All Activity

Hi, They may well have powers to restrict development of the decking. Whether they have powers to remove the slabs, unfortunately I am not sure. Normally any such planning issues would be dealt with by the local authority, but certain legislation can override planning legislation. If this is a formal notice, you are within your rights to ask them as to the legislation they are operating under given that the slabs have been there for 15 plus years. Sorry that I can't be of more assistance. You are welcome to post this on our Facebook group at https://facebook.com/groups/planninggeek - but this is not anonymous. Someone there might know.

Hi Ian, I own a log cabin adjacent to a river in a sssi site, the log cabin had concrete paving slabs around front and both sides. The side adjacent to the riverbank was concrete paving slabs then a timber decking area extending beyond paving slabs due to the slope of the riverbank, I have since extended the decking over top of the paving slabs, the environment agency have got involved and are demanding the complete decking has to be removed, however can they force me to remove decking / paving slabs, as the paving has been in situe for over 15 years. ( can you put decking on top of existing paving slabs?) Also if the paving slabs have been there for over 15 years surely they cannot force me to remove and return site back to natural habitat? Regards Grafter

A lot might depend upon how long it has been marketed for, if there is any demand for an F1 usage and then the local policy as far as parking and other suitability for a dwelling. You might wish to consider a Zoom call with myself to discuss the options open to you. If this is of interest, you can book this via https://planninggeek.co.uk/book Whilst there is a cost element, we do fully credit the amount against using our services for any application on the site.

Hi there We are looking to purchase a tin tabernacle that is currently a church with F1 use, we hope to use it for residential but failing that a holiday let. I would be really grateful if anyone has any advice, tips, experience that they would be willing to share? Thank you so much!

Apologies for the late reply. I missed this. Unfortunately any educational facility would be F1. However it is possible to have two uses for the situation you described. If you need any further assistance with this opportunity, please reach out to us via planninggeek.co.uk/contact

You can do it multiple times, but you only get the 1,000 sq m once. Hope that makes sense.

Hi, I’ve been reading up on your Class R summary and was struck by what you say about only doing it once per agricultural unit. “See ‘What is an Agricultural Unit‘ as you can only do this once per agricultural unit, although multiple buildings can be changed until the 1,000 sq m is used.” my reading of the legislation was that I could submit multiple applications under Class R for the same agricultural unit until I hit the 1,000sqm limit or am I missing something? I was planning to submit 3 separate applications for the same unit hence why I am checking!!!

I’m looking to expand my music lesson offerings into a commercial space due to high demand, a very long waitlist, and limited space. The program will include a variety of musical instrument lessons (piano, violin, guitar, singing, group lessons, etc.), as well as Easter and summer camps, with an optional childcare add-on for early/late drop-off and pick-up. Additionally, many of the available shops to lease in the high street area I’m interested in have unused space at the front, which could be utilized to accommodate a small café. However, most of the available properties are classified as Class E, and landlords have declined my offers. I’ve been informed that music schools typically fall under Class F1, which seems inconsistent, especially since there are two other tuition centers on the same street offering services like math and English lessons. Would it be possible to persuade a landlord to apply jointly for a Class F1 classification? Additionally, if I were granted the appropriate classification, would that prevent me from offering a café, or would there be a way to include it alongside the music school?

Like many houses, my semi-detached house has a slightly stepped rear wall; the only unusual thing is that the step is in the opposite direction from normal, but I don't think that makes any difference from a planning point of view. I would ideally like to build a full-width single-storey rear extension, but I am stymied by the fact that the slightly stepped rear wall means that the extension would need to meet the rules for a side extension (i.e. be no more than half the width of the house). Leaving aside questions of aesthetics and additional expense for the moment, would it be permissible to build a separate rear extension from each part of the rear wall, with a small gap between them? I would potentially then also make the extension from the furthest back part of the rear wall two-storeys. It's probably easiest to understand this using my sketch, which I have provided here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l1601DnFdsjm3RjgrGscq_n5nReb5ZFX/view?usp=sharing

Hi, My apologies. This post was missed by myself. It all depends upon the description of the application originally. It does sound extant, so works could probably continue. You can use a S73 application to change the plans - but if the planning said a bungalow, you will not be able to change that to a house - but you might be able to add dormers etc. You might also be able to benefit from permitted development rights. One option for you is to book a Zoom session with myself via https://planninggeek.co.uk/book as this could be fairly complicated depending upon the original planning. Whilst there is a cost element to this, we do fully credit the amount if you then need an application and use our services.

Hi, Thanks for the post. A church hall is usually F1 as it would be ancillary to a church. Education is F1 I would not normally consider a preschool to be the same as a creche or nursery which is Use Class E. Provided that you are undertaking some form of education as opposed to just letting the children play, then I would consider it to be F1 and not require a change of use or planning permission. I do not normally recommend speaking with the local authority, outside of a formal application, however you could apply for a certificate of proposed use or development to get it confirmed in writing. Use Class F1 can be found on our site at https://useclass.co.uk/f1 If you would like our help with a certificate of lawfulness, please complete the form at https://planninggeek.co.uk/col

We are trying to find clarity on the use of a church hall for a preschool. This would not be the sole use as it is used for many other community groups. We are not a "nursery or creche" so believe we shouldn't have to use a class E premises. Some opinions we've found state that, if we are only taking families that access the Early Years government funding then we could be seen as an educational business. In addition, we are providing a service to the local community. We are not solely childcare but more about providing early education. It's been difficult to find an answer and unofficial chats with local planning have highlighted this as well. Appreciate your input.

Hi, The same CIL rules should apply anywhere. I have always included lofts if they can be used for storage etc. If the new build on an existing dwelling is over 100 sq m, you must claim the exemption. In any event, complete Form 1 See our flowchart at https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/CIL-Flowchart-2025.pdf and the CIL FAQ page at https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/planning/cil/cil-faq/ for more information.

