Raised platform in garden

[BlueShoes21]

Hi everyone,

I'm looking for a little help if possible please, as having read various threads online I'm not clear as to whether we have inadvertently breached planning permissions.

Basically, we've had some work carried out to our back garden recently, which sits on a slope. When we purchased the property the back garden consisted of patio next to the back door, raised garden/lawn area, steep muddy slope, retaining wall and fence to the very back of the garden (we back onto more raised land). We are not green fingered at all and were struggling to keep up with the maintenance of the mud slope, so decided to get a gardener who has essentially used sleepers to extend the retaining wall out with a patio atop. I've attached a picture, which is hopefully helpful.

A neighbour messaged as work was ongoing to ask how planning permission was going and at this stage we panicked as we literally had no idea we'd need it and contacted our gardener who said in his opinion, it would not be necessary as it was an extension outwards of the existing elevation that was already there. For context, atop of the existing retaining wall there is space for a table/chairs, but we never use it given the elevation isn't practical.

However, we've today received a letter from the council to advise that a neighbour has complained and they would like pictures of the garden to check if it complies with planning or not. Having read a raft of information online, the definition that confused me (and quite possibly due to our gardener's interpretation) is around 'ground height' and from which point that applies. I've seen posts where the slope goes down from the back of the house, but can't find anything where it's at the back of the garden that is clear.

In our case, would it apply from atop of the existing retaining wall or would it apply from where the back garden meets the initial patio, considering the raised garden area (the lawn) that has always been there is greater than 30cm?

We're in a position now where we're gutted, mainly because this has come as a total surprise, we'd obviously not have gone ahead if we had even thought this would be an issue; either for planning or at risk of upsetting neighbours, but we're here now and just trying to figure out what our options are.

Any help or comments would be appreciated, mainly so we can prepare ourselves and come to terms with relevant course of action, rather than waiting for a surprise.

Thanks

 

[BlueShoes21]

I have also added an actual picture, to show the existing parts of the garden and the new bit, which is hopefully clearer than my drawing Thank you again, any help (whatever the direction) is appreciated.

 

[mattylad]

Hmm, at least you know who grassed you up (complained) then.

If the council want pictures tell them that they are free to come and take them.

 

[KenGMac]

Sorry no answers but a three questions?

1/. Was there a set of steps leading up to the [originally] highest level at the rear of the garden?

2/. Did you even use the patio at the highest level?

3/. If you use or begin to use either the "new" patio or the original higher one do you "overlook" neighbours gardens and windows??? there may ????? be a clue there as to who complained.

Tell the Council you do not have the facility to take and send images to them.

Ken.

 

[Notch7]

have a look at this thread, including this post, which has relevance to your situation:

On the Planning Jungle website, there are three appeal cases concerning the height of decking where LPAs had taken enforcement action. In two cases, the inspector determined that the height of the decking should be measured only at the highest point of natural ground level.
In the other case, the inspector determined that ground level can be measured anywhere along the structure.

However, this last case is very much an outlier because there are loads of appeal cases concerning the meaning of "height" generally (not just with decking) and the vast majority determine that height is measured from the point of contact of the structure with the highest natural ground level.

The planner states: A raised platform is defined as any platform that has a height of more than 300mm. and from that proceeds
to state that it is not PD because it contravenes E1(h). But we are back to the issue of height and whether your project is defined as
'decking', 'platform' or 'raised platform' is irrelevant.

You will see from most opinion on this thread that your LPA has a basic mis-understanding of the legal meaning of 'height' and if they issued enforcement proceedings on this issue, they could well come unstuck. As an aside, OP seems to be allowing himself to be drawn into correspondence with the planners; this you should not do as you are wasting your time. Once they have decided that black is actually white, no amount of correspondence will make them decide otherwise. You should ignore any further correspondence unless they issue a formal Enforcement Notice.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/decking-complaint-threads-merged.534101/page-3#ixzz6zUZnDVye

 

[BlueShoes21]

Hi Ken,

Thank you for your reply. In answer to the questions: -

1. No, the steps were built to allow access to the new raised area. I’ve attached a pic of the ‘before’.
2. The highest patio bit is new, so we’ve not used it. The bit above that (where you can see gravel) has always been there and in theory, we could put a small table and chairs on it but never did due to the muddy bank pretty much making it inaccessible.
3. Yes, although this is partly due to the fact the garden is sloped and the fence slopes downwards with it (per the builder’s design when we purchased). We were mindful and comfortable with erecting trellis (if neighbours permitted), if needed but we probably wouldn’t use the new bit for sitting anyway.

Thanks

Sorry no answers but a three questions?

1/. Was there a set of steps leading up to the [originally] highest level at the rear of the garden?

2/. Did you even use the patio at the highest level?

3/. If you use or begin to use either the "new" patio or the original higher one do you "overlook" neighbours gardens and windows??? there may ????? be a clue there as to who complained.

Tell the Council you do not have the facility to take and send images to them.

Ken.

 

[BlueShoes21]

Thank you so much.

I’d read this post earlier, but then started to get in a pickle about the fact that what we have isn’t decking. It feels like a minefield, especially given interpretations and especially for someone like me who has no idea!

So do you think ignore the letter we’ve received? I think even if we did, photos could be obtained quite easily so I’m unsure whether to just cooperate, like I said initially I think we are mostly mortified at our own stupidity and lack of thought on this!

If an enforcement notice is served, are there implications cost wise at all (or is the right to appeal free?).

Thank you again for taking the time to reply, it’s much appreciated.

have a look at this thread, including this post, which has relevance to your situation:

On the Planning Jungle website, there are three appeal cases concerning the height of decking where LPAs had taken enforcement action. In two cases, the inspector determined that the height of the decking should be measured only at the highest point of natural ground level.
In the other case, the inspector determined that ground level can be measured anywhere along the structure.

