Building a cabin on top of a "raised platform" - does that count as part of the height?

[jollyboy]

I've got a cabin ready to be built and just need the concrete base doing. Before I book in someone to make the base for me, I just want to check something.

Our garden is just over 5m wide, and the cabin will be 4.5m x 3.5m. It'll be under 2.5m in height (closer to 2.3m I think). If it were that simple, I know I can just go ahead.

But the location where we're putting the cabin is at the back of the garden, which is higher than the rest of the garden. I've dug a lot out to lower it but it was originally between 40cm and 50cm higher than the rest of the garden. It's now about 20cm higher than the rest of the garden, retained by sleepers 30cm high. On to the now only 20cm high soil behind the sleepers, is where a 10cm concrete base is going to go.

I wasn't expecting this to be an issue and an architect friend of ours we've hired for a separate extension took one look at it and just said go-ahead. But one neighbour is complaining that the area at the back is a raised platform. I said it's not - it's natural land held back by a 'retaining wall' of sleepers. But their garden doesn't have that raised area at the back, which is why they're arguing it's a raised platform. We previously had a massive sycamore on the raised bit (trunk over 1m diameter) and the area was even higher but I've brought it down quite a bit. I think it's likely it's been that high for at least 20 years but I can't be sure - would that classify as natural land or has someone created a raised platform a few decades ago? I've not idea and suspect we'll never be able to prove it one way or the other.

Anyway, the neighbour claiming it's a raised platform is why I've dug the higher ground where the cabin is going down to be only 20cm above the rest of the garden. With the 10cm concrete base, it'll be just under 30cm height difference. Which means even if it were to be classed as a raised platform, we'd be okay. My question is, if it is a 30cm raised platform (20cm soil + 10cm concrete base) and I put a 2.3m high cabin on top of it, is the total height of the cabin:

a) 2.6m (2.3m cabin + 10cm concrete + 20cm soil)
b) 2.4m (2.3m cabin + 10cm concrete)
c) 2.3m (2.3 cabin and the concrete and soil doesn't count?)

Our architect wasn't aware that our neighbour's garden is lower than ours and he's been caught out by several planning decisions in the past so I'm after some opinions while I get his advice as well. Any ideas? I know I could continue digging out more soil but don't want to unless I absolutely have to.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

I don't think the rules even state whether the ground level should be what it is now, was last week, or was in prehistoric times.

If you're in danger of causing neighbour trouble then perhaps this would be a good time to contact planning and ask their advice. They can (for a fee) provide a written agreement that it's OK and you don't need planning permission.

If the neighbour is objecting then is this because you're causing an issue for them? e.g. blocking a view or daylight? In which case it may be better to try and be considerate in the design, possibly not building as close or tall as possible just out of good old fashioned being nice.

 

[jollyboy]

Thanks. It's because they don't want to lose any light. They won't - I've just chopped down a cherry tree to make room for the building, and that cherry tree would have blocked more light if I'd let it grow. If I contact planning what kind of timescale am I looking at to get a written agreement? Is that the Lawful Development Certificate?

 

[mrrusty]

The answer is to say to the neighbour if they don't pipe down, you will plant a row of 6-8m bamboo screening along the boundary and there will be nothing they can do as it's outside the high hedge legislation (because it's a grass).

In any case, the soil is the ground level if you can show you haven't just raised it (any old photos? google earth?)

 

[^woody^]

30cm raised platform (20cm soil + 10cm concrete base)

That's not raised platform.

 

[jollyboy]

That's not raised platform.

Am I right in thinking that if I haven't raised anything, I haven't anything to worry about? The land has been higher at the back for at least a decade - even the neighbor's house is lower than ours, so it stands to reason our garden would be a bit higher.

 

[^woody^]

Yes, you would be correct.

In cases where a height measurement is involved, the relevant criteria is the ground level immediately adjacent to the thing being built. Oddly, there is no mention of how long that ground level had to be there before the development was undertaken.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

A grey area woody? I thought you said they don't exist?

 

[^woody^]

It's black and white.

It's odd that the time period that the ground needs to be there is not specified.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

Probably down to interpretation, what mood the planning department are in and whether you really fancy a legal fight.

It seems obvious to me that the best way forward would be to involve planning now, be on the front foot with them. At least then the neighbour knows that it's all been approved so their opinion doesn't matter. Hopefully then they'll quietly sulk instead of moaning about it.

 

[Harry Bloomfield]

It's odd that the time period that the ground needs to be there is not specified.

Often these things are deliberately left open, and unspecified, so that a decision can be made on a case by case basis.