Shedgate: Victory for family as bike shed application approved

I think the whole issue highlights how people can transform front gardens into carparks without needing planning permission even though there's a lot of public road space given over to store people's private vehicles.

It doesn't, and they can't. There are historical changes in permitted development that means you need planning &/or highways permission to do so legally.

Ok, so you do need planning permission to pave your front garden and park there?

e.g.

You don't need planning permission necessarily, but you will need permission for the dropped kerb necessary to access the 'driveway' lawfully.

Unfortunately that bit didn't make it into your picture, but I doubt permission for a dropped kerb would have been given that close to a tree. 

Without a dropped kerb, one would have to drive on the pavement to get to the space, which is not permitted. And anyone who fancies it can park in front of a 'driveway' of that kind, blocking the access (such as it is).

[edited] You  need permission to pave your front garden to the extent they have, the way they have.  It's not PD, which means you need permission (there may be variations to that principle, and driveways might be permitted if you can show you have mitigated run-off on site).  When they did it in these images, that may not have been the case, or they obtained planning permission.  That may predate the Article 4 Direction for the conservation area and changes to PD.
Clarified (?) at https://www.planningportal.co.uk/info/200130/common_projects/45/paving_y...

You also need permission form the highway authority for access via a drop kerb (VAC) and have it properly installed, otherwise driving a vehicle across the footway is a criminal offence each time you do it.  Closer view of Street View shows not only a VAC but also paint to protect the access.  I would imagine a highways officer would have something to say these days about the visual limitations and turning angles caused by the street tree centre frame.

In this particular case, the officer's report for the shed application indicates a previous enforcement case (not specifically linked to the current applicants):

"A report was received in September 2008 that the removal of a garden wall had occurred allowing space for a hard-standing driveway at the property, which was covered by the Article 4 Direction. An Enforcement Notice was served in October 2009 to re-instate the garden wall which would remove the driveway, due to having a harmful visual impact on the Conservation Area. In December 2009 the Enforcement Notice was appealed to the Planning Inspectorate. A decision from them was issued in February 2010 that the Enforcement Notice would be upheld subject to some variation, and planning permission refused. The front garden wall has since been reinstated."

Thanks for the clarification (my house doesn't have any space in front, being an old mining terrace so it's not something I've ever investigated).

In fairness, Planning is a complex business.  The outcome could have been different.  It is newsworthy, and the contributions of relevant comments to the LPA from the public may have had a positive effect on the outcome, given the officer's comments in her report.

This is a good lesson for all; that good Planning needs to be engaged by all, including the developer.  In this case, the developer is a family wanting to store their bikes; in another case in Bolton, it's a renegade builder, harming the green belt by ignoring the details of planning permission.  Different scales of development and breach, but each case has to be considered on its own merits.  They were, and the outcomes were different.  It's not OK just to do what you want; even if what you want is a Good Idea, you still need to have that approved.

This is also a lesson that officers, the family and the mayor all appear to have said things that were not helpful:

• The family's media campaign was excessive and, while it achieved the desired effect, it was a gamble that they could have reduced by applying and appealing if necessary;
• the [which?] "officers" should have been more guarded about setting expectations of an application's likely outcome, although it was probably an enforcement officer, not a planning control officer;
• the mayor exerted political pressure on officers that he should not have done - effectively, a decision either way now has political implications, which is not how planning should work at the delegated level).

Comments of support from politicians or the public are only relevant if they include material planning considerations; just declaring support is not sufficient unless you can say why, and the reason is of planning significance.  The officer was well aware of that and drew out the relevant comments.  It's worth noting that some comments against may have carried so little value that they actually counted against their argument, as it logically raises the possibility of irrelevant or vexatious reasons for objecting.

Officers suggesting that the application would fail may have been giving an honest opinion so as not to raise expectations, but they should not have made it sound like it was said with too much level of confidence.  That said, people in a corner may not 'hear' what is said or how it is said, and if the applicants in a case become argumentative when faced with an challenge, rather than listening to the officers explaining the position objectively, then messages become skewed.

It is also a lesson that future planning policy for all authorities needs to be clearer on what is likely to be acceptable in terms of development for cycle storage and infrastructure. Let's not bash local authorities for where they are.  Many policies were prepared years ago and need updating. That takes considerable time and funding, which has been increasingly starved in the last decade or so.

Nevertheless, the direction of travel is to make policies more favourable to sustainable travel.  To the credit of the existing policy and officers, it was modern enough to be interpreted sufficiently progressively to permit the development.  It is a lesson of how policy should be improved.

We can use this case as a positive example to persuade local planning authorities to take a positive view of domestic cycling solutions, both in terms of developing policy and in determining decisions.  It's not a non-story; it just should be in future.

Surely the real point here is that if you live in an expensive conservation area, you should spend slightly more on your bike shed rather than putting up an eyesore made of the cheapest materials you can find? If only so as not to piss off your neighbours?

By far the most egregious thing in this whole story is the dreadful bit of lockdown-diy that's been imposed on the street.

No.  The real point is, if you need planning permission, apply for planning permission.

(personally, I don't think the 'DIY' is that bad; and nor, it seems did the officer on the case)

The consequences of building outside your permission can become really expensive:  https://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/19316169.7-year-saga-boltons-doomed...

