Re: What is a link detached dwelling? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

On the face of it, assuming the garages are attached to the houses it looks like one of those situations where saying it's not PD seems overly bureaucratic but saying it is PD would create still further interpretation difficulties. For example, I suppose you could say that if the only attached parts are non-habitable rooms then they 'don't count', but what if one or both have been converted to habitable space? So, assuming the garages are attached to the houses it seems much simpler all round to conclude that the properties are 'attached'. That also means that the householder can be confident that the extension is lawful. Assuming we're talking about the difference between a 3m rear extension and a 4m rear extension refusal seems unlikely (especially if you take into account that it would be PD if not for the garages!). Of course, as with much of the GPDO there is probably no definitively 'right' answer. There must be an appeal decision on this somewhere though...

Whilst being a planner, I'm also RICS, which may add a differant, but complementary arguement. The term linked detached dies not originate in the planning field, rather in the sales and marketing arena. You can get a premium for detached premises over a semi detached. the reasons are obvious. a RICS appraisal would be that the link should be of a non-domestic nature, usually a garage or carport but possibly includes a rear utility. It would not incluse a second storey. The GDPO does not acknowledge this type of development as in built form, is there a differance between the use as a garage, or a dinnig room. In fact planning permission is rarely required for the conversion of a garage to a dinning room. It would be my considered opinion that the property is considered as a semi-detached and therefore the PD rights are reduced.

I am the MD of a conservatory company, and have had a bitter experience of link-detached definitions. As you state, there is no online precedent, case study or even definition. We built a conservatory at 4 metre projection on a link-detached property, on the interpretation of the Statutory Instrument, and advice of our local authority. The neighbour complained, and the lcal authority changed their view that this was now not a permitted development. We applied for permission retrospectively which was refused on the grounds that the neighbouring property was lower and the light affect was to blame (despite the neighbour being to the south of the development!) We appealed the decision which was refused on the grounds that the structure had an overbearing impact on the neighbour. An enforcement notice was issued which we appealed against on the basis of missing definitions within the statutory instrument, and on the basis that the party wall agreement refers to the adjoining wall only, so in the case that a garage adjoins as in this case, the party wall and wall of habitable space are not the same, and therefore the property was in our view deemend to be detached.Indeed the enforcement officer has posted on a forum asking for advice relating to this!! The appeal was refused, although they acknowledged that I have a point. I am considering High Court Action, and only today, my client has informed me that her deeds clearly state that the property is "detached". I enclose both my enforcement appeal and the enforcement appeal decision, and would welcome any feedback or precedents set elsewhere, since this decision was made on the basis that there had not been a previous precedent set relating to this. In any outcome, it is clear to me that the statutory instrument needs to be re-worded to define a detached property for planning purposes. I am sure that there will many cases like this to come!

I can only post one attachment - so here is the appeal decision

How could two properties that are physically attached to each other ever be considered to be detached. I can't fault the Inspectors logic in Para 9 of his decison letter. As Phil says - 'link-detached' is just a bit of nonsense dreamt up by estate agents in order to be able to market attached dwellings at a greater value! Detatched means physically separate ... so why would the GPDO need ameding to claify this? Rant over! Mike

Thanks for that Michael! I wonder where your view would be if the properties were joined by a carport, and point out that the client's deeds clearly state the property is "detached".

Kim. I suppose on a good day I might be persuaded that a linking carport such as a roof between two end walls was relatively insubstantial, and that on that basis the dwellings remained 'detached' for the purposes of interpreting the GPDO. The same couldn't however be said for a bricks and mortar garage, especially as is often the case, if that had been converted to an additional bedroom. As for how the property is described in the deeds, that would be totally irrelevent for planning purposes. My house could be described in the deeds as a castle but it woundn't make it one! Mike

Turning back to Mr Ellis' judgement (he is a respected solicitor and his legal judgement carries some weight), he draws parallels with the party walls act, of which I have significant experience. In the question of a carport, I would include the carport as a linking structure if the roof timbers were supported by the neighbour’s property, making the gable/flank wall a party wall by definition. If it were self supporting then I would expect a gap of some description, though flashing I would consider as incidental. Whilst there is a difference in building control terms (a carport having two or more open sides), it should be remembered that planning permission is rarely, if ever required, for enclosing a carport.

I recall a recent case querying when a garden building is detached, and the answer was that any gap, even less than 25 mm, made it detached. Presumably the same argument should apply to 'link' buildings - detached if detached, not detached if physically joined on. However, this overlooks the underlying issue that clearly the intention of having greater PD rights for detached / semi-detached buildings is that two storey rear extensions, for example, are generally further from the boundary on at least one side than in a terrace, and therefore arguably have less impact on neighbouring amenity. Of course, in these terms, a so called link detached building is probably more similar to a semi-detached situation than a terrace. But we must accept that the GDPO has a limited scope and some less common situations are not catered for.