Verandahs on sheds

Joined
27 Aug 2003
Messages
69,778
Reaction score
2,885
Location
London
Country
United Kingdom
Does anybody know what the thinking is behind not allowing these (on a shed which otherwise ticks all the boxes for not needing PP)?

I know that to look for reason and logic in planning rules is frequently a good way to lose one's sanity, but I really do struggle to see how, as long as the total surface area covered is not too big, what reason(s) there could be for not allowing the roof and floor of a shed to be extended beyond one of the walls.

Is it that it doesn't count as a "verandah" if it isn't a "raised platform" more than 300mm high? (ISTR reading that somewhere, but can't find it.)

If I took this, for example (not that I'm going to):

chippenham1.jpg


and put a bit of decking, 100-150mm high in front of it, would that be a verandah?

When does a porch become a verandah?

orkney.jpg


kippen55.jpg
 
Sponsored Links
One suspects that it would be very hard for a LPA to object to one of the sheds
in the pics, solely on the inclusion of the veranda.

For example, what would be the difference between a canopy over a door (to keep the rain off) and a veranda?

The exclusion of 'veranda' is presumably to prevent the shed being used as some form of habitable room (because people often sit out on a veranda)
rather than a room incidental to the main dwelling.

Interesting point raised, though.
 
Sponsored Links
a veranda is a open area with a floor and roof
an overhanging roof is fine in my humble opinion
if you tried to say use decking to raise the outside level you should be fine at less than 300mm

i suspect the shed floor level will be a tad less to allow the shed to comply with the 2.5m rule and have a good head height
 
Surely that can't be right because in that case you would not be allowed to have an open (but roofed) structure such as a 'gazebo' or 'summer house'?

It's just another example of the woolly terminology and muddled thinking that comes out of the Department of Communities and Local Government.
A very recent example of one of their c**k-ups was the Waltham Forest case, when the High Court rejected DCLG's definition of 'eaves' in relation to dormer conversions; this now means that hundred of loft conversions up and down the country are unlawful, even after following official Government advice.
 
Surely that can't be right because in that case you would not be allowed to have an open (but roofed) structure such as a 'gazebo' or 'summer house'?

I think it's just badly worded. Which is surprising since it's planning guidance.

;)

Cheers
Richard
 
It's not saying that you can't have verandas, balconies or raised platforms *on* an outbuilding; it's saying that verandas, balconies or raised platforms are not permitted development *as* outbuildings.
Ah - I see.

Never occurred to me that anybody would try to call anything like those "buildings".
 

DIYnot Local

Staff member

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.


Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

 
Sponsored Links
Back
Top