Permitted Development Outbuilding - distance from property

[PeteWilliams]

Our council have just refused a certificate of lawfulness for an outbuilding with a 150mm gap from our house. The permitted development guidance for outbuildings does not specify a minimum distance from the main house, and we have heard of others having gaps as small as 25mm deemed lawful.

As such, we're looking to appeal, and so I am looking to find examples where a Certificate of Lawfulness was granted for any outhouses 150mm or less from the main house. I have found one but it would be good to find any more.

Anyone know of any examples, or have been through this yourself?

Thanks

Pete

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

What did the officers report say? Care to copy and paste it here, withholding any personal details.

 

[PeteWilliams]

Thanks for the reply. I've uploaded it here: http://imgur.com/a/0EZHB

I suspect little past the second page is pertinent - on the second page they say:

"It needs to be established which Class of Part 1, of Schedule 2 of the Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 the proposed development shall be
assessed against. The separation distance between the proposed outbuilding and the existing two
storey side extension would be 100mm. The Local Planning Authority considers that this would not
not be a material gap and, as such, the proposed development would be considered as an
enlargement of the dwellinghouse and therefore must be assessed under Class A, which allows for
the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse. rather than Class E. it is
also of note that the dwellinghouse has benefited from previous extensions which the current
proposal would abut. Therefore the 'enlarged' part of the dwellinghouse would comprise the current
proposal and those previous enlargements."

After that, the application essentially judges the outbuilding as an enlargement to the existing property and because that extension connects to existing extensions, they then evaluate all the existing extensions combined against the permitted development rules.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I have achieved permission for an outbuilding that was about 25mm away from the house wall and the planners accepted it as not attached, no doubt there are others I don't understand their stance, it has no merit.

 

[Nakajo]

I can see no justification for the stance adopted. Can anyone?

 

[PeteWilliams]

I have achieved permission for an outbuilding that was about 25mm away from the house wall and the planners accepted it as not attached, no doubt there are others I don't understand their stance, it has no merit.

Thanks, that's good to hear. Would you mind PM'ing me any planning reference numbers so I can reference it in our appeal?

 

[garyo]

Does anyone with planning jungle access have an awareness of whether this has ever been tested in an appeal? I see frequently see applications around here that have a 50mm gap on the drawings. Maybe yours is the first LA to take a stand. Strange.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Does anyone with planning jungle access have an awareness of whether this has ever been tested in an appeal? I see frequently see applications around here that have a 50mm gap on the drawings. Maybe yours is the first LA to take a stand. Strange.

I suspect it's just a dopey planning department, unfortunately.

At Pete, was the application monitored along the way or did whoever applied just sit back and wait for the decision to plop through the letterbox?

PM sent BTW.

 

[PeteWilliams]

Does anyone with planning jungle access have an awareness of whether this has ever been tested in an appeal? I see frequently see applications around here that have a 50mm gap on the drawings. Maybe yours is the first LA to take a stand. Strange.

If anyone has access that would be great as it would save me the cost of joining. I have found one appeal via Google with a 25mm gap which was eventually deemed lawful.

Was the application monitored along the way or did whoever applied just sit back and wait for the decision to plop through the letterbox?.

Yes the architect had been in touch and we knew a couple days beforehand this was the likely outcome. Much as he tried convincing them they wouldn't budge.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Looking back through my old correspondence I recall when I did that application the street signs on the lamposts all said ‘extension’ and when speaking with the stupid officer about the sign who validates the applications and does the signs he was equally pig-headed and insisted it was an extension, fortunately he had nothing else to do with the application. Please keep us up to date with any developments.

 

[PeteWilliams]

Looking at your case, the situation is slightly different. Yours is a full planning application whereas mine is permitted development.
We already knew we couldn't get planning permission as they council view our house is already increased too much from the initial footprint. I would guess this didn't apply in your case.

The PD route was because this footprint consideration doesn't apply, but our issue is they are treating our PD app as a full app because they consider the outbuilding to be an extension rather than a true outbuilding.

Apparently there are 4 similar cases on Planning Jungle, so I'll stump up for access unless anyone already has access and could supply the refs..?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Presumably you might include that case as an example as to what a planning authority define an outbuilding as ie not attached.

The fact that it was a planning application and not an application for Lawful Development Certificate is because the property has restricted Permitted Development rights but I don’t see why this is relevant – it’s the principle of acknowledging it as an outbuilding you are interested in.

I know there are members on here who subscribe to the Planning Jungle (I don’t), maybe they will happen along and will download them for you ……

 

[tony1851]

@op; your LPA are numpties;

On Planning Jungle, there are 2 appeal cases where a class E building is 5cm from the house, and 2 appeal cases where the class E building is 2.5cm from the house. In all 4 cases, the appeals were allowed.
In law, a detached building is a detached building, regardless of the distance. You need to get back to your LPA and appeal that nonsense.

 

[PeteWilliams]

@op; your LPA are numpties;

On Planning Jungle, there are 2 appeal cases where a class E building is 5cm from the house, and 2 appeal cases where the class E building is 2.5cm from the house. In all 4 cases, the appeals were allowed.
In law, a detached building is a detached building, regardless of the distance. You need to get back to your LPA and appeal that nonsense.

Thanks. Yeah appealing is the plan. Would you be able to share the planning references from the appeals you mention as I think they would help with our appeal.

 

[^woody^]

Even without precedent cases, the situation is quite clear - a building or whatever is either detached or it is attached.

It comes down to the common dictionary definition, as the PD rules do not prescribe a distance or specify an alternative meaning for "detached".