However, this last case is very much an outlier because there are loads of appeal cases concerning the meaning of "height" generally (not just with decking) and the vast majority determine that height is measured from the point of contact of the structure with the highest natural ground level.

The planner states: A raised platform is defined as any platform that has a height of more than 300mm. and from that proceeds
to state that it is not PD because it contravenes E1(h). But we are back to the issue of height and whether your project is defined as
'decking', 'platform' or 'raised platform' is irrelevant.

You will see from most opinion on this thread that your LPA has a basic mis-understanding of the legal meaning of 'height' and if they issued enforcement proceedings on this issue, they could well come unstuck. As an aside, OP seems to be allowing himself to be drawn into correspondence with the planners; this you should not do as you are wasting your time. Once they have decided that black is actually white, no amount of correspondence will make them decide otherwise. You should ignore any further correspondence unless they issue a formal Enforcement Notice.

Read more: https://www.diynot.com/diy/threads/decking-complaint-threads-merged.534101/page-3#ixzz6zUZnDVye

 

[Jn46]

My understanding is anything over 30cm from lowest point of ground needs PP, and I would say this breaches it unfortunately. Privacy is clearly an issue and tbh I'm not surprised neighbours complained.... You could just use the lower patio for any sitting and cover the raised one in some wild flower matting beds, or similar, and tell the council and neighbour it's good for the bees. If the council come around they will undoubtedly tell you to apply for retrospective PP, which will probably get rejected as the neighbours will complain (again).

 

[BlueShoes21]

Thanks Jn46.

I’d be happy to cover in matting if that was allowed, just unsure whether that would even be an issue or not. We were actually going to put a bio wall for flowers and the bees on the front anyway.

We mainly wanted to tidy the garden up, the issue was the muddy bank doesn’t retain anything, previously barked and it washed off after about six months due to the incline and then nothing grows in it as the ground is basically hard rock, sand and rubbish due to the new build plot and state the original developer left the land.

We were trying to improve the look and make it so we wouldn’t have to maintain anything (simple for us non gardeners) and it’s backfired. To put it back to muddy bank, seems such a shame when it looked a total mess, but as I said appreciate if we’ve messed up then we will have to take the consequences.

My understanding is anything over 30cm from lowest point of ground needs PP, and I would say this breaches it unfortunately. Privacy is clearly an issue and tbh I'm not surprised neighbours complained.... You could just use the lower patio for any sitting and cover the raised one in some wild flower matting beds, or similar, and tell the council and neighbour it's good for the bees. If the council come around they will undoubtedly tell you to apply for retrospective PP, which will probably get rejected as the neighbours will complain (again).

 

[Jn46]

The neighbours concern is you use it as a patio and when seated you look straight over their fence and into the back of their house. I think as long as you don't use it for that and use it for flowers or planting, which you might walk up every so often to tend, you'll be fine. Will look a lot nicer than the muddy bank. And don't engage the council. If you do cover it in plants first before sending pictures.

 

[BlueShoes21]

A gut wrenching part is that initially the raised bit wasn’t going to be as high, our intention was for it to be maybe 3-4 sleepers less, however the ‘retaining wall’ keeping the bank behind the back fence in place only runs approx. 6inches into the ground. The gardener essentially told us mid way through, that they couldn’t really do anything other than build it out to the same height as otherwise the retaining wall would be dangerous as it wasn’t properly sunk into the ground (again the original builder/property developer).

Thank you again for your reply, I do appreciate it

The neighbours concern is you use it as a patio and when seated you look straight over their fence and into the back of their house. I think as long as you don't use it for that and use it for flowers or planting, which you might walk up every so often to tend, you'll be fine. Will look a lot nicer than the muddy bank. And don't engage the council. If you do cover it in plants first before sending pictures.

 

[JohnD]

you can make a retaining wall with cribs filled with large stones or rubble, which can be planted.

or even rot-proof sandbags

a mud bank is naturally unstable, especially if wet.

it looks like you have spent quite a bit of money, and may have to spend more.

you will not be allowed a raised patio.

 

[BlueShoes21]

Thanks John.

Am I understanding correctly, that in theory if we take the paving slabs up from the top bit, then we’d be OK? Essentially it’s just rubble underneath the slabs anyway.

you can make a retaining wall with cribs filled with large stones or rubble, which can be planted.

or even rot-proof sandbags

a mud bank is naturally unstable, especially if wet.

it looks like you have spent quite a bit of money, and may have to spend more.

you will not be allowed a raised patio.

 

[JohnD]

Thanks John.

Am I understanding correctly, that in theory if we take the paving slabs up from the top bit, then we’d be OK? Essentially it’s just rubble underneath the slabs anyway.

this is outside my experience, but I think if you took the slabs off, and planted some shrubs, it would be a raised bed rather than a sitting area, so harder to criticise. You could still have steps and a handrail I think to walk up the incline.

Don't call it a raised bed, call it a flowerbed.

for speed, I would put in some summer fast-growers like (full-size) decorative dahlias, with tomato plants trailing off the front, and mulch with bark, and it will be ready in a month. A big dahlia can put on an inch a day, and grow a metre high and wide. You can plant them closer than that to fill the gaps quicker.

for next year you could put in heathers, lavender, sage bushes, parsely, peonies etc which grow more slowly. You could also plant them on the slope and the roots might consolidate the eath, though, again, that is outside my experience.

 

[Captain Nemesis]

My understanding is anything over 30cm from lowest point of ground needs PP.

Where did you gain that understanding?