Permitted Development Specific question

trevorhp · 6 Jul 2011

Hi
My dwelling house is 8.1m wide x 3.0m deep detached and is single storey with a flat roof which is 2.8m at the highest point with lowest eaves at 2.5m
The principal elevation is the longest elevation fronting the highway.
There is at least 10m to the highway and 45m in all other directions around the dwelling and it is not in an AONB or on the Broads or in a National Park and is not listed.

I wish to extend under permitted development rights.
I believe that I can extend:
a) across the full width of the dwelling ie 8.1m x 4m deep as it is detached.
b) at each side half the width of the dwelling ie. 4.05m and 4.0m beyond the rear wall of the dwelling.
c) build a chimney up to 1.0m above the roof line.
d) build a detached garage/workshop 10m x 8m which is only 5% of the total curtilage less the existing dwelling.

Are my assumptions/calculation correct?....any help confirmation or otherwise would be appreciated.
Many thanks
Trevor

jeds · 6 Jul 2011

That all sounds Ok. The only grey area I see is the last part of b) '... and 4.0m beyond the rear wall of the dwelling.' According to official guidance you can extend the side extension as you say but not when it adjoins a rear addition. In other words there is nothing to say you can build a wrap around extension. Having said that several have been allowed at appeal. But also a couple have been refused at appeal. I would therefore tread very carefully with that aspect and my advice would be have it confirmed by a certificate of lawfulness.

freddiemercurystwin · 6 Jul 2011

Would also be prudent to contact the planners to check you do not have any restricted permitted development rights or have had them removed.

This may be of use: http://www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/100806_PDforhouseholders_TechnicalGuidance.pdf

Obviously the outbuilding cannot be in front of the house.

Really though with such a large development a certificate of lawfulness would be sensible.

DevilDamo · 6 Jul 2011

Also remember the guidance refers to the original house and so not extensions off previous extensions.

If you're thinking about building a side and rear extension, you can do so providing you following the guidelines but as soon as you link the two, they are no longer PD.

trevorhp · 6 Jul 2011

Hi to all,
Thanks for the replies.........very helpful.
I had been using an out of date version of PD so my plan was flawed....however.....due to the internal layout being very flexible could I seperate the rear extension from the side extensions by say 50mm ....would that be unlinked (is that even a word?) ???

I really do not wish to apply for a cert of lawfulness at this stage, as I suspect the wrath of the LPD will come down upon me, I would rather see what the Building Regs Officer says first.
It is a sensitive site but we intend to try to be as unobtrusive as possible but use up all of our allowances.

Any thoughts?

freddiemercurystwin · 6 Jul 2011

If the development you propose is within the rules permitted by Permitted Development then the authority has no choice but to grant a Certificate of Lawful Development.

Technically I suppose anything you build not attached to the existing dwelling house could be classed as an outbuilding though how this helps I do not know.

Why is the opinion of Building Control relevant to PD atm.

trevorhp · 6 Jul 2011

My thoughts were to attach the side extensions at the shortest side of the dwellinge then miss the rear extension by building 2 parallel walls 50mm apart:
one being the continuation of the side extension rearwards and the other the side wall of the rear extension thus providing a side extension and a rear extension which were effectively not joined.

freddiemercurystwin · 6 Jul 2011

Yes I know what you mean so access into the side being retained. Bit weird not sure I'd want to chance it though without a CLD. If the site is sensitive as you say then the LA may be more likely to pursue a legal route.

trevorhp · 7 Jul 2011

I am now proposing to add side extensions and a rear extension as hown in the diagram in my images folder ....the shaded area being the original dwelling.

//www.diynot.com/network/trevorhp/albums/

The internals all work for me and would allow the maximum use of the rights

All the dimensions and locations are legal.......has anyone ever used this layout?

Thanks
tp

freddiemercurystwin · 7 Jul 2011

I'd be very interested to see if you could get a CLD with that layout. Its certainly a spin on the rules I think it would take big cojones to build that without a CLD. The theory seems sound but as you know you're effectively sticking two fingers up at the PD rules but there are some clever ways to get round these PD rules sometimes.

Mike10 · 8 Jul 2011

If it helps, I had a meeting with my local planning officers last week after they refused my planning application for a wraparound extension. As part of the discussion I took along some drawings of what I believed I could do under PD and this is an outline of one of the schemes. (The existing building is shaded as per your drawing)

Untitled

Mike10
8 Jul 2011
2

It is similar to your idea and I was told that this was technically valid under PD (although not exactly 'tidy').

Mike.

trevorhp · 8 Jul 2011

Hi
Thanks for your reply perhaps we could keep in touch and compare notes Two heads are certainly better than mine.

I don't give a stuff about tidy, looking at some of the 'approved' abominations in our area, anything I propose will be superior as I have to live here and look at it every day. eg Yellow clay brick housing estate of over 50 homes where pretty much every other house is red brick, A single 'Surrey' style house in purple brick and grey concrete slate amongst whitewashed cottages with red tile roofs, A 3 storey house in the middle of a village of entirely two storey thatched/tiled houses no need to go on but you get my drift.

I ahve also considered a slightly angled wall on the centre section to make maintenance easier and to allow some degree of design flexibility.

I will let you have a copy of my final thoughts a soon as I am able.
Once again thanks for the encouraging reply.
tp

DevilDamo · 11 Jul 2011

Mike10 said:
If it helps, I had a meeting with my local planning officers last week after they refused my planning application for a wraparound extension. As part of the discussion I took along some drawings of what I believed I could do under PD and this is an outline of one of the schemes. (The existing building is shaded as per your drawing)

Untitled

Mike10

8 Jul 2011

2

It is similar to your idea and I was told that this was technically valid under PD (although not exactly 'tidy').

Mike.

Your CoL would have been refused because the extensions are linked and so the rear becomes a side extension and would exceed the "maximum half width of the existing house" restriction. You could always extend out the side and rear, but NOT link them under PD and then look at submitting a formal application to link them later.

Mike10 · 11 Jul 2011

The side and rear extensions are not actually touching and there is a small gap to seperate them. I, and the planning officer I spoke to, believe this would be permitted as the side and rear portions are physically seperate. I would not actually build this as there would no doubt be problems with the small gap and the above is only an outline sketch anyway.

It is all rather immaterial for me personally anyway, as the point was only to demonstrate to the planning department that the limits imposed by PD would actually result in a larger extension than the planned one that they refused permission for on account of it being too large. (were I to also construct a loft extension under PD I could build more than twice as much as they refused). Then there's the issue of outbuildings which are possible under PD to increase still further.

I'm still searching for the correlation between logic and planning rules.

trevorhp · 11 Jul 2011

In my case the side and rear extensions were not touching either...just a small gap.
I have now decided that I can make the rear extension 1m narrower and leave a maintenance gap between them so this problem solved.

I am aso considering add ing two huge conservatories on either side .....just because I can under PD.

Trying to make a connection between planning rules and common sense is Illogical.
Thanks tp

diynot

If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.

Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.

Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local

Permitted Development Specific question

Similar threads