Permitted Development, a handy guide

[Gareth Hughes]

Actually, a guide to the nightmare scenarios that haven't been picked up or corrected in the General Permitted Development Order
It's the "10 worst permitted development loopholes" link on this site, with quite a good commentary on how they weren't spotted (basically, the government thinks everyone lives in a semi-detached house facing the road):
http://www.planningjungle.com/

Just in case you wondered how the neighbours, in a conservation area, got away with whatever it is that they got away with... :twisted:

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I will say this will be very handy when it comes to persuading people that we do need Article 4 Directions.

 

[Flyfisher]

Don't these sorts of things go out to consultation so that such things can be raised before being passed into law ?

 

[biffvernon]

Don't these sorts of things go out to consultation so that such things can be raised before being passed into law ?

Nah, the Greek prime minister tried that but look what happened.


The curious thing is that the conservation areas that we so cherish were all constructed long before there were any significant planning regulations. Makes you think (or it should do).

 

[Feltwell]

Hmm, let's hope property developers don't pick up that guide!

There are some serious loopholes there, with what looks like a complete lack of urgency to plug them. I came across No.2 - the "sloping natural ground level" - myself, when planning my garage. I questioned the roof height limit for permitted development, as it would be different at the front and back of my garage by about 1.5m. The local authority couldn't give me an answer.

As it was, I went for & won full planning permission for a larger garage in the end anyway.

 

[JoceAndChris]

Good grief! :shock:

But that's a very well put together presentation, let's hope it can make some positive impact.

 

[AMc]

Thanks - I can now build that swimming pool house I always wanted!

 

[Penners]

Don't these sorts of things go out to consultation so that such things can be raised before being passed into law ?

Nah, the Greek prime minister tried that but look what happened.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Never mind - all you have to do is withdraw the "consultation" and say that you only proposed it to stimulate debate.

 

[Penners]

That's a horrifying document.

How can legislators have left such cavernous loopholes as the one that permits unrestrained development of the front of the property (within the curtilage), provided the front doesn't "front" on to the road?

How on earth can terms such as "minor" and "uncontentious" be used in the regulations? The are utterly subjective.

How on earth.... the rest of it?

 

[skier-hughes]

excellent news, so now I can rebuild the log shack and make it safe to use without planning permission, as it's on the front of the house..... all I wanted to do was put two sides on it to make it a little more weatherproof, it has a back and a roof.
The log cabin adn greenhouse were fine to erect being at the rear of the property!!

 

[Penners]

Graham's log cabin:

Graham's greenhouse:

 

[LadyArowana]

......but you have to admit they fit in well with the moat that he has just finished.

 

[Flyfisher]

The curious thing is that the conservation areas that we so cherish were all constructed long before there were any significant planning regulations. Makes you think (or it should do).

That's a good point, though were such areas cherished in their time and do we just view old things through the rose-tinted telescope of time?

I must admit that my instinct is to dislike the ever-increasing rules, regulations and bureaucracy that seems to pervade every aspect of modern life (who was it who said 'the more laws, the less freedom'?) and I would much prefer it to be all swept away and for people to just behave themselves and 'do the right thing' all the time. But I realise that's cloud cuckoo land so it's all a tricky question of balance.

But, let's be honest, even before these new relaxations in planning laws, there are plenty examples of pig-ugly buildings and developments throughout the land, all designed and approved by professionals in their respective fields. Perhaps such buildings will be cherished themselves in a couple of hundred years - assuming they last that long of course!

 

[JoceAndChris]

It's certainly interesting to think about the shift in attitude to what are now conservation areas. Our London flat in the fashionable "Miltons" of Highgate was considered by many to be a vulgar, ugly, sprawling development in the 1890s. Now you must not alter a window or roofline (good).

So undoubtedly time changes perception, but I'm firmly of the belief no amount of time will change the fact that much of the modern street scene is both ugly and unenduring (good).

 

[skier-hughes]

A bit disappointed, the greenhouse and moat pictures are just a slight exaggeration on real life, but that log cabin is just too small even for me to think of using :roll:

 

[Penners]

Gareth, is the General Permitted Development Order already on the statute books?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

Yes - has been since 2008 in its current form.

 

[Zebra]

I'm confused by this. This document suggests these loopholes apply even in a conservation area? I was denied planning permission to extend forwards by one square metre on the flat roofed 1960s part of the house, and to raise the height of the flat roof by 300mm. I had understood that Permitted Development doesn't apply in a conservation area, so I had to apply for Planning Permission. Was I wrong about that?
I'm not sorry permission wasn't granted, the second plan which was accepted is better anyway, but they also specified what materials I have to have on the roof and what type of windows. Does this mean they can't do that?

 

[Penners]

I was denied planning permission to extend forwards

Aren't these the crucial two words?

 

[AMc]

I was denied planning permission to extend forwards

Aren't these the crucial two words?

If I read it correctly then the loophole allows you to extend the front of the house is a silly way if it doesn't face the highway.