Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is because we've
just had an extension built and found the whole planning farce
ludicrously and insultingly expensive and bureaucratic.

Thanks

Will

On Oct 26, 12:15 pm, wrote:
Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Probably correct. Why not pick up the phone and call the planning
dept. at your local council?

MBQ

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 04:20:37 -0700, "
wrote:

On Oct 26, 12:15 pm, wrote:
Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Probably correct. Why not pick up the phone and call the planning
dept. at your local council?


I did that once - the answer I got was 'send us the plans plus £190
fee and we'll let you know...'

wrote:
Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is because we've
just had an extension built and found the whole planning farce
ludicrously and insultingly expensive and bureaucratic.

Why not ask your local planners? They should be able to tell you if you do
need planning permission. The chances are that you don't but it is best to
check first. You will almost certainly need building regulations permission.
As for the cost the fee you pay does not even cover the Counmcil's
expenditure. Most of the cost is actually funded by part of the council tax.

Peter Crosland

On 2007-10-26 12:50:57 +0100, "Peter Crosland" said:

wrote:
Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is because we've
just had an extension built and found the whole planning farce
ludicrously and insultingly expensive and bureaucratic.

Why not ask your local planners? They should be able to tell you if you do
need planning permission. The chances are that you don't but it is best to
check first. You will almost certainly need building regulations permission.

Why?

Building Regulations approval is needed if the porch has a floor space
of more than 30sq m (323sq ft). Most porches are much smaller than
this, so are exempt from Building Control if the glazing complies with
Part N of the Building Regulations, which means that certain areas
within 800mm (2ft 8in) of the floor, and areas around doors, must be
safety glazed.




As for the cost the fee you pay does not even cover the Counmcil's
expenditure. Most of the cost is actually funded by part of the council tax.

Which would be considerably less if it weren't for the suggestions of
involving bureaucracy where it is not required.

On 2007-10-26 12:15:02 +0100, said:

Our house was built in 1979. It has a "porch" of sorts - little more
than a shelter from the rain (provided that there's no wind). It has
a sloping roof which joins onto the house, and is open to the weather,
supported at the two corners by thick wooden posts.

We'd like to replace this with a solid structure under the existing
roof - i.e. on exactly the same "footprint". Our builder assures us
that, because it's only replacing what's already there, it doesn't
need planning permission.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is because we've
just had an extension built and found the whole planning farce
ludicrously and insultingly expensive and bureaucratic.

Thanks

Will

You need to check.

There are two ways to do this.

The first is to obtain copies of the original planning consent as well
as your recent extension one to see if there are any restrictions
applied in terms of permitted development. If there are none and you
are and will be within the rules for that, then no issue.

The second is to check with the local authority. They *may* give you
an unofficial answer based on looking at the same documents. If you
want something in writing that PP is not required, they will almost
certainly want to charge for that.

Generically, the rules a

* Planning permission is needed if the height of the porch
(measured externally) is more than 3m (9ft 10in).
* Planning permission is needed if the ground area of the porch
(measured externally) is more than 3sq m (32sq ft).
* Planning permission is needed if the distance from the porch to
the property's boundary with the highway is less than 2m (6ft 7in).

(NB. a 'highway' includes roads, lanes and public footpaths)


I would not rely on the replacement of existing argument.

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is
because we've just had an extension built and found the whole
planning farce ludicrously and insultingly expensive and
bureaucratic.

Why not ask your local planners? They should be able to tell you if
you do need planning permission. The chances are that you don't but
it is best to check first. You will almost certainly need building
regulations permission.

Why?

Building Regulations approval is needed if the porch has a floor space
of more than 30sq m (323sq ft). Most porches are much smaller than
this, so are exempt from Building Control if the glazing complies with
Part N of the Building Regulations, which means that certain areas
within 800mm (2ft 8in) of the floor, and areas around doors, must be
safety glazed

I did not say if was a certainty.

As for the cost the fee you pay does not even cover the Counmcil's
expenditure. Most of the cost is actually funded by part of the
council tax.

Which would be considerably less if it weren't for the suggestions of
involving bureaucracy where it is not required.

