Permitted development rear extension next to existing planning permission side extens

bgm_co

Hi,

I wonder if any of you could help with this query.

The house was previously extended by the old home owner. it has a side extension that extends beyond the rear wall. This extension went through the planning permission route and was granted permission.

What I would like to do is add an extension full width of the original house with my permitted development rights.

My query is.. Can I do this with out falling under the rule of the extension only being able to extend half the original house width because it links to the side extension?

I know if the side extension was build on permitted development rights I'd only be able to extend up to half width of the original house but because the old extension was granted full permission and wasn't built under permitted development does this rule still apply..

The picture in permitted development guidance. Shows a permitted development side extension build first then a permitted development rear extension added later. and says the below:

In the example above, if the side extension (A) was built first, it would meet the requirement for being no more than half of the width of the original house. However, the later addition of the rear extension (B) would mean that the total width would be more than half the width of the house. The rear extension would therefore require an application for planning permission.

Doozergirl

Can you post a picture link illustrating what is described in italics? If you post a broken link, we can fix it.

Where do you want to build your extension? At the rear?

The only existing extension is to the side, extending past the back wall of the house and it has planning permission?

casper_g

Doozergirl wrote: »

Can you post a picture link illustrating what is described in italics? If you post a broken link, we can fix it.

Where do you want to build your extension? At the rear?

The only existing extension is to the side, extending past the back wall of the house and it has planning permission?

I think the quoted text is from here, top of page 26. The related diagram is on page 25.

The OP's house already has extension A and they want to add B.The difference from the example is that A was done with planning permission, not as permitted development as in the example. I suspect this will still not fall under permitted development, but that's based on a vague feeling only! Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can assist....

Doozergirl

casper_g wrote: »

I think the quoted text is from here, top of page 26. The related diagram is on page 25.

The OP's house already has extension A and they want to add B.The difference from the example is that A was done with planning permission, not as permitted development as in the example. I suspect this will still not fall under permitted development, but that's based on a vague feeling only! Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can assist....

Thanks. You had patience that I didn't!

OP, you should definitely ask the planning department. Even planners can interpret things differently when they aren't immediately straightforward. I wouldn't like to speculate on this one.

Even if it is permitted development, I would definitely apply for a certificate of lawful development. This may well raise itself as a question when you come to sell and won't be that easy to explain. The certificate will eliminate any risk.

bgm_co

casper_g wrote: »

I think the quoted text is from , top of page 26. The related diagram is on page 25.

The OP's house already has extension A and they want to add B.The difference from the example is that A was done with planning permission, not as permitted development as in the example. I suspect this will still not fall under permitted development, but that's based on a vague feeling only! Hopefully someone more knowledgeable can assist....

Thank you that the correct link.

Doozergirl wrote: »

Thanks. You had patience that I didn't!

OP, you should definitely ask the planning department. Even planners can interpret things differently when they aren't immediately straightforward. I wouldn't like to speculate on this one.

Even if it is permitted development, I would definitely apply for a certificate of lawful development. This may well raise itself as a question when you come to sell and won't be that easy to explain. The certificate will eliminate any risk.

Sure I think that a good idea. That's what I was trying to get my head around, how to interpret this as they are talking about two permitted development extension in the guide.
Obviously here I want to believe as the side extension (that extends beyond the rear wall) that was granted its permission does not fall under this rule as the guidance seems to mention two PD extensions, but my gut feeling is they will say the half the width rule applies in this case.

martinsurrey

I have been through something similar.

My planners said that when assessing permitted development they look at the building envelope involving the new extension against the building as built (or 1954 if prior). If the whole difference is less than permitted development, your good to go, however if not you need full planning.

What this means is that if you tie 2 extensions together, they are considered as a whole against the permitted development limits, even if the first one had full planning permission.

If you keep the original extension separate from the new one (as in walls between, the new extension could be permitted development (as its independent).

the PD limits don't care about what has full plans the only thing that matters is the house as it was build (or stood in 1954), compared to what you want it to end up like.

chappers

I would suspect that as the original extension was done under a planning application, that it exceeded the PD restraints and that your proposed extension would therefore require a planning app.
But as martin says if the two extensions combined would fall under the current PD thresholds then you would be OK.

bgm_co

I believe yo guys are right.

Just means we will have to deal with the "45-degree code" and wont be able to avoid it by going down the PD route..