PD Extension Query

[freddiemercurystwin]

Under PD with regards to extensions, assuming all other PD conditions are met and house isn't in a conservation zone or listed etc, extensions to the side are permitted and extensions to the rear are permitted.

However is an L shaped extension to the side and rear acceptable?

 

[noseall]

However is an L shaped extension to the side and rear acceptable?

You tell me Kimosabe.

 

[jeds]

According to GDPO 2008 a wrap around extension (i.e. a rear extension joined to a side extension) is not allowed. I know of one appeal on this (the name escapes me at the moment - but I will look it up) and I'm sure the inspector concluded that wrap arounds are not PD.

 

[jeds]

OK. This wrap around extension was refused (cert lawfulness) and then dismissed on appeal.

http://planning.croydon.gov.uk/DocOnline/49853_3.pdf

Interestingly, the inspector dismissed it for a different reason to the local authority. The LA refused it because they thought it projected more than 3m which isn't allowed under PD rules for terraced houses. The inspector dismissed the appeal because she said the side element projected beyond the rear wall and the rear element projected beyond the side wall (in other words wrapping around and joining together) which she said did not fall within PD rules.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Apparently, according to our ever responsive, extremely proactive and very helpful local Planning idiot Department, under PD, you can build an L shaped extension on a semi provided the width of the side extension is within PD and the rear depth is kept below 3m as per normal PD. Leaves one feeling a bit uncomfortable when they tell you you can do a monstrosity like this! Especially when the planning officer has to get their rule book out to check!

Luckily for me though , it turns out that after visiting the job, that the owner wants to join it up with a garage in the back garden which is 3.040m away from the house so planning will be required anyway. Good to know though. I think if it could have been done under PD I would have tried to persuade the client to get a Cert of Lawfulness on this one as I really don't trust the planners.

 

[Nickam]

According to GDPO 2008 a wrap around extension (i.e. a rear extension joined to a side extension) is not allowed. I know of one appeal on this (the name escapes me at the moment - but I will look it up) and I'm sure the inspector concluded that wrap arounds are not PD.

Hi Jeds,
Where in GPDO 2008 does it state that wrap around extensions are not permitted?
Cheers,
Nick

 

[spongobongo]

Where in GPDO 2008 does it state that wrap around extensions are not permitted?

It doesn't say it expressly. It's only from interpretation of the GPDO that you can surmise about wrap around extensions. And when you need to interpret law, you get different interpretations. Yet another reason why the GPDO 2008 is the government equivalent of a Noddy book.

For what it's worth, my interpretation of the GPDO is that the maximum width of a rear extension is limited by the width of the original rear elevation. Likewise, the maxiumum depth of a side extension is limited by the original depth of the house.

The GPDO is liberally sprinkled with references to 'original' elevations. So, if you build both extensions at the same time, no problem. If you join them together by infilling between the two, you've built beyond the limits of the original elevations and therefore need permission.

In this respect, I agree with the Inspector's appeal decision that Jeds refers to. However, for other reasons, I find the reasoning behind the appeal decision fundamentally flawed.

 

[Nickam]

Where in GPDO 2008 does it state that wrap around extensions are not permitted?

It doesn't say it expressly. It's only from interpretation of the GPDO that you can surmise about wrap around extensions. And when you need to interpret law, you get different interpretations. Yet another reason why the GPDO 2008 is the government equivalent of a Noddy book.

For what it's worth, my interpretation of the GPDO is that the maximum width of a rear extension is limited by the width of the original rear elevation. Likewise, the maxiumum depth of a side extension is limited by the original depth of the house.

Surely we shouldn't be interpreting what isn't there. If you build a side extension which protrudes past the line of the rear wall of the house as long as it's not over the limit of 3 or 4 metres past the rear wall and the adjoining rear extension doesn't go over those limits stated then it's PD.

 

[spongobongo]

Surely we shouldn't be interpreting what isn't there. If you build a side extension which protrudes past the line of the rear wall of the house as long as it's not over the limit of 3 or 4 metres past the rear wall and the adjoining rear extension doesn't go over those limits stated then it's PD.

