House on corner plot in England - Principal elevation

[Tim Watts]

Hi,

I'd be very interested in some thoughts on this :)

I'm trying to judge which is the principal elevation on a corner plot for
the purposes of erecting a couple of small wooden sheds (Class E usage).


Property
========
I have a detached bungalow on a corner plot not in a conservation area nor
listed.

a) The west side of the building fronts the "main highway" which contains
the postcode of the property and the postal address (set in the 1950's);

b) and contains a "side door" and no windows;

c) and contains a driveway entrance for vehicular access (close to the
corner with the south side highway)


d) The south side contains 3 bay windows spanning the majority of the wall,
a dormer and very clearly looks like "the front" for a man-on-the-street
interpretation;

e) and contains the "front door" that is in daily use with the letterbox.

f) and has a foothpath leading down to the highway on the south side which
we usually use.

============================================================================


My reasoning
============
Having read the "Permitted development for householders Technical
Guidance"[1] I can draw these inferences from the bit on Page 13, quoted
below[2]

1 - There is one principal elevation.

2 - (a) suggests the west side is the principal elevation.

3 - (d) and (e) make a strong case for arguing that the south side is the
principal elevation.

4 - The visual impact of putting a couple of sheds on the west side is lower
to both us and the neighbours compared to putting the sheds on the south
side.
=========================================================================


Would anyone be interested in throwing some opinions in, or perhaps someone
knows some test cases (or appeals)?

I would ask the council, but it costs £35 for non binding advice which I
strongly suspect will be "apply for a certificate of lawful development"
which could take a while and a lot of effort.

Also, the risk of being told to move it would a) depend on someone
complaining; and b) not exactly be a massive disaster for a couple of sheds
with no substantial foundations.


So I'm inclined to go with a balance of probabilities, hence I'm interested
to see if people agree with my logic :-O


TIA :)

Tim


[1] http://www.rother.gov.uk/media.cfm?mediaid=18660

[2] "In most cases, the principal elevation will be that part of the house
which fronts (directly or at an angle) the main highway serving the house
(the main highway will be the one that sets the postcode for the house
concerned). It will usually contain the main architectural features such as
main bay windows or a porch serving the main entrance to the house. Usually,
but not exclusively, the principal elevation will be what is understood to
be the front of the house.

There will only be one principal elevation on a house. Where there are two
elevations which may have the character of a principal elevation (for
example, on a corner plot), a view will need to be taken as to which of
these forms the principal elevation. Note, however, that in such cases the
second elevation will also be subject to the restrictions under Class A if
it is a side elevation and fronts a highway."

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

[Mark Goodge]

On Fri, 02 Aug 2013 21:50:01 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:

For a corner plot, the principal elevation is usually determined by
reference to the orientation of the building (*not* the access to it) in
relation to neighbouring plots. Consider this, for example (fixed-with font
needed):

--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------+ +-----------------
house house house house house house house h| | house house
o| |
u| | h
s| | o
e| | u
| | s
h| | e
o| |
u| | h
s| | o
e| | u
| | s
| | e

In this case, the house at the top left of the vertical road has its
principal elevation on the vertical road, while the house on the top right
of the vertical road has its principal elevation on the horizontal road.

However, there is a separate conceot of the "building line", which can be
on more than one elevation. If you're on a corner plot, then you can't
normally build closer to the road on either side than existing houses on
that side. http://tinyurl.com/otutvpx is a useful page (from Peterborugh
City Council) which explains it in more depth, and specifically addreses
the question of corner plots. Other councils will almost certainly have the
same interpretation.

>I would ask the council, but it costs £35 for non binding advice which I
>strongly suspect will be "apply for a certificate of lawful development"
>which could take a while and a lot of effort.
>
>Also, the risk of being told to move it would a) depend on someone
>complaining; and b) not exactly be a massive disaster for a couple of sheds
>with no substantial foundations.

You'll need a certificate of lawful development if you ever plan to sell
the property. Otherwise, the buyer's solicitors will (if they're dong their
job properly) raise it as a significant issue. Unless you really are happy
to remove the sheds rather than get certified, I'd strongly recommend
getting the certificate.

