Workshop shed planning permission

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
cammy9r":1x99atex said:
Hi Skipdiver, yes you are correct in that you can build no higher than 2.5m if within 2m from the boundary without planning permission. Do you get on well with neighbours. If yes tell them what you propose, if they are happy then you probably wont have any problems with planning.


Thanks for that. The neighbours seem fine but i only moved in last friday so not too sure yet.

My new garden isn't as big as my previous one and is long and narrow, so it had to be fairly tight to the boundary and i decided to scale it down from my other workshops and stick to the rules. Will put a 2.5 metre high flat roof on it despite me not liking flat roofs and will have to live with the smaller space and headroom. Already dug out the footings and am concreting tomorrow.

When finished, i will be adding an extension to my house, so will have BCO visiting in the near future, so can't really do anything i'm not supposed to in case they start asking questions.

I'll add on to it later when my house is finished and i have charmed the neighbours. :D
 
Waka":36v616wd said:
I'm a bit confused (thats not hard) regarding the erection of something within 1 m of the boundary and planning permission. When I had my workshop extended a couple of years ago I followed the line of the existing building which is the actual boundary.

I put in an application with plans to see if I needed planing permission and the answer came back in writing as a no. Doesn't this contradict the 1 m boundary rule, or have I missed something?

As far as I am aware the issue of being within 1m of a boundary only applies if the pitch of the roof is over 2.5m.
 
The rule is that if it is within 2mts of the boundary, than no part of the building can be higher than 2.5 mts, otherwise planning permission is needed.

The 1mt thing is to do with building regs, which is a different issue. Has to be built from mainly non combustible materials if within 1mt of the boundary.

As for my workshop, it's been on hold due to the weather and me developing a chest infection which in turn led to an ear infection.

Managed in the last two weeks to get the walls up and get the roof on but then it turned too cold for the concrete floor to be laid, so waiting on a thaw and my bricky mate having the time to come and help me lay it. Then i can get the doors on and start to use it finally. My house is rammed with tools and rammel at the moment.

I decided in the end to put a pitched roof on mine and consequently went over the allowable 2.5mt height. I'll deal with the consequences if the planners turn up, but i doubt they will. Just couldn't live with a flat roof and the height restrictions.

Will get some photo's up when i get round to it.
 
Years ago I put up a 20 x 10 foot shed. I rang my local council and they said provided there was no glass within 1 metre of the boundary and it was 5 metres from the house I did not need planning or any other permission. this was in a letter which I then kept with the deeds of the house. Interestingly it did not affect my rates either. No doubt things have changed. I had the devil of a time getting PP to build a poultry house and greenhouse here in France, but after arbitration it went through ( very grudgingly by the Mayor). He even as a last ditch attempt to stop it tried to get it included in industrial agricultural buildings, but my replies to the 18 page "dossier" made a complete nonsense of it and I know he did not send it off as I handed in the reply and got the permission the following morning.
 
I've not long built my 18ft L x 8ft W x 7ft H. shed in my back garden i just built it, as long as its not made from bricks its ok ,
Thats what my local council said, and they said what a lovely job you have made building it. Not bad for my 1st shed build. :D

Steve
 

Attachments

  • 1064738_10201642136605087_922586357_o.jpg
    1064738_10201642136605087_922586357_o.jpg
    222 KB · Views: 6,405
  • 1072588_10201615850107941_891219867_o.jpg
    1072588_10201615850107941_891219867_o.jpg
    204.6 KB · Views: 6,405
Planning permission from the council is a piece of cake. Planning permission from the girlfiend... Another matter
 
I have previously posted below in another thread but someone pointed out the sticky so thought I would also add it here. Maybe useful for those north of the border!

I would like to add the following diagram from the Scottish government guide to permitted development.

permitted%20ancillary%20building.jpg


This suggests to me that even if you are within 1m of the boundary you can still have a higher workshop than 2.5 m. Of course this might only apply to Scotland, but I thought it was interesting and goes against the common conception that you have to be 2m from the boundary to enjoy high headspace.

mods- I hope I'm not breaking any kind of copyright pasting that page from the government document!
 
Re-posted from another thread, I hope these are useful. The viewpoint is from the back of the garden, looking back towards the house.

Source: Planning Portal - Outbuildings

Planning Permission
Assuming you're doing something straightforward (that is, not building forward of your house, not having a veranda/balcony/raised platforms, not building over half your garden, not in a conservation area/National Park/AoNB/World Heritage Site, etc., not a listed building) then the only requirements to avoid Planning Permission are:
  • Outbuildings and garages to be single storey with maximum eaves height of 2.5 metres and maximum overall height of four metres with a dual pitched roof or three metres for any other roof.
  • Maximum height of 2.5 metres in the case of a building, enclosure or container within two metres of a boundary of the curtilage of the dwellinghouse.
PP1.JPG

PP2.JPG

PP3.JPG

So if you wanted: 2 storeys; or a 3.5m high dual-pitched roof; or 3m high near the boundary; you'll need to apply for PP. Otherwise it's within 'permitted development', not needing planning permission.