Everything that falls within the definition of development needs planning permission. Some aspects of development are deemed to have been granted planning permission by default by virtue of the GPDO. So if the GPDO doesn't mention it expressly, the safe bet is that you need to make a planning application.

In this instance, the PD rights for side extensions and rear extensions are expressed in reference to the walls of the original dwellinghouse. If part of the rear extension protudes beyond the side wall it can't be PD. Likewise, a side extension that protrudes beyond a rear wall can't be PD.

Call me anal, but that's the nub of the Inspector's decision, and it's the logic I've used when dealing with (i.e. refusing) lawful development certificate applications for wrap around extensions.

 

[Nickam]

In this instance, the PD rights for side extensions and rear extensions are expressed in reference to the walls of the original dwellinghouse. If part of the rear extension protudes beyond the side wall it can't be PD. Likewise, a side extension that protrudes beyond a rear wall can't be PD.

It's an interesting one this. The GPDO refers to the walls, agreed. But, it doesn't refer to a line extending beyond the line of the wall. An building extension is surely a rear extension whether it is partly or wholly built on that rear wall and (this is the part) whether it extends past the side wall? If it's not actually built on the side elevation of the wall, then it can't be a side extension.
Or am I just being awkward here

 

[jeds]

As spongo has pointed out, PD rules aren't that prescriptive. In this case they say you can build on the side but not beyond the line of the rear wall - and you can build on the rear but not beyond the line of the side wall. Therefore, under strict interpretation of the rules as they are written, you can build both extensions but the corner bit needed to join them together does not fall within PD rules.

The example I used is slightly odd and doesn't exactly match but on the basic premise the inspector clearly agrees with the above interpretation. As more appeal cases come through the situation will clarify itself but for now I would not be happy advising a client to commit to anything without a certificate of lawfulness in hand.

 

[spongobongo]

A building extension is surely a rear extension whether it is partly or wholly built on that rear wall and (this is the part) whether it extends past the side wall? If it's not actually built on the side elevation of the wall, then it can't be a side extension.

Imagine a wrap around extension as consisting of three distinct elements:

1) A rear extension
2) A side extension
3) An infill that is neither a rear nor a side extension

It is for this third reason that a wrap around extension cannot be PD under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A.

Or am I just being awkward here

No. You're asking the very same questions that thousands of people - professional or lay persons - are asking every day.

By sheer coincidence, an email landed in my inbox minutes ago with the following link to a series of appeal decisions, each of which has a different spin on Schedule 2, Part 1 (i.e. the 2008 amendment to PD rights).

http://www.planningjungle.com/appeal_decisions.shtml

EDIT: And the very first appeal decision list supports Nickam's position that it is permitted development, thus making me look like a prize numpty. This is in contrast to the decision letter in Jeds' link. No wonder everyone is confused.

I'm going home to comtemplate a career change!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

 

[Nickam]

EDIT: And the very first appeal decision list supports Nickam's position that it is permitted development, thus making me look like a prize numpty. This is in contrast to the decision letter in Jeds' link. No wonder everyone is confused.

Thanks spongobongo, Like you , I've been trolling appeal documents as I couldn't understand the logic behind when (in this case) a rear extension extends beyond the side wall it falls outside PD. As you say, I think the first case says it all:
<4. The main principle to be considered is that the enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is permitted development subject to the limitations imposed at A1 (a) – (i). In this case the element of the proposed extension that wraps round the rear corner of the original dwelling does not breach those limitations and is not otherwise explicitly excluded. The other parts of the proposed extension fall within those limitations as indicated above. It can thus be regarded as an enlargement which is permitted development and the appeal must succeed.>
Cheers,
Nick

 

[spongobongo]

Nick

I think the point here is not that you're right and I'm wrong (or even vice versa). The point is that if the independent arbiters of the planning system - the Planning Inspectorate - can't agree on what it is PD, then what hope is there for any of us? And it doesn't really help the original poster, Freddie.

Personally, I can see the logic in both arguments. I've got some serious head scratching to do next time I receive an application for a wrap around extension.

The only way to resolve this once and for all is someone to challenge an appeal decision in the High Court. But no householder is ever going to spend that sort of money.

With a bit of luck, the next government will sort out this unholy mess.