decking planning permission
- Thread starter arco123
- Start date
Sponsored Links
Defines height in relation to buildings:
‘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.
Well I got a letter in the post today, and I am in breach of the 300mm rule. The deck is sat directly on the ground at the back of the house, so clearly they are not accepting that it is the highest ground level at this point.
Have to apply for planning or remove.
‘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.
Well I got a letter in the post today, and I am in breach of the 300mm rule. The deck is sat directly on the ground at the back of the house, so clearly they are not accepting that it is the highest ground level at this point.
Have to apply for planning or remove.
Whilst I have to say that personally I wouldn't be happy with that next to me due to overlooking, the rules are the rules. You may find that the council are simply trying it on in the hope that you remove the offending decking and that if you persist they will go away. All depends on how much of a battle you are willing to take on.
If you look at http://planningjungle.com/wp-conten...-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf as posted by tony earlier in this thread, the situation you are talking about is discussed and is an issue recognised by planners but remains a loophole.
Thoroughly read through the notes on the "sloping natural ground level" section and google all of the details then if you really want, argue your case with the council, citing the reports mentioned in the document above and asking them to quote whatever rules they are applying, if you have the money to spend then a planning consultant may be an option but expensive for a bit of decking. Did you say you had submitted a PD enquiry with them? If not, it's an option but again costs money these days.
Just looking again at your photo, it could be that they don't consider the raised bit of patio to be natural ground level but a raised structure in itself, is that what they said?
In addition see this thread where planners discuss the issue....
http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=201362
btw, how do you find the Solar panels?
If you look at http://planningjungle.com/wp-conten...-10-Worst-Permitted-Development-Loopholes.pdf as posted by tony earlier in this thread, the situation you are talking about is discussed and is an issue recognised by planners but remains a loophole.
Thoroughly read through the notes on the "sloping natural ground level" section and google all of the details then if you really want, argue your case with the council, citing the reports mentioned in the document above and asking them to quote whatever rules they are applying, if you have the money to spend then a planning consultant may be an option but expensive for a bit of decking. Did you say you had submitted a PD enquiry with them? If not, it's an option but again costs money these days.
Just looking again at your photo, it could be that they don't consider the raised bit of patio to be natural ground level but a raised structure in itself, is that what they said?
In addition see this thread where planners discuss the issue....
http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/forum/thread-maint.do?topicId=201362
btw, how do you find the Solar panels?
Sponsored Links
If it reffered to the handrail height (which it doesn't) you would never ever be able to have a handrail on a deck without PP.
Is the ground still there against the window? Dosn't really matter as you still have a photo.
That said I gotta say if your were my neighbour I'd not be too happ.
Is the ground still there against the window? Dosn't really matter as you still have a photo.
That said I gotta say if your were my neighbour I'd not be too happ.
I understand the comment about overlooking, however, the patio that the deck is on, is at that level, and the lower section of the garden is only 2 foot below that. I currently have a very clear view of their garden and straight through their kitchen window simply by standing on my lawn. So whilst I acknowledge I have enlarged the area with the higher vantage point, there is virtually no difference to the level of privacy. The hill is so steep that we are on, that is the way it is. My neighbour up the hill, if I stand on the deck, I am looking at his waist!
Anyway, that aside, all useful info.
I am happy to split the deck and lower a section, not so useful for our purposes, but we do want to try and keep everyone happy. So need to wait to see what LA say to that suggestion. I just don't want them to now insist on planning unless I remove. I guess the answer is, I have removed the offending deck and replaced with one that is no longer more than 300mm above ground level at any point. I don't have money for planning and then also to have to make changes should the initial planning be refused. This whole episode has just soured what was a positive change to our house meaning that the kids could finally use the back garden.
Anyway, that aside, all useful info.
I am happy to split the deck and lower a section, not so useful for our purposes, but we do want to try and keep everyone happy. So need to wait to see what LA say to that suggestion. I just don't want them to now insist on planning unless I remove. I guess the answer is, I have removed the offending deck and replaced with one that is no longer more than 300mm above ground level at any point. I don't have money for planning and then also to have to make changes should the initial planning be refused. This whole episode has just soured what was a positive change to our house meaning that the kids could finally use the back garden.
They haven't said anything about the patio not being the natural height, but I have considered that. The only thing I can offer on that is that several properties in either direction from me, the ground starts at that height at the back of the house and slopes away. So it could be argued in the other direction, that if took a natural slope from the top patio down the garden in a similar gradient to our neighbour, that none of the deck breaches the 300mm rule. But there is no possibility of proving one way or another.
Solar Panels - Fab. We are south - south east facing, and during the sunny spell in March we had days where all our consumption was covered. I work from home and my wife fosters, so we are all here. 3 toddlers, tumble dryer and washing machine and dishwasher run for free. The downside, to the rear of our house is woodland, which due to the height of our hill and the height of the trees, Dec - Jan when the sun is that much lower, we don't do so well. Some of the trees have died, and the landowner should be getting them felled, so hopefully that will help. We have had up to 2kw off the 12 panels so far.
For those interested in the ongoing saga.
I emailed a response to the letter to query the rules being applied. The response was a confirmation that the height closest to the house was being used. It was deemed that pp was required because an assumption was made that the ground at the rear of the property had been raised and therefore an assumption was made that the deck was more than 300mm above the original ground.
I have a neighbour who has lived in the house over 50 years (since they were built) and he would swear that the ground level is as was when built. He also phoned the previous occupant (lived here for 30+ years) who put in the lower patio, who confirmed the ground level hadn't been raised, and we also have 2 drain holes set at the highest height. The local authority confirmed that they have no information around original ground level. The email states this is the critical issue, and they have also stated they have no proof one way or another. So it is looking positive.
The wording of the email really does seem like they want to say no, but as soon as the rules were highlighted, they appear to be backing off, but am still waiting for a final response.
I emailed a response to the letter to query the rules being applied. The response was a confirmation that the height closest to the house was being used. It was deemed that pp was required because an assumption was made that the ground at the rear of the property had been raised and therefore an assumption was made that the deck was more than 300mm above the original ground.
I have a neighbour who has lived in the house over 50 years (since they were built) and he would swear that the ground level is as was when built. He also phoned the previous occupant (lived here for 30+ years) who put in the lower patio, who confirmed the ground level hadn't been raised, and we also have 2 drain holes set at the highest height. The local authority confirmed that they have no information around original ground level. The email states this is the critical issue, and they have also stated they have no proof one way or another. So it is looking positive.
The wording of the email really does seem like they want to say no, but as soon as the rules were highlighted, they appear to be backing off, but am still waiting for a final response.
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