Mark
--
Please take a short survey on salary perceptions: http://meyu.eu/am
My blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk

[steve robinson]

The princible elevation will be the elevation that runs parallel to or
ajoins the highway to which the house is alocated a postal code and
street name

[Percy Picacity]

On 2013-08-02 21:50:09 +0000, steve robinson said:


>
> The princible elevation will be the elevation that runs parallel to or
> ajoins the highway to which the house is alocated a postal code and
> street name

Is this invariably true if, for instance, said elevation is a blank (or
nearly so) side wall?

--

Percy Picacity

[Tim Watts]

On Friday 02 August 2013 22:50 steve robinson wrote in uk.legal.moderated:

> The princible elevation will be the elevation that runs parallel to or
> ajoins the highway to which the house is alocated a postal code and
> street name

Yes - that does seem to be more strongly argued than "the front". It's very
counter intuitive though for this particular case, and the technical
guidance does say "In most cases" which suggests exceptional cases are
possible.

Thanks for the thoughts.

[Tim Watts]

On Friday 02 August 2013 22:40 Mark Goodge wrote in uk.legal.moderated:

Hi Mark,

> For a corner plot, the principal elevation is usually determined by
> reference to the orientation of the building (*not* the access to it)

That last point is very interesting...

> in
> relation to neighbouring plots. Consider this, for example (fixed-with
> font needed):
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> --------------------------------------------+ +-----------------
> house house house house house house house h| | house house
> o| |
> u| | h
> s| | o
> e| | u
> | | s
> h| | e
> o| |
> u| | h
> s| | o
> e| | u
> | | s
> | | e
>
> In this case, the house at the top left of the vertical road has its
> principal elevation on the vertical road, while the house on the top right
> of the vertical road has its principal elevation on the horizontal road.

Mine is definately in the top right corner scenario but the postocde is set
to the vertical highway (though actually my house is on the top left corner
in reality).

> However, there is a separate conceot of the "building line", which can be
> on more than one elevation. If you're on a corner plot, then you can't
> normally build closer to the road on either side than existing houses on
> that side. http://tinyurl.com/otutvpx is a useful page (from Peterborugh
> City Council) which explains it in more depth, and specifically addreses
> the question of corner plots. Other councils will almost certainly have
> the same interpretation.

Yes - their wording is taken from the same Technical Guidance document I
quoted.

One possible issue with your point though - I'm only concerned with Class E
constructions. Class A (extensions) does have an explicit restriction of not
coming forward of either front elevation (if there is more than one).

> You'll need a certificate of lawful development if you ever plan to sell
> the property. Otherwise, the buyer's solicitors will (if they're dong
> their job properly) raise it as a significant issue. Unless you really are
> happy to remove the sheds rather than get certified, I'd strongly
> recommend getting the certificate.

Understood and very sound advice in the general case. However, it's not a
big issue for me - I'm unlikely to sell and if I did I would simply offer to
remove the sheds or take out an indemnity policy.

My current shed is over a shared sewer, which is why I'm considering not
replacing it in situ (in case the water co want to dig it up to fix it).
That leaves me with limited alternative sites.

The biggest hassle would be having to actually move them by decree, though
that's not more than a few days work and I would at that point have a
definitive decision. Hence being willing to run a fairly small risk.

Knowing my local council, asking for a cert of LD in advance would cause
them to run around scratching their heads for a very long time (it is a very
unclear scenario - I cannot even find a similar property in the whole
village to take a case example from) - which is why it might be better not
to ask them :)

Now if I was building with bricks and mortar, I would totally do what you
say :_)

Thanks for the opinion -

Tim

[Tim Watts]

That was what I was wondering.

I wonder how councils decide these weird cases?

Presumably, even if they make an interpretation, it doesn't preclude
applying for retrospective planning permission (the issue here is whether
it's Permitted Development).

[Peter Crosland]

The only sure way is to apply for a COLD. There is no reason to think
that the local authority will find it particularly difficult to reach a
decsion.
--
Peter Crosland

[Tim Watts]

On Saturday 03 August 2013 07:40 Peter Crosland wrote in uk.legal.moderated:

>
> The only sure way is to apply for a COLD. There is no reason to think
> that the local authority will find it particularly difficult to reach a
> decsion.

