Permitted Development Question

[SALL2009]

I have just received conflicting advice / information from two architects and would like some clarification on the issue.

I am planning a small extension, which I believe shouldn’t need planning permission. The first architect said the same and I only need building regs plans. The other seems to imply it is not as clear cut. Let me explain the question now.

It is a terraced property with an extra wing at the back. The length of this wing is around 10 foot and it is half the width of the house. The plan is to extend the width of this wing so it is almost the full width of the house. Full length of the extension will be 10 foot from the house.

Architect A said it is Permitted development.
Architect B says it will be permitted development if the current wing was part of the original house or was there pre 1948, otherwise we will need planning permission.

Who is correct?

 

[leew2]

From my knowledge of the PD rules, The maximum length of a rear extension for a terraced property is 3 meters, which means your extension would not be PD as it is slightly over 3m (10 feet = 3.04800m) You could build it 9 feet 10 inches long then it would be PD (providing it's not a listed building or PD rights removed by an article 4 etc).
As you are extensing from the rear wall of the original house then when the existing rear wing was built is irrelevant.

For a definitive answer, ask your local planning department.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Neither of your architects are completely right, (assuming you retain full PD rights) you are limited to 3m (9'10") from any rear wall provided the width is less than half the width of the overall width of the house assuming the rear wall was built before 1948.

Refer to the handy diagram at the top of page 23 of this chappy here: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf Its pretty clear.

You're unlikely to get a definitive answer from Planning they'll just tag on the usual proviso that you can't take them at their word. Definitely worth a ring to make sure you retain full PD rights though if not already done so.

 

[SALL2009]

Now I am even more confused, because I have seen houses extended to the full width and I am sure it was done as PD.

How is it determined what is PD and what is not? Would the architect / householder need to send a notice / application to the planning office to get approval of PD?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

The PD rules are pretty definitive in respect of rear extensions. An extension is either PD or it is not. If something is built that is not within the limits of PD then it is not PD end of story. You've seen this page right? http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/permission/commonprojects/extensions/

You can do a full width extension under PD provide the depth from any rear wall does not exceed 3m. If any part of the extension is deeper than 3m Full Planning Permission is required. If you have seen similar houses with such extensions and they were extended without PP they are illegal developments. Not that uncommon.

If the development is a bit controversial then a Certificate of Lawful Development can be applied for but for something like this it is not required IMO. Just check you have PD rights intact and keep the depth to no more than 3m. Obviously complying with the rest of the PD rules too.

 

[SALL2009]

Thanks. Yeah I have seen that link and that is why I thought full width rear extensions were allowed under PD.

The architect told me that they (planning department) are not that strict about a couple of inches so it would be ok to got up to the current wing, which may go beyond the 3m allowance by 2 inches.

Can 2 inches cause any real issues . Would planning department ever cause any problems over it? And could this be an issue when selling the property?

 

[simonjay]

Now I am even more confused, because I have seen houses extended to the full width and I am sure it was done as PD.

Its a special rule for a "side extension". The main purpose of this is to limit a side extension (e.g down the whole side of the house) from increasing the width of the house by more than half.
However, bizarrely, it also applies to your situation because you are building to the "side" of the projecting part of your house.
If the projection was not there, you could build full width because the rule does not apply. Even though the result would look the same !

So there you have it. The rules are absolute nonsense. They should have been drafted to show what type of "final results" are allowed.

It seems like one group of people wrote the rules, then another group interpreted them and did the diagrams.

However, I believe some of the strange situations are been corrected or addressed in later ammendments.

Simon.

 

[SALL2009]

Now I am even more confused, because I have seen houses extended to the full width and I am sure it was done as PD.

Its a special rule for a "side extension". The main purpose of this is to limit a side extension (e.g down the whole side of the house) from increasing the width of the house by more than half.
However, bizarrely, it also applies to your situation because you are building to the "side" of the projecting part of your house.
If the projection was not there, you could build full width because the rule does not apply. Even though the result would look the same !

