Planner has asked to alter plans because "it looks a bit high" - single detached garage

[Dontblamethetools]

.

 

[Dontblamethetools]

Having just built a garage myself, have you considered the challenges of building that close to the boundary? or do you have access through next door?

Good point, I have considered this and appreciate it will certainly be a lot more difficult and time consuming than if there was more space to work with. I've tried looking for guidance in this area actually but not really came up with anything helpful. I know it can be done as I've seen many example of this being done but I certainly appreciate it will not be easy. I was thinking of just doing a few courses at a time and trying to point them up as best I can with the access before I start the next course. Am I being too naive/optimistic? Do you have any advice on this? I'm hoping you do, and appreciate the help. Thanks

 

[Dontblamethetools]

I walked on the larch lap panel arris to roof mine.

My god, you must have balance like a cat! I'm guessing you wouldn't recommend that to others? lol That's another point actually, I guess tiling the roof will be more challenging than laying/pointing the bricks.Fortunately the roof will be about the fence line and if I ask my neighbour nicely they may allow me to do the first few rows of tiles from their side, if not I'm hoping there is someway to do the first few rows from the inside, but obviously it's not ideal.. hmm I need to do some more thinking here..

 

[oldbutnotdead]

If your wall is 100mm from boundary, time you've got soffits etc on the gutter will be well over the boundary. Which your neighbour could object to and prevent you from constructing that element. Best have a rethink of that one...tiling/slating from inside would be tricky once you've put the membrane on

 

[Dontblamethetools]

If your wall is 100mm from boundary, time you've got soffits etc on the gutter will be well over the boundary. Which your neighbour could object to and prevent you from constructing that element. Best have a rethink of that one...tiling/slating from inside would be tricky once you've put the membrane on

Yes I think it will be tight, to say the least, but for several reasons it really needs to be as close to the boundary as possible. It will actually be 125mm from the boundary on the edge where the gutter will be, the deeds do say all sorts about overhangs and projections for foundations and gutters, but I'd like to keep all parts of the building on my side of the boundary anyway. I'm planning to use mini guttering which is 76mm wide, the garage will be 3.2m wide, I guess this would be ok in the main? maybe the occasional overflow?
Re the tiling, I think I'm also going to have to put the membrane on in sections as I go for that side, the other side will be fine as I have full access.

 

[mrrusty]

I think I'm also going to have to put the membrane on in sections as I go for that side

Tricky. I'd membrane it, batten it, then climb over the ridge and work off the battens. It's the fascias and soffits that will be tricky without access from the other side.

 

[^woody^]

You would fix all the fascia/soffit/gutters and eaves tray first from inside the garage. Likewise for the first layer of membrane and battens, and possibly tiles. Then you can use these to wall on to do the rest of the roof. A bit of a faff, but do-able.

 

[oldbutnotdead]

As above, i've done gutters etc from inside for similar reasons & it is possible. Roof was fibreglass sheets and shallow pitch so easy life from above. Not sure if you can get deep narrow guttering, might be worth a look specially if getting to it after building will be a mare.

 

[Dontblamethetools]

Hi all, I've got a bit of an update.. and yet another twist.. The original date I was given for a response was 4th September, as mentioned in the original post I was asked to consider lowering the height, which I did and resubmitted. On the 4th September I got a phone call apologising for the planning permission not coming through yet. The planner told me she had recommended the application for approval but apparently her manager had spotted they hadn't gone through the correct process, apparently they needed to advise the highways department and after this they found they "needed to advertise". The planner said she was recommending it for approval and their hadn't been any objections and put it as it was just a practicality. I was asked to extend the deadline to 7th October. They then placed a sign by the road.


What I didn't mention in the original post because it wasn't relevant at the time is that the area I am planning to build/started to build is within my boundary and has always been 2 parking spaces allocated to my house since the houses were new around 15 years ago. To access the parking spaces there is a strip of land that joins them to the road and is a Joint Accessway, this Joint Accessway is serving 3 properties, mine and 2 neighbours. Mine is the end house so none of my land is part of the Joint Accessway I have the benefit of using the Joint Accessway. The Joint Accessway is protected by covenants preventing anyone from parking there or obstructing the Joint Accessway in any way. I received a phone call from the planner yesterday with a complete change of tone. Several things were mentioned and none of them should be any concern to the council in my view. They've basically said if I want to build what I propose then I can if it's just to be used for storage as there are no concerns or objections about appearance but they are concerned about granting permission for a garage in case of problems with anyone else who uses the Joint Accessway. Bearing in mind the area is already established and always has been as parking and the whole purpose of the Joint Accessway is to provide access to the parking spaces and ensure they can be used and not blocked. I had already provided a copy of the lease agreement and covenant details which it become apparent hadn't really been read or properly understood. I countered all the arguments including "what happens if someone blocks you in and you can't get in or out of the garage" and "what if someone else wants to park there..." and "what if the neighbour wants to do the same". Ultimately I'm building on my own land in an area that is already used for parking, with access that is already established and has covenants in place to prevent access being blocked and anyone building on the land. The planner said "we need to take a more simplistic view when looking at planning applications"... it has been left with "let me go back to the highways department and discuss but I can't promise anything" I was asked to send an email confirming everything I'd said and another copy of the lease and covenants.


Does anyone have any advice on how I should handle this when they get back in touch?


Again all advice is much appreciated.

 

[^woody^]

That's a bit of a saga. Can t6oy summarise the question/issues into a few sentences?

 

[Nakajo]

Bottle opener and some ice

 

[Dontblamethetools]

It is a bit of a saga indeed. The main concern I have is just wanting to avoid a time consuming appeals process, however I'm not sure there's anything that can be done to prevent that. The tone of the planner has gone from 'it's just a matter of time' to 'highways department have objected, we need to take a simple view, I'll ask again but can't promise anything' It's a strange situation, all the planners concerns are addressed by covenants but it seems they don't consider covenants in their decision - yet covenants will always over-ride their decisions.

I think I'm just going to have to wait for a decision either way and if it's rejected as I suspect then look into going to appeal, although that might be pointless I'll give it a go just to try and get them to realise how crazy their logic is.

 

[mrrusty]

If they have suggested it would be OK as "storage", are they not helpfully suggesting a solution to you without outright saying it? Just call it storage to the same design (after all many "garages" are actually too small for a modern car).

I would just change the application name to storage and see if the highways issue goes away.

 

[Nakajo]

This is a tactic that often works surprisingly well; after all, it *is* storage of a sort

 

[^woody^]

A name is nothing to planners. It's what the room is used for or can be used for at some future time that they consider and guard against by the decision and conditions to prevent changes.