rebuilding a garage to have it attached to original house

mtc

Joined
10 May 2019
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Country
United Kingdom
Hello

We are having a bit of a problem with planning permission and would like some advice.

We have a kitchen extension planning permission approval and we recently completed the built.

The problem we have now is we had a garage which was an existing built from previous owner and once the kitchen extension was completed there was about a 30cm gap between the kitchen extension and the garage. Our intention was always that we could join up the garage to make it easier for storage.

Anyhow, when we spoke to the architect originally before the kitchen extension was built we wondered if it would cause a problem with planning permission, as it was an existing building he said it probably won't.

However, I think our neighbour who has always objected to our kitchen extension wrote another complain saying we are building an extension onto an extension.

So the other day the planning officer came round and explained because it is now attached to the kitchen extension it is classed with the kitchen extension as he said we are still finishing off the rendering of the kitchen extension and rebuild of the garage together.

But before we demolished the garage we had the kitchen extension approved already, although the finish rendering wasn't completed(the final coat), I did asked if it's ok when I had our planning officer who came round to do the final inspection he said it was fine and they said as long as it doesn't show the mental of frames etc of the doors it's fine. So the kitchen extension was completed and we have the certificate to prove it. We wait a couple of weeks before the demolishing commenced.

The planning officer from the council who came round seems quite nice, as he says it does make sense to join it up as from the plan he saw it was really only a small gap. And if it wasn't attached to the building it will be classed under permitted build, but he says because we were doing the kitchen extension and finishing the rendering off it can't be classed separately.
My questions is what happens if retrospect application is rejected. What will happen to the building. Can they order us to demolish it?

Thank you in advance.
 
Sponsored Links
What you appear to have done (re-building the garage and joining it up to the newly-built kitchen?) would require planning permission.

Is there any particular reason why you would think a retrospective application would be refused? Just because a neighbour complains, it doesn't mean
that an application would be refused.
 
well because when we put the planning permission for the kitchen extension we had to reduce the depth because of the objection from the neighbours.
So my thought was if we had to do that, then having another building attach to it be it an existing building why would they approve it.
 
well because when we put the planning permission for the kitchen extension we had to reduce the depth because of the objection from the neighbours.
So my thought was if we had to do that, then having another building attach to it be it an existing building why would they approve it.
Difficult to follow.
You really need to post a simple outline sketch plan of what you are doing if you want to get any meaningful responses.
 
Sponsored Links
If neighbour doesn't like it, offer to plant a hedge of 15 foot bamboo along your boundary with him so he can't see it...........Fortunately bamboo is outside the high hedges rules
 
for the kitchen extension we had to reduce the depth because of the objection from the neighbours.
It would be unlikely to be solely based on the neighbour's objection, as planning applications agree determined on planning policy not the whims of neighbours.

As to the original question, yes in the extreme, planners can require removal. But there is a long process in the meantime.

The two extensions are now counted as one, and the policy applied to that.
 
Attached are photos to show what I mean. The 'shed' is really a garage. On the second image it shows we moved it garage, so we have a pathway down the side to access the garden. The dimension of the garage is exactly the same, it's just moved in a bit. Thank you in advance.


upload_2019-5-12_9-35-0.png

upload_2019-5-12_9-39-47.png
 
Thank you for the replies, ok maybe I should just put the retrospect application through then.
 
I am going through a nightmare after similar situation. Our retrospective application was rejected on following grounds even though this neighbor never commented on the application or have any objections and this garage been on site for over 50 years in same foot print:

The proposed rear extension, by virtue of its size, scale, bulk, depth and proximity, would be detrimental to the amenities of the adjoining occupiers at XXX reason of overdominance, overshadowing, visual intrusion, loss of light and loss of outlook. Therefore the proposal would be contrary to policies BE19, BE20 and BE21 of the Hillingdon Local Plan: Part Two - Saved UDP Policies (November 2012) and the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Document HDAS: Residential Extensions.
 
Zeetopchoice I'm really sorry to hear that and that's exactly what I'm worried about.
Did the council demand for it to be demolished? Or can it just be classed as unauthorised building as it was an existing building before. Thanks
 
In our case my council have been very pushy and sneaky from very beginning. I have appealed the decision with help of town planner and submitted CLD fall back plan with detached garage but council is still playing games and regardless of initially validating the plans now threatening to invalidate the whole application. Just be careful and don't fall in council friendly advice because I am in this mess because of misguidance from council.
 
I applied for retrospective planning application because of enforcement threat from the council regardless I tried to bring them around the table to discuss this matter. I wanted to explain that this structure always have been in this location and it was attached because of poor written advice from the council representative. Instead of being compassionate they included the legal kitchen extension to be illegal and now demanding to remove kitchen and garage all together.
 
Oh no!!!!
so because they regard it as a whole application now so the formerly granted application of the kitchen application is deemed illegal.
But when the planning wrote to use he said that if its not approve we always have the original kitchen extension to fall back on.

I really don't know what to do now. I don't even mind if they consider it as an unauthorised building.
 
Last edited:
In planning terms if you don't build a structure according to approved plans then they become invalid hence the whole structure is classed as illegal. However if you make changes and then apply again the permission will be granted on basis of principle. Please DM me and I will happily share our case information with you.
 
While waiting for our appeals outcome from Planning Inspectorate we submitted CLD application with fall back plans showing the garage detached from the approved extension. However after initially validating the plans council now requesting to submit existing plans or they will invalidate the application even though it's an incomplete structure.

By now I know my council and their evil representatives trying to make scores for personal career progression. I requested our town planner to make it clear for the case worker to assess the application as submitted.

Today I find following information and this confirms council ill intentions to refuse our CLD which will have an impact on our appeal and any future enforcement.

"When an extension to a dwelling is detached from it to create a separate structure, it is not possible to claim Class E permitted development rights for the resulting outbuilding, as demonstrated in Hillingdon 09/01/2012 DCS No 400-001-448. In upholding an enforcement notice requiring the removal of an outbuilding in the rear garden of a dwelling in Middlesex an inspector decided that the appellant could not benefit from permitted development rights under Class E of Part 1 to Schedule 2 of the GPDO. The appellant had erected the building which formed an extension to the property and then, as a separate operation, undertook further works which created a standalone garage. The inspector concluded that as two separate building operations had occurred and since only the original could benefit from permitted development rights, the creation of a separate building by demolishing part of the original structure could not benefit from permitted development rights under Class E."

We are not professional builders and as layman done everything in our power before reforming first ever property to suit our needs. I don't want to be negative but this is a nightmare for us and don't know when this all will end.
 

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