Permitted Development rejected because of L shaped house

[ey143]

We have a reverse L shaped detached house in Hertfordshire (where there is a void, sort of like a ╝share). We also have an existing two storey side extension on the right hand side.

We've just bought the house and wanted to do a single storey rear extension across the width of the house including behind the existing extension. We wanted to create a wrap around by filling in the void by going back 8m from the left flank wall and then 4m from the right flank wall of the extension.

Our PD application was refused on several grounds.

1. We cant build behind an existing second generation extension (we knew this but chanced it anyway)

2. The existing building had a balcony and small cheaply constructed wooden conservatory underneath it come a few meters of the rear inner void wall (we didn't consider this to to be an issue because we are not contstructing a balcony under PD, it is an existing one and furthermore our objective is to come off the back inner wall and not the outer conservatory wall but they remarked that we cannot apply for PD when we have a balcony. This is despite the rules saying "no balcony to be constructed"

3. Something about a Class A rule that does not allow an L shaped house to create a wrap around extension as the two flank walls cannot meet?

We understand point 1 but dont understand why point 2 and 3 would be an issue, especially point 3. Could someone please explain?

And before you ask, yes I do have a RIBA registered architect who did not warn me about 2 and 3. We were advised to put in a planning application which might allow for a wrap around and retaining the balcony but when put in a pre-app, that was rejected too and were told to reduce the size of the rear extension as it doesnt look right in proportion to the existing house. Yet other houses in the street including my neighbours and are larger in depth.

Thanks.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Please can you upload your existing and proposed drawings. Then we can assess your proposals and offer our opinions. The wrap-around on an L shape house often catches people out, then throw in an existing extension ….. The PD rules can be difficult to interpret, though that is why you pay a professional, like your architect!

No need to upload the address.

BTW employing an architect means nothing, in fact opinion of architects on this forum is not generally favourable! You get good and bad in all walks of life.

 

[tony1851]

I do have a RIBA registered architect who did not warn me about 2 and 3..

...what a surprise.............

 

[ey143]

Thx, I'll try and dig out a copy of the plans later tonight or tomorrow morning.

Is it common place for a full service architect to know so little about local planning laws but draw fantastic 3D rendered images?

I made the grave mistake of choosing a full service architect over a local architectural technician / draftsmans who was so nerdy and detailed but was correct on every minute detail (in hindsight) that I chose not to go with him because he told me the truth that I didn't want to hear. And he was a fraction of the price.

Anyway my first project, I live and learn.

 

[tony1851]

Slightly off-topic - and commiserations on your expensive mistake - but what precisely was "nerdy" about the architectural technician/draftsman?

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Yes, he wasn't from a little seaside town in Devon was he?

 

[ey143]

He came across as a real "Nigel" and quoted me some clauses of regulation or rules and said you can't do this and can't do that. You don't tell a client what he can't do which will put him of selecting you to that extent. Instead I went with a yes man who sold me my dream vision which has no realistic chance of getting approved. Also he didn't offer 3D cad rendered images and didn't get involved in contract negotiations or offer site visits during the construction.

Problem is my architect is simply not detailed enough, forgetful about many things and even gets my address details wrong in the application. Turns up late to all meetings (he's not local and lives 2h away). I could go on.

I think he takes the view that even if he puts the application in, we wait for the council's comments and then the first amendment is free. Problem is we have had so many amendments now that all is this is mounting up.

He's not from Devon. Maybe he should have been!

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

You live and learn as they say and nobody wants to here negativity but still, you are where you are. I'll tell you what though, you choose the right builder and get yourself a decent set of drawings and contract negotiations and site visits are not required. Domestic projects really do not necessitate them.

 

[cjard]

1. We cant build behind an existing second generation extension (we knew this but chanced it anyway)

Not necessarily true. Pd always applies to the original house. If the house has been extended already you can only pd another extension that touches the existing extension if the entire extended part of the house could have been built under pd. eg if the existing side extension is more than half the house width, or double storey then a new extension cannot be built under pd if it touches it, as the existing extension is too wide or high to have been built under pd

we cannot apply for PD when we have a balcony. This is despite the rules saying "no balcony to be constructed"

You don't apply for pd, you have it as a given. It can be taken away by a previous planning application. The only way the balcony could prevent you having a pd extension is: it is not an original feature of the house as first constructed and either it was approved as a previous app, a condition of which extinguished your pd rights, or you're trying to pd build an extension that touches or gives access to the balcony- see argument above about extensions merging and the whole extension needing to be pd compliant

3. Something about a Class A rule that does not allow an L shaped house to create a wrap around extension as the two flank walls cannot meet?

.

I'm not really sure what you mean. Are you saying you want to have two side extensions and a rear extension such that you could nearly walk round the entire house passing through only the extended part? You cannot do this because a side extension must not exceed half the original house width. If you want to maximise your pd extensions and the existing extension is half house width then run back from it 8m. Run back from the back walls by 8m too (but leave a few inches gap between the adjacent walls so as to avoid creating wraparound extensions or anything that could be deemed a side extension except where you want such and the total is less them half house width. It's easy to knock two holes in the adjacent walls and fill the gap with foam in a few years time when everyone has stopped caring about your massive set of extensions ...

 

[AronSearle]

Is it common place for a full service architect to know so little about anything but draw fantastic 3D rendered images?

No, not all of them do 3D renders.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Is it common place for a full service architect to know so little about anything but draw fantastic 3D rendered images?

No, not all of them do 3D renders.

Respectfully, and this is not aimed at just you AronSearle but the forum as a whole, if you worked in a commercial architects practice, there is good and bad in every profession, you'd maybe surprised.

