Garden Decking Height

[^woody^]

And his grammar is just as bad.

Anyway, based on the details you've posted, it would seen very unlikely that the council would pursue enforcement. Their costs would not be worth it and or would not be in the public interest - which would actually prevent any enforcement by law. The chief planner would have to approve any such action, and it must pass a series of tests first. Very stringent tests.

Now his advice to apply for an LDC indicates that he is wrong on it requiring planning permission. An LDC is not planning permission, but (if granted) merely confirms that the decking did not require permission in the first place. There is no technical issue about it. If the deck is not permitted development, then you must apply for full planning permission, and not an LDC. An LDC would be refused if the deck did in fact require planning permission.

I don't know what "or build to the approved planning permission granted" means. Do you already have planning permission for the deck or something related to it?

You could challenge him, or do nothing. The thing is, if you do nothing then the council must either do nothing or in the extreme, try and enforce. If by some long shot they do try and enforce, then you can either appeal that, or just submit the LDC or planning application at that time. So in short, you are no worse off waiting things out, but are potentially better off by not having to pay for any application or designer fees.

Normally its one or two more strongly worded letters from them advising you of dire
consequences. Then it goes quiet when they realise that it's a waste of time.

 

[Nakajo]

Unless, perhaps, there’s some uncertainty in regards the height of the deck to highest adjacent natural ground level, then an LDC would appear nonsensical in this instance. If the officer requires one, then I can’t see that there’s anything to prevent them obtaining one on your behalf.

 

[big-all]

just a though

are you sure its the natural ground level an not say a mound off a raised bed above the natural ground level
do you have any historical pictures
any recent landscaping will not be considered as the origional level

 

[Megar22]

Hi all,

It's been a while but thought i'd update you.

I decided to put in an application for a lawful development certificate on the grounds that it falls within PD.

Unfortunately it has been REFUSED because "the decking exceeds PD tolerances set out in Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A & E being contrary to Class A.1 (k) (i) & Class E.1 (h)"

Both of these relate to developments not permitted and read "the construction or provision of a verandah, balcony or raised platform"

My view:

Based on guidance provide in Class E Garden Decking falls under the definition of a raised platform.

A raised platform is defined as any platform that has a height of more than 0.3 metres. Garden decking will therefore be permitted development under Class E subject to it not exceeding this 0.3m height limit and subject to the other limits and conditions under this Class.

Within the same document 'Height' is defined as "
Height” - references to height (for example, the heights of the eaves on a house extension) is the height measured from ground level. (Note, ground level is the surface of the ground immediately adjacent to the building in question, and would not include any addition laid on top of the ground such as decking. Where ground level is not uniform (for example if the ground is sloping), then the ground level is the highest part of the surface of the ground next to the building.)"

My garden is sloping. The height of the decking from ground level (using the highest part of the surface) is 29cm.

The height of the decking from ground level (using the lowest part of the surface) is 50cm. (However this is irrelevant as defined by guidance quoted above

As such my garden decking cannot be defined as a raised platform and therefore falls within PD.

This was clearly documented in my application and evidenced by an architectural drawing and previous visit from the enforcement officer.

Surely they have no grounds to refuse my application?

 

[^woody^]

Are you confusing yourself as well as me?
Decking is a raised platform. That can't be disputed.

300 mm is the height allowed for PD. Yet you are quoting 500mm and claiming it is irrelevant and the deck should be PD. Forget that, it's measured next to the house at the highest point of the ground - as long as you have not built up the ground to make it conform.

If your deck is 290mm high as you mention, then it falls under the height requirement. What else is different to the PD requirements?

 

[Megar22]

Hi Woody

Apologies for confusion let's start again.

From the outside of my home the decking is 290mm high. As the garden is sloping and my decking is flat the other end of the decking goes to roughly 500mm high.

However as the rules state "height is measured from highest point adjacent to building" my decking would be PD.

Is that correct?

 

[^woody^]

Hi Woody

Apologies for confusion let's start again.

