What is the original house?

[pamura]

*What is the “original house” for PD rights and hence what can be built behind under PD?* To elaborate….



I’ve read differing opinions about whether a garage is part of the house.



I believe the figures (a) to (d) show scenarios where the garage is definitely part of the dwelling house. Do you agree?



Figure (e) and the photo show a garage link attached to the house attached to the house, joined by a covered walkway. The photo shows the same. Is the garage part of the original house – and hence included in PD for extensions behind and part of the width of the house for side extensions?



Over the years the gates on the walkway have been replaced with doors, the ceiling and walls insulated, and the garage converted into a bedroom. Does this affect things?



Can anyone provide a planning reference or appeal reference supporting their argument?



Many thanks in advance.

 

[^woody^]

AFAIK, "Link detached" is a made up estate agency phrase for marketing, and does not exist in planning.

Original house is the house and outbuildings that existed when built or at July 1948.

The garage described was separate.

The definitions are within the various Orders.

 

[pamura]

Thank you Woody for your comments. They confuse me.



By reading “Original house is the house and outbuildings that existed when built or at July 1948” I understand that it doesn’t matter whether the garage is attached or detached. Either way it is part of the original house. Hence do the GDPO PD rights for a 4m single-storey rear extension apply to the garage?



Furthermore, reading the GPDO 2015 I see the definition of _original_ as “in relation to a building, other than a building which is Crown land, built on or after 1st July 1948, as so built”. My understanding is that the house, walkway, garage and utility were built at one time as one attached entity so why do you have the opinion that the garage is separate?

 

[^woody^]

The build date or July 1948 is a point in time to define what the original buildings on the site are for instances when that is relevant - such as say, when calculating the allowable percentage of land to be built on or such like.

Whether the buildings are separate or attached is a matter of fact, and is relevant for when working out the original house or dwellinghouse distinct from the rest of the buildings on the site.

 

[wessex101]

I had a similar project a few years ago and posted a thread on here asking pretty much exactly the same question ........ I don't remember receiving any constructive responses.

In my research I couldn't find any clear definitions of original house only a fairly obscure planning appeal case where the inspector said that an attached garage was classed as part of the original house. I submitted a lawful development certificate application and the council accepted it so either they agreed that the attached garage was part of the original house or they didn't bother checking and just accepted it blindly, I suspect it may have been the latter.

Mine was for a side extension which was only PD if I could take the width of the original house including the garage, option C in your illustration. Option E with the garage separated by a covered walkway is a bit more complicated so it will probably be open to interpretation by the planning department.

 

[pamura]

Thank you Wessex for your comments. I agree that there appears to be a complete lack of a clear definition of "original house". It anyone has a clear definition please let us know!

 

[charliegolf]

Woody's explanation is pretty clear...

From the Planning Portal:

‘Original house’ - The term ‘original house’ means the house as it was first built or as it stood on 1 July 1948 (if it was built before that date). Although you may not have built an extension to the house, a previous owner may have done so.

 

[wessex101]

Woody's explanation is pretty clear...

From the Planning Portal:

‘Original house’ - The term ‘original house’ means the house as it was first built or as it stood on 1 July 1948 (if it was built before that date). Although you may not have built an extension to the house, a previous owner may have done so.

The trouble is there is no clear definition of a "house" so you can get pedantic planning officers who can argue that a garage is not a house irrespective of whether it was original. We see plenty of examples here where planning officers have made bizarre and often just plain wrong interpretations of the planning rules, it happens on a regular basis. Leaving the homeowner with a potential large bill and long delay to submit an appeal or go through the cost and delays of a protracted planning application process which ultimately may not be successful.

So do you think the garage with covered walkway in this example is part of the "house"? and more importantly can you quote the actual planning legislation, case law or appeal case to back it up rather than just doing a Woody?

 

[robinbanks]

So do you think

This asks for an opinion

can you quote the actual

This asks for a fact

Can't complain you've been given an opinion when you asked for one!

 

[^woody^]

The trouble is there is no clear definition of a "house"

There are two main precedents in planning that define a house.

Perhaps neither directly answer the OPs question, but could be interpreted that a building, of whatever use or name if separate, would if attached to the main building be part of "the house".