Wooden Garage Side Extension

Hello All

I have had a look on the planning portal website but not making much sense. I was just wondering if anyone had any advice before I pay the fee my local council charge for asking them if I need planning permission.

I have a semi-detached house with vehicular side access. I currently have gates, tall ones, solid, on the side of the house and a fence that runs along the boundary. I boundary a lane which isn't public land but is the joint responsibility of all who use it, or something like that in the deeds.

I wish to basically enclose the whole side access in a wooden structure and move the gates slightly forwards, but inline with the front of the house, but to make them slight more forward then where they are now. The fence I previously mentioned will be replaced and used as the exterior wall of the garage as the fence posts will be upgraded and used to support the roof.

It will be 2825mm wide and 6580mm long, so a area of 18.5885 meters squared. At the boundary side it will not be more then 2500mm tall, and at the house wall side, will not be more then 3000mm tall. It will have a single slope roof that will slope to the lane side. It will be a wooden structure with a polycarbonate roof. It used for storage of a vehicle, or storage like a garage would be for. Definitely no sleeping accommodation.

Does anyone see any problems I might have trying to get this past? Does anyone know if its a definitely planning permission route, or can I do it under building regs or something like that?

Any response will be much appreciated.

 

If there is access for the public down the lane, it would be classed as a highway in the permitted development rules and the garage would therefore need planning permission.

It might also need building regs approval because it is over 15sqm in floor area and will have a timber side wall. The timber is classed as an 'unprotected area' and there are limits on how much you can have adjacent to a boundary because of fire spread. In your case, a 'notional boundary' would be assumed to be the centeline of the lane; there is guidance in the Approved Document to the regs on how to calculate the maximum area you would be allowed, depending on how far from the 'boundary' you are.
You can get coatings for timber which reduce combustibility, which might be necessary.

 

The lane goes to people's back gardens, so its only used by people who have the rights to from the street.

My neighbour has built exactly what I am trying to do. But he doesn't have a lane down the side of his house, he has another neighbour. He said you didn't need planning permission, which I was suspect able about. Thus why I am asking now.

So to summarise briefly, I will probably need planning permission?

 

In the interpretation section of the rules, "highway" includes an unadopted street or a private way.

As your extension would extend beyond the side of the house and front a highway, it would need PP. Your neighbour didn't need it because he did not adjoin a highwy.

 

As stated the work will require B Regs, as you are close to the boundary this may introduce requirements relating to fire spread. The internal side of the wall may require 30 minutes fire resistance unprotected area and if within 1m of the boundary this will also apply to the external face. Some unprotected area is allowed depending on the proximity of the boundary, for a simple method see diag 11.7 approved document B1, Unprotected area is anything that does not have the required fire resistance.
In addition there are requirements relating to surface spread of flame to the external face of the boundary wall (not unprotected area as previously stated) this will require the timber to be treated (class 1), again an amount of a lower classification of surface spread of flame is allowed equating to double the unprotected area. Depending on the distance to the boundary you may be below the maximum area allowed requiring any treatments, ie 11.2 sq m at 1m.
As far as Part B (fire safety) is concerned "relevant" boundary is taken as the centreline of the footpath, "notional" boundary refers to buildings on the same site and is not applicable in this case.
Just to confuse things, for the purposes of establishing whether the work requires B Regs the boundary is taken as the site boundary. If you have the space move it a metre back from the site boundary then you will be exempt from B Regs.

 

I thought I let you know

My local council offer the service where you can ask them if you need planning permission before you apply type thing (annoyingly you have to pay for this service, it was free).

They responded saying I would need planning permission, so now I am thinking of a more sturdy construction of bricks and tiles since I have to apply for planning permission.

On a side note, does anyone have any useful links about foundation depths and stuff? I have found lots of websites telling me about all the different types of foundations I can have, but I haven't found one actually telling me the dimensions etc.

 

Depth etc of foundations depends greatly on your local ground conditions. Up here (mainly heavy clay) strip founds usually at 700 below ground. If you're on sand, or on 'made ground', things can get more serious. Assuming your project falls within building regs, a chat with the inspector will be useful

 

As a very general rule 900mm deep for clay soils, 600mm deep for sand/gravel, sand is not a particular problem unless its wet and running. Depths may need to be deeper depending on specific ground conditions ie made up ground, trees nearby with shrinkable clays, drains under or near building etc
Speak to B Control most will give advice even if its exempt.

 

Approved Document A will give you some guidance on foundation depth/widths

 

Thats the democratic will of the people.

 

1200mm (4') foundations:

 

I'm not aware the "the people" voted for that.

 

Which is why it's leaning over, and has needed constant repair and support, buttressing, iron and concrete reinforcement.

 

If people vote for a party which promises to and has a solid track record of impoverishing local government then they are saying they want the continued impoverishment. You cant then complain or express surprise when the government does what it was asked to do and leaves councils with not enough money to provide services.

 

Only because they added that spire. The rest of it would have been fine.