From the outside of my home the decking is 290mm high. As the garden is sloping and my decking is flat the other end of the decking goes to roughly 500mm high.

However as the rules state "height is measured from highest point adjacent to building" my decking would be PD.

Is that correct?

Yes that's correct.

If that is the case then you should appeal.

Did the planner come out and measure, and mention anything about the height next to the house?

 

[Megar22]

The planner does not need to come as an enforcement officer has already been and measured. I have also given them architectural drawings.

I called them this afternoon and read out the rule and guidance to the person who made the decision. I told her it says you measure from the highest point. She said "i know it says that but we measure from the lowest point, otherwise you could have a high platform which could mean you could see into your neighbours garden".

I was shocked she said that. Its a lawful certificate, why do they not use lawyers to make the decision!

I have written an email explaining and making it as clear as possible with Bold, Italic, Underline. Hopefully they see sense.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Why the hell did you apply for a LDC? Madness! They told you it would be refused and that they don't understand the rules.

 

[Megar22]

They didn't say they would refuse an LDC. They said they would refuse planning which of course is decided on other factors.

An LDC is based on legislation set by the govt. It should have been a straight forward acceptance. An LDC should have made the problem dissapear but clearly my local council is far too inept to make correct decisions.

 

[^woody^]

The planner does not need to come as an enforcement officer has already been and measured. I have also given them architectural drawings.

I called them this afternoon and read out the rule and guidance to the person who made the decision. I told her it says you measure from the highest point. She said "i know it says that but we measure from the lowest point, otherwise you could have a high platform which could mean you could see into your neighbours garden".

I was shocked she said that. Its a lawful certificate, why do they not use lawyers to make the decision!

I have written an email explaining and making it as clear as possible with Bold, Italic, Underline. Hopefully they see sense.

Bizarre. That they never came out will help your appeal. And measuring from the low ground won't help their defence.

Emailing won't do a thing now if the decision has been made, you can't change it other than by appeal to the Planning Inspectorate.

 

[RichA]

Is there an officers report that accompanied the decision? Are you able to share/post the text?

 

[Megar22]

They could just take the measurements fro the enforcement officer. It would be the same.

Nevertheless they are not disputing the height. They know full well what the height is they also know what the law and guidance says. They have just chosen not to follow it. That's bizarre.

There is no report, just a letter to say we refuse for A.1 (k) (i) and E.1 (h)

 

[napoleondynamite]

Hi all,

I know this has been bought up a few times as a query. Whilst most of you won't like it, there has been appeal decisions where the Inspector took the view that a deck has to be below 300mm at all points to be Pd so it is up for discussion. If you are going to take further action then you could appeal the LDC decision and see what the next Inspector makes of the issue.

 

[napoleondynamite]

The view has been taken previously that all parts of a deck need to be 300mm or less above ground level - at all points. This approach means decks which are higher than 300mm at some points would not be PD. Some councils apply this approach and it has been taken by Inspectors at appeal- see this decision-

https://acp.planninginspectorate.gov.uk/ViewCase.aspx?caseid=2175602

Quote-

Paragraph I of Part 1 states that ‘for the purposes of Part 1 – “raised” in relation to a platform means a platform with a height greater than 300mm’. That statement is not qualified or linked back to Article 1(3). I interpret paragraphs E.1(g) and I as meaning that a platform would not be PD if its height would exceed 300mm at any point in relation to adjoining ground. Adding weight to that assessment, Article 1(3) requires consideration of the context. Part 1 of the GPDO was amended in 2008 to, amongst other matters, expressly remove raised platforms from PD. It would defeat the purpose of inserting E.1(g) if platforms could be constructed to any height whatsoever, in order to level sloping land, so long as they are only 300mm above the highest part of the adjacent surface.

Other decisions take the contrary view- it's not really pinned down for certain in the legislation or the technical guidance so remains up for discussion (despite this restriction coming into force in 2008!)