mix & match planning application & permitted development?

Grimbal

andrew-b wrote: »

What's your reasoning for not wanting to go with what the PO is suggesting? And does your reasoning still apply if your no longer going for the 2nd storey? Would the PO suggestion with amendments of reworking of the internals of the kitchen (either now or after PP is granted - no idea what costs less or is quicker) give you more scope to fit in the utility room (as per your thread last night) ?

I'm only marginally more in favour of the PD version than the PP one. Bear in mind though that the 1m reduction in width is what our counter officer to the PO was- he has suggested 1.7m reduction, which makes the extension unworkable. We're still to hear back from the PO regarding our "offer" of 1m Both the PD & PP versions would work ok with an internal layout as in my other thread, we'd have a smaller utility in the PP version, but that wouldn't be too bad. I would just prefer the PD at the rear as it gives us a wider breakfast area. The lack of a second storey doesn't impact the ground floor decision. In fact, we've always said that it's the ground floor that is the most important to us

If you go with what PO is suggesting and you get PP refused then you could come back to the PD and you've lost nothing more than you already have in planning fees.

Yup, that's what we had in mind. However, we would still need to alter the front of the property (pitched roof over garage, rebuilding porch) which I understand requires PP?

Bear in mind the PO is likely advising you on what he thinks will keep everyone happy and deal with objections raised.

TBH it may help if we could have some plans (perhaps post up the submitted plans with your personal details removed) to see it in context of the rooms. Or is Mr Grimbal still playing with Sketchup

Mr. G. is ever-so-slightly obsessed with sketchup! he did come up with a genius plan a day ago which would make the utility more usable, and immediately drew it up using Sketchup - wouldn't deign to use a pen & paper I'll see if I can get the plans off of him later tonight

thanks very much for your reply- my answers in blue above

Grimbal

planning_officer wrote: »

There's a lot of confusion here about PD and development requiring express planning permission. Firstly, like someone says above, front extensions are not PD, unless the front of the house doesn't front a highway (front = 'principal elevation' in the PD legislation). A porch is acceptable though as PD (that's Class D of the legislation, rather than other extensions, which are Class A, if you're googling it!).

That's good to know re porch. PP is required re: front I think because of the height of the pitched roof we're proposing over it & that we'd like to bring the front of the garage closer to the highway

Secondly, unless you're in Green Belt where all extensions are assessed cumulatively in relation to the original dwelling, whether you have extended to the, say, front will have no impact on any future proposal to extend to the rear, and vice versa (the only caveat to that is that the extensions can not occupy more than 50% of the plot, excluding the house, however I've yet to see a property where they have fallen foul of that criterion!). Your architect is incorrect to say this is a grey area - it is not at all. I think what he means is that he doesn't know the answer to your question!

many thanks. Just to clarify though, would we be able to cherry pick parts of the (hopefully) passed PP, ignore other parts, and build to PD in other areas?

However, there is unfortunately a reason why the extension you have outlined is not actually PD. The extension projects beyond a side wall (the side return joining onto the garage, at the side of the house itself) and no extensions are allowed to project beyond any side wall if it is more than half the width of the original dwelling - which yours clearly is. So, under PD you can actually only extend to the rear of the main house by 4 metres in depth, and not beyond the garage. There are plenty of appeal decisions to support that view and I've refused applications (Lawful Development Certificates) myself for that reason.

Now that's very interesting. When we chatted with the PO he actually drew out what we were able to do with PD, and my drawing in an earlier post is what he drew for us. We had a pretty thorough conversation with him as to what constituted" the property", and he was very clear that the garage in our case was considered part of the building and we were therefore able to develop behind it - but to the 4m as you said - which gives us the dog leg back wall of the proposed building under PD. The neighbours on the side which have not raised objections have done precisely what we wish to & they did not require PP

I'm also assuming that the planning officer's objection is the impact of the extension on the amenities of the neighbouring property - not sure if your diagram is to scale, or how near the boundary the extension will be, but it looks like it will project around 5 to 6 metres to the rear of the neighbour (assuming the neighbour is in line with your house), and that could very well be said to be intrusive for the neighbour. Wouldn't it be better to extend the depth of the extension elsewhere and bring it away from the neighbour's boundary, in order not to lose any floor area?

difficult to explain properly, but the houses are staggered back from each other with the neighbours that have objected being set further into their garden than us. They also have a conservatory. The end result is that our proposed extension wouldnot come out further than the end of their conservatory.

Many thanks for your reply, very informative

planning_officer

Thanks for the reply and the additional points. I cannot stress enough that the PO is incorrect to draw out the extension as PD, projecting ina staggered footprint beyond the garage. The Government produced a guidance document last year regarding the amended PD legislation (from 2008) - you can view it here:
http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Page 22 onwards deals with side extensions. Any wall that is not a front or rear wall is a side wall, and when an extension projects beyond a side wall, then the whole extension cannot be more than half the width of the original dwelling. Your drawn extension is definitely not PD, irrespective of what the PO says - and this is national legislation, so it won't vary between Councils. Interpretation of PD legislation can vary between authorities, however there are now plenty of appeal decisions relating to the amended legislation from 2008 that confirm this is the correct approach (and contradict what your PO has told you).

Regarding your cherry picking question (!) - yes, you can build whatever you get planning permissio for, along with any other additions that are PD. PD used to be assessed in terms of the volume of extensions (prior to 2008) and hence once you had used up your volume 'allowance' for your dwelling, no further extension could be PD (there were other restrictions too though). However, now every elevation is treated differently and for extensions, there are no volume restrictions - there are now different criteria for each elevation - re. depth, width, height, distance to boundary etc. An extension to one elevation will not normally impact on your PD allowance for another elevation. I say 'normally', because there is the general restriction that no more than 50% of the plot can be occupied by extensions (so obviously all additions would have to be assessed cumulatively then) and also, when a new extension is attached to a previous extension, then it is the whole of the enlarged part of the dwelling (i.e. the previous extension plus the new extension) that has to comply with the current PD legislation in order for the new part to be PD. This is made crystal clear in the 2010 techical guidance document and in several subsequent appeal decisions. This latter point is contentious and in my opinion, makes many extensions now more restrictive than before the changes were made to the legislation in 2008.

Regarding your last paragraph - if your extension doesn't project beyond the neighbouring property, which itself is set further to the rear than yours, it's difficult to understand why the Council object to the extension - although admittedly I haven't seen any plans so perhaps I don't have the whole picture!