Hi Peter,

I'm suspicious of my council's planning dept. Building Control are wonderful
- you can drop in, have a word with an actual inspector and get an answer on
just about anything.

Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
helpful - I am (with some justification) worried that raising a fairly
trivial but non obvious query is going to go "all Kafka". There are actually
times it's better not to ask IME.

There is a time limit after which an unchallenged erection is de-facto legal
isn't there - is it 5 years? Or 7.

Bearing in mind this is a small shed or two - we're not seeking to build a
castle and hide it behind hay bales (which was rather a mickey take).

[polygonum]

On 02/08/2013 22:50, steve robinson wrote:
> The princible elevation will be the elevation that runs parallel to or
> ajoins the highway to which the house is alocated a postal code and
> street name

Which is difficult to interpret in our case.

We have a notional front which has a garden and gate onto a simple
un-named footpath. A rear garden which has a drive opening onto an
un-named access road. An address and postcode of the road which both
footpath and access road join. And two neighbours.

We did very much care about this interpretation in terms of a small
summerhouse but decided to run the risk. Two years or so... Fingers
still crossed.

--
Rod

[Mark Goodge]

On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 08:25:01 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On Saturday 03 August 2013 07:40 Peter Crosland wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>
>>
>> The only sure way is to apply for a COLD. There is no reason to think
>> that the local authority will find it particularly difficult to reach a
>> decsion.
>
>Hi Peter,
>
>I'm suspicious of my council's planning dept. Building Control are wonderful
>- you can drop in, have a word with an actual inspector and get an answer on
>just about anything.
>
>Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
>comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
>helpful - I am (with some justification) worried that raising a fairly
>trivial but non obvious query is going to go "all Kafka". There are actually
>times it's better not to ask IME.

That's partly because building control is a regulatory task, while planning
control is a quasi-legal task. There are, therefore, more stringent rules
about what planning officers may say on an informal basis, as they are not
allowed to do anything which may be prejudicial to the result of an actual
application.

Also, the bulding control officers are themselves the ones who make the
actual decisions, whereas in planning cases the formal decisions are made
by the council's planning committee, even if all the committee does in many
cases is rubber-stamp the officers' recommendations. So, in the former
case, the officers can give an authoritative answer as to how they would
respond in any particular case, as they can speak for themselves. In the
latter, though, they cannot presume to speak on behalf of the committee.
All they can do is to give advice on what the law is; they can't give
advice on how the committee will interpret the law. Which is fine where the
law is clear enough and the applicant merely needs to know it in order to
plan accordingly, it's when the law itself is potentially ambiguous (as in
this case) that it can be problematic.

[BruceB]

In article <3inuca-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
tw+u...@dionic.net says...

>
> Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
> comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
> helpful - I am (with some justification) worried that raising a fairly
> trivial but non obvious query is going to go "all Kafka". There are actually
> times it's better not to ask IME.
>
> There is a time limit after which an unchallenged erection is de-facto legal
> isn't there - is it 5 years? Or 7.
>
> Bearing in mind this is a small shed or two - we're not seeking to build a
> castle and hide it behind hay bales (which was rather a mickey take).

My own view on this sort of issue is if you do not know the answer then
do not ask the question. It will just raise a hare and cost you money.
Provided you have a justification for taking the view it would be
permitted development then write it down, file the current legislation
and guidance, take some photos and go for it. Unless it is blatently
wrong or there is someone influential complaining about you then the
Council is unlikely to find the resources to issue enforcement
proceedings. Even if they do then you can appeal for free using written
representations.

The time limits you are referring to are 4 and 10 years and they did
come up in the hay bales case and a couple of similar ones that went to
the High Court. When dealing with property used as a dwelling then the
limit is 4 years. Whether a shed within the domestic curtilage falls
within that I am not sure and you should read the planning legislation.

