Extension : permitted development

Mistermeaner

Hi

Question regards if this situation would be a permitted development or not (ie need planning permission)

I appreciate the permitted development regs can be complex : all other aspects I'm OK with so will simplify the issue

Nb detached house, no preservation or conservation issues, huge distance from neighbouring boundaries etc

Issue is with the principle of a side extension being no more than half width of house

I've had conflicting advice from 2 separate architects

House is a square 7mtr by 7mtr. It has a pre existing extension on the back, of 3mtr width:

Crudely like this:

`````````````` 3m
`````````````

---

`````````````|`````|
`````````A```|`````|
```

---

`````|
```|```````````````|
```|``````````````` | 9m
``` |```````````````|
7m. |```````````````|
```|````````````````|
```

---

````````` 7m


We want to build out at the ground floor point A to make it into a simple rectangle 7m x 9m

Initially I thought thus would be fine as permitted and 1 architect agreed, the 2nd arcitect says building at A counts as a side extension (even though it doiesnt go outside of main walls sideways as the kitchen wall near A is classed as a side wall - so if we build here a 4m wide extension it would be more than half the width of the original house (total 7m) and therefore planning would be required

My reading oif regs is that planning WOULD be required due to the definutiin of side extension : despite common sense saying this is daft!

Would appreciate thoughts and comments (plus kudos for the plan drawn on a kindle)

Also would your commernts change if we were to also build a 2nd storey in the same place (assume adequate distance from neighbours etc)

RLH33

Let's say the 3m is the north point for description purposes!

If the south elevation is the principal elevation (front of the house) then the west elevation is the side elevation. By extending north (but not west ie beyond the side elevation) then you can extend up to 4m along the full width of the south elevation.

The 50% width bit only applies if you were doing a side extension but it looks like you are doing a rear extension so the 50% is not relevant!

Doozergirl

Your picture doesn't make much sense, but I think I see what you're getting at.

When was the existing extension built? If it is pre-1948 then it counts as the original house. Post 1948 and it counts as a rear extension.

The confusion sits if it is pre-1948. Post 1948 and it is definitely a rear extension.

If it is pre-1948, I agree with the first architect but I see where the second is coming from. It is rear extension and side extension, but as a rear extension it sits very comfortably within permitted development and to me, it makes it ridiculous that it would need planning because it didn't fit side criteria as well.

There used to be issues because a lot of existing rear wing extensions would be deeper than 3m (or 4m), the depth you used to be able to take a rear extension to under PD. You'd then have to count it as a side extension to get the depth and you'd subsequently be limited by the 50% width rule.

My logic says that you call it a rear extension because fits under PD and that's that.

My local authority is great in that they run a surgery twice a week and you can have a chat with a planning officer and establish things just like this. Some local authorities only offer a pre-app for which you will have to wait a little while, but I think you'd get a pretty positive response.

If it did need PP then there's no way on earth they could turn it down when almost anyone else could have it as PD. Or indeed you could if the extension wasn't already there. You can even extend the existing extension by up to 8 metres now, which is just bonkers, especially if you apply number 2 architect's logic.

Same replies for a two storey if you're genuinely far enough away from the neighbours. Not many of us are lucky enough to be!

Mistermeaner

See bottom of page 21

My extension would be a "side and back" and therefore must satisfy both side and rear criteria: crazy but appears true

Dry diagram didn't work - not easy on kindle.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiFjamgt9nRAhXrI8AKHWPADpAQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNHP0UWknZ25YJks0dS9Sv12O5vq0w

Doozergirl

You haven't told us when the extension was built!

Post 1948 it is a rear extension only. Subsequent additions count as part of your PD already.

Pre-1948 then taken to to the rule you can have a 3.5m side extension or the rear extension if the house is exactly 7m wide. That gets you to 6.5m straight away. You need to know exactly how wide the existing house and extension are to determine if you can get to the side wall with it.

The planners will not take a measuring tape to your house and would have to be satisfied that it was pre-1948 to start to question it.

RLH33

a better diagram would help, especially showing where the extensions is to go.

I see what you are thinking though but you are wrong. The rear extension is just that, it does not form a staggered side elevation as it is an extension. Only if it is Pre-1948 could it possibly form a part side elevation but even then it's unlikely as the 'indent' is so large at 4m.

If you are just rounding off the rear with a 4x2m extension then that would be permitted development.

Ring your local council and see what sort of service they offer to confirm pp is not required if you want peace of mind.

Mistermeaner

Hi extension was built 1989

I'll load a better picture - not sure what you're seeing as looks OK on mine

Appreciate the comments but did you look at link and bottom of page 21 , seems quite clear that my extension would need to satisfy both rear and side requirement

RLH33

Yes I did look at the bottom of page 21 and this doesn't apply to you for the reasons I explained. This only applies on an original dwelling i.e. The foot print is as original, yours isn't, yours has an extension at the rear so is not a staggered side elevation.

Mistermeaner

Thanks

image (hopefuylly):




image of page 23:




RLH appreciate your comments and I get your logic, but nowhere in the planning info (that I can see) does it say anythign along the lines you describe

Common sense would agree with you but the diagram on page 23 and words at the bottom are quite clear

I'm not trying to be argumentative and appreciate your input just trying to get it straight in my head (2 professional architects have different views on this issue too!)

Doozergirl

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Hi extension was built 1989

I'll load a better picture - not sure what you're seeing as looks OK on mine

Appreciate the comments but did you look at link and bottom of page 21 , seems quite clear that my extension would need to satisfy both rear and side requirement

Exactly as RLH says and I have said at least twice.

The existing extension is not the original house. Look in your document or google for the explanation of original house if you don't believe is. Permitted development applies to the original house.

The original house is as it was originally built, or as it stood in 1948 if it is older than that.

Your plan.is an absolute no-brain rear extension which falls entirely under PD rights. The architect is *terrible* if they said it was a side one. It is not.

What you are looking at applies to houses that have an 'original' outrigger extension.

Mistermeaner

clear - thanks; so the determining factor here is that the pre existing extension forms a side wall, but that side wall is 'not part of the original dwelling house' and therefore is not relevant

Understood - just wanted to be clear as when a 'professional' gives you alternative advice its very confusing!!

thanks for input