Planning Permission needed?

Shefwedfan

Circa 2007 I changed the flat roof on garage to slopped roof. At the time myself and neighbor done it. Every other house in street has done some similar.

Anyway someone mentioned the other day I might need planning for it? is this correct, I can find online that I can convert the garage without having to get planning, do I really need planning to change the roof? It was just changed to stop leaks. Didnt add space etc to house

Gumbo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Circa 2007 I changed the flat roof on garage to slopped roof. At the time myself and neighbor done it. Every other house in street has done some similar.

Anyway someone mentioned the other day I might need planning for it? is this correct, I can find online that I can convert the garage without having to get planning, do I really need planning to change the roof? It was just changed to stop leaks. Didnt add space etc to house

Can it be seen from the front street?
It's a bit of a grey area as you can convert the garage without planning but the roof I think would have technically needed planning.

You can apply for retention but I wouldn't unless you were selling and had to.

Shefwedfan

kceire wrote: »

Can it be seen from the front street?
It's a bit of a grey area as you can convert the garage without planning but the roof I think would have technically needed planning.

You can apply for retention but I wouldn't unless you were selling and had to.

You can see the roof from front of house, garage is running from front to back of house.

Every other house in street has something similar done, would I require retention?

Builder never said anything when I was getting job done. Nobody has ever said anything/.

notharrypotter

do I really need planning to change the roof?

Just go ask the local planning office.

They should give you a more accurate answer.

4ensic15

notharrypotter wrote: »

Just go ask the local planning office.

They should give you a more accurate answer.

Yes and provoke a demand to submit drawings and pay planning contributions! Great idea.
After 7 years the Council cant get enforcement. It has been done nearly 9 now. Most unlikely any bank would make an issue of it on re-sale.

mickdw

First bit of advice is never take planning advice from a builder.
From experience they will know one fact about planning. That is, that you can build 40 sqm extension without planning. They will run with that fact and apply it in all sorts of incorrect ways to suit their agenda of getting on site quickly and starting work.
Secondly, I believe you would need planning for what you have described.

mickdw

4ensic15 wrote: »

Most unlikely any bank would make an issue of it on re-sale.

I don't agree.
If a survey picks up on a planning issue regardless of how long it's in situ, it's very highly likely that the purchaser, never mind the bank will want it sorted before closing.

4ensic15

mickdw wrote: »

I don't agree.
If a survey picks up on a planning issue regardless of how long it's in situ, it's very highly likely that the purchaser, never mind the bank will want it sorted before closing.

Not with a trivial issue like that. Some will accept much more egregious breaches.

mickdw

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not with a trivial issue like that. Some will accept much more egregious breaches.

Well yes some will but I've certainly seen sales delayed or lost due to such things.

Senna

I would get retension, even if you aren't going to sell, you will at some time in the future, even if it's your family doing it after you are gone.

My mum's in the process of apply for retension for an extension made over a garage roof, completed in the early 1990's.

VincePP

4ensic15 wrote: »

Not with a trivial issue like that. Some will accept much more egregious breaches.

Oh boy. Solicitors will want every t crossed and every i dotted. New law society regs have told solicitors that they are responsible if there are issues after sale completed.

Talk to planning officer. They are not ogres. Usually very amenable and not after fees.

Say nothing unless you are selling would be my advice. You will just bring hassle and expense on yourself for nothing.

Shefwedfan

I'm selling which is the issue......it has just popped up now.....

How long would it take to get retention? someone mentioned 3 months?

Also how do I apply? I don't have any architect drawing or anything?

To me this isn't an obvious thing like an extension or attac conversion. Maybe I'm wrong but is it even likely to be questioned? What would highlight that it was changed? It's just a garage roof after all and if all other around are also changed it may never get noticed.

Barely Hedged

Miguel Panicky Whale wrote: »

To me this isn't an obvious thing like an extension or attac conversion. Maybe I'm wrong but is it even likely to be questioned? What would highlight that it was changed? It's just a garage roof after all and if all other around are also changed it may never get noticed.

Any decent surveyor will pick up on this. The buyers solicitor will then read the report and will request planning for it or at the very least, a statement from an architect stating that planning is not an issue. Without this, a clean title cannot be passed. If the buyer is not a cash buyer, the banks solicitors will also dig their heels in.

I have seen this happen so many times.

Gumbo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I'm selling which is the issue......it has just popped up now.....

How long would it take to get retention? someone mentioned 3 months?

Also how do I apply? I don't have any architect drawing or anything?

You basically draw up the plans any highlight what you want retained.
A very standard application once you know what you are doing

Full set of plans including sections and elevations.
OSi Maps.
Site notice.
Newspaper notice.

Lodge meant to LA and you get your decision 2 months later. One month after that the final grant is issued and that's the certificate that the buyers solicitor will want before they allow the sale to go through.

Where are you based?

Shefwedfan

Found this online:

Appraisal: Part 1 Section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act states that ‘The following shall be exempted developments for the purpose of this Act – ‘development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures’ In this instance the erection of the canopy is considered development as it materially alters the external appearance of the structure and therefore requires planning permission. Should the applicants wish to retain the canopy it requires an application for retention permission. Recommendation: The applicant should be notified that the canopy is not considered to be exempted development under part 1 section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act.

The piece about the neighbouring structure, because the rest of the area also has the same done would this make any difference? I done a quick trip around the area and I would say 70-80% of the houses have done similar.

mickdw

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Found this online:

Appraisal: Part 1 Section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act states that ‘The following shall be exempted developments for the purpose of this Act – ‘development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures’ In this instance the erection of the canopy is considered development as it materially alters the external appearance of the structure and therefore requires planning permission. Should the applicants wish to retain the canopy it requires an application for retention permission. Recommendation: The applicant should be notified that the canopy is not considered to be exempted development under part 1 section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act.

