Shed building on a jetty

[Didger]

Post removed at poster's request.

Edited June 17, 2021 by Athy

[David Mack]

I think there are some on the Golden Nook moorings on the Shroppie.

[Athy]

Is it not the case that you're allowed to erect a structure without planning permission as long as it is not permanent? So, for example, those plastic storage bunkers or mini-sheds would be O.K.

[dmr]

You are treading a fine line. The ruling that says planning permission is not required for a mooring  contains a number of points that could be challenged. If you upset your local planners and they take legal action you could really mess things up for a lot of people. Why can't you build a shed on the land?

 

................Dave

[Didger]

Hi Dave

I'm not..someone else is!

And I agree wholeheartedly..this may have consequences for other people.

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's CRTs responsibility..in effect the structure is being built over their land...

 

[dor]

What do you mean by 'shed'?  4x2' garden box or 6x8' garden shed.

[Didger]

It's more like 14'x8'...

More of a cabin then a shed!

[David Mack]

4 minutes ago, Elgordo said:

 

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's CRTs responsibility..in effect the structure is being built over their land...

 

Well in theory the jetty needs CRT's permission, but I bet there are loads out there that don't have it, and CRT are happy to turn a blind eye as long as no problems arise. As dor implies, a small storage box is almost certainly fine, a 'Grand Designs' summerhouse with bar and barbeque may not be.

[Flyboy]

Starts off with a small shed, then expands into a big shed and the next step it turns into a dwelling. What next, a linear housing estate !  CaRT would never allow it surely.

[dmr]

27 minutes ago, Elgordo said:

Hi Dave

I'm not..someone else is!

And I agree wholeheartedly..this may have consequences for other people.

What I'm trying to figure out is if it's CRTs responsibility..in effect the structure is being built over their land...

 

CRT take a step back when difficult decisions like this are required. They mostly consider operational factors like loading on the canal bed and restricting the line of sight for navigation, in fact they possibly don't have a clear legal power to make the shed decision. Currently planning permission is not required for non residential moorings and the shed might be a reasonable part of the mooring, but maybe not. Some councils would like a mooring to be a "material change of use" though currently the law says otherwise, but the fact that boats move is a significant factor in this. A shed built over water just might be the  lever they need to get a ruling, though in these hard times it would be a brave council that took on a legal battle.

 

...........Dave.

[Didger]

Thanks for this..as I thought something of a grey legal area! Which unfortunately allows people to take advantage..

I'm expecting to see smoke curling from a chimney from the stove that's going to be installed soon..then followed by insulation, a Genny, lights and there you have a dwelling...on stilts over the canal!

[David Schweizer]

Planning legislation for sheds is actually quite complex. From recollection, if it is less than 2 metres from the property's boundary, is single storey and not more than 2.5 metres high to the eaves with a maximum height of 3metres to the apex of a sloping roof, it is excempt from Planing Consent. However that is for sheds built on land, the rules for buildings not built on the land depend on whether it is percieved by the Planning Officer to be physically attached to the land, or not. All the cases we had when I was on the Parish Council applied to tree houses, and most of those required Planning Consent as they were attached to a tree rather than directly to the land with only ladder access. In the example identified by the OP it would very much depend on whether a jetty or potoon was considered to be directly attached to the land. However, my best guess is that it would probably be not considered to be on the land, and would, therefore, require Planning Consent.

 

1 hour ago, Elgordo said:

Thanks for this..as I thought something of a grey legal area! Which unfortunately allows people to take advantage..

I'm expecting to see smoke curling from a chimney from the stove that's going to be installed soon..then followed by insulation, a Genny, lights and there you have a dwelling...on stilts over the canal!

 

If there is any evidence of anyone living in the shed, albeit on a temporary basis, it will definitely require Planning Consent, irrespective of it's location, it would also need Building Regulaion approval.

 

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by David Schweizer

[dmr]

I'm not a legal person but have needed to learn a bit about canal planning law recently.

It looks to me like a big justification for a mooring not needing planning consent is that boats are an intrinsic part of the canal. A very small amount of infrastructure might be allowed to support a mooring but this is not defined, but I doubt a shed built over the water to support a single moored boat would be acceptable. Unless anybody complains I doubt the council will get involved, and even then they might well choose not to get into a battle. If there is a case I doubt CRT will choose to defend it, but on the other hand getting rid of boats and building little houses over the water might appeal to them.?

 

On the other hand there must be hundred of canalside sheds at various moorings that have existed for many years without planning consent, but these are not over the water. Is this new shed fully over the water or mostly over the land?.

 

..................Dave 

[Cheese]

The shed owner is taking a risk that someone loses control of their boat, or is drunk or in a strong wind, and accidentally rams the jetty!  ?

 

 

[David Mack]

High Lane Arm, Macclesfield Canal

[Phoenix_V]

6 hours ago, dmr said:

Currently planning permission is not required for non residential moorings Some councils would like a mooring to be a "material change of use" though currently the law says otherwise,

 

...........Dave.

When our club put in moorings 10 years ago the council and everyone else said we absolutely had to have planning permission, when we recently asked about extending them they were not bothered. has the law actually changed or did we just strike lucky second time around (or unlucky 1st time)? (It is river not canal and green belt)

[dmr]

5 minutes ago, Phoenix_V said:

When our club put in moorings 10 years ago the council and everyone else said we absolutely had to have planning permission, when we recently asked about extending them they were not bothered. has the law actually changed or did we just strike lucky second time around (or unlucky 1st time)? (It is river not canal and green belt)

I suspect it varies from council to council and also which court rulings the planning officers are aware off. Creating moorings is not an everyday event for town planners, if they apply standard "land" law then they likely will require planning consent, if they are aware of some waterways rulings then they might not. Rivers and Canals are very different things in terms of law and planning. Planning law looks to be very complicated and its a tall order for all planners to keep on top of it.

 

...............Dave

[jonathanA]

I think a lot will depend on the status of the land. If its greenbelt there may be restrictions on erecting sheds or fences, but if its already regarded as something else then there may be permitted development rights allowing the erection of sheds without any involvement.by the planners.

[Didger]

Thanks all for the discussion..seems not be very straight forward..down to individual councils and planning officers.

The cabin is built completely over the water. The jetty has been rebuilt and extended to accommodate the building of the structure which takes up maybe 1/3 of the space of the available jetty. The edges of the structure are flush to the edge of the jetty on three sides, then the 40' boat takes up the remainder of the jetty at the waters edge.

I can't see it being a council issue..the moorings have been established for 20yrs+...I'll chase CRT for an answer..think I know what it'll be!

[dmr]

2 minutes ago, Elgordo said:

Thanks all for the discussion..seems not be very straight forward..down to individual councils and planning officers.

The cabin is built completely over the water. The jetty has been rebuilt and extended to accommodate the building of the structure which takes up maybe 1/3 of the space of the available jetty. The edges of the structure are flush to the edge of the jetty on three sides, then the 40' boat takes up the remainder of the jetty at the waters edge.

I can't see it being a council issue..the moorings have been established for 20yrs+...I'll chase CRT for an answer..think I know what it'll be!

Any chance of a photo?

 

If the jetty has been extended without CRT permission then CRT should take an interest. Is this on a navigable bit of canal or a side arm of some sort?  How much navigable channel has been "stolen" and how much channel is left?

 

....................Dave