Planning Permission for outbuilding - height considerations

[Nakajo]

BTW, once we've cleared this hurdle, dropping the ground level would work - provided you didn't drop all of it!

 

[SquirrelBoy]

Regarding the ground level, if I 'submerged' the building by 50 cm into the ground - so I would step down into it.. you are saying that would be ok - i recall on an earlier message that the natural ground level is taken into account - but is that the surrounding ground level or the ground level beneath the building. Surely its how high the building appears to the surrounding neighbours that is the discerning factor

 

[Nakajo]

Yes - it's the height as measured to the eaves from the highest natural ground level immediately adjacent the building.

 

[SquirrelBoy]

That is promising - I think I will try and buy the building;

best case scenario - I pay a small planning fee and am allowed to build it at full 3m ridge height

worst case scenario - I pay a small planning fee and need to 'bury' it 50cm in the ground so the ridge height is 2.5m. This does of course assume that the planning officer uses their common sense and let me build within the guidelines of what would have been my permitted development, as if my garden was attached to my house

somewhere-in-between scenario - my garden is ok for permitted development so I dont have to pay the small planning fee.

Thanks again for your knowledge and advice - much appreciated

 

[Nakajo]

I still think you should establish your PD rights (or lack of) first. It may take a bit of time, but it won't cost anything - well, except for the laywer's advice (which I think you should seek in this instance).

 

[tony1851]

On the Planning Jungle website, there are appeal cases where an Inspector has determined that a piece of land isolated from the dwelling can still be counted as part of the curtilage.
On the other hand, it also lists cases where inspectors have determined that a separate plot does not form part of the curtilage.

Inspector's decisions are certainly not 'the law' (that can only be determined on appeal to the court), but they probably show that it is not hard-and-fast, and that much depends on the specific circumstances.

 

[Nakajo]

Together with the case(s) referenced by tony1851, my argument in this instance would be 'if that's not the curtilage of this property, then what is? A property of this kind would be expected to have some kind of external amenity, so where is it?'. Although the facts of the case are different, the oft-paraphrased 'Sinclair-Lockhart' definition of curtilage as 'the ground which is used for the comfortable enjoyment of a house or other building... [serving] the purpose of the house or building in some necessary or useful way' seems entirely relevant to me.

Though occasionally relied on in court, the OED definition of curtilage as an 'area of land attached to a house and forming one enclosure with it' is obviously not helpful in this instance, but that definition has also been dismissed by the courts in the past (including Sinclair-Lockhart).

The Wikipedia page covers some of this, and references a page that looks at the subtleties of the topic in more detail: http://www.ihbc.org.uk/context_archive/97/legal/CTX97[6].html

I can't say you will win, but you do have a case, and it should be argued, either via the LDC process or just a stern letter from a legal professional.