All Activity

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?

Hi, If you do not have any other land to cross to the highway and the highway is not classified, it could well be permitted development under Class B of Part 2 of the GPDO. Please see https://www.planninggeek.co.uk/gpdo/minor-operations/access-to-a-highway/ A garden hedge is not protected in the vast majority of cases. If you need a better idea, you are welcome to consult with our team via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact We are here to help.

Hi, Our house sits on the corner of a 'main' lane (halfway down a cul-de-sac with 20-25 houses), and a small unadopted lane that runs to our house and 7 others. The front of the house and our driveway faces the small unadopted lane, and the length of our garden has a approx. 40m boundary against the other lane bordered by an established hedgerow made up of hawthorne, rhodedendrum, holly,. etc. I would like to build a garage at the end of the garden which would be accessed from the main lane. This will require making a gap in our hedge for access. It would be infrequently used, though I'm not sure if this is relevant. There is no pavement or kerb stone between the highway and our hedge, the road surface simply buts up against the verge that forms the base of our hedge. I live in East Sussex and have looked at the highways guidance for dropped kerbs and access, etc. and what they require for visibility splays. From where the access would be, looking out from our property, to the right the main lane bends around in front of you giving good visibility of cars coming from the cul-de-sac. To the left, the road is straight but wouldn't meet visibility splay requirements because of the hedge. On face value it would seem that we would have to remove most of this hedge to meet these requirements, and lose a significant part of our garden in the process. My questions really are: Given it is a very minor non-through road, are we likely to be held to these requirements for access? I assume that despite there being no pavement, kerb, or highways maintained verge, we would still need permission to create a new access? Are we likely to get permission for a secondary access to the properly (I have read this can be a sticking point)? Are we more likely to get permission as part of a full planning application rather than via PD and a request to Highways? Many thanks for any advice that can be offered, I'm really not sure of the best way to approach this! Mark

Hi, It most certainly can have a curtilage, but this might not be that large. A lot will depend upon how the application for a certificate of lawfulness for the log cabin has been submitted. I hope that your agent did not discuss the other proposals. This should never happen! If they did, this is why you are getting issues. if you need any further assistance, please reach out to us via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact We are here to help!

Hi, This will require planning permission. Unfortunately the Article 4 blocks C3 to C4, but doesn't block C4 to C3. So once you have gone to C3, you need planning to go back to C4. Yes, you could apply yourself, but I would recommend a planning consultant. You will need a good justification and also meet other criteria. If these are not met, then refusal may easily happen. We do a few of these with Bristol - but the concern is the loss family homes. They will also look at what is called sandwiching and density of HMOs in a radius. Unfortunately there is no guarantee with any article 4 - but we also will not accept an instruction if we know that permission will be refused. Some others might. If you would like a fee proposal for this, please complete the form at https://planninggeek.co.uk/quote We are here to help.

I bought a property which was a former HMO, and lived in it alone for some years. Now I wish to change it back into a HMO again. According to Bristol Council's website, regarding where I live, "A permitted development right within these areas has been removed from 11 December 2011. You need a planning application for a change of use between a dwelling house (Use Class C3) and a small House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4)." It's unclear if my house class is already C4, having previously been a HMO, or if I need to send an application because it would have reverted. The council were unable to offer any assistance when I contacted them. I would like to know if this is something that can easily be done myself, or if it is better to consult an expert. I appreciate that posting on the site of an expert consultancy may not give a unbiased response, but if it is a complex thing to do and/or the cost of managing an application if necessary is not expensive then I will look into it. There is also no way of gauging of such an application is likely to be accepted, such as the council's appetite. There is a severe shortage of housing, and the neighbouring property is registered as a HMO, although there are no others in the area. The row of houses I live on are all built specifically with the intention of being used as HMOs as shown by their layout and number of toilets. Many thanks.

We live in a large log cabin which is obviously described as a non permanent mobile building. It has been in place for over 17 years now. It has a garden all the way round it fenced off from our surrounding land/fields. We have applied to our Council to have a 7m x 3m wooden pod placed within our curtilage for my elderly father to live in & I can care for him - he would still have meals, etc within our dwelling home. We were advised to apply for a Certificate of Lawful Use & thus employed a Land Agent to submit our application. We have now been told that the Council are digging their heels in over the issue of 'a mobile home cannot have a curtilage'!! Thus we have been advised to withdraw our application which has been a total waste of money! I am searching the internet to see if I can find any statement/law that actually states the above as fact. Please can you assist.

