Salford City Council state I need planning. I disagree

August 9, 2021 by Ben murphy in forum Planning Forum

#1060 Ben murphy , 9 August 2021, 12:20

The following is an overview of the original structure prior to works undertaken in recent years.
The original structure comprised a two storey garage which a dual pitched roof, the height of which exceeded the 4 metre condition laid out by the GDPO in Section 2, part 1, Class E. The garage lies adjacent to (within 1 metre of) a boundary and is positioned several metres behind the rear elevation of the main dwelling house. Having been erected for approximately 15 years, the structure became legal via passage of time.

We intended to expand and enhance the building to accommodate the homeowner’s health conditions.
My father, the property owner, has several health conditions which are causing his health to deteriorate. These include Spina Bifida, severe sleep apnoea and suspected COPD, ongoing difficulties with his heart which resulted in him suffering a heart attack several years ago, and more recently; cirrhosis of the liver. In 2020 we hired an architect to advise us about works which could be done to the building to expand it, either to accommodate my fathers limited mobility or create space for myself and my partner to move into the property and help care for him. We also spoke to builders, and researched the legislation concerning permitted development. As a result of the advice we received, we believed that the intended building work was considered permitted development, and that planning permission would only be needed in relation to the use of the building, at a later date. We spoke to any of the neighbours who we felt could be affected by the works, all of whom insisted they had no issues with the intended development. One particular neighbour had complained for many years about a large tree which we had in the back garden, as it blocked light from their garden (despite the fact they bought the property with this being the case). Although they agreed to the works, we decided to remove the tree anyway as works were progressing, in good faith and as a thank you for their compliancy. They then complained to the council once works were well underway.

The following is an overview of works carried out on the building.
The development undertaken involved:
• The addition of a second storey ‘shed-roof’ dormer to the side elevation of the garage, which spans several metres in length and has three windows.
• The addition of a sloped roof extension to the rear elevation, no more than 2.5 metres in height.
• The joining of the extension to the existing structure, by removal of some of the original rear wall.

The following is an overview of our experience with Salford City Council with regards to the building work.
Before works could be completed, we received a letter from the council informing us there had been a complaint, and that we needed to submit a planning application. This letter was received on the 30th of November, 2020. Following this, a planning enforcement officer carried out a site visit on the 22nd of December.
On the 30th of December, the officer emailed me to say that the dormer did not benefit from permitted development rights, and that he was ‘unsure’ about the single storey extension which had been erected. He requested that a building regulations application was submitted, and that I inform the council of my intentions regarding the submission of a planning application.
From the 30th of December until the 5th of May, communication from the council was scarce, and they seemed unwilling to provide a written statement detailing exactly which alterations did not benefit from permitted development and why. When they finally did reply, they quoted a law which does not exist (‘Class E of the Town and Country Planning Act’) and were extremely vague about the reasons they believed the alterations required planning. In summary, there points were:
• The dormer overlooks other gardens.
The windows in the dormer were to be fitted with a frosted film, obscuring views into and out of the second storey. In addition, the garage actually prevents several other properties behind it from overlooking said gardens. As part of the works carried out, a street-facing window on the front elevation had been removed to ensure that if the building were ever used in the future for non-incidental purposes, it would not overlook some of the neighbouring gardens.

• The dormer and the extension are not permitted development.
Their reasoning for this was to simply reference ‘Class E of the Town and Country Planning Act’. If we assume they meant Class E of the GPDO, I do not believe this is correct. Although they have not been forthcoming about their issues, it seems likely that the height of the existing building, and the fact that is exceeds conditions laid out in this document, is their primary reason for stating that the alterations are not permitted development.

The legislation is clearly written that development is permitted, unless said development WOULD result in the height of the bu

#1066 Damian, 9 August 2021, 18:53

If it’s detached, it would need to meet the guidance for outbuildings as Class E.

Reply to topic

All HTML, except <i>, <b>, <u> will require your topic to be moderated before it is publicly displayed.

Your Name:
Your Email Address:

Your Email Address will not be made public.
Topic Content:

Return to topic list | Return to forum list

The Partner Directory

Click on the logos below to find more about the services offered

Advertise here