Permitted development or permission required?

[Chaser]

Looking for some advice on an extension which is currently being erected.

About 18 months ago, we received neighbour consultation on an extension next door to replace an old conservatory. Looking at the plans it was to erect a flat roof structure 5m projected and 7m across the rear.

So as you can see from the image below, the building on the left of the photo is the 5m projection. That bit next to it houses a hot tub and is a canopy. Originally it was completely attached to the build but after I made an objection, they simply sawed the building off to make it separate by about 200mm.



This is the view from our side.



For info the canopy part projects a further 6m from the 5m extension making it 11m from the original house. The building itself is less than 2m from the boundary and the eaves height is 2.7m measured at the base of the original building. The garden does have a slight upslope as can be seen from the rising fence line.

I've spoken to local planner who says that it's classed as permitted development and is within "tolerance" at that height although I've seen no written evidence of what has actually been checked. Am I right to be protesting about this? As it stands, I'm not consulting with the neighbour as they've had more than enough time to discuss their plans with me yet clearly knew it would be contentious.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

They don't have a lot of garden left with that lot, the actual structure might be pd ish in terms of height but may fall foul of the 50% of garden.
How big a shading effect does that 200mm cause? Personally I wouldn't agree that 200mm is in tolerance for a 2500 high construction- almost 10% out.

 

[Chaser]

No they have more than 50% garden left so it can't fall under that. What I can't understand is how sawing a gap suddenly takes it from a planning permission to PD.

The 200mm is a principle matter, if the rules say under 2.5m then what's the point in having rules? It would make a difference in its visual effect from our side.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

The gap changes it from an extension (requiring pp) to an outbuilding (not requiring pp). If there's not already a doorway in the end of the extension there soon will be, along with a canopy between the 2. At that point you can get busy with your camera and complain to planners (that by joining the 2 they've formed an unlawful extension) but be prepared for council to do nowt. Likewise with the 2.7, given the roofline on the extension (or was that meant to be 2500) they're unlikely to enforce. You can try, and I agree with you that the numbers have meaning- if council refuse to act you could try a maladministration claim to the ombudsman. Your later pics do show the difference that 200mm would make. Have a look around your neighbourhood (or online at similar jobs with pp)- is it likely they would have been granted pp if they asked for it (not liking the way it looks isn't on its own grounds for refusal. Overbearing, canyoning, overdevelopment would be.

 

[Chaser]

Thanks. The planners have told them to separate which they have done and they say that the decision is final. Ive no doubt that at some point they will probably join the two. Im perplexed as to why we have planning laws when people just build what they like. I was scrutinised for minor detail by building control on my PP yet PD no one even looks at the construction.

For reference, their garden is to the south of mine so I do lose sunlight over the garden in winter completely now, whereas before it was only half of the garden due to the fence line, not that it makes a difference to any decision..

 

[oldbutnotdead]

Mmm, did wonder about sunlight- that is a definite quantifiable loss of amenity. Have a good shove at the council, get your MP involved, maladministration, slipshod planners, all that stuff. As you say it is annoying to see the chancers get away with things like that....

 

[rssteve]

To be fair they could put planning in to attach the 2. They would 100% get it aswell as nothing really changes apart from a little gap gets filled in. This is a common technique some of the planners use to get big extensions under pd. The gap can be as little as you like, as long as there is a gap its detached and falls under class e permitted development.

 

[rssteve]

Just a thought is that timber framed, it is suppose to be substantially in combustible I think.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

They don't have a lot of garden left with that lot, the actual structure might be pd ish in terms of height but may fall foul of the 50% of garden.
How big a shading effect does that 200mm cause? Personally I wouldn't agree that 200mm is in tolerance for a 2500 high construction- almost 10% out.

At what height difference would an acceptable tolerance be? 100mm, 150mm or maybe 152mm, or 199mm? Please elaborate.

 

[^woody^]

There is no tolerance for PD, and no scope for the planners to exercise any.

If say, a LDC was applied for, to confirm that it was in fact PD, it would be refused if it was higher than the PD height criteria.

Its a breach of planning if it's not in accordance with PD, and the correct thing would be for the planners to request a formal planning application. Now, following such an application, approval may well be given, or if no such application was made when requested it may be decided not to enforce, but in principle by not doing either and not acting one way or the other it may be deemed maladministration.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

At what height difference would an acceptable tolerance be? 100mm, 150mm or maybe 152mm, or 199mm? Please elaborate.

There's no real excuse for more than 10mm, competent brick and block layers (not me!) have shown that is easily achievable with careful setting out and then working to gauge. There is wiggle room cos 'ground level' is a lovely vague term.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

There's no real excuse for more than 10mm, competent brick and block layers (not me!) have shown that is easily achievable with careful setting out and then working to gauge. There is wiggle room cos 'ground level' is a lovely vague term.

What about 11mm or 20mm?

 

[Chaser]

Well I had to chase the planner for a verdict on it only to be told it had been assessed and conformed with PD and there was a level of tolerance to the height. I was told that the decision was final with no course for appeal. I'll be looking to request a written report of their findings as I said it was 2.7m at the building and therefore almost 10% out. Given that it was originally attached then they clearly didn't look to consider the PD element of it.

Re the structure I'm not sure on it. They've used a garden building company to build it onto the back of the house. The structure is timber, the cladding is OSB with some cement board over. I expect them to render which again questions the point of it being similar in appearance to the original brick building but then they've not conformed to any other element of planning so why bother considering the overall finish being in compliance? When I wanted to render mine, I had to put planning in to consider a non material amendment. The side windows also weren't on any plan given to me under NC and being clear they probably don't conform either?

 

[tony1851]

Enforcement is entirely at the discretion of the LPA.

Official guidance to LPAs states 'enforcement may not be appropriate for a minor or technical breach where no harm has occurred'.

Remember that 'height' is measured from the highest point of contact of natural ground level with the structure.

 

[^woody^]

Remember that 'height' is measured from the highest point of contact of natural ground level with the structure.

Remember that it's ground level. Not natural.