Hi all, hope somebody can advise. We're looking at buying a house in mid-beds. It's an old, terraced property with a rear garden which used to contain two brick outbuildings (now demolished).
The old foundations for the buildings are intact and the fireplace and chimney for what must have been the old wash house are still there (party wall with next door). I've got the drawings from landregistryonline and, while the outbuildings are not shown on the newer (1980) drawing, they do appear on the older (1955) one.
I'd like to re-instate the buildings, using the larger one as a workshop and the smaller as a garden shed. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that I'd need building control to sign off on the completed work, but would I need planning consent for merely re-instating an original feature of the property?
The planners are very unlikely to allow reinstatement as of right just because there are foundations. The only sure way to tell is to go and talk to the planners. You will certainly need building regulations approval and the existing foundations may well not be regarded as adequate.
Unless a planning application was made for their demolition (unlikely), then you will be able to reinstate them to their original dimensions, design and appearance without a planning application and without affecting the property's permitted development rights.
Thanks chaps. I'd expected to need BC approval and Peter's point about the foundations one that hadn't occured to me (assuming I had to work to current regs - one wall is still intact so perhaps I'd just be repairing an existing structure?).
That said, I've had two replies and two very different answers. Guess I'd better talk to the planners (who are somewhat less accessible than the BC people). FWIW, I intend to use the outbuilding for its original purpose, ie a laundry room.
Well, I called the planners and asked. The answer, predictably, was "maybe, maybe not". The officer suggested that I write in with photos, land registry plans etc, emphasising that there is an existing footprint. I said, let's wait and see if I end up buying the place first.
| snipped-for-privacy@care2.com wrote: |> Ask, but I wouldnt assume always a truthful answer. | |Well, I called the planners and asked. The answer, predictably, was |"maybe, maybe not". The officer suggested that I write in with photos, |land registry plans etc, emphasising that there is an existing |footprint. I said, let's wait and see if I end up buying the place |first.
You can apply for planning consent on land you do not own. IANAL
A local listed building got planning consent based on 1850s foundations.
What about the ins and outs of permitted development? ISTR that previous extensions count provided they were made after a certain date so why shouldn't a relatively recent demolition merely restore the previous status quo?
Having written the above I went for a brief google and found on an architects site:
"In this document any reference to the volume of the house means the original as-built volume including any extension built before 1st July
1948 measured externally (in cubic metres). Extensions built after this date do not count as part of the volume of the original house. Extensions built as Permitted Development after 1st July 1948 count cumulatively towards the maximum size permitted."
I read that as including any demolished part but the draftsman could of course not have thought that far ahead and in any case it is not an official site.
I followed your example and my googling turned up the London Borough of Waltham Forest, who have a nifty step by step householder's guide to permitted development at:
formatting link
important definitions given there are: # The term dwellinghouse is used to mean the house as it is before the development is carried out. It does not include any separate buildings such as a detached garage, even if built with the house. # The term original dwellinghouse is used to mean the house as it was first built or its size on 1st July 1948, if it was built before that date. It does not include any separate buildings such as a detached garage, even if built with the house. # The term resulting building is used and means the original dwellinghouse PLUS any extensions added since 1st July 1948 PLUS any buildings bigger than 10 cubic metres, which are closer than 5 metres from the dwellinghouse and are within your garden PLUS the proposed extension/building.
So it seems that the outbuildings wouldn't have counted as part of the original volume anyway, even if built as part of the original development, but if built after 1948 would need to be counted as part of the final volume.
After punching in all the details, the site gave the following advice:
Your proposals will be permitted development provided:
the resulting building does not exceed the original dwellinghouse PLUS 50 cubic metres or 10% of its volume, whichever is the greater (subject to a maximum addition of 115 cubic metres); * any part of the building which is enlarged, improved or altered is not closer to a highway than the original dwellinghouse, unless it will be at least 20 metres from the highway; * the part of the building which is enlarged, improved or altered is not higher than the height of the highest part of the roof of the original dwellinghouse; * the part of the building which is enlarged, improved or altered is not more than 4 metres in height and is within 2 metres of the boundary of the garden of the dwellinghouse (this does not apply to the insertion, enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a window in an existing wall); and * not more than half the area of your garden (excluding the area of the original dwellinghouse) is covered by buildings.
If I'm reading this correctly, then I reckon I'll be OK for permitted development. Bloody useful tool from LBWF!
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.