All Activity

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?

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?