Building Regs
Assuming you're doing something workshoppy (that is, no sleeping accommodation, not a garage attached to a home, not a carport) then the main requirements to avoid Building Regs are:
  • The floor area of the building is less than 15 square metres.
  • The floor area of the building is between 15 square metres and 30 square metres and the building is either at least one metre from any boundary or it is constructed of substantially non-combustible materials*.
* The exact definition seems to vary between local authorities.
BR1.JPG

BR2.JPG

BR3.JPG

So if you wanted: 35 sq m floor area; or a 25 sq m timber worshop 0.5m from the boundary; you'll need to comply with BR. Otherwise Building Regs will not normally apply.


In conclusion, to avoid PP: keep it low or away from the boundary; and to avoid BR: keep it small, away from the boundary or non-combustible.

N.B. This is my interpretation of the Planning Portal guidance - please let me know of any errors, and do your own research first!
 

Attachments

  • BR1.JPG
    BR1.JPG
    61.2 KB · Views: 2,835
  • BR2.JPG
    BR2.JPG
    37.8 KB · Views: 2,836
  • BR3.JPG
    BR3.JPG
    40.6 KB · Views: 2,835
  • PP1.JPG
    PP1.JPG
    49.2 KB · Views: 2,836
  • PP2.JPG
    PP2.JPG
    48.6 KB · Views: 2,837
  • PP3.JPG
    PP3.JPG
    40.4 KB · Views: 2,836
Some years ago I built a 12x8ft timber workshop in my back yard, less than two metres from each of two boundaries. Height was less than 2.5M, Following a complaint from a neighbour I had a visit from a planning officer who agreed it was permitted development and provided a letter to that effect which came in handy when selling up.
Now moved into a new place and, as neighbours overlook the garden, am planning a covered walkway with a seating area looking back into the garden, this will be open on two or three sides does anybody have any experience of such structures and whether they need PP or to meet building regs? I will probably consult the planning office but thought I would ask here first
 
Having requested clarification regarding 'substantially non-combustible materials' from my local authority (Leicester City Council), they said:

Non-combustible materials would be brickwork, blockwork or concrete.

'Substantially' would be defined as the walls being built of these materials but doors, windows and the roof structure (with a suitable covering) could be timber if required.

If it is within 1m of the boundary at any point and constructed of timber then you would have to apply for Building Regulation approval and walls within 1m of the boundary would have to have the requisite fire resistance ie 30 minutes. The board below (http://www.insulationshop.co/versapanel_cement_bonded_particle_board_10mm.html) or one similar would be used on the external face of the wall and a plasterboard on the inside face. Only the walls facing the boundary would need this fire resistance. Flooring etc is your choice and if the building is detached and classed as unheated then the insertion/use of insulation is up to you.

The main issues are fire spread and electrics (if installed) in this type of building

I don't want to bother with building regs approval, but want more than 15 sq m, so will plan to keep at least 1m away from the boundary!
 
If I remember correctly, for building regs, the floor area is measured from the inside not the outside.

Also, this depends on each LA but they generally don't go out looking for people that have breached planning and building regs. It only usually becomes and issue if you get grassed up from a neighbour or when you come to sell your house and you have to legally declare any building works within a set period.

So, if you're unlucky enough to be grassed up then the council are obligated to investigate and how you deal with it from this point is important. If you play ignorant but say you'll meet all the relevant breaches then they're happy because it's problem solved. If you resist then they have to consider enforceable action and serve an enforcement notice. These enforcement notices don't come without very careful and consideration from the LA as they have to go up the ranks and be signed off by the principle planner mainly because they have to consider the very expensive costs involved with proceeding to court. Whether it's a simple shed breach or a property built without planning permission, the courts charge a initial set fee, along with the legal teams - of course, the complexity of the case increases costs so we can assume that a shed would be far less than a property, but you get my drift. The judges also don't look favourably on LA's that bring trivial matters to the courts. Generally, judges don't like precious court time being wasted by people that can't act in a sensible manner, which also includes taking legal proceedings for minor offences, such as a shed that built too close to a boundary or is a little taller than the regulation allow.

It's luck of the draw and depends how much balls you have - or maybe, how much you're taking the water - don't build a habitable space in the back garden that blows all the height, space and location restrictions totally out of the water and expect to get away with it - but a small breach in the laws might see it being overlooked with no further action being taken (even an official letter from the LA that says as such!)

Now, I'm not a planning officer but I have had first hand experience with a breach of planning and I've spoken at length on numerous occasions to the enforcement officers about what tricks some people pull and how most LA's resources are stretched beyond capacity. I also recorded all my conversations with the enforcement officers, just in case.....:)

So only you know what location you're in and where you're planning to build, how long you think you'll be living at your property, how well you get on with the neighbours, what type of risk you're prepared to take and what you're thinking of building that might not fall exactly within the regulations.
 
One question I have if there's anyone still looking.

