Larger rear extension - Neighbour Consultation

[Footsoldier888]

Wessex - if your argument is right (am not saying it isn't!) it rather begs the question of why there is a 6m allowance in the NCS in the first place. If it was deemed so contentious you would think they would want all 6m extensions to go to planning so that they could keep control of them.

If that bay is a kitchen then amenity won't come into it so much. Also, if it is an extension then the amenity rights are reduced I believe, is there a 20 year rule about this?

It seems to me a bit odd they have that side window there looking right into your private patio space. This would not be allowed if say it wasn't there and they were applying to do it, they would have to go for obscure glazing.

I am not sure if the neighbours objection over amenity would hold up but I am no expert!

I think North is one of the worst for loss of light to the neighbour though. I would double check on that best practice pdf the councils have before submitting, it has various diagrams about good practice and bad as regards the orientation.

Having said all that, my neighbours were 100% north so maybe your son is right!

By chance my neighbours behind are doing a north facing one, they have used an architect who has gone for a pent roof that is 3.x m high at the side edge but much lower at the party wall side. I think it is for those reasons.

 

[Footsoldier888]

The last two sentances ended up the wrong way round.

Just one other thing - if you are able to build a conservatory there under PD rights then it would be hard for them to refuse a lengthy extension.

 

[tony1851]

Hi, my son is an architecture student and he did the drawings, I don't know what software but I know he struggled to get the "student version" watermark off and he can't figure out why the front face of the extension roof looks off centre. I think the actual requirements for a PD submission are quite basic - plan view, basic elevations existing and proposed, an OS extract and information about sizes and materials. The 3D ones are more to help my neighbours visualise it.

If by a "PD submission" you mean an application under the Prior Notification scheme, that only needs a rough sketch of the site - it does not even have to be to scale. If the council ask for any more drawings, they are wrong.

 

[wessex101]

Those second photos illustrate the point quite well. Your other neighbour's garage completely dominates your garden, that is what your other neighbour has to look forward too although your extension is probably a bit taller and longer.

@Footsoldier888 it is not just about daylight or views or overlooking it is simply if you put a largish building close to the boundary it's shear size and bulk can be overbearing and intimidating. When one is sat on the terrace sipping a G&T of a summers evening you don't don't want a dirty great hulking brick wall looming over you.

The NCS scheme is a farce, it was originally intended just to increase the permitted development allowance to 6m and 8m but right at the last minute they threw in the neighbour consultation element to stop a revolt from the Planners. Personally I think the original PD rules at 3 and 6 (yep should be 4 what a wally, I think I had my party wall head on) metres were about right

I don't do too many conservatories but aren't the PD rules the same as an extension?

 

[tony1851]

Personally I think the original PD rules at 3 and 6 metres were about right

Did you mean 4m - for a detached?
That aside, have to disagree slightly there on measurements. I think 3m is a bit small, particularly taking 0.3 off for the wall.
If the client can't afford to widen the opening from the house (ie uses the original structural opening) it doesn't leave much internal space for a table or other furniture.
Personally, I'd like to have seen something like 3.5m for a terrace/semi and 4.5-5.0 for a detached.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Wessex you are right in that a conservatory over 3m falls in the NCS.

But regarding the bulk of the building down the garden side - the fence height can be 1.8m so if you keep the roofline low on that side the impact will be minimal.

You could go 2.2 ceiling for example. The thing is they can go a lot higher under the PD rules if they did a 3m one, so it limits what the council can do as regards refusal. At least, that was the argument the planning officer made to me when I opposed one in the front for the same reason. This proposal could be a lot better than what they could do under PD. I would much rather have a long low one than my neighbours 1.8m extension which is 3.6m in height at the house.

 

[Nige F]

Wessex you are right in that a conservatory over 3m falls in the NCS.

But regarding the bulk of the building down the garden side - the fence height can be 1.8m so if you keep the roofline low on that side the impact will be minimal.

.

That's what I was getting at in my other post. I would happily agree to a flat roof. The morning sun would cast a big shadow from a pitched roof. A flattie wouldn't be much above the 2.8 fence. P,S I'm no NIMBY- at one of our houses I encouraged a neighbour to go 2 stories on an extension @ the side of us, and another to extend his whole house to a barn end roof using 1m off the bottom of our garden, which I sold to them - Previously I had 3 of their windows overlooking - we agreed to 1 "gunslit" window @ high level. Anyone would like me as a neighbour

 

[RichA]

Did you mean 4m - for a detached?
I think 3m is a bit small, particularly taking 0.3 off for the wall.
If the client can't afford to widen the opening from the house (ie uses the original structural opening) it doesn't leave much internal space for a table or other furniture.
Personally, I'd like to have seen something like 3.5m for a terrace/semi and 4.5-5.0 for a detached.