Apologies for the delay. I have issued with some posts appearing. If the barn was not part of an established agricultural unit (EAU) on 24th July 2023, then it will not qualify for the new Class Q

Hi, A co-living in Scotland is likely to be Sui Generis.

Class C (Town and Country Planning General Permitted Development) (England) order 2015 Schedule 2 Part 1, allows for minor alterations to roofs not involving enlargement, such as a change in materials, on condition that any changes would not materially alter the shape of the dwellinghouse and which includes the removal and replacement of rooftiles. Would changing black, Marly Eternit concrete tiles with breathable under felt with black natural Welsh slate tiles be permitted development? Or do you also have to take into account Class B which also covers alteration to the roof and but excludes works within a conservation area?

If I were to put a planning application in for a loft extension to raise the ridge height of my roof by 150mm on a detached property as part of a loft extension, which is higher than other houses in the street (a row of detached and semi-detached houses that are all 8m tall) is this likely to succeed? On one hand it is against the local policy of keeping a consistent row of house heights, but on the other 150mm is not likely to be noticable on an 8m tall building. The recent nppf changes suggest approval of all types of all upward extensions, including Mansard roofs, but the reference to a compatible height has been removed. Here is the new text Q1. Would local policies override the nppf? Q2. Is the whole thing a mute point as the planning officer could argue that the "the form" of the house is too big?

I know the 'old' Class Q like the back of my hand, but I am struggling to interpret some parts of the new legislation, specifically the implications of the new date and the use of the building. Is anyone able to confirm whether the new legislation allows for a barn to change use in the following situations: 1. The barn was originally a piggery, but the associated farm was disbanded in, say 2005, and the barn has been empty since? 2. As above, but the barn has since been used to store domestic items and as an occasional party barn? 3. As above, but the farm is still operational and the barn empty? If I am reading the new legislation correctly, I do not think anything has changed between this and the old legislation in practice. It was always interpreted in my area (East Anglia) as allowing a barn to change use providing its last use was agriculture, and it has not changed use since then (regardless of whether there is still a farm in operation or not). Any advice would be most welcome!

Can someone tell me please, what the current Use Class is (in Scotland) for Co-housing? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohousing

If prior approval is required for the permitted development, then often contamination will be taken into account if the planning officer decides based on the previous land use. Therefore a contamination report would be required. If you need any further assistance with this opportunity, please reach out to us via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact

It doesn't sound like it complies with permitted development as it isn't all within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse. Therefore would require retrospective planning permission or potentially removal. Your only option is to enquire with the enforcement team at the local authority. They can enforce the situation if necessary.

Further to my last question, if a rear single-story extension is built under permitted development on a semi-detached property, and the roof i.e. tiles and wooden roof (no gutter on the side of the roof) overhangs the boundary line by about 20cm and the side brick wall crosses the boundary line by about 2 cm, can the local authority assist with this problem? I'm a bit confused as it has been done under permitted development.

Hello again Can you please point me in the right direction to understand the detail or requirments regarding contamination on a site while using PD and wanting to satisfy the criteria? For example - if on a site has it has been identified that there's previously contaminated soil (leaks from old industrial tanks) and which there's a plan to remove both old empty tanks and the contaminated soil - will that trip up using PD for the coversion? Have I misunderstood completely? Many thanks for any quick pointers.

This will need retrospective planning permission. I would strongly advise using a planning consultant to assist you. We can do this for you. Please kindly complete the form at https://planninggeek.co.uk/quote and we will revert with a fee proposal asap. Happy to help

That got your attention didn't it? We need to change the use of what was a motorbike parts building on an industrial estate, into a private members club. It has already opened and is trading, but need to convert from commercial to sui generis, for some of you this may sound easy but to us it all sounds like Welsh. The club is aimed at members of the kink, swing and fetish scene. It is far from schools, places of worship or any residential. If this is relatively easy, someone pipe up, scene aware people front of the queue as what the club caters to is NSFW.

Apologies for the delay. We had an error here. Yes planning will be required. if you need assistance with this, please reach out via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact

sorry for the delay. You can convert the two to C3 under Class MA, but this would then require planning to go to C4. Personally I would probably look to convert straight to an HMO, either as one larger Sui Generis HMO, or two. I would recommend using a planning consultant for this. If you or your client needs help, please reach out via https://planninggeek.co.uk/contact

It must be on your land. There isn't any required distance as far as planning is concerned.

I suspect not, but for the confirmed answer I would recommend speaking to building control.

The height would still be limited to 2.5m if within 2m of the boundary. The rules do not care as to who the other owner is etc., as they look at both current and future owners etc. All the limits can be found at https://gpdo.uk/outbuildings