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?
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?