that the first part is untrue (but I might have to prove it and who takes pictures of an old dirt track!) and the second part depends on the definition of "hard surface". I understand that usually means non-porous (such as tarmac) so I should be ok with crushed hardcore. Nonetheless it's a worry and I'm conscious that I might just be trying to reassure myself.

 

 

 

[AliMcLeod]

1 hour ago, Piers said:

I know that the first part is untrue (but I might have to prove it and who takes pictures of an old dirt track!)

 

Have you checked google street view (assuming the secondary access entrance is accessed from a road)?

[Gone West]

10 hours ago, Piers said:

Does anyone know whether planning permission is required for making alterations to an existing access?

I would say it was repair work to an existing entrance. The tree removal in not part of the repair work and I would not mention the widening work.

[joe90]

Yep definitely repair work, our entrance I had to work on in a similar way whilst we were fighting fir planning permission, our neighbour (who objected to everything) reported me for removing a tree but as it was an existing entrance (to a field) it was ok and I was entitled to repair what existed. I don’t know how you can prove it existed, google earth as mentioned or photo,s or a statement from a neighbour. Wait till the council contact you with their evidence then prove them wrong (if they go ahead).

[Piers]

11 hours ago, AliMcLeod said:

Have you checked google street view (assuming the secondary access entrance is accessed from a road)?

 

Yes, the streetview from 2010 isn't great but shows (IMO) the entrance.

 

 

1 hour ago, PeterStarck said:

I would say it was repair work to an existing entrance.

 

Thanks @PeterStarck and @joe90, sounds like good advice.

 

The LPA have asked me to arrange a site visit.

 

I'd thought of sending them Google streetview and satellite pics and tell them that it's an existing entrance and save themselves the trip. Or do you think I should welcome them to visit? I'm keen not to annoy them, we have our informal pre-app meeting tomorrow for our house replacement application - this couldn't have come at a worse time.

[PeterW]

Send them the pictures. If you’re not in a conservation area then the trees are irrelevant. 

 

Also include the history - it’s a field gate from the looks of that anyway so a hardcore base isn’t a problem and doesn’t need PP. 

[Ferdinand]

I think your explanation should be fine. It is a repair.

 

There may be a clearer overhead view in bing.com - photography is sometimes clearer.

 

But are those actually offences, since it is porous? This could just be for form as someone complained.

 

There is also the case that if this is an entrance directly to a field from an unclassified road, you may have the right to create one anyway (or they may not have the right to stop you creating one, even if they do cry into their sarsaparilla). In which case even if it wasn't a repair (which it is) they are whistling in the wind anyway trying to enforce nothing. Perhaps ask what they would enforce on (if you need)?

Ferdinand

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Ferdinand

[Ferdinand]

"Dear XYZ

 

Thank you for your letter.

 

Whilst I always enjoy visits from Council Officers, in this case I was simply maintaining an existing access into my field, for convenience and in order to prevent mud being spread onto the lane by vehicles - thus preventing a potential hazard. As it is a field entrance, I am entitiled (required?) to carry out such maintenance.

 

I enclose a screenshot from Google Earth, and also a photograph taken this morning.

 

You are, of course, welcome to visit in any case.

 

Rgds etc

 

Basil II, the Bulgar-Slayer, Founder - Varangian Guard"

 

Edited May 6, 2019 by Ferdinand

[jack]

2 hours ago, Ferdinand said:

There may be a clearer overhead view in bing.com - photography is sometimes clearer.

 

Try the birds-eye views (all of them) too. Amazing the range of different visual information that's available between Google and Bing.

[Triassic]

Don’t you just love it when someone local helpfully keeps the planners informed of such things! 

 

You should stir stir the pot a little yourself next time your down the local pub, maybe something along the lines of “how helpful the planner was in suggesting that you’ve got a great infill plot for few more houses”!

[Jeremy Harris]

We had a complaint that we'd built the house with the ridge height above that in the planning consent.  Luckily I was able to borrow a Total Station and set it up from the OS spot height pin in the lane, so that the planning officer could see that we were within the allowable tolerance (he said that he usually allowed +/-100mm on any dimension).  Wasted half a day or so, picking up the Total Station, setting it up, messing around with the planning officer etc, but the planning officer gave me the impression that he really wasn't that fussed and was just going through the motions so that he could be seen to have acted on the complaint.  I got the feeling that even if we had been in error it wouldn't have been the end of the earth.  I would guess that planners get complaints like this every day, so know full well what some people can be like.

