My one storey extension is apparently a 2 storey extension

[cobblex]

Recently went through the neighbour consultation scheme for a 5m rear extension on a semi chalet bungalow.

I've attached existing and proposed below.

Basically we are utilising an already existing extension, and extending around that.

There were no objections from neighbours however the council have refused on 2 counts

1) Does not meet PD as the eaves of the exisitng extension (which is incorporated into the new extension) are higher than the eaves of the original house. This is very harsh, it's a pre-existing structure, and the eaves of the new extension part are satisfactory. They have interpreted that we are amending an existing extension and as that extension has eaves that are already too high we are in breach. I have argued with them that it is no benefit to me, the neighbour, the environment, cost etc to knock down a perfectly usuable room to simply rebuild it 40 cm lower.

2) This is the real head scratcher. The council are saying that the proposed extension forms part of the rear facade of the existing 2nd storey extension, so by that logic our ONE storey extension is actually a TWO storey extension. Hence fails PD.

Their words:
The development would also be built from the rear façade of a first floor roof extension, creating a two-storey rear extension which
would extend beyond the rear wall of the dwellinghouse by more than 3 metres, and which would be within 2 metres of a boundary
with an eaves height greater than 3 metres, contrary to paragraphs (h) and (i) of Class A

Number 2 has perplexed me. I can't find any legislation on how this obviously one storey extension is deemed a two storey extension or how they have arrived at that conclusion. I spoke to the planning officer and they seemed as mystified as me, saying it was policy that if the extension touches the upstairs loft conversion then we're building a two storey extension. They were unable to clarify what rear facade would mean (ie the dormer or touching the sloping roof???)

Anyone came across number 2 and able to offer any advice on re-design elements.

Very annoyed as no objections from neighbours, and not possible to appeal unless i go the government appeal route. I've been told to simply reapply but with no guidance provided on meeting number 2 next time.



Thoughts?

 

[cobblex]

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

 

[bernardgreen]

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

Maybe this was the problem as it is labelled as "first floor plan"

It might be worth re-naming this drawing as " Proposed Roof of extension ( showing existing first floor that will not be altered )"

 

[cobblex]

Untitled

• cobblex
• 6 Jun 2015
• 1

Maybe this was the problem as it is labelled as "first floor plan"

It might be worth re-naming this drawing as " Proposed Roof of extension ( showing existing first floor that will not be altered )"

That's an interesting point, however I'm fairly certain from my discussion with the planning department that there was no confusion on their part that we were proposing building upstairs in the loft with these plans, particularly as the loft extension is already in the existing drawings.

I will however get the description changed to ensure clarity. Thank you for the useful advice.

 

[^woody^]

You might be building one storey of an extension, but the result will be a two storey extension. You can't keep adding bits to a property and claim that they are all individual operations, when the effect is cumulative.

In planning terms, the original house or structure has specific and fundamental meaning. If you alter an extension, the new extension is treated as a new one and must conform to current policy.

The planning rules are to protect people from extension creep over several years.

 

[cobblex]

You might be building one storey of an extension, but the result will be a two storey extension. You can't keep adding bits to a property and claim that they are all individual operations, when the effect is cumulative.

In planning terms, the original house or structure has specific and fundamental meaning. If you alter an extension, the new extension is treated as a new one and must conform to current policy.

The planning rules are to protect people from extension creep over several years.

Yep acknowledge the planning rules are there for a reason. But PD allows people to build up to the limits of PD. Which is what we are doing here.

How will building a single storey rear extension result in a 2 storey rear extension in this case? I'm not following you at the moment. The loft extension is a completely separate thing which has been previously approved and is within the footprint of the original house. We're not adding another storey to an existing rear extension here!

 

[^woody^]

It looks like your ground floor extension is joining with your dormer extension creating what is effectively a two storey rear extension, albeit off-set.

You need to clarify with the planners if that is the case, or if they have interpreted it differently. Then either resubmit an amended design (i.e. break the connection) or appeal to get an inspectors opinion.

 

[^woody^]

But why is a "proposed" first floor plan shown when you are not building anything at first floor level. That can be confusing.

 

[cobblex]

It looks like your ground floor extension is joining with your dormer extension creating what is effectively a two storey rear extension, albeit off-set.

You need to clarify with the planners if that is the case, or if they have interpreted it differently. Then either resubmit an amended design (i.e. break the connection) or appeal to get an inspectors opinion.

Ok thanks. What specific planning rule states this would be an issue. I can think of countless examples where i've seen rear single storey extensions with a pitched roof abutt up against a previous 2 storey rear extension? (common to see on the rear of terrace houses)

The refusal specifically states the proposed extension is specifically built from the rear facade, assume they mean it abutts up against the bottom of the dormer so will assume that as long as the top of the flat roof does not touch this then we are ok. But will clarify with the planners (as i say when i called them they themselves seemed very unsure of the technical reason for the refusal and therefore what would satisfy a re-design).

 

[cobblex]

But why is a "proposed" first floor plan shown when you are not building anything at first floor level. That can be confusing.

Similar to the comment Bernardgreen, will get this amended to be clearer on the resubmission (although i don't think the council interpreted it that way but better to be safe).

Appreciate the comments

 

[^woody^]

This was only an application under the consultation scheme, and the council have said it does not meet that criteria. But there's nothing to stop you applying for full planning permission and then it will be assessed differently.

 

[tony1851]

There is no specific regulation which states that where two extensions join, they are treated as one, but it is policy to treat them as such.

Where you have seen this, either they have received planning permission, or their council is behind the door.

To get your rear extension treated as a separate build for PD purposes, then as advised you need to ensure separation between the two, eg with a valley gutter.

 

[cjard]

Why would you want to keep the flat roof on the existing extension? It makes the new extension look a complete hodgepodge mess. Keeps the walls, fine, but rip that roof off and make it homogenous wih the new roof. It'll save you leaks and problems at the join, which seems to be a different height, in years to come and it'll clean up the look. You don't really save any money by retaining it either, because of the extra work piecing into it, sealing, insulating, etc.. Remove it so your builder can just come through with some extra identical trusses, bam bam, covered and done

Next as tony has advised, put a valley gutter in, so your new extension roof has the chamfer effect all the way round, rather than making it seamlessly joining into the existing roof and hence touching the dormer (which does make it a two storey extension.. I agree with the council. The law talks about original house and extended part of the house, when an extension connects to another extension the whole thing becomes one extension and must comply with any rules for pd unless the earlier extension predates 1947(ish. Can't remember the exact date)

Finally, why submit a first floor plan at all? There's no benefit from doing so, and it has only added to the confusion. You want a ground floor extension, and a first floor plan doesn't really have any place in your planning pack

 

[cobblex]

Cjard - all noted.

The original plan was for the roof of the new extension to match the height of the existing extension, with a monopitch around the new part to match the existing eaves requirement. Plan now is to lower the boundary wall of the existing extenion to match the eaves, flat roof all round, with a valley gutter clearly demarking the split between the new extenions and the upstairs extension.

Regarding the first floor plan, are you saying no overhead view of the proposed extension is required at all?

Thanks all for your comments.

 

[^woody^]

Regarding the first floor plan, are you saying no overhead view of the proposed extension is required at all?

The roof can be shown as a "roof plan" or just on your site plan. You would not show the first floor layout unless you are applying for work to the first floor.

I don't think a valley gutter will satisfy a planner in terms of separation. In this context it's visual separation of the two forms - the GF and first floor roofs, and whist a gutter is arguably a physical break, it does not break up the appearance, which is what planners are looking for.