[Peter Crosland]

On 03/08/2013 08:25, Tim Watts wrote:
> On Saturday 03 August 2013 07:40 Peter Crosland wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>
>>
>> The only sure way is to apply for a COLD. There is no reason to think
>> that the local authority will find it particularly difficult to reach a
>> decsion.
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> I'm suspicious of my council's planning dept. Building Control are wonderful
> - you can drop in, have a word with an actual inspector and get an answer on
> just about anything.
>
> Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
> comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
> helpful - I am (with some justification) worried that raising a fairly
> trivial but non obvious query is going to go "all Kafka". There are actually
> times it's better not to ask IME.
>
> There is a time limit after which an unchallenged erection is de-facto legal
> isn't there - is it 5 years? Or 7.
>
> Bearing in mind this is a small shed or two - we're not seeking to build a
> castle and hide it behind hay bales (which was rather a mickey take).

Building control have a quite different role to planning. What has
happened recently is that because of the sheer volume of work that what
is technically known as "pre-application advice" it has become necessary
to charge for it. This seems quite fair to me since the people who
request the work pay some, but not all of, the costs rather than them
falling of the Council Tax payers directly. There is nothing underhand,
or Kafka lime about the process. It is made very clear that the advice
is not binding on the council and that if a definitive answer is wanted
then an application of the appropriate kind has to be made.

From what I have seen locally it has been successful in cutting out a
lot of time-consuming inquiries many of which were for potential
applications that were complete non starters. In has also saved local
taxpayers lots of money which can't be a bad thing.

The period after which enforcement action cannot be taken is four years
for private dwellings and ten for commercial developments. In a
conservation are it is ten years and for listed buildings there is no
time limit. Note that for listed buildings it is a criminal offence to
do un-authorised works. Also note the real sting in the tail that the
current owner is legally liable for the costs of rectifying
un-authorised works even if they were done before he bought the property.

--
Peter Crosland

[Peter Crosland]

This is not strictly true. In many cases the Council delegates the
granting of planning permission under scheme of delegation that sets out
the rules for this to be done. A large percentage of application are
never seen by the Councillors.

However, in the case of Certificates of Lawful Development (COLD) these
are always formally issued by planning officers on the basis of a
decision given by the Council's full time legal staff. The Councillors
are not involved in the process at all in what is essentially a
quasi-judicial process.


--
Peter Crosland

[Old Codger]

On 03/08/2013 11:45, Mark Goodge wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Aug 2013 08:25:01 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
>> On Saturday 03 August 2013 07:40 Peter Crosland wrote in uk.legal.moderated:
>>
>>>
>>> The only sure way is to apply for a COLD. There is no reason to think
>>> that the local authority will find it particularly difficult to reach a
>>> decsion.
>>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> I'm suspicious of my council's planning dept. Building Control are wonderful
>> - you can drop in, have a word with an actual inspector and get an answer on
>> just about anything.
>>
>> Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
>> comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
>> helpful - I am (with some justification) worried that raising a fairly
>> trivial but non obvious query is going to go "all Kafka". There are actually
>> times it's better not to ask IME.
>
> That's partly because building control is a regulatory task, while planning
> control is a quasi-legal task. There are, therefore, more stringent rules
> about what planning officers may say on an informal basis, as they are not
> allowed to do anything which may be prejudicial to the result of an actual
> application.

How things change over the years.

40 odd years ago I planned to build an extension and was told I could
not brick up the existing french doors because the window in that room
was too small and to close to the boundary to enlarge (wouldn't be
allowed at all if it did not already exist). After making some
suggestions that I pointed out could be problematic the planning folk
said "brick it up after we have passed the new build", which was my
intention anyway. When the building inspector attended for his final
inspection he commented on the large hole in the internal wall saying
"you are not going to leave it like that are you?". "Got to" I said
"you won't let me brick it up". "Ah, right" he said "how you going to
do it, laths and plaster board?". "No blocks" says I. "That's right
boy make a good job of it" says he.

20 years later that building inspector, now working for a different
council - the previous one had been scrapped by Ted Heath, visited
again, walked into that room. Looked at that wall and said "you did
make a good job of it".