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why should those
who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

Peter Crosland

Peter Crosland wrote:

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why should those
who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

advocate=devils
Because the planning regime is there not for the benefit of the person
wanting to build something but for the benefit of the rest of society in
as much as it controls what everyone else has to live with. Therefore
the rest of society should pay for it.

The same argument could be used about education - also provided by the
council. The result of education is a benefit to society, not just to
the individual who receives it. Why should those want their children
educated not have to pay at least some of the costs? Why should I, who
have no children have to pay for schools?
/advocate

Well it is Friday.

Andrew

On 2007-10-26 15:32:54 +0100, "Peter Crosland" said:

Is he right? It would be a shame to have to take it down later. The
reason we don't want to apply for planning permission is
because we've just had an extension built and found the whole
planning farce ludicrously and insultingly expensive and
bureaucratic.

Why not ask your local planners? They should be able to tell you if
you do need planning permission. The chances are that you don't but
it is best to check first. You will almost certainly need building
regulations permission.

Why?

Building Regulations approval is needed if the porch has a floor space
of more than 30sq m (323sq ft). Most porches are much smaller than
this, so are exempt from Building Control if the glazing complies with
Part N of the Building Regulations, which means that certain areas
within 800mm (2ft 8in) of the floor, and areas around doors, must be
safety glazed

I did not say if was a certainty.

You said "almost certainly". For a porch, if it really is a porch,
then the answer is almost certainly not as long as the glass issue is
addressed


As for the cost the fee you pay does not even cover the Counmcil's
expenditure. Most of the cost is actually funded by part of the
council tax.

Which would be considerably less if it weren't for the suggestions of
involving bureaucracy where it is not required.

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why should those
who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

The point was more one of jumping to include every possible facet of
bureaucracy when it is not needed, even by the bureaucrats' rules. You
forgot to mention that he should contact the Highways Department and
Parks and Pleasuregrounds just in case he can see the road or the park
from his porch; not to mention Refuse Collection, just in case it
impacts where he puts his bins and the education department so that the
local primary school can run a project to count the bricks. Health
and Safety should definitely be involved to make sure that hard hats
are used every time he walks out of his front door, and HMRC just in
case there's a taxable benefit.

Of course people should pay for costs associated with their activities.
The point is to minimise involvement with these people, not to do
things that create busy work for them at the taxpayer's expense.

On 2007-10-26 15:42:05 +0100, Andrew May said:

Peter Crosland wrote:

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why should
those who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

advocate=devils
Because the planning regime is there not for the benefit of the person
wanting to build something but for the benefit of the rest of society
in as much as it controls what everyone else has to live with.
Therefore the rest of society should pay for it.

The same argument could be used about education - also provided by the
council. The result of education is a benefit to society, not just to
the individual who receives it. Why should those want their children
educated not have to pay at least some of the costs? Why should I, who
have no children have to pay for schools?
/advocate

Well it is Friday.

Andrew

Absolutely. There should be tax relief for paying private school fees
and buying health insurance.

Andrew May wrote:
Peter Crosland wrote:

Are you saying there should be no control of developement? Why
should those who want PP not have to pay at least some of the costs?

advocate=devils
Because the planning regime is there not for the benefit of the person
wanting to build something but for the benefit of the rest of society
in as much as it controls what everyone else has to live with.
Therefore the rest of society should pay for it.

The same argument could be used about education - also provided by the
council. The result of education is a benefit to society, not just to
the individual who receives it. Why should those want their children
educated not have to pay at least some of the costs? Why should I, who
have no children have to pay for schools?
/advocate

Well it is Friday.

I don't entirely disagree with you. As for the schools argument most parents
pay a considerable cost, not just in money terms, so I don't think the
analogy is relevant. However, if there was no charge to the applicant for
planning applications then there would undoubtedly be a flood of
applications that were without merit. I see no reason why the taxpayers
should bear such a cost.

Peter Crosland

Andrew May wrote:

advocate=devils
Why should I, who
have no children have to pay for schools?
/advocate

Because you would have to put up with the result of poorer education.
Imagine going into B&Q & dealing with people with worse educations :-)


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
Andrew May wrote:

advocate=devils
Why should I, who
have no children have to pay for schools?
/advocate

Because you would have to put up with the result of poorer education.
Imagine going into B&Q & dealing with people with worse educations :-)

What? Like Dixons?

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]