The piece about the neighbouring structure, because the rest of the area also has the same done would this make any difference? I done a quick trip around the area and I would say 70-80% of the houses have done similar.

I think that would be grasping at straws.
I cannot see how a neighbour applying for and having planning granted for their development would in any way result in your development being exempt.

thadg

once it is done for 7 or more years you don't need to retain the planning.

if you have a good solicitor that is used of house sales transactions he would tell you, but from past experience that ive had you should be ok.

stay away from the planners;)

Shefwedfan

mickdw wrote: »

I think that would be grasping at straws.
I cannot see how a neighbour applying for and having planning granted for their development would in any way result in your development being exempt.

What? Did I mention about piggy backing onto someone else planning?

from my reading of that section you could say the planning would be exempt because the roof was maintenance(leaking flat roof) and it is not inconsistent with the other neighbors.

thadg

say nothing and if it comes up as a problem sort it out when it happens.

I would be surprised if it becomes a problem

Shefwedfan

Thanks, will just have to see if anything comes up

mickdw

Shefwedfan wrote: »

What? Did I mention about piggy backing onto someone else planning?

from my reading of that section you could say the planning would be exempt because the roof was maintenance(leaking flat roof) and it is not inconsistent with the other neighbors.

Not inconsistent with the others. But they would have obtained planning to build what they have. That was my point - you cannot surely argue that buildings which planning have been obtained for could contribute to yours being exempt.

Gumbo

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Found this online:

Appraisal: Part 1 Section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act states that ‘The following shall be exempted developments for the purpose of this Act – ‘development consisting of the carrying out of works for the maintenance, improvement or other alteration of any structure, being works which affect only the interior of the structure or which do not materially affect the external appearance of the structure so as to render the appearance inconsistent with the character of the structure or of neighbouring structures’ In this instance the erection of the canopy is considered development as it materially alters the external appearance of the structure and therefore requires planning permission. Should the applicants wish to retain the canopy it requires an application for retention permission. Recommendation: The applicant should be notified that the canopy is not considered to be exempted development under part 1 section 4.1(h) of the Planning and Development Act.

The piece about the neighbouring structure, because the rest of the area also has the same done would this make any difference? I done a quick trip around the area and I would say 70-80% of the houses have done similar.

It's irrelevant tbh. Even if every other house had it, they may have planning for it which will set a positive precedent for yours, but from a legal point of view, it's not planning compliant.

It just depends if it's spotted by a buyers surveyor and if it is, then it will hold up the sale unless you can produce a granted retention permission or a certificate of exemption from an architect/engineer.

thadg wrote: »

once it is done for 7 or more years you don't need to retain the planning.

if you have a good solicitor that is used of house sales transactions he would tell you, but from past experience that ive had you should be ok.

stay away from the planners;)

With all dues respect, you have your facts crossed there.
The 7 year rule is a very mis guided rule and spouted about by people that don't really understand it.

After 7 years, the Planning Enforcement section cannot force you to remove the structure, but an open enforcement file will always be open if brought to their attention and it will be highlighted by any legal searches by a buyers solicitor during the course of a sale. It is always an unauthorised structure unltil regularised.

I would get the retention, th if it's brought up at sale time, then it can be produced there and then. Otherwise you run the risk of a buyer walking away while ou spend the next 3 months waiting for a decision the council.

thadg

kceire wrote: »

With all dues respect, you have your facts crossed there.
The 7 year rule is a very mis guided rule and spouted about by people that don't really understand it.

After 7 years, the Planning Enforcement section cannot force you to remove the structure, but an open enforcement file will always be open if brought to their attention and it will be highlighted by any legal searches by a buyers solicitor during the course of a sale. It is always an unauthorised structure unltil regularised.

I would get the retention, th if it's brought up at sale time, then it can be produced there and then. Otherwise you run the risk of a buyer walking away while ou spend the next 3 months waiting for a decision the council.

but its not like the shed is 40sq metres instead of 25sq metres, its only a roof on an existing building that's on existing maps.

when I was buying my house the valuer for the bank brought up a problem with the driveway entrance saying it was 15 metres away from where it should be, and said the owner will have to retain planning or move the driveway before the bank would approve the sale. when I got on to my solicitor he said its not a problem as the house is 8 years and there was no more about it. sale went through no bother

mickdw

thadg wrote: »

but its not like the shed is 40sq metres instead of 25sq metres, its only a roof on an existing building that's on existing maps.

when I was buying my house the valuer for the bank brought up a problem with the driveway entrance saying it was 15 metres away from where it should be, and said the owner will have to retain planning or move the driveway before the bank would approve the sale. when I got on to my solicitor he said its not a problem as the house is 8 years and there was no more about it. sale went through no bother

I'm sure solicitor has covered himself by informing you of the situation and getting you to confirm that your are instructing them to proceed. You are now on your own and if you were to sell the property, this issue could well stall it and you could end up having to get the retention instead of the previous owners.

thadg

mickdw wrote: »

I'm sure solicitor has covered himself by informing you of the situation and getting you to confirm that your are instructing them to proceed. You are now on your own and if you were to sell the property, this issue could well stall it and you could end up having to get the retention instead of the previous owners.

buying the house was more important at the time. thanks but I will take my chances on that one

mickdw

Absolutely, your money, your call but be clear, by waving the sale through, you took on the liability. There is no debate about this so you can quote 7 year rule etc all you wish but the OP's roof will not be compliant until planning is obtained. Similarly, your drive is not compliant.