100% this. Even 4m makes a massive difference v 3m in terms of usability of the finished room.

 

[cdbe]

Well I spoke to them today, they seem to be reasonably happy if we minimise the eaves and roof heights (how low can we practically go? can we "cut off" the corners with angled ceiling edges inside, cottage style?). I've said we'll set back from the boundary - I think 800mm is reasonable. I said I'd put up a pole showing position and height of the corner they'll see from their window to help them visualise it.
As above, 3m is useless as a room if you can't knock through properly, my brother has one - it makes their lounge dark and dingy, they access it through the old window opening with the bricks below removed. It's far from one of those open seamless ones you see in the magazine's - he keeps his freezer and tumble dryer in it!

 

[Footsoldier888]

LOL. Clearly your son didn't do that one then!

To me 800m from the boundary sounds an awful lot. It's all well and good trying your best to accomodate the neighbour, you have made much more effort than most people do, but you don't want to get to the point where they are dictating to you. To give an example, the last two neighbour applications I had, they didn't consult atall, I think this is fairly common!

The thing is, you could put an outbuilding on that side with eaves under 2.5m but a ridge of say 3.6m ie the apex roof you see on garages, which would be far worse than anything you are proposing.

If it was me I would use a designer to come up with the building you want and put in for a full application if the designer/architect recommends this. As long as it conforms to planning policy then your neighbour ought to accept it. Obviously if you can go with a roof configuration that is less obtrusive all well and good.

As you are hinting at, if you don't spend the money on good design at the outset you are going to end up with a badly compromised space.

 

[cdbe]

Given that (and it's a long road of many similar houses) the council have never approved the many planning applications beyond 3m (other than one at 4m where he was made to keep 2m from the boundary) I think applying would be a waste of time. On reflection I agree that 800mm is a lot and certainly feel "dictated" to. I think I will suggest verbally that I'll set it back a couple of feet but not put any measurements on the plan I submit but include in the description: ......set back from boundary to reduce impact and provide access for maintenance. Then I'll turn sideways and breathe in when I need to repoint the brickwork!
When we spoke the other day, after pressuring me to make changes he ended up by saying that they will be moving (to be nearer newly married daughter) in the not too distant future so probably wouldn't be bothered anyway! Arrrgh!
We've seen those horrendous things on the planning jungle and my wife, who has less patience than me, says to tell them we'll build the tallest 3m extension we can followed by a 7m long 2.5m high "garden room" all the way up the fence line in corrugated tin sheets - far, far worse and no NCS to worry about.

 

[Footsoldier888]

Clearly I don't know your LA but perhaps many of these extensions were pre NCS? If you talk to a reputable local architectural technician they will a good knowledge of what is likely to be passed as some offer a hefty refund on a refusal. Also if you get a good design it will overcome the issues you speak of. It doesn't have to be a mass of brick! And if you do it well chances are next door will extend their side too.

I am sure you can get something really good if you put your mind to it. You can always have exposed joists and a barrel roof, or a pent roof. Or go flat and put a roof lantern in.

I just think 800m is going to leave you with a compromised space.

 

[wessex101]

If you talk to a reputable local architectural technician they will a good knowledge of what is likely to be passed as some offer a hefty refund on a refusal.

WHAT!!!!!! Well that made me spit my cornflakes all over my laptop. Fees are tight enough as it is, now we're expected to do it for free? I hope that trend doesn't catch on down here.

 

[JP_]

Well, if it is refused, surely that's because they did their calcs wrong? We are talking about the building control side, not the actual planning permission?
I used an architectural technician recommended by my builder for my loft - they got something wrong, but luckily it was down to the builder to sort it all out as he had recommended I use them. I think it delayed the work by a couple of weeks and cost the builder some extra timber.

For my next build, I'll take one of two rapprochements - either have the tech drawings all signed off in advance, or leave the whole process to the builder, both for an agreed fee. Buying some plans and then submitting them yourself in the hope they will be a approved is too risky, imo.

 

[wessex101]

I took it as Planning Application. You've got to be a special sort of stupid or trying out a very unorthodox building construction to get your Building Regs. Application rejected.