Search results

For planning permission purposes if it adjoins the house it would be considered as an extension. If the structure in part goes over the side boundary then it will need planning permission, as permitted development works have to be entirely contained within the curtilage of a single dwellinghouse.

Good point- Class G of Part 3 of the GPDO has, since the 1 October 2012, permitted the formation of up to two flats above a shop subject to some restrictions (see below). So planning permission may not have been required. Permitted development G. Development consisting of a change of use of a...

Wow the solicitor didn't even check whether the flat was lawful / had planning permission?! They must be liable in that circumstance. As per posts above, if the flat remains in situ for 4 years it would normally gain lawful status at that point. At present however it sounds like you own an...

The house looks reasonably new- I would recommend checking your original permission as many properties have permitted development rights removed by condition. If planning permission is required, drawings will need to be prepared and submitted. Permitted development, if it does apply, is also...

I remember thinking when the 'prior approval for larger extensions' came in, it would have been much simpler to just increase the PD depth restrictions by 1 metre to 4 metres and 5 metres. That would have been so much simpler than what we are dealing with now. The overall volume limit did often...

Yes I have had a quick look through the planning jungle appeal summary on B.2(b) and there are lots of issues, lots of conflicting appeal decisions, and the whole thing is a bit of a pain. I really do appreciate the intentions behind the 2008 re-write of householder GPDO (i.e. more works being...

Well-I would agree that the legislation is open to interpretation. It's also very poorly worded and riddled with ambiguities. The Technical Guidance Document is often very helpful but is just guidance, and does not have legal weight (as the Hilton case demonstrated). Personally I wouldn't agree...

Just demolish the section of their extension which is built on your land? :)

Both elements need to be set back 200mm from the edge of the sloping roofs, for the roof extensions to qualify as 'permitted development'. So what has been built is not PD. Whilst the Government technical guidance sets out that: This 0.2m set back will be required unless it can be demonstrated...

I would say it is the ground level which is relevant, and therefore the height of a decking structure would not be relevant.

The height of the structure should be taken from the highest ground level alongside the extension (based on the ground levels which were in situ prior to works commencing). Eaves should also be measured relative to this ground level. It sounds like the conservatory would need planning...

My take- Cabrio rooflights would normally be considered PD if they comply with the Class C restrictions when closed. When open, the space you would be standing on is within the room, so no external balcony has been formed. An 'inverted dormer', as I am picturing it, would involve cutting out a...

Any extension would not be PD as the 'resultant structure' (i.e. the combined structure of both extensions) would be partially 2 storey, and would therefore be subject to restriction A.1(h): (h) the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have more than a single storey and— (i) extend beyond...

Hi all- We now have an update on this one. Government has (finally) taken action and published an amendment to the GPDO which comes in to force tomorrow. Effectively, I think the result of the amendment is that the proposed extension has to be considered both in isolation, and as a resultant...

Life would be simpler if the professionals involved took the time to understand the PD regs and guidance, and then put their neck on the line and gave out firm advice to their clients. The regs and guidance are however quite complicated in some cases, and in my experience, many professionals...

The extension in that thread needed planning permission. So does yours.

Re the 5k- If you are going to go ahead- I would hold fire on the landscaping and just put the fence up. Minimise outlay and risk. Landscaping could be done later on if the fence is established with no problems, or is regularised through a retrospective application.

Woody's advice seems solid. Sorry hadn't looked at your plan but yes that's what I was describing. I would be tempted to whack the fence up and see what happens. If it kicks off (which it may not do), and the council actually confirms what the situation is, and threatens formal action, you can...

Well if you own the land maybe you can use PD rights to put up boundary treatments- whatever the land is classed as. That's a 2 metre high treatment, or one metre high if its alongside the pavement. If you want to keep it low key maybe run a 2m high fence from the front corner of the house...

Yes 2.5m is the maximum height if any part of the structure is within 2 metres of the boundary. A garage 3.9m in height alongside the boundary would require planning permission...