For a flat/single pitch roof it's a max height of 3m and 2.5m to the eaves.

I'm still not 100% on the definition of eaves and I've seen different suggestions.

Are the eaves

a) measured from the ground to the top of the roof where it meets the wall?
b) measured from the ground to the underside of the roof joists where it meets the wall?
c) measured from the lowest or highest side of a single pitched roof?

IE, can I have a single pitched roof that starts at 3m and goes down to 2.5m so that inside (if I wanted) there would be circa 2.7-2.2m of headroom once the beams are i place, as shown in kdampneys image?
 
The eaves in planning terms is the height of the imaginary intersection of the plane of the wall and the roof covering. So imagine laying a piece of wood on top of the roof at the verge, and having another pressed up against the wall. Where they would overlap (on the underside) if they could is the height of the eaves.
 
It's the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building. I was reported by a neighbour when i built a workshop at my last house and the only thing they could get me on was the height. I measured 4 mts from 2 courses below damp, where the concrete path was eventually going around the building. The path wasn't yet in, so it was 4.1 (ish) mts to the dirt. They made me lower the roof by 100mm, which i complained about very loudly, but had to do it in the end. Once the concrete path went in, it was 3.9mts from path to top of the ridge board. The roof wasn't tiled when they measured, so it ended up higher anyway, once the tiles and ridges went on. So it's a bit arbitrary really.

So if you keep it 3mts from the highest part of the ground to the boarding on top of the rafters, you will be okay, but then it depends on how fastidious/pernickety the the inspector is if you have a visit.
 
MikeG.":3khyl315 said:
The eaves in planning terms is the height of the imaginary intersection of the plane of the wall and the roof covering. So imagine laying a piece of wood on top of the roof at the verge, and having another pressed up against the wall. Where they would overlap (on the underside) if they could is the height of the eaves.
Right, so its the underside, but of the highest point of the slope or the lowest, outside face or inside? Over a 4" wall thickness the difference wouldn't be much, just nice to know :p

I did a very technical drawing

0bklZ1i.png


skipdiver":3khyl315 said:
It's the highest part of the ground adjacent to the building. I was reported by a neighbour when i built a workshop at my last house and the only thing they could get me on was the height. I measured 4 mts from 2 courses below damp, where the concrete path was eventually going around the building. The path wasn't yet in, so it was 4.1 (ish) mts to the dirt. They made me lower the roof by 100mm, which i complained about very loudly, but had to do it in the end. Once the concrete path went in, it was 3.9mts from path to top of the ridge board. The roof wasn't tiled when they measured, so it ended up higher anyway, once the tiles and ridges went on. So it's a bit arbitrary really.

So if you keep it 3mts from the highest part of the ground to the boarding on top of the rafters, you will be okay, but then it depends on how fastidious/pernickety the the inspector is if you have a visit.

Oh this part I know for dual pitched, its for single pitch that I'm wondering whether its the front eaves that would be higher than the rear eaves. On a dual pitch both would be the same so all you need to know is whether its to the underside or the top side specifically for the eaves measurement, not the total height.

I'd be unlikely to get a visit at all tbh, I live 100 yards from my nearest neighbor and while a stickler for rules and regs, hes also my father in law! Surrounding me on 3 sides are an empty field and a 4 acre woodland!
 
DBT85":2t40fpyu said:
MikeG.":2t40fpyu said:
The eaves in planning terms is the height of the imaginary intersection of the plane of the wall and the roof covering. So imagine laying a piece of wood on top of the roof at the verge, and having another pressed up against the wall. Where they would overlap (on the underside) if they could is the height of the eaves.
Right, so its the underside........
I did a very technical drawing

0bklZ1i.png
.......

No! Not the underside. Your point B. I meant the underside of a notional piece of wood lying on top of the roof.

The eaves is the lowest edge of the roof. The other end is the ridge. Ground level is more pragmatic........the highest part of the natural ground level around the building.
 
MikeG.":1rdxfvv7 said:
No! Not the underside. Your point B. I meant the underside of a notional piece of wood lying on top of the roof.

The eaves is the lowest edge of the roof. The other end is the ridge. Ground level is more pragmatic........the highest part of the natural ground level around the building.
Ah ha, my misunderstanding! Apologies.

So I can indeed go from 3m high at the ridge to 2.5m high at the eaves and end up with 2.2m headroom ish at the lowest point inside. More than enough. Thanks for the clarification.

Thanks Mike, your help in this and the workshop construction thread is most illuminating!
 
Hi i have had a builder around to give me a price for building me a block shed and he has gave me some food for thought.

I was going to build 9x4.5 meters internal size with pitched roof which would require both PP and BC iwas going to have a portion of this space separated with a stud wall for a small gym and the bigger space for woodworking hobbys.

Builder has suggested building within permited development 7.5 x4 or similar then adding a small timber frame shed on the side for a gym as a totaly separate building.

Do you think this would be ok or could i run into problems from local council?
 
Back
Top