Require house plan from 1948

Herbalus

We're planning an extension to our 1897 terraced house. The architect says he's spoken to the planning officer and that planning permission would be required. The builder has done many of the same type of extensions as buy-develop-sell and says it can be done under permitted development. I'm not trying to cut corners (I don't believe the builder would gain by saying the work can be done under permitted development as it'd still have to pass building regs), and I want it done properly of course, but if planning isn't necessary I don't want to wait 2 months for it and save the fees.

The sticking point between architect and builder seems to be what the "original house" is, as permitted development allows for extensions that don't extend more than 3m beyond the rear wall of the original house. This "original house" is defined as how the property existed on 1st July 1948.

How would I find out what the house was like in 1948?

davidmcn

Herbalus wrote: »

How would I find out what the house was like in 1948?

From historical Ordnance Survey maps? e.g. https://www.old-maps.co.uk

(though unless there was some sort of alteration done around 1948, why can't the architect, builder or council work out for themselves what's original and what isn't?)

stator

Does your house have an extension bathroom and does it look the same as all the other houses in the street?

Hoploz

If it has been extended before with permission granted then the council will have the plans showing the existing house at the time as well as the proposed build. It might even be online.

Mojisola

Hoploz wrote: »

If it has been extended before with permission granted then the council will have the plans showing the existing house at the time as well as the proposed build. It might even be online.

This is where keeping the paper deeds can be useful even though the property is registered at the Land Registry.

If the house had been extended, the paper deeds often have architect's drawing and planning applications kept with them.

Herbalus

stator wrote: »

Does your house have an extension bathroom and does it look the same as all the other houses in the street?

It does, but we're not going beyond that. We have the classic victorian terrace with two rooms (lounge and dining room) with a galley kitchen off the back. The bathroom extension is beyond that, but we're not extending there.

We're extending off the back of the dining room, essentially bringing the kitchen to the full width of the house, so we'll extend up to the end of the kitchen with the bathroom still off the back. So the builder thinks the back of the kitchen is the "original house" from which there is a 3 meter limit for permitted development, but the architect thinks it might be the back of the dining room.

Herbalus

Mojisola wrote: »

This is where keeping the paper deeds can be useful even though the property is registered at the Land Registry.

If the house had been extended, the paper deeds often have architect's drawing and planning applications kept with them.

We bought the house in December so have all documents. The drawing from the Land Registry is actually from 1969 and has the building line at the end of the kitchen where we want it.

The trouble with the building line is that I can't find proof that there was no extension because nobody certifies a lack of extension: they only draw up plans when it's done, and saying I haven't found extension plans doesn't mean there are none.

Mojisola

Herbalus wrote: »

We bought the house in December so have all documents. The drawing from the Land Registry is actually from 1969 and has the building line at the end of the kitchen where we want it.

The trouble with the building line is that I can't find proof that there was no extension because nobody certifies a lack of extension: they only draw up plans when it's done, and saying I haven't found extension plans doesn't mean there are none.

Haven't you got a drawing/plan from when the house was built?

Doozergirl

Herbalus wrote: »

It does, but we're not going beyond that. We have the classic victorian terrace with two rooms (lounge and dining room) with a galley kitchen off the back. The bathroom extension is beyond that, but we're not extending there.

We're extending off the back of the dining room, essentially bringing the kitchen to the full width of the house, so we'll extend up to the end of the kitchen with the bathroom still off the back. So the builder thinks the back of the kitchen is the "original house" from which there is a 3 meter limit for permitted development, but the architect thinks it might be the back of the dining room.

Your architect is correct even if the kitchen is part of the original house. Permitted development follows the line of the original house exactly. So, you can build 3 metres back from the dining room only and 3 metres back from the kitchen only. If your kitchen is longer than 3 metres, then to build in the area between to 'square off' then under normal rules it needs PP.

But - the rules have been extended until 2016 to allow 6 metres PD on a terraced house under the 'prior notification' route which means permitted development in most circumstances. So no fee, IIRC, but 42 days.

Your kitchen is likely to have originally been an attached outbuilding, but whether the kitchen is original is actually a moot point if you are not actually extending the rear of the kitchen.

teddysmum

Doozergirl wrote: »

Your kitchen is likely to have originally been an attached outbuilding

Most of the terraced houses, in this area, were originally built with a kitchen joined on, forming an L shape with the main house.


I was brought up in such , but my great aunt and grandmother had much older houses which had a separate building (locally called the 'wash'us' (wash house)) which contained the sink and a copper boiler, the cooking being done in the back room of the house, on a black range.


All these older houses eventually had the metre wide gap filled by a roofed passageway.


Is it not possible for the OP to tell whether such a modification was made, by examining the bricks for colour and pattern match ?

Doozergirl

teddysmum wrote: »

Most of the terraced houses, in this area, were originally built with a kitchen joined on, forming an L shape with the main house.


I was brought up in such , but my great aunt and grandmother had much older houses which had a separate building (locally called the 'wash'us' (wash house)) which contained the sink and a copper boiler, the cooking being done in the back room of the house, on a black range.


All these older houses eventually had the metre wide gap filled by a roofed passageway.


Is it not possible for the OP to tell whether such a modification was made, by examining the bricks for colour and pattern match ?

I love these stories, but it is irrelevant to the OP. This is a planning law thing. If the kitchen is original it needs either PP or prior approval. If it isn't, it needs PP. The argument isn't really 'what is original' but 'what constitutes the original building line'.

The line is staggered in planning technical guisance and appeal history. The builder is wrong.