> Also, the bulding control officers are themselves the ones who make the
> actual decisions, whereas in planning cases the formal decisions are made
> by the council's planning committee, even if all the committee does in many
> cases is rubber-stamp the officers' recommendations. So, in the former
> case, the officers can give an authoritative answer as to how they would
> respond in any particular case, as they can speak for themselves. In the
> latter, though, they cannot presume to speak on behalf of the committee.
> All they can do is to give advice on what the law is; they can't give
> advice on how the committee will interpret the law. Which is fine where the
> law is clear enough and the applicant merely needs to know it in order to
> plan accordingly, it's when the law itself is potentially ambiguous (as in
> this case) that it can be problematic.
>
> Mark
>


--

Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field

What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]

[Janet]

> In article <3inuca-...@squidward.local.dionic.net>,
> tw+u...@dionic.net says...
> >
> > Planning however, hide themselves behind receptionists, forms and non
> > comittal responses (for which they still charge) - none of which is remotely
> > helpful -

Why not just phone, ask to speak to one of the planners and ask.
I've always found them very willing to give advice about/explain
planning regulations on the phone and it costs nothing.

Janet

[Peter Crosland]

Not any more! They now have to charge for pre-application advice.


--
Peter Crosland

[Janet]

In article <SeSdnTkKO693b2DM...@brightview.co.uk>,
g6...@yahoo.co.uk says...

Must be an English thing.. in my county, North Ayrshire, the
Planning Dept's current webpage says

"We also provide pre-application advice for any proposed development.
This advice is free of charge. Other than for very general advice, you
are advised to write to or send us an e-mail to eplanning@north-
ayrshire.gov.uk enclosing a dimensioned sketch drawing of your proposals
with a location plan to allow us to identify the site."

It would be unusual for NAC's website to be out of date.

Janet

[tim.....]

"Janet" <h...@nowhere.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.2c6884d34...@news.individual.net...

Mine says

"Before you make an application we strongly encourage you to discuss your
ideas with us first. We offer a Pre application advice service which is
free for householders and proposals that would bring more jobs into the
area. There is a small charge for all other types of development"

[Tim Watts]

On Saturday 03 August 2013 11:45 Mark Goodge wrote in uk.legal.moderated:


> Also, the bulding control officers are themselves the ones who make the
> actual decisions, whereas in planning cases the formal decisions are made
> by the council's planning committee, even if all the committee does in
> many cases is rubber-stamp the officers' recommendations. So, in the
> former case, the officers can give an authoritative answer as to how they
> would respond in any particular case, as they can speak for themselves. In
> the latter, though, they cannot presume to speak on behalf of the
> committee. All they can do is to give advice on what the law is; they
> can't give advice on how the committee will interpret the law. Which is
> fine where the law is clear enough and the applicant merely needs to know
> it in order to plan accordingly, it's when the law itself is potentially
> ambiguous (as in this case) that it can be problematic.

Ye s- i see the problem. I think for Class E, if you don't do anything that
anyone actually objects to, I suspect everyone is the happier for it.

I've looked around the garden again, and decided I can probably put the
bigger of my 2 sheds round the back into a "dog-leg" funny corner, where it
will have little visual impact on me or anyone else.

As to the "side elevation" - we'll see...

[Tim Watts]

Tried that about something else a while back - they don't speak to the
public direct (see what I meant earlier) unless it's as a result of a formal
process.

I even dropped by when I went to see the building inspector - same story -
could not get past the reception.

I take Mark's point about it being a more legal process than building regs,
but even so, considering their job is to advise to the mutual benefit of
members of their area (this is after all what planning laws are about - to
stop people annoying other people whilst maintain reasonable enjoyment of
their own property) I did nto find that approach helpful.

[Tim Watts]

On Saturday 03 August 2013 13:40 BruceB wrote in uk.legal.moderated:


> My own view on this sort of issue is if you do not know the answer then
> do not ask the question. It will just raise a hare and cost you money.
> Provided you have a justification for taking the view it would be
> permitted development then write it down, file the current legislation
> and guidance, take some photos and go for it. Unless it is blatently
> wrong or there is someone influential complaining about you then the
> Council is unlikely to find the resources to issue enforcement
> proceedings. Even if they do then you can appeal for free using written
> representations.
>
> The time limits you are referring to are 4 and 10 years and they did
> come up in the hay bales case and a couple of similar ones that went to
> the High Court. When dealing with property used as a dwelling then the
> limit is 4 years. Whether a shed within the domestic curtilage falls
> within that I am not sure and you should read the planning legislation.

