What counts as the 'vehicular entrance'?

MJohnston

I'm looking to get our front garden paved, providing space for bins, a bike shed, and maybe another car.

I've contacted DLR planning and they basically repeated this planning FAQ back to me:

Can I provide car parking in my garden without permission?
Yes. To the front or side for not more than 2 cars.

(Page 157, Class 6, Part B(ii))

NB. The widening of vehicular entrances is not exempt. (3.5 meters max with permission)

So, it's clear that paving the front garden for parking is fine.

The question I have is, which part counts as the 'vehicular entrance'? Here's the front of my property:



I'm presuming the red line is the vehicular entrance, but there's a common footpath between that and my property, so maybe it's the blue line?

If so, and if I pave the section that's currently grass, would that count as widening that entrance?

Gumbo

You don’t need planning for the fishing of the public path, that’s something the roads maintenance section will do once you get planning to alter the vehicular entrance in your boundary wall.

In your picture, the blue line is the existing vehicular entrance in my opinion.

Also remember that paving your front garden is ok but there are limits to the extent of hard paving allowed under planning. DCC don’t enforce it but I think SDCC do, same as DLRCC. it’s 50% of the garden max without planning.

I’ll try find the relevant reg.

MJohnston

Gumbo wrote: »

You don’t need planning for the fishing of the public path, that’s something the roads maintenance section will do once you get planning to alter the vehicular entrance in your boundary wall.

In your picture, the blue line is the existing vehicular entrance in my opinion.

Also remember that paving your front garden is ok but there are limits to the extent of hard paving allowed under planning. DCC don’t enforce it but I think SDCC do, same as DLRCC. it’s 50% of the garden max without planning.

I’ll try find the relevant reg.

No I believe the reg says that over 50% and the surface has the be permeable, but not that it can’t be fully paved.

MJohnston

I think this is the one you're referring to (Class 6 (b)(ii)):

(ii) the provision of a hard surface in the area of the garden forward of the front building line of the house, or in the area of the garden to the side of the side building line of the house, for purposes incidental to the enjoyment of the house as such. The level of the ground shall not be altered by more than 1 metre above or below the level of the adjoining ground.

Provided that the area of the hard surface is less than 25 square metres or less than 50% of the area of the garden forward of the front building line of the house, or 50% of the area of the garden to the side of the side building line of the house, as the case may be, whichever is the smaller,

or

if the area of the hard surface is 25 square metres or greater or comprises more than 50% of the area of the garden forward of the front building line of the house, or 50% of the area of the garden to the side of the side building line of the house, as the case may be, it shall be constructed using permeable materials or otherwise allow for rainwater to soak into the ground.

MJohnston

Gumbo wrote: »

You don’t need planning for the fishing of the public path, that’s something the roads maintenance section will do once you get planning to alter the vehicular entrance in your boundary wall.

Regarding this specifically — is there any differentiation made between gardens that have no boundary wall, and never did, and those with?

In this small estate where I live, there are zero boundary walls, and I believe there never were any. I see a lot of neighbours who have added an extra metre or so of concrete or paving to the side of the original concrete driveways.

Gumbo

MJohnston wrote: »

Regarding this specifically — is there any differentiation made between gardens that have no boundary wall, and never did, and those with?

In this small estate where I live, there are zero boundary walls, and I believe there never were any. I see a lot of neighbours who have added an extra metre or so of concrete or paving to the side of the original concrete driveways.

Good question.
You’d be relying on someone’s interpretation of the regulations and to give you a piece of paper with their name and PI Insurance on it.

I’d have to see it in the flesh but if all the hallmarks are there then I believe it would be reasonably expected that the existing hard standing in the vehicular entrance.

I take it you are thinking of walling the garden?
You could lodge a section 5 asking if the works are exempt?

MJohnston

Gumbo wrote: »

Good question.
You’d be relying on someone’s interpretation of the regulations and to give you a piece of paper with their name and PI Insurance on it.

I’d have to see it in the flesh but if all the hallmarks are there then I believe it would be reasonably expected that the existing hard standing in the vehicular entrance.

I take it you are thinking of walling the garden?
You could lodge a section 5 asking if the works are exempt?

No, not planning on walling it — just paving the majority of the grass area. Mostly because we don't want a lawn. We'll leave some beds at the side and part of the front. Basically like this (house is at the top, street at the bottom, area to be paved in light grey):



Might either just bring the beds over to match the extents of the existing hard surface, or use gravel instead of paving.

I don't suppose there are examples of what drawings and layouts they'd require to submit a Section 5? I'd be okay with doing so but would rather not have to pay for an expert to do up the docs for me (it's not exactly the most complex of changes).

Gumbo

Could you do the paving in one style and the pedestrian path is a different style that clearly separates both? The existing set up looks to be vehicular and pedestrian.

Based on your info and sketch it’s a thin line and you’d probably be one of the few that would go down the planning route for this.

I think in my boards (not wearing official hat) you’ll be ok.

MJohnston

We'd likely leave the existing concrete driveway as-is, and then have paving to the side, so there would be different styles.

I think we'll take the risk, and do it in a way where it's simple to reconstruct a thin divide between the paving and footpath if necessary.

Gumbo

MJohnston wrote: »

We'd likely leave the existing concrete driveway as-is, and then have paving to the side, so there would be different styles.

I think we'll take the risk, and do it in a way where it's simple to reconstruct a thin divide between the paving and footpath if necessary.

In that case I don’t think you are altering the vehicular entrance then.

TheW1zard

Your widening the entrance though, that counts as an alteration no?

sydthebeat

TheW1zard wrote: »

Your widening the entrance though, that counts as an alteration no?

in my opinion there is no widening of entrance.

there is a practical link between the blue and red areas in the first pic..... and just by paving the green area doesnt mean theres any extra access available to be used.

Gumbo

TheW1zard wrote: »

Your widening the entrance though, that counts as an alteration no?

Doesn’t appear to be in my opinion. He is altering the internal surface finishes yes. But the actual entrance is not being widened. I think the fact the original house came without any boundary structures help him here.

I would be distinctive here though, I would strike a line along the existing concrete driveway with some
Cobbles and then lay the paving inside them. It clearly shows then original and new and will help his case should he get any queries.