Primary facade

[Pford75]

There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times 'Home' section at the weekend. It focused on the planning changes at the end of last year (which many people are still not aware of...including some professionals who really should be).

Whilst this doesn't apply for Listed Buildings or those in a Conservation area, as I understand it, there are certain permitted developments as long as they do not extend beyond the primary facade. However, much of the debate seems to focus around how to identify the primary facade.

Should the primary facade be governed by the route of entry most used, by architectural design or by the facade most visible by surrounding properties? I would imagine that those unlisted period properties outside of conservation areas represent the most complicated cases (since for most modern 'box' development things are more uniform).

What are the thoughts of the forum?

 

[skier-hughes]

I've just been making enquiries about replacing the rickety old fuel store that we have with something more substantial.
So a 3 sided wooden building with a corrugated roof, in a poor state of repair and looking quite an eyesore needs planning permission to replace with something the same size, still with 3 sides, but built from brick with a tiled pitched roof.

Because.

It is at the front of our property, as I have been told just an hour earlier today.

It cannot be seen by anyone but us, as it is on the back of our neighbours outside toilet and feed store.

A stupid rule as it appears there is no room for consideration of different needs or predicaments.

We drive up to the back of our house and walk round to the front. I wouldn't argue which is the front or back to our house. Although the facade most seen by our neighbour would be the side, but drat, can't use that,a s it is still forward of that line. :roll:


Class E
Permitted development
E. The provision within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse of—
(a) any building or enclosure, swimming or other pool required for a purpose incidental to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse as such, or the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of such a building or enclosure; or
(b) a container used for domestic heating purposes for the storage of oil or liquid petroleum gas.

Development not permitted
E.1 Development is not permitted by Class E if—
(a) the total area of ground covered by buildings, enclosures and containers within the curtilage (other than the original dwellinghouse) would exceed 50% of the total area of the curtilage (excluding the ground area of the original dwellinghouse);
(b) any part of the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated on land forward of a wall forming the principal elevation of the original dwellinghouse;
(c) the building would have more than one storey;
(d) the height of the building, enclosure or container would exceed—
(i) 4 metres in the case of a building with a dual-pitched roof,
(ii) 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within 2 metres of the boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse, or
(iii) 3 metres in any other case;
(e) the height of the eaves of the building would exceed 2.5 metres;
(f) the building, enclosure, pool or container would be situated within the curtilage of a listed building;
(g) it would include the construction or provision of a veranda, balcony or raised platform;
(h) it relates to a dwelling or a microwave antenna; or
(i) the capacity of the container would exceed 3,500 litres.

 

[JoceAndChris]

However, much of the debate seems to focus around how to identify the primary facade.

Should the primary facade be governed by the route of entry most used, by architectural design or by the facade most visible by surrounding properties? quote]

It should be governed by architectural design. And who should decide on whether your alteration compromises the architectural design? That's easy: Gareth Hughes.

I'm dismayed at your story and your citation of the planning laws, Skier-Hughes. This probably means I should seek permission to modify my workshop. (I'd like to put a rooftop bar up there: the panorama's great but needs a few gins to go with it.)

We spend money and time on pretty buildings that cheer everyone up.This means we should have special dispensation to do what we like (as long as what we like is nice, in keeping with the history of our properties, and not annoying anyone else)

 

[skier-hughes]

Joce,
I want to put a verandah on top of the utility. Nobody can see it, we don't overlook anyone on that side, but we still need planning permission to put some railings round it and make it an "enclosed" room. We are just going to use it as it is, then sue each other if we fall off after one too many gin's!!!

 

[JoceAndChris]

I'm glad planning laws exist to protect us from eyesores. (though where I live, this protection has been somewhat scant)

But that you need planning permission for railings in the sky only you can see, that's just nonsense. I bet you'd choose really lovely railings as well.

Soon we'll have to ask permission just to drink the gin, never mind the verandah. :evil:

 

[Penners]

Should the primary facade be governed by the route of entry most used, by architectural design or by the facade most visible by surrounding properties?

This is probably a simplistic view (like so many of mine) but I would have thought that there are very few buildings whose primary facade is not instantly obvious.

In most cases it will be the facade that faces the nearest public thoroughfare, except in cases where the architect's intent was clearly for it to be a different aspect.

There can't be many buildings where this isn't clear, surely?

Cue a string of photos of buildings with un-obvious primary facades.

 

[Pford75]

That's interesting and I don't disagree.

What the article pointed out though, was that planning departments are approaching this very differently. For example, one planning dept identified the primary facade on the basis of the 'most used entrance/exit to the property'.

 

[Penners]

one planning dept identified the primary facade on the basis of the 'most used entrance/exit to the property'.

I find that a very blinkered approach.

For example, our house is in a fairly rural location. Consequently, most visitors arrive/depart by car, and we do to. The most easily accessible door into the house from the drive is certainly not the door in "the primary facade". That's on the other side of the house. We always use the back door.

Our situation cannot possibly be unique, and given the immense variety of domestic architecture and layout, I'm sure that every other possible permutation of most-used entry exists.

In fact I wonder how many people on this forum use the door in the primary facade as their usual entry/exit to the property.

 

[Pford75]

This was exactly the point I was trying to make (and not succeeding :wink: )

 

[JoceAndChris]

We definitely don't have a primary facade. The house was designed to be viewed from all four sides, and I suspect with ways in on all four sides too.

I agree it's a blinkered approach.

 

[Penners]

This was exactly the point I was trying to make (and not succeeding :wink: )

I just used more words (as usual)!

 

[Gareth Hughes]

I've said before (possibly not here) that this is but one aspect of the abysmally badly-worded new GPDO that is going to cause massive problems. It appears to have been written by someone who's never ventured outside the M25 and who assumes that everyone lives in semi-detached 1930s houses which "face" the street. IIRC, this does also apply to unlisted, non-Article 4 properties in conservation areas, with all the potential that has for wrecking them.

 

[Penners]

GPDO?

 

[JoceAndChris]

IIRC?

 

[Gareth Hughes]

General Permitted Development Order

If I Recall Correctly

 

[Penners]

It appears to have been written by someone who's never ventured outside the M25

So nothing new there, then.

 

[JoceAndChris]

General Permitted Development Order

If I Recall Correctly

Oh God, now he's started to talk in code. It was hard enough to get to the bottom of his complex multi-clause sentences without him peppering them with acronyms. :roll: :wink:

 

[FamilyWiggs]

M25?



Just joking