This one's a blind deer.

No idea.

But I'd love to hear the answer.

If you have PD rights and they still fit, then you could do it anyway.

F

Thanks peter. Funnily enough the replacement dwelling application didn't include any existing site plan drawings. The new garage was shown separately on both applications. and yes, it's too tall for PD.

Nearby jealous neighbours almost certainly would notice. Just wonder what the legal position would be? The second planning permission doesn't cancel out the first.

I suppose at least we can have outbuildings under PD,as well as the permitted garage from the second approval. I'm going to post separately re PD on the new dwelling re loft. Thanks again

Thanks CWatters, It's an interesting one isn't it? We don't necessarily want to do it, I'm just thinking about potential development opportunity, as the garage building is the size of a small house (96sqm), which might be considered favourably for conversion as a low-cost housing option or holiday let.

I'm sure you are right sny, re replacement being the key word. Just to clarify, the permission includes the words "demolition of existing", but they haven't specified when it has to be demolished (they usually specify a timescale, and give you a month or so to move into the new one).

Do let us know if you find it - would make interesting reading.

Thanks Steve, will look it up. It's unlikely we would even consider keeping the house, as it's pretty rubbish, hence the replacement dwelling.

@creamcheese

I don't see why you can't build in eg the supporting structure etc, but I'm not sure about the windows themselves.

If you want to repurpose your garage later (which is the size of an average house) it will have to meet all regs at that stage. Think about it carefully.

Ferdinand

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: snyggapa</cite>Application ref 13/01101/CLEUD, find it on http://regs.thurrock.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=externalDocuments&keyVal=MWAX2DQGCY000 view associated docs, officer's report is most relevant.

Do note that there is a special place in hell reserved for people that take the mick re planning matters, so just because you maybe can doesn't mean that you should...

Steve</blockquote>

Interesting case. It seems as though there was some emphasis on the fact that the original house was built prior to 1963, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. If it were built after that date would the LA be able to take action?

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Nick Parsons</cite>40 year cut-off, I guess....</blockquote>

Is that standard, set in law? Even if so, I'm not sure of the relevance. The original house was not demolished, whereas it should have been, but the LA couldn't take action. I just wonder what they would have done if it had been built after 1963?

my guess is that 1963 is not relevant - 10 years seems to be the cutoff for most planning matters, so maybe it was a statement of "demonstrably much more than 10 years"

With regards to PD rights, common sense says that you ought to be able to incorporate them at build time rather than have to build as planned and then change it. This maybe the case where a friendly chat with the planner will let you know their opinion.

It may be that PD rights only start once the dwelling is complete, but my guess is that no planner is going to enforce something that can be done immediately after - in fact my recollection is that they can only enforce something if the "breach" in their opinion would not be granted permission. So they might huff and puff, but won't blow the house down.

I would just go ahead and build the roof lights, the odds of anyone caring would be almost zero and if they do care the odds of them taking enforcement action for something you could immediately put back with PD right I suspect would be pretty much exactly zero. I don't think? planners proactively come back and check what has been built - they only react to complaints

Posted By: snyggapaIt may be that PD rights only start once the dwelling is complete, but my guess is that no planner is going to enforce something that can be done immediately after - in fact my recollection is that they can only enforce something if the "breach" in their opinion would not be granted permission.

Yes, domestic PD rights only apply once you've completed.

During discussion with an Orkney planning officer, she was quite clear that if I wanted a wind turbine then I should include it in the application if there was any possibility of installing it before completion (e.g., for VAT reasons) even though it would be PD afterwards.

Agreed, they probably wouldn't enforce the matter but they'd probably mark you down as a mickey taker and be completely pedantic about anything else if they could easily be.

1 January 1964 was the cut off point for immunity from an enforcement action prior to the introduction of the 4 and 10 year rules in the Planning and Compensation Act 1991.

...and yet they seem to place emphasis on it, as the decision notice cites this as the reason for granting the certificate:

"On the balance of probability, it is considered that the dwelling on site known as
Oak Cottage, (formerly known as The Cottage) and outlined in red on the attached
plan (drawing no. Block Plan 13-6339) is lawful by virtue of the fact that it was built
prior to 1963 and beyond the ability to take any enforcement action.

First Schedule:- Use of a building as a single dwelling for more than four years. As
detailed in the approved plans listed below "