Hello everyone,
I had a landscaping firm draw up some plans for our garden.
Our garden is located on a very steep cliff, so the highest point to the lowest point is quite a difference.
I've very crudely(!) mocked up what garden looks like below. The entire garden slops from right to left, with a steep decline. There's existing patio and steps that have been built into the incline, and have been there for ten years.
The patches in blue are new areas we're building with the landscape gardener. These are constructed from railway sleepers, and are filled with play bark / mulch for our children to run around on. Before renovating the garden these areas were completely unusable due to the steep incline, dangerous to our kids and overgrown with flora and fauna.
A neighbour has taken issue with the build because they feel their privacy has been removed. I've offered to keep some shielding plants next to their garden, which seems to have appeased them for now -- but I suspect this is only the start of their complaints.
They've informed me that I will need planning permission for this build for the following reasons:
- The decking is more than 30cm above the ground.
- Together with other extensions, outbuildings etc, the decking or platforms cover more than 50 per cent of the garden area.
After reading up on these forums, and others, I believe this acutally falls within permitted development for a few reasons:
- The technical guidance states: " 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." our garden is on a massive cliff so the highest part of the surface is way above anything suggested to be built. The play areas are raised above the ground, but that's by necessity of being on a slope -- they come way below the higher part of the surface.
- "A raised platform is defined in the ‘General Issues’ section of this document, as any platform that has a height of more than 0.3 metres (see page 6). 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."
- The play areas aren't technically decking, because they are simply wooden railway sleepers filled with bark. There's no intention to use them as one would a patio or decking.
The build is already 50% progressed and paid so I don't want to stop it. I see my options as:
1. Continue with the build. Appease neighboour over privacy concerns by planting trees and hope they don't report to planning. This is what I'm doing currently.
2. Stop the build altogether. Remove the play areas. Lost the money I've already spent and my kids have an unusable garden.
3. Go to planning with the plans. Wait for the inevitable rejection. This will destroy my case that this is permitted development. I really don't want to do this.
4. Attempt to get a Lawful Development Certificate for the permitted development.
Any help, advice and guidance greatly appreciated on what are the best next steps and whether the permitted development argument is likely to hold water. The "50% of the garden area clause" gives me most pause for thought.
I had a landscaping firm draw up some plans for our garden.
Our garden is located on a very steep cliff, so the highest point to the lowest point is quite a difference.
I've very crudely(!) mocked up what garden looks like below. The entire garden slops from right to left, with a steep decline. There's existing patio and steps that have been built into the incline, and have been there for ten years.
The patches in blue are new areas we're building with the landscape gardener. These are constructed from railway sleepers, and are filled with play bark / mulch for our children to run around on. Before renovating the garden these areas were completely unusable due to the steep incline, dangerous to our kids and overgrown with flora and fauna.
A neighbour has taken issue with the build because they feel their privacy has been removed. I've offered to keep some shielding plants next to their garden, which seems to have appeased them for now -- but I suspect this is only the start of their complaints.
They've informed me that I will need planning permission for this build for the following reasons:
- The decking is more than 30cm above the ground.
- Together with other extensions, outbuildings etc, the decking or platforms cover more than 50 per cent of the garden area.
After reading up on these forums, and others, I believe this acutally falls within permitted development for a few reasons:
- The technical guidance states: " 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." our garden is on a massive cliff so the highest part of the surface is way above anything suggested to be built. The play areas are raised above the ground, but that's by necessity of being on a slope -- they come way below the higher part of the surface.
- "A raised platform is defined in the ‘General Issues’ section of this document, as any platform that has a height of more than 0.3 metres (see page 6). 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."
- The play areas aren't technically decking, because they are simply wooden railway sleepers filled with bark. There's no intention to use them as one would a patio or decking.
The build is already 50% progressed and paid so I don't want to stop it. I see my options as:
1. Continue with the build. Appease neighboour over privacy concerns by planting trees and hope they don't report to planning. This is what I'm doing currently.
2. Stop the build altogether. Remove the play areas. Lost the money I've already spent and my kids have an unusable garden.
3. Go to planning with the plans. Wait for the inevitable rejection. This will destroy my case that this is permitted development. I really don't want to do this.
4. Attempt to get a Lawful Development Certificate for the permitted development.
Any help, advice and guidance greatly appreciated on what are the best next steps and whether the permitted development argument is likely to hold water. The "50% of the garden area clause" gives me most pause for thought.