 

[ey143]

Hi all

Ok, sorry for the delay, took me a while to capture the screenshots of the existing and proposed plans and then superimpose some colours on there. Here goes:

Red line denotes the original house walls and blue lines denotes the various extensions done by the previous owner of the house. Green line is our proposed extension.

EXISTING GROUND FLOOR PLAN



PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN


EXISTING AND PROPOSED 1st FLOOR





EXISTING FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS



PROPOSED FRONT AND REAR ELEVATIONS




*******************
REASON FOR REFUSAL

1. The prior approval procedure detailed in schedule 2 article 3 part 1 Class A paragraph A.4 of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted development) order 2008 applies only to development permitted by Paragraph A.1(ea) - the enlargement of a dwelling house consisting of a single storey rear extension from the rear wall of the original dwelling house. The plans show that part of the single storey rear extension does not project beyond the original rear wall and therefore fails to comply with paragraph A4.

2. Article 3 Schedule 2 part 1 Class A paragraph A1(h) (iii) of the Town and Country Planning (General permitted development) ORDER 1995 as amended states that development is not permitted if the enlarged part of the dwelling house would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original dwelling house and would have a width greater than half the width of the original dwelling house (the enlarged part consists of the existing single storey side/rear extension and the proposed single storey rear extension). The enlarged part of the dwelling house projects beyond the side wall of the original dwelling and its overall width (including the existing and proposed extensions) of 15m exceeds half the width of the original dwelling. Therefore development is not permitted development under Class A part 1(h)(iii) of the GPDO.

3. Schedule 2 Article 3 part 1 Class A paragraph A.1(i) of the Town and Country Planning states that development is not permitted if it would consist of or include the construction of a balcony. The proposal will include the construction of a balcony. Therefore the development is not permitted under Class A paragraph A.4 (2A) of the GPDO.

************

Any suggestions? Really appreciate your feedback on this.

 

[freddiemercurystwin]

Can you include the proposed 2D front and rear elevations please. And the existing and proposed roof plans please.

Off the top of my head I would say the following is not PD:

1) The Utility Room - apart from it being too deep the only way you can infill that corner would be to have a physical gap between the utility and the kitchen.
2) The new Living/Dining Room cannot extend further than 4m beyond the red boundary unless you use the Neighbourhood Consultation Scheme, even then it is too deep - rear extensions are too deep.
3) The bay at the front - no extensions allowed at the front.
4) The porch probably - looks bigger than 3m2 to me so not allowed.
5) The new dormer on the top left on the front - no front dormers allowed.
6) The new central dormer at the front - no front dormers allowed.
7) The rear dormer probably - only rear dormers on the rear are allowed on the roof of the existing original dwelling (so the red outline not the blue).

There are probably others.

With respect to your original post you mentioned the balcony, surely you intend to rebuild the existing balcony? As you are removing the existing conservatory it is supported on. As such a new one would not be PD.

When was the blue additions made, were they made using PD rights or was planning permission given for them?

Your 'architect' wants shooting! A poor design, architecturally, overall IMO too.

 

[ey143]

Morning,

Sure will try and find and post the proposed elevations when I reach the office shortly.

I'm somewhat surprised you've managed to comment so much so far and feel even more disheartened with my architect. This was one time where I decided not to be frugal and invest good money with someone I thought was good, and being a detailed person myself I checked his credentials and references carefully.....despite this I did have some minor doubts before instructing him. Anyway, time to look forward.

Ok to be fair to him and to explain a little more because it was late last night when I posted:

1. It was my decision to first make a PD application for the rear extension, we did not propose the front because that would not fall under PD, we knew that.

2. We also knew but chanced the proposal of the extension behind the existing utility room. Couple of people said to us they don't always pick up on that, but I take responsibility for that.

3. We went through the neighbour consultation scheme for the larger home proposal under the temporary PD rules for detached where we can apply for 8m compared with 3.5/4m under planning or regular PD. we met all neighbours behind and to the side, all were nice and nobody objected. As you can tell, our proposal is only 4m away from the furthest wall and 8m from the inner void wall so I did not consider this to be very large compared to house down the street which is a square shape and are doing a 6m deep extension.

4. The councils rejection remarks relate to the PD application. They advised us we may be able to achieve what we want under a planning app but also said put in a pre-app (for the front elevation this time too) which we did, and the team leader there came back saying:
- extension is too large and not subservient to the main home
- he doesn't like the rear square box as its not in character with the house (despite us not being overlooked by anyone)
- told us to recreate the L shape as part of the extension by making one side go out more larger (original plan was for a square) which we did and is now in the image you see but upon feedback from the pre app he wants us to make the whole extension smaller.

5. Originally they said our portico was too big (when we met with the council) so we made it smaller again, then the team leader said it would look nicer slightly bigger so we changed it for the pre-app and made it bigger only for the team leader to then go back and said its too big again.

6. We were asked to change the front bay to make it more in character with the house. Current one is not in line he thinks - doesn't like the square. He asked us to remove what is actually a dummy gable on the left side of the roof. We originally had plans to make the house look more symmetrical but council wanted asymmetrical. We have to remove the smaller existing right gable to accommodate the new centre dormer and felt the left side roof space needed something to match.

7. The council guy said he liked the centre dormer and large round window as it added character (for pre-app / future planning application)

8. Re: balcony - we were told by builders and even other architects that the balcony could be saved and not touched if they were propped up during the build, hence why we thought it would not be affected and instead we just remove the conservatory as part of the build and come off the original wall. Does this come under the second generation extension rule then?

9. The existing blue lined extensions were done in 1986 via a full planning application by the previous owner.

Many thanks for your help and comments again. Can I ask what you do?

 

[ey143]

Here are the image you asked for. Cheers.