Am I right in assuming that if new extensions to an existing residential building are less than 100sq.m then there is no CIL obligation? If one was to also have a garden annex which would take the total new build area over 100sq.m that that would not be liable for CIL ether, as it is an Annex? Thirdly, from what I am reading lofts cannot be included in existing GIA if there is no fixed ladder or stair? This is for Hounslow Borough.

I am buying a property that has extant planning permission. The permission was granted in 1988, and the foundations were laid. We have a letter from the council from 1995 confirming that the planning is valid having inspected the works. I'd like to build out the site. Can I assume the pp is still valid? If so, the permission is for a timber framed bungalow, but the roof structure is tall enough to build a 2 storey house without really changing the way it looks. How do I vary the planning permission when it is so old for a property that was never built? Or if it's just roof windows is it just permitted development after so long? Its such a confusing area!

Hi, Actually I think the local authority is wrong. Reason being is that you have merely repaired and rebuilt part of the property pre-1948. Normally when you remove something and replace it, then it has gone. But I think in this case, I am not so sure. In any event maybe you repaired it bit by bit, as opposed to demolishing it and rebuilding it - ie.e you repaired it. You also need to always be careful what you say to the local authority. I assume this is enforcement as opposed to the planning department. You might benefit from reaching out directly to me via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact or perhaps booking a paid session via https://planninggeek.co.uk/book - so that we can give you detailed advise. Please be careful as to anything else you say to the local authority. We are here to help

Hello, grateful for a view on this issue: We have a mid-terrace house and have built a side return extension in line with PD Part A. We're not in a conservation area and there are no restrictions affecting PD. When we did the side return work we needed to rebuild what had been a sort of 'lean to' at the very rear - approximately 1m in depth. This 'lean to' is from when the house was built (pre-1948) so considered that it formed part of the 'original dwellinghouse'. We did not extend beyond the original footprint at the rear, only extended to the side. The extension to the side is much less than 1/2 the width of the property. What the Council appear to be saying is that because that rear part was re-built, the side return extension therefore becomes a wraparound and fails one of the conditions for Part A in that the extension "(iii) have a width greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse". Having re-read the PD guidance I don't see this being a constraint anywhere so I'm struggling to follow this - does this constraint make sense? Many thanks in advance

Hi, Thanks for the message. Unfortunately permitted development rights apply only on the property in question. The height is measured from the natural ground level next do the extension. However if light is impacted, whilst it would not prevent the extension from happening, it could be a civil matter which would impact the build. But that would require a surveyor and probably a solicitor to assist. Sorry that this is maybe not the reply you might have hoped for.

I have a query as to whether there is any restrictions on what our neighbour can do in terms of permitted development when our house is at a lower ground level to theirs (by around 2 metres) and our house is also set back from them, meaning that the implications of them building a back extension are much greater. Any advice greatly appreciated!

Hi, Thanks for the message. I would look to perhaps undertake this under Class MA or if it was one unit, a mix between Class G and Class MA. This will depend upon the property and the location etc. We are very experienced in submitting such applications, so if you need any further assistance with this opportunity, please reach out to us here. We are here to help.

Hi there! I'm new here so a quick intro from me. I'm a property investor primarily interested in generating cashflow from mixed-use buildings, however I do flex when the opportunities arise! The deal I am currently working on is a potential commercial conversion. It is currently a fully commercial building on a high street with ground floor shop space and first floor office space. What I want to do is split it into x4 self-contained studio style units around 25-30sqm each, to be retained under one freehold and leased out for social housing. Can this be done under PD? Your input is very much appreciated! Thanks!

Whilst I do not know which local authority you operate under, many are either C1 or Sui Generis. Therefore I regret but you will need to apply for planning. There isn't a way around this. You could apply for a certificate of lawfulness, but I suspect it might fail. If you need any assistance with this, please complete our form at https://planninggeek.co.uk/quote

Our local authority has advised our short term let us a material change of use even though it only sleeps 5 and should be classed as C3, Ive quoted case law of Lord Justice Sullivan of what classifies a material change and they aren’t budging, just saying they maintain their position that it is a material change.There has apparently been a complaint over parking and noise but it has a large drive and doesn’t have a lot of traffic…usually a family visit or a contractor Monday to Friday, no parties we don’t do 1 night bookings. We’ve been issued with no proof of any noise or parking issues being caused by our property what is my best course of action?

I would potentially agree. However one would need to see the full application etc., to fully comment. If you would like any assistance with an appeal, please complete the form at https://planninggeek.co.uk/quote We are very experienced in appeals. We are here to help.

My LA (Calderdale) has turned down my application to rebuild our dwelling in the Green Belt. I applied under paragraph 154(g) of the new NPPF (December 2024) which creates an exception in the green belt if the land is "Previously Developed Land" (PDL). They are saying that the land is not PDL under the current definition because the existing development was legalised by a Certificate of Lawful Development (CLD) granted to us in 2023. The definition of PDL in the new NPPF starts: "Land which has been lawfully developed and is or was occupied by a permanent structure and any fixed surface infrastructure associated with it..." The words "...has been lawfully developed..." were added in for the latest NPPF so were not there prior to December 2024. So they are using this amendment to claim that a Certificate of Lawful Development does not mean that the land has been Lawfully Developed!! Sounds crazy to me. My view is that there is no difference between development made lawful through planning permission, and development made lawful via CLD. I believe that these extra words have only been added to the definition of PDL in order to exclude developments that are not lawful in any respect, that is, no PP or CLD. I think they are just clutching at straws in order to refuse my development. What do you guys think?