Watch out on permitted development!
Discussion
https://www.basingstokegazette.co.uk/news/25166615...
This came up on my Facebook feed. A quick Google and one the face of it I thought that's odd as it looks like permitted development to me.
So more googling.
1. It is beyond the residential curtilage
2. The original consent for the house contained a condition of 2 parking spaces that this development breached.
So they were stuffed and had to do a full application and lost.
Of course they did not help themselves.
The materials are dissimilar and they admitted to commercial use - which interestingly in itself was not fatal to the application. - but the associated car parking was. So it is an eyesore causing parking problems = and endorsement complaint.
There are lots of people asking on here do I need planning. And the answer is normally give us more information but ( often ) on the face of it yes.
Bear in mind there are many possible pitfalls as a personal trainer in Basingstoke has just found out.
That said had It looked nice and for personal use I'd suspect that on balance there is a chance they would have been ok.
https://publicaccess.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-app...
This came up on my Facebook feed. A quick Google and one the face of it I thought that's odd as it looks like permitted development to me.
So more googling.
1. It is beyond the residential curtilage
2. The original consent for the house contained a condition of 2 parking spaces that this development breached.
So they were stuffed and had to do a full application and lost.
Of course they did not help themselves.
The materials are dissimilar and they admitted to commercial use - which interestingly in itself was not fatal to the application. - but the associated car parking was. So it is an eyesore causing parking problems = and endorsement complaint.
There are lots of people asking on here do I need planning. And the answer is normally give us more information but ( often ) on the face of it yes.
Bear in mind there are many possible pitfalls as a personal trainer in Basingstoke has just found out.
That said had It looked nice and for personal use I'd suspect that on balance there is a chance they would have been ok.
https://publicaccess.basingstoke.gov.uk/online-app...
Edited by Jeremy-75qq8 on Monday 2nd June 09:23
What is actually looked like...
Couple are ordered to demolish home gym they built on their own driveway... after neighbours complained it created a 'dangerous' parking situation
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14756451/...
It was a commercial operation and likely to cause disturbance to residents.
Couple are ordered to demolish home gym they built on their own driveway... after neighbours complained it created a 'dangerous' parking situation
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14756451/...
It was a commercial operation and likely to cause disturbance to residents.
Hmm not sure I agree it should have been OK "on balance".
It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
Edited by PhilboSE on Monday 2nd June 09:04
PhilboSE said:
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
£30K on a PD - certificate of lawful development would have been a wise move.Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
Edited by PhilboSE on Monday 2nd June 09:04
Two parking spaces per property sounds reasonable but where is next door's two spaces?
PhilboSE said:
Hmm not sure I agree it should have been OK "on balance".
It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
I agree but my " on balance " was had it looked ok and there was not commercial use then likely no one would have complained in the first place!It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
Edited by PhilboSE on Monday 2nd June 09:04
It would also have remove 2 of the 3 from the planners report.
Maybe "had they done this they would have had a better chance of getting away with it " might have been a better turn of phrase.
Jesus on the balance of probability that wouldnt get passed and is odd setup. Any sane person would have concerns before proceeding building it.
Plus reading between the lines, its going to be used for commercial/buisness use , however much they pretend its not, although this largely falls out the scope of planning permsion does it not?
Plus reading between the lines, its going to be used for commercial/buisness use , however much they pretend its not, although this largely falls out the scope of planning permsion does it not?
jfdi said:
TA14 said:
but where is next door's two spaces?
Another photo shows them just up the steps behind that strange bit of wall in the back garden.The estate looks like the designer was playing Tetris with houses, gardens and parking spaces as the tiles.
Edited by TA14 on Monday 2nd June 10:06
They'll all have 2 spaces (or garage/1 space) somewhere I imagine:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2835891,-1.10055...
I didn't hate living on a new build estate, but have to admit I don't miss the parking shenanigans any more. We were fairly lucky as we had a garage and 2 spaces (3 if one of the cars was very small), but the lack of any visitor parking was generally a pain (the 2 visitor spaces for the 40+ homes were not labelled so quickly appropriated, especially the one right outside someone's front door!).
It didn't help that we had someone round the corner fence off their parking space to make their tiny garden slightly less tiny
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.2835891,-1.10055...
I didn't hate living on a new build estate, but have to admit I don't miss the parking shenanigans any more. We were fairly lucky as we had a garage and 2 spaces (3 if one of the cars was very small), but the lack of any visitor parking was generally a pain (the 2 visitor spaces for the 40+ homes were not labelled so quickly appropriated, especially the one right outside someone's front door!).
It didn't help that we had someone round the corner fence off their parking space to make their tiny garden slightly less tiny
Zetec-S said:
Blimey that's grim, a quick wander round on street view and it's obvious there's zero room to be running a business that has visitors.
I don’t see why you would risk it.?Jeremy-75qq8 said:
PhilboSE said:
Hmm not sure I agree it should have been OK "on balance".
It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
I agree but my " on balance " was had it looked ok and there was not commercial use then likely no one would have complained in the first place!It's outside PD rules.
It breaches an original planning condition.
Partner is a gym bunny who wanted a home gym and to do a side hustle charging people for personal training (probably intended to do it full time if he could expand his client base), thereby probably breaching another covenant on his property not to use it for business.
Want to park their car on the surrounding roads, and their customers to do the same, thereby impacting on amenity for others.
Can't get their story straight; one minute the ex-parking space was "difficult to use", next minute they want to discuss converting the gym into a garage.
Basically I have little sympathy. Like many people today, they decided that rules are for other people, and why shouldn't they do what they want?
I for one am pleased that the Council has found against and I hope they enforce it.
They're idiots for spunking £30,000+ on a room that was always likely to be reported to the Council, and if it was that important to them, they should have checked properly. The fact that they said they took "reasonable steps" to determine if it was PD or not suggests that they checked, found out it wasn't, and did it anyway. Or were too stupid to understand the rules.
PD stuff isn't hard, and if you have an edge case, it's relatively cheap to get expert advice. They chose to just do what they wanted.
Edited to add: you can also see from the picture that the original developers had to go to great lengths (taking a weird chunk out of the neighbour's garden) to provide their house with 2 parking spaces, so it should be obvious that losing a parking space was always going to be contentious.
Image from Dm coverage of the "story".
Edited by PhilboSE on Monday 2nd June 09:04
It would also have remove 2 of the 3 from the planners report.
Maybe "had they done this they would have had a better chance of getting away with it " might have been a better turn of phrase.
I always advise people apply for certificates of lawful development if it would appear what they're looking to do falls under PD.
I've had a few which on the face of it seem fine got refused.
The most unusual was a single storey rear extension which was refused because when the house was build the old road was at 90 degrees to the current road so the council decided it was a side extension, went straight through planning but goes to show there's areas which can cause differences of opinion.
I've had a few which on the face of it seem fine got refused.
The most unusual was a single storey rear extension which was refused because when the house was build the old road was at 90 degrees to the current road so the council decided it was a side extension, went straight through planning but goes to show there's areas which can cause differences of opinion.
Gassing Station | Homes, Gardens and DIY | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff