permitted development in a conservation area

tired_dad

teneighty wrote: »

Which makes it a side extension and therefore not PD.

in this case the house is an inverted T shape and we will be filing one of the rear corners. It therefore does not extend beyond either the side or rear

teneighty

tired_dad wrote: »

in this case the house is an inverted T shape and we will be filing one of the rear corners. It therefore does not extend beyond either the side or rear

It is one of the many anomalies in the permitted development rules.

A side extension is any extension beyond any "side elevation", in your case the side of the leg of the inverted T is a side elevation. It does not have to extend beyond the side of the main house.This often becomes a problem with these infill extensions in terms of normal permitted development when the width of the infill exceeds half the width of the house. In your case it is purely because it is in a conservation area.

It seems crazy and any normal person would say it is a rear extension but the stupid planning rules say otherwise. Having said that it is a fairly obscure rule and sometimes even the planners themselves get it wrong. If you go for pre-application advice and clearly state it is a rear extension you might get lucky and they confirm it is permitted development but technically it is not due to the conservation area status.