So there you have it. The rules are absolute nonsense. They should have been drafted to show what type of "final results" are allowed.

It seems like one group of people wrote the rules, then another group interpreted them and did the diagrams.

However, I believe some of the strange situations are been corrected or addressed in later ammendments.

Simon.

Ohhh thanks, now I get it. As you have said, I was looking at it from the end result point of view.

Luckily the rule wouldn't affect me because the new extension would be less than half the width of the house.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

One could reasonably expect common sense to prevail.

That said rules are rules and if someone complained the council would be duty bound to investigate and if they suspected it was not PD they could ask for a planning application or apply for a Certificate of Lawful Development they would need you to prove your works were legal or get them legalized. Unlike normal law under planning law you are guilty until you prove you are innocent they do not have to prove the works are illegal. If you refused they could take action. Reality is in today's climate they would be probably do no more than right some threatening letters to you as with the best will in the world its a pretty minor infringement. However this would come up on a search when you come to sell your house and this could put non savvy buyers/solicitors off. That's all worst case though and only like to happen if you don't get on with or pee off your neighbours during the works for example. Chances are it'd be fine.

Now in reality having had an extension built (even if it was within the 3m depth) is likely to get picked up during a purchase and a solicitor could ask for something from the council to prove it had permission or was built under PD (Certificate of Lawful Development) anyway.

The buyer can get indemnity's to cover them for both scenarios above (they cost the buyer about £100) so they can be got around but just beware that an indemnity is not always accepted.

BTW an extension older than 4 years is immune from any prosecution (though will always be illegal) and thousands of houses are sold with developments done under PD and nothing official from the council every year without problems.

 

[leew2]

If any part of the extension is deeper than 3m Full Planning Permission is required.

I always thought the 3m was to the face of the wall and did not include the gutter?

If you have seen similar houses with such extensions and they were extended without PP they are illegal developments. Not that uncommon.

Or they could have been built as PD at the time of construction, as the PD rules have changed several times.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

I always thought the 3m was to the face of the wall and did not include the gutter?.

Aye sorry my bad, should have said rear face of the wall.

 

[peca27]

OP

If you're going to apply for Building Regulations approval, why don't you just use the plans & elevations element of them to apply for a Cert. of Lawful Development? This will give you a formal approval of the PD works you're wanting. The Council fee will be £75.

£75 for the avoidance of doubt + you'll have it in black and white?

 

[SALL2009]

OP

If you're going to apply for Building Regulations approval, why don't you just use the plans & elevations element of them to apply for a Cert. of Lawful Development? This will give you a formal approval of the PD works you're wanting. The Council fee will be £75.

£75 for the avoidance of doubt + you'll have it in black and white?

That's a good idea and I will look into that. What I am worried about is, if the planning department make an issue over the 2" extra length of the extension and ask for planning permission application. A planning permission would unlikely to be approved because the extension would break the 45 degree rule.

 

[peca27]

But if you're concerned you are 'breaking the rules' why proceed without anything in black + white?

I'd suggest getting the Building Regs drawings done + use them to submit for a Cert. of Lawful Development. If they pick up the additional few inches, they pick it up. Then speak to the relevant planning officer + explain the existing layout, you may get a ok from them subsequently also? In my exp. if your straight with the Planing Officer / Building Control they will, more often than not, be helpful to you.

If they don't pick up the additional inches good for you

But I'd always advise going down the correct route, protect yourself always.

 

[^woody^]

OP

If you're going to apply for Building Regulations approval, why don't you just use the plans & elevations element of them to apply for a Cert. of Lawful Development? This will give you a formal approval of the PD works you're wanting. The Council fee will be £75.

£75 for the avoidance of doubt + you'll have it in black and white?

And what after going to the expense of preparing detailed plans and applying for the LDC, the planners decided that it is not PD and require a full application ... which may then need redesigning to meet planning policy?

What the OP needs to do is quite simple. Employ someone who actually knows what they are talking about, and if they say its PD then get them to confirm it in writing along with their PI insurance details