If they hadn't put up an eyesore, the neighbours wouldn't have complained, and planning would never have got involved. 

"personally, I don't think the 'DIY' is that bad"

It's my job, and I assure you it is an absolutely classic example of the stuff I get called to fix a few weeks/months later. As well as looking like something only its builder could love. 

You wrote:

"By far the most egregious thing in this whole story is the dreadful bit of lockdown-diy that's been imposed on the street."

Worse than all the cars that the street was never designed for? It's a decent bit of work and the natural roof is a good touch.

And also you wrote:

"If they hadn't put up an eyesore, the neighbours wouldn't have complained, and planning would never have got involved. "

I didn't see that in the news articles about this - did neighbours complain? It's actually quite difficult to see in the pictures, unless you are looking from the garden out into the road. But then again, a well designed DIY bike shed isn't really appealing to a DIY fixer who loves cars.

TheBillder wrote:

But then again, a well designed DIY bike shed isn't really appealing to a DIY fixer who loves cars.

It appeals to this DIY car lover. Don't tar us all with the same brush!

Most people who profess to love cars actually love the perceived status and self-worth that owning (/leasing) those cars brings, rather than, say, motorsport, or engineering.

To be clear, I wasn't being entirely serious - hence the smiley.

Dave Dave wrote:

If they hadn't put up an eyesore, the neighbours wouldn't have complained, and planning would never have got involved. 

Neighbours complain because they can. Sometimes the stated reason is contrived 'after the fact'.  A dog-walking neighbour would have noticed the shed going up or in place.  They don't specifically take offence at the shed; they take offence that they 'know' that you can't have a shed in the front garden, and it's a conservation area.  They don't realise that you can, but it needs permission.  They decide to complain. 

There are two complaints on the application, for which the officer summarised the points.  The nearest comments to "eyesore" were:

• "Unsympathetic interruption to the setting and local character of the Conservation Area"; and
• "...out of context and character with the traditional Victorian terrace frontage of this property and to those adjoining."

She deals with those points in the report, and it is not held to be an eyesore.

I can't help wondering if the real, underlying grounds for complaints were that somebody 'stepped out of line'.  Sometimes that busybody attitude coincides with a lack of tolerance for cultural differences, making it easier to overcome any reluctance to make a fuss.

Thanks for laying that out - it sounds like you know what you're talking about!

Rich_cb wrote:

People build something that requires planning permission without said planning permission. Council inform the people that they need planning permission. People apply for planning permission. People get planning permission. How has this story has garnered so much attention?

🤔
Perhaps because they were told by a planning officer that permission was likely to be denied, and the perceived injustice that you can pave your entire front garden for parking but not erect a diddy bike shed?

If this leads to knock on effects where in similar situations bike parking is given equivalent weight as car parking in planning restrictions then it's a major win worth celebrating.

It is newsworthy because it brings a discussion on transport options that people should be considering. In every town people are complaining about their councils giving planning permission for house and flat developments that don't have sufficient parking spaces for each home, but these councils are trying to meet government mandates for significant housebuilding.  Advertising a new build has bike parking will become normal for city developers. This family has shown that sometimes a family doesnt want car parking spaces, they want somewhere to keep their bikes. If that becomes more normal, then homebuyers might be asking in the future "Does it have secure bike parking facilities in the front garden?" rather than expecting the front garden to be a block paved car parking space. Getting permission for a car parking conversion of a front garden should be much tougher than getting a bike shed, not least because it reduces the run-off of rainwater into the drains and hence reduces flooding.

Muddy Ford wrote:

...., not least because it reduces the run-off of rainwater into the drains and hence reduces flooding.

Not in the case of my drive, which drains to my back garden and soaks away into the lawn, but I guess most people do not have a house which is 0.5m below the public highway and a rear garden which is 3m below the public highway.

Removing rainwater from the drains doesn't only reduce local flooding, it also saves considerable energy in the sewerage system (where pumped) and at the sewage treatment works and reduces the number of events of (permitted) untreated sewage discharge to water courses.

However porous surfacing from drives does exist and surface water drainage should be a requirement of any new driveway which would otherwise feed into the drains.  

If it was raining on grass the ground would get wet and perhaps even soaked, but the grass would absorb much of that rain and grow. It would get cut and be composted, and be useful for other plant growth. Rain falling on a porous drive goes into the earth and in the absence of trees etc. it will go into rivers which will breach their banks and ruin christmas for many homes and businesses. We need grass gardens, hedges, and trees. 

Muddy Ford wrote:

If it was raining on grass the ground would get wet and perhaps even soaked, but the grass would absorb much of that rain and grow. It would get cut and be composted, and be useful for other plant growth. Rain falling on a porous drive goes into the earth and in the absence of trees etc. it will go into rivers which will breach their banks and ruin christmas for many homes and businesses. We need grass gardens, hedges, and trees. 

Username checks out

LOL

Sanity prevails for once

Agreed. My response to this is 'hurrah'. Leicester got to the right answer in the end. There is nothing at all wrong with that shed, and it's much less of an eyesore than those BMWs which are not in the right place at all: that place is conked out in the middle of Rufford ford (long may the story continue).