What's My Principle Elevation

NoNameNoNumber · 21 Sep 2017 at 12:26

The address is * The Crescent but the gravel driveway and front door face Boundary Rd. I want to replace the two existing garages highlighted in red with a single structure which complies with the criteria for permitted development- But that's working on the principle elevation being the easterly side that faces The Crescent...

What are your thoughts?

the_r_sole · 21 Sep 2017 at 12:48

when its not immediately obvious they usually say it's the elevation with the front door on it, if you approach that way from the road too it adds weight to that being the principle elevation.
How are the neighbours? I'd be tempted to do it and wait to see if anyone complains then do a retrospective if required

NoNameNoNumber · 21 Sep 2017 at 12:53

The neighbours on Boundary rd are spot on, we've even discussed them building a lean to against my garage so he has a birdpoo free zone to detail his cars

The adjoining neighbours' access is from Beech Ave off The Crescent.

Surely the fact that I'm replacing 30m^2 of dilapidated garages with a single 30m^2 garage would put any planning application in good steed?

a1ex2001 · 21 Sep 2017 at 13:11

Your principal elevation is clearly the one facing the crescent and i'd be amazed if anyone could argue anything else.

FNG · 21 Sep 2017 at 13:23

I would just do it under permitted development. No one will complain and therefore planning won't event get involved. If they do then you have a very strong argument that The Crescent is your principal elevation facing. But, if their planning department is like most others at the moment, they will be snowed under with work as it is so won't even bother unless they get a complaint.

a1ex2001 · 21 Sep 2017 at 13:44

FNG said:
I would just do it under permitted development. No one will complain and therefore planning won't event get involved. If they do then you have a very strong argument that The Crescent is your principal elevation facing. But, if their planning department is like most others at the moment, they will be snowed under with work as it is so won't even bother unless they get a complaint.

This, even if it wasn't permitted development I can't see how there would be any grounds to turn down a retrospective planning application all you are doing is replacing and improving an existing structure.

NoNameNoNumber · 21 Sep 2017 at 13:49

Does that mean the rules could be bent slightly? Ie if it looks like a retro would be granted regardless do I need to go with a flat roof to ensure I'm below the 2.5m eaves height or could I do a pitched roof on the boundary and keep the 2.5m eaves but with likely a 3.5m ridge?

Derek W · 21 Sep 2017 at 14:25

I would say that since your property is semi detached your principle elevation is the same for both properties i.e the crescent regardless of where your front door actually is.

a1ex2001 · 23 Sep 2017 at 01:57

NoNameNoNumber said:
Does that mean the rules could be bent slightly? Ie if it looks like a retro would be granted regardless do I need to go with a flat roof to ensure I'm below the 2.5m eaves height or could I do a pitched roof on the boundary and keep the 2.5m eaves but with likely a 3.5m ridge?

Bending the rules is always risky with planning! If I was going to push my luck I'd just put in an application it's not expensive and you can draw the plans yourself.

Steeps · 23 Sep 2017 at 02:59

Looking at your neighbours (did a bit of stalking, know the area), as all the houses on "the crescent" face "the crescent" then that would be for me the principle elevation, also if you look at the house at the other side of the crescent (access on bowbridge road) they have built an extension where your front door would be, designed in such a way it would be classed as a side extension in appearance.