Do I need Planning permission?

[edwardwill]

Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather, supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't need planning permission.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is because we've just had an extension built and found the whole planning farce ludicrously and insultingly expensive and bureaucratic.

Thanks

Will

[manatbandq]

Probably correct. Why not pick up the phone and call the planning dept. at your local council?

MBQ

[Maria]

I did that once - the answer I got was 'send us the plans plus £190 fee and we'll let you know...'

[Peter Crosland]

Why not ask your local planners? They should be able to tell you if you do need planning permission. The chances are that you don't but it is best to check first. You will almost certainly need building regulations permission. As for the cost the fee you pay does not even cover the Counmcil's expenditure. Most of the cost is actually funded by part of the council tax.

Peter Crosland

[Andy Hall]

Building Regulations approval is needed if the porch has a floor space of more than 30sq m (323sq ft). Most porches are much smaller than this, so are exempt from Building Control if the glazing complies with Part N of the Building Regulations, which means that certain areas within 800mm (2ft 8in) of the floor, and areas around doors, must be safety glazed.

Which would be considerably less if it weren't for the suggestions of involving bureaucracy where it is not required.

[Andy Hall]

You need to check.

There are two ways to do this.

The first is to obtain copies of the original planning consent as well as your recent extension one to see if there are any restrictions applied in terms of permitted development. If there are none and you are and will be within the rules for that, then no issue.

The second is to check with the local authority. They *may* give you an unofficial answer based on looking at the same documents. If you want something in writing that PP is not required, they will almost certainly want to charge for that.

Generically, the rules are:

• Planning permission is needed if the height of the porch (measured externally) is more than 3m (9ft 10in). * Planning permission is needed if the ground area of the porch (measured externally) is more than 3sq m (32sq ft). * Planning permission is needed if the distance from the porch to the property's boundary with the highway is less than 2m (6ft 7in).

(NB. a 'highway' includes roads, lanes and public footpaths)

I would not rely on the replacement of existing argument.

[Peter Crosland]

I did not say if was a certainty.

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why should those who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

Peter Crosland

[Andrew May]

Because the planning regime is there not for the benefit of the person wanting to build something but for the benefit of the rest of society in as much as it controls what everyone else has to live with. Therefore the rest of society should pay for it.

The same argument could be used about education - also provided by the council. The result of education is a benefit to society, not just to the individual who receives it. Why should those want their children educated not have to pay at least some of the costs? Why should I, who have no children have to pay for schools?

Well it is Friday.

Andrew

[Andy Hall]

You said "almost certainly". For a porch, if it really is a porch, then the answer is almost certainly not as long as the glass issue is addressed

The point was more one of jumping to include every possible facet of bureaucracy when it is not needed, even by the bureaucrats' rules. You forgot to mention that he should contact the Highways Department and Parks and Pleasuregrounds just in case he can see the road or the park from his porch; not to mention Refuse Collection, just in case it impacts where he puts his bins and the education department so that the local primary school can run a project to count the bricks. Health and Safety should definitely be involved to make sure that hard hats are used every time he walks out of his front door, and HMRC just in case there's a taxable benefit.

Of course people should pay for costs associated with their activities. The point is to minimise involvement with these people, not to do things that create busy work for them at the taxpayer's expense.

[Andy Hall]

Absolutely. There should be tax relief for paying private school fees and buying health insurance.

[Peter Crosland]

I don't entirely disagree with you. As for the schools argument most parents pay a considerable cost, not just in money terms, so I don't think the analogy is relevant. However, if there was no charge to the applicant for planning applications then there would undoubtedly be a flood of applications that were without merit. I see no reason why the taxpayers should bear such a cost.

Peter Crosland

[Owain]

You may write in jest but we have had to go through precisely that when having our car park resurfaced.

Count? More likely conduct practical tests to see which brand of aerosol paint is most weather resistant when writing FUKC THE POPE or SHARRON LUVS DAYVE.

Owain

[The Medway Handyman]

Why should I, who

Because you would have to put up with the result of poorer education. Imagine going into B&Q & dealing with people with worse educations :-)

[Andrew Gabriel]

What? Like Dixons?