[Ferdinand]

34 minutes ago, JSHarris said:

We had a complaint that we'd built the house with the ridge height above that in the planning consent.  Luckily I was able to borrow a Total Station and set it up from the OS spot height pin in the lane, so that the planning officer could see that we were within the allowable tolerance (he said that he usually allowed +/-100mm on any dimension).  Wasted half a day or so, picking up the Total Station, setting it up, messing around with the planning officer etc, but the planning officer gave me the impression that he really wasn't that fussed and was just going through the motions so that he could be seen to have acted on the complaint.  I got the feeling that even if we had been in error it wouldn't have been the end of the earth.  I would guess that planners get complaints like this every day, so know full well what some people can be like.

 

Difficult to know what they would do if it was over :-0.

 

Get one of those James Bond helicopter buzz-saws things, and fly it full tilt round the corner to give a full-length Dutch Gable?

 

Does anyone know of enforcement over roof height?

 

I would think it would need to be 2ft too high before they did enforce, if it was already built.

 

F

[Gone West]

1 hour ago, Triassic said:

Don’t you just love it when someone local helpfully keeps the planners informed of such things! 

Someone told Planning Enforcement that we hadn't demolished our bungalow within the allotted three months after moving into the new house. He wouldn't tell us who it was, but he wasn't really interested. He said if we might have problems taking it down before the end of the year to give him a ring and that was in the summer.

[joe90]

With our planning application they kept quoting that next door was only 6.9 mtrs high and ours was higher, eventually I went round next door (when they were out) and measured the gable, it was 1200mm higher than their planning condition (but it was 8 years ago). I then pointed out ours was LOWER than theirs!!,. They still objected but the appeal officer pointed out their error (amongst others,) when we won our appeal on the planning refusal. 

[Piers]

Thank you ALL for your feedback and advice.

 

This is the first time we've been reported and so we're simultaneously furious and nervous.

 

I suspect that it won't be the last time though.

[Triassic]

4 minutes ago, Piers said:

I suspect that it won't be the last time though.

Welcome to the world of self Build lol !

[Temp]

I know the access already existed but I think you only need PP for a new access if its a classified road eg If its not an A or B road then I don't think you need PP but may still need permission for a "dropped kerb".

 

You don't always need PP for a hard surface either. You can avoid that by preventing rainwater running onto the road and deal with it on site. So it depends which way the ground slopes. If it slopes away from the road I don't think you need worry. It's quite allowed to lay tarmac if you collect the run off and feed it to a soak away or just let it soak onto the lawn.

 

PS The dropped kerb thing is more to do with ensuring the pavement is strong enough to protect services that might be under it. Applies even if there is no actual kerb stone I believe.

Edited May 6, 2019 by Temp

[Temp]

In addition to Street view see if there are any tracks on the satellite view.

[newhome]

Have a look on Bing Maps too. That can bring up a different view from Google Maps. 

[Piers]

On 06/05/2019 at 11:34, Ferdinand said:

There is also the case that if this is an entrance directly to a field from an unclassified road, you may have the right to create one anyway (or they may not have the right to stop you creating one, even if they do cry into their sarsaparilla). In which case even if it wasn't a repair (which it is) they are whistling in the wind anyway trying to enforce nothing. Perhaps ask what they would enforce on (if you need)?

 

By way of update the LPA inspector did his drive by and then wrote to us pretty much saying what @Ferdinandsaid.

 

You'd have thought that they'd know which roads are unclassified without needing to come on site, but hey ho.

 

He did write, that whilst we didn't require PP as the road is unclassified, that was so long as there was no "engineering" involved. He'd adjudged that our entrance repair had not been engineered. Not sure I know what that means, nor whether I care that much.

 

Thanks all for your support and advice. I'm almost looking forward to next time we're reported!  As we're currently building a PD outbuilding on a slope, with eaves at lowest point of slope around 4m, I imagine it won't be too long.