Attaching a detached garage - PD clarity

[banana12]

Hello! Just trying to work out whether it falls under permitted development to add an internal access door from new full width kitchen extension to existing detached garage (not changing use, converting, or rebuilding garage). We will be leaving the garage exactly as it is. A full width 6m rear extension would touch the garage wall so a connecting door would seem obvious, but would i need planning permission for this as it extends beyond the rear wall of the house by > 6m? or is this less important if i am not building
a new garage? i could leave a few inches gap between the two structures but it seems a bit silly...



Thank you all

 

[LukeB123]

I did pretty much answer this on the other thread, but to reiterate:

When you attach the extension to a garage, you no longer (in planning legislation terms) have a detached garage.. You have one large extension from the house, in this case both a side and rear extension.

Whether or not you have a door there is a bit irrelevant in planning terms; if it's connected, it's one big extension, which serves to provide a garage and lounge (or whatever it may be)

If you leave them separate then you have one single storey rear extension (judged on it's own merits) and a detached garage which is standalone and is having now extensions or alterations to it

 

[^woody^]

When you attach the extension to a garage, you no longer (in planning legislation terms) have a detached garage.. You have one large extension from the house, in this case both a side and rear extension.

Is there a precedent for that?

The guidance refers to adding to an existing extension - ie an extended property, an extension added after the property was built - ie not original.

If that garage was built at the same tme as the house, then it's not an extension, but part of the original property as built.

 

[^woody^]

permitted development to add an internal access door from new full width kitchen extension to existing detached garage

The adding of a door is not subject to planning control in this context, so would not matter.

The pertinent question is really whether the extension is PD or not, and I'd argue that it is if it falls within the other size constraints, and the attachment to an original outbuilding wont make a difference.

In any case, a 1mm gap means that its not attached.

 

[banana12]

Thank you both for your thoughts on this and apologies if my question overlapped with my previous post. Lots to consider, it's a big project! everyone we ask either has no clue or gives contradicting advice, so your knowledge has been invaluable.

The garage is original as there are no plans available online for it, and all the neighbours have similar detached garages which they have attached and converted via planning permission. however it does look newish ie whether a previous owner has refurbished or demolished and rebuilt i wouldn't be able to say. I would want this to stay a garage and would like to connect them for access only.

if having a few mm gap would keep the buildings seperate I would do it this way, but out of interest if i did join the buildings would anyone really notice (from my understanding building control aren't concerned with whether your plan falls under PD and our neighbours really won't be able to see or care if there is a few mm gap or not). The reason I ask is, if there is a tiny gap i will put an inward opening door in the kitchen and an outward opening door in the garage so it's practically connected and we can use the garage to enter the house. If it's likely that no one will notice anyways i would rather attach the buildings and just have the one door.

So my question is, provided that no one flags it, do the planning dept routinely inspect Pd developments that they have been informed about (eg via neighbour consultation) to ensure it all complies?

 

[Nakajo]

Planning departments are a little strapped for cash right now, but who's to say what changes our post-Brexit prosperity may bring.

 

[tony1851]

So my question is, provided that no one flags it, do the planning dept routinely inspect Pd developments that they have been informed about (eg via neighbour consultation) to ensure it all complies?

Planning officials very rarely visit PD developments unless someone (eg a neighbour) makes a complaint.

In any case, even if a connection did need planning permission (which is a moot point) enforcment action is highly unlikely because councils are not supposed to consider enforcement action for...
'...a minor or technical breach where no harm has occurred...'
(from official guidance on enforcement - the old PPG 18)

 

[LukeB123]

Is there a precedent for that?

I am not entirely sure - and I certainly can't quote a specific case.

My view would be if you have something original (or not) that's detached and you attach it to the main dwelling via an extension, then the whole of the development extends from the main dwellinghouse and should be considered under Class A

 

[^woody^]

The guidance refers specifically to attaching to "extensions". By definition, an extension is a non-original addition something that is exxxxtennnnddded as an after thought.

Presumablly the intention is to prevent the carrying out of multiple later extensions over time and then joining them up to form one big extension.

So unless there is precedent to the contrary to define the meaning of "extension" within the context of PD, then it has to be given it's dictionary or common usage meaning. Note that the PD guide defines lots of words, but does not define extension. That too implies that they did not intend to associate any specific meaning to it, other than it's common use or dictionary meaning.

So an original outbuilding, just like an orginal part jutting out of the main building is not an extension. It is merely part of the original building.

 

[LukeB123]

No problems with any of the original meanings etc. It's the nature of the detached original outbuilding, once amended and how it relates to the original house then.

For me, if you have an original detached outbuilding and you make it say, wider under pd, you still have an outbuilding.

But when you attach that outbuilding to a house, it is no longer a detached outbuilding. The nature of the works undertaken, in my eyes, change the nature of the development from what was a previous outbuilding, to an extension of the dwelling.

I think I could maybe be persuaded it was functionally severable and not linked though.

Decent debate tbh - just out of interest, in this case, if the O.P. Did attach it to the garage et
fully etc and then in a few years time wanted to extend out again, but from the back of the garage, would he have to comply with Class A or Class E?

 

[banana12]

You make a convincing case. I have no reason to believe this is not original. I don't expect anyone will notice or care, but if i do get called out hopefully the "no harm done" for a minor technical breach should suffice. the distinction between original and non original outbuilding is just not information readily available anywhere. thanks so much

 

[LukeB123]

Yeah, we're just being picky over ambiguous legislation! Generally nothing for you to worry about / you should be fine

 

[Scot Lester]

Would it still be classed as detached if a roof structure came over the end of the garage stopping short of the house say 1cm and then you flashed it to the house, so effectively it's a "walkway" just waterproof?

 

[LukeB123]

Same argument as above. Its not really the same structure but if you're attaching it then its not detached..

For me if its just a bit of a canopy roof you should be okay. If you're making it so its a walkway or serves a purpose or clearly makes the 2 places into one larger extension then no.

Regardless of all this noone really cares and the Local Planners will take whatever view they deem appropriate in each case. The only way you can be sure if is no part is attached and they function independently