I like your approach :) The more cautious posters are also certainly quite
right to caution - I did ask in a legal group after all - but my line of
thinking is more towards yours. I was just interested to see if I was being
way off the mark or not. Judging by the number of views, it does seem a very
unclear problem. I was wondering if there was something I had missed - but
the Technical guidance is not definitive either.

Thanks to you and everyone who replied :)

[Tim Watts]

That I will disagree with - the restrictions of planning are actually to
benefit the neighbours (and incidental members of the public) of the person
proposing work and as such one could make an equally valid argument that
planning *should* be funded by the council tax payers as it is they that
derive the benefit.

Not my argument - I saw it made before, but I do agree with it :)

and yes, I can see the opposing point of view too.

> There is nothing underhand,
> or Kafka lime about the process. It is made very clear that the advice
> is not binding on the council and that if a definitive answer is wanted
> then an application of the appropriate kind has to be made.

> From what I have seen locally it has been successful in cutting out a
> lot of time-consuming inquiries many of which were for potential
> applications that were complete non starters. In has also saved local
> taxpayers lots of money which can't be a bad thing.
>
> The period after which enforcement action cannot be taken is four years
> for private dwellings and ten for commercial developments. In a
> conservation are it is ten years and for listed buildings there is no
> time limit. Note that for listed buildings it is a criminal offence to
> do un-authorised works. Also note the real sting in the tail that the
> current owner is legally liable for the costs of rectifying
> un-authorised works even if they were done before he bought the property.

4 years - thanks for confirming that. For some reason I thought it was five
or seven.

[Mark Goodge]

On Sun, 04 Aug 2013 23:00:02 +0100, Tim Watts put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>I take Mark's point about it being a more legal process than building regs,
>but even so, considering their job is to advise to the mutual benefit of
>members of their area (this is after all what planning laws are about - to
>stop people annoying other people whilst maintain reasonable enjoyment of
>their own property) I did nto find that approach helpful.

The point made by Peter Crossland is a good one, though. Building
regulations approval is easy to get: all you need to do is follow a fairly
clearly defined set of universally applicable and not particularly onerous
rules, and it's in the interests of the building control officers to help
you get approval as that makes their lives easier in the long run. So
they're happy to give out free advice in advance of a formal application.

Planning is a different matter: it can be very hard to get approval for
certain types of application and in many cases it can't be obtained at all.
So there's a tendency among applicants to treat it like a negotiation
process: start by applying for what you really want, and then each time it
gets rejected amend the application slightly until it finally gets
approved. Obviously, that process could be short circuited if the applicant
could be told in advance precisely what will be approved. But the only way
that the planning officers can know that is to look at the full documents
which will be part of the application, as edge cases often turn on fairly
small points. So getting "pre-approval" in a potentially disputed case
means, effectively, going through the whole scrutiny process before the
application is formally made. If that pre-approval process is free, then
there's nothing to stop applicants using a scatter gun approach and putting
in a whole load of pre-applications, and then only paying for a single real
application on the one that the officers indicate is most likely to be
accepted. That's an abuse of process and a practice which loads the
additional costs onto council tax payers. So its increasing prevalence has
led many councils to require a fee for a pre-application assessment.

It isn't ideal, of course, as it catches out people like you who only have
one, relatively minor, project in mind and aren't going to abuse the
pre-application process in the course of it. But, unless a more flexible
and granular approach to pre-application charges can be found, it's an
unavoidable side-effect of the need to prevent the planning officers
becoming full-time unpaid advisors to developers.

[Tim Watts]

I'd like an approach of "go down and spend 15 mins, with a sketch,
dimensions and some photos" and "say what you'd like to do (shed, extension,
etc)" and finally ask "what's likely to be approved".

Then stick in plans based on that advice or apply for a COLD.

I'd pay £35 for 15 mins with an actually planner. But not for sumitting a
webform (actual price with my council) with a high possibility that they
will take the easy way and say "apply for cert of legal development.".

[Martin Bonner]

On Sunday, August 4, 2013 7:25:01 AM UTC+1, Peter Crosland wrote:
> Not any more! They now have to charge for pre-application advice.

No. They *may* charge for pre-application advice. If the OP were
in Cambridge, it would be free (on two grounds: it's about an
outbuilding, and it's about permitted development).

See the